Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Here’s the most powerful (and chilling) case for Trump you’ll ever hear [link]

Hillary Clinton’s invisible guiding hand [link]

Five reasons Donald Trump is a more effective orator than you think [link]

Election 2016 — Both Party Platforms Fail America On Energy [link]

DeSmogBlog: Hillary Clinton is raking in fossil fuel money at an alarming rate [link]

Seeing the future of climate policy under the next president [link]

What would Clintonomics bring? Breaking down @HillaryClinton’s economic policy: [link]

The next stage in the immigration wars [link]

Is Donald Trump a Narcissist and Is He Fit for Office? [link]

Gaffe aside @GovGaryJohnson is ONLY candidate pledging spending & foreign policy restraint [link] …

686 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Hi Judith. I would like your thoughts on my post about Trump, and am interested in whether you might re-blog it. All the best. B. Ashley. https://twoifbycharmwordpress.wordpress.com/

    • Re above on sociopath warnings’
      * grandiose egos and strong sense of entitlement,
      *don’t conform to social norms or rules.
      *they lie for the sake of lying.

      If, as psychologists tell us ‘The best prediction of future
      behavior is past behavior, Hilary Clinton’s on the record for
      all of the above. Even this documented event where she
      finally had to admit she was ‘ mistaken.’

      “Landing under sniper fire’ in Bosnia in her March 17, 2008,
      foreign-policy speech on Iraq, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton
      recalled a trip she made to Tuzla, Bosnia, in 1996.
      “I remember landing under sniper fire,” Hillary said of her
      visit while she was first lady. “There was supposed to be
      some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but
      instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the
      vehicles to get to our base.”
      But news footage of her visit revealed her “sniper fire”
      claim wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely false.
      And Hillary had repeated the claim several times,
      including during her time on the presidential campaign
      trail in 2007.
      Rather, Hillary landed on a tarmac and greeted a crowd,
      including an 8-year-old child who gave her a poem,
      under no duress. According to the Washington Post, a
      review of more than 100 news articles revealed no
      security threats to Hillary at the time. ”

      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/#E2MxgD3siQf1CRY4.99

    • twoifbycharm,

      Your post has to do with “whether Trump’s behavior fits the pattern of an undiagnosed sociopath, as described by experts.”

      And, it goes without saying, your post has absolutely nothing to do with politics. “To avoid getting lost among the many Trump-bashing articles circulating, I have intentionally avoided diving into politics,” you assure us.

      It sounds like you went to the same school of “skepticism,” “objectivity” and “impartiality” that Danny Thomas went to.

      Oh well, nothing like an even-handed and unbiased comment like yours –that has nothing to do with politics — to kick off a new thread on politics.

    • Scott Adams has a theory about Trump’s psychology too, the 180° opposite of yours, which he articulates in Part 2 of his interview with the Rubin Report.

      Watch Me: Rubin Report (part 2), InfoWars, CNN

      Part 1 of the interview, which deals more generally with Adams’ theories of human commications techniques and the ubiquity of human irrationality (including those who claim to have the imprimatur of “medical science” — like you), can be found here:

      See Me on The Rubin Report

    • Sociopaths leave a trail of destruction behind seen most clearly in their wives and children. Trump has an excellent relationship with his children and his wife. Sorry but you just can’t fake the kind of warmth and support and love they all exhibited in stage. Body language would give them away. You need to stop trying to fit a diagnosis to Trump and leave it to professionals. I have a great deal of experience with sociopathy both from living with a professionally diagnosed sociopath and from working in a clinical situation where I have consulted with professionals diagnosing sociopaths. Based on my experience, your understanding of how sociopaths and psychopaths work is superficial and shallow. You’ve taken the “fad” diagnosis of this era and manipulated it to fit Trump. I would strongly advise Judith to not to embarrass herself by reblogging your post. The narcism potential of Trump as described by Dr. Campbell on the other hand ‘feels’ exactly right.

      • If HRC is handed the job of POTUS, when she can’t even fill a high school gymnasium, how are the rest of us going to feel about it?

      • I was commenting about the two Trump articles not Hilary. You have provided a very nice example of the polarization that is going on in this campaign which makes it impossible to have any rational conversation. All statements about one candidate must be answered with “Yes but [insert name of the other candidate] is worse because….”. Hilary’s ability to fill or not fill a gymnasium is irrelevant to the point of whether or not article on Trump being a sociopath or a narcissist has any merit, in my opinion.

      • Is that true? I thought the latest consensus was that sociopaths are mostly fairly high functioning, it’s a small subset that are highly destructive.

      • Aaron, I had a psychiatrist once tell me that the best way to spot a high functioning sociopath is to interview the spouse and children, and subordinates in the workplace, both in the presence of the sociopath and when the sociopath is not around and watch the body language. You will not see any genuine warmth and caring and you will see a lot of avoiding eye contact and a lot of late affect. It just doesn’t fit Trump as family man and among his employees who have been with him long term and adore him.

      • “Sociopaths leave a trail of destruction behind seen most clearly in their wives and children husband and child.”

        Fixed that for ya it fits Hillary Clinton who drove her husband between the legs of a bevy of other women and her daughter who is rather distant. Chelsea could be employed by the Clinton Foundation where she’d have a close working relationship with her parents. Trump’s kids Eric, Donald Jr., and Ivanka are all top executives in Trump enterprises working closely with their father every single day.

      • David,

        I believe Chelsea is employed by the Clinton Foundation.

      • No, that’s not correct. She’s been a board member of the Clinton Foundation since 2011. Board members aren’t employees.


        Professionally she’s been employed in various places. She worked for NBC from 2011 to 2014. She became an author after leaving NBC and her first book was published last year.


      • Board members generally get an annual fee for attending board meetings. Ostensibly they do some homework on the issues appearing on the agenda for the meetings. The fee can be exorbitant. Chelsea’s seat on the board is almost certainly just a way for the non-profit to distribute money to Clinton family members and friends. She doesn’t have the chops to be on the BoD for any real corporation of that size. Board seats are reserved for huge shareholders and industry heavyweights who sit down once each quarter and make sure any large decisions effecting the corporation are vetted by people with vast experience. Chelsea passes neither the shareholder nor vast experience tests. So it’s an appointment of convenience to legalize whatever payment she receives that should instead be going to charity. The whole setup is a tax-free slush fund for the Clintons.

      • And just so it’s clear:
        “Chelsea’s seat on the board is almost certainly just a way for the non-profit to distribute money to Clinton family members and friends. ”

        Trump, according to reports, is not immune: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-retooled-his-charity-to-spend-other-peoples-money/2016/09/10/da8cce64-75df-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

        He just runs it thru his companies instead of his relatives.

    • Anyone playing arm chair psychiatrist is a fool and a jacka$$.

      • TimG56,

        “Anyone playing arm chair psychiatrist is a fool and a jacka$$.”
        Just psychiatrist? Or any sort of physician? I vote for the latter.

      • A great many diagnoses can be made by matching symptoms with causes and don’t require a physical examination only an accurate list of symptoms. If blood pressure is 160/105 on repeated measurements any doctor will quite accurately make a diagnoses of hypertension. A blood test can reveal a multiplicity of diseases without physical examination by a physician.

        You’re either a m0r0n or you don’t bother thinking before you spew words onto a blog.

      • We could treat her as we do other criminals. Surreptitiously collect some of that sputum she’s spraying everywhere she goes. Then do a DNA and other analyses of it.

    • Hmm, there seems to be a lot of liberal transference of guilt. An opinion isn’t a lie just because it differs from your ideology and a lie doesn’t become truth just because you believe in it or how good it might be for your cause.

      Just in case, it is good to know that you don’t have to change your mental healthcare provider under Obamacare if you don’t want to.

  2. I found the pbs.org article the typical buzz word fest, but the comments in the piece were fun. The commenters questioned the pundits’ credentials to ‘pundicate’. Then each other’s credentials to opinionate. I’m no politics junky, but in an election year people’s opinions translate to votes regardless of their credentials.

  3. Has the yappy one been impeached, he’s not made any comments yet.

    • I didn’t bother looking for a new politics thread. The older one was and is still active and my upon restart my browser is set to restore all tabs to where they were the last time the browser was open.

      Thanks for thinking about me but try not to become obsessed with me as you have so many times in the past.

  4. Is this statistic correct? 12 people shot per day in Chicago?

    • Peter

      Unfortunately its true but incredibly its well done on its peak as the stats from 1957 onwards show



      • The answer, as always, is more guns.

      • Opluso,

        The answer is gun control. As in making sure you place your rounds on target. Only need one gun to do that and the only way size (as in caliber) matters is in how it effects your ability to accomplish the goal of being on target.

    • Yes, Peter. That’s why we need guns. Not to shoot each other, but to defend ourselves. There is no way in the US to prevent criminals getting guns. It’s impossible short of a total police state.

      • Jim2,

        You clearly have no idea how nonsensical that statements it.

      • You live in La La Land apparently.

      • Jim,

        Let it rest. Peter has proven beyond doubt that when he strays off of nuclear power, he’s about as informed as my lab.

        #Black Labs Matter

      • timg56,

        Sorry to have to say this to you, but your comment is a window itnto your ignorance and naivety, and lack of reasoning ability. How any educated, rational, logical persion can believe your society is safer if everyone carries guns and feels they need to shoot first to defend themselves beats me. But yours and Jim2’s defence of your rights to carry guns so you can shoot anyone who looks like they might be a threat demontrates just how irrational and illogical are many people in society. You are subjects of group-think and propaganda (e.g. from the gun lobby). You accept only what supports your irrational beliefs, just like the people who followed Jones to Jonestown.

      • Apparently Peter your definition of ignorance is anyone who fails to agree with your opinions. As for naïve, not hardly.

        Unlike you, I am well aware of what the basis for the 2nd Amendment was (and still is). It was not written by ignorant, naïve, irrational people. The authors were men willing to risk everything for what they believed in. What have you ever risked?

        Furthermore, by your statements you advertise which of us is ignorant on the subject. Comments such as

        ” if everyone carries guns and feels they need to shoot first to defend themselves” and “yours and Jim2’s defence (two ff’s by the way Peter) of your rights to carry guns so you can shoot anyone who looks like they might be a threat” make it clear you haven’t a clue what gun owners think or how they act. Nor, for that matter what is or is not allowed under the law. It is very well defined when deadly force can be used against another individual. And the majority of gun owners do not go around armed all the time. I own guns and have never had a carry permit. Never felt the need. My son in law does have one (and rather ironically believes citizens should have the right to own military style rifles). Responsible gun owners are always aware of the direction the muzzle of their firearm is pointing.

        A rational, logical person understands that they are ultimately responsible for their own safety and welfare, as well as for those they love. There is no government or law enforcement agency in the world which can guarantee the safety of it’s citizens. And that’s in normal times. Want to hazard a guess as to what happens in abnormal times? Law enforcement is usually one of the first groups swamped and overwhelmed. Take your pick, tornadoes, riots, an earthquake, it doesn’t take much for civil society to break down. Who ya gonna call then Peter? Several years back, during the riots in Compton, the only businesses not ransacked or burned were those owned by Koreans. Care to hazard a guess Peter? Maybe because Black Americans and Korean Americans like each other so much? Or maybe because those Korean businessmen were determined to protect they property and where successful due to the fact they were well armed.

        You are entitled to your opinions Peter. However you are not entitled to belittle and insult people because they do not agree with you. It is you who is ignorant (and arrogant as well) about American citizens and our Constitution.

        And we haven’t even touched on the primary reason for having an armed citizenry.

      • I forgot about this gem from you Peter

        ” You are subjects of group-think and propaganda (e.g. from the gun lobby). ”

        Sure we are. Otherwise we would be bowing to your oh so obvious superior intellect. BTW – what gun lobby are you referring to?

      • timg56

        Here’s an example showing how allowing everyone to carry guns makes you safer:

        ‘Caught on Camera: Elderly Chicago Man Shot, Robbed While Watering His Lawn in Broad Daylight’

      • Peter, some of the cr1m_inal gangs have as an entrance requirement to kill someone at random. Do please come over and take their guns. I’ll supply the popcorn.

      • Peter Lang believes taking guns away from law abiding citizens so only criminals are left holding a gun will somehow reduce gun violence.


      • I think almost everyone owns guns in the small town where I grew up in upstate NY. It has a stable population of about 7,000 people. There has been fewer than one murder per decade in my lifetime. Only two in 60 years that I know of and I’m not sure if there was a gun involved with those.

        Why should vast swaths of America have a constitutional right to gun ownership taken away when they have no problems whatsoever with gun ownership and use? I live in a community now with a population of 600. There hasn’t been a murder or even an aggravated assault in the 16 years I’ve lived here. It’s rural and again almost everyone owns a gun and some like me own a dozen or more of all kinds. Why should we be punished because the murder rate by gun is astronomical in Chicago?

        Murder rates are not connected gun ownership rates it’s connected with poor government. Despite Texas having the third largest population of any state in the US not a single Texas city appears in a list of the top 30 by murder rate. Maybe the US should take a page from Texas. The idea of the federal government telling us how to manage our exemplary state is preposterous on the face of it.


        The larger town that runs the school district where our kids attend public school (my town is far too small to have a school of its own), Leander, Texas, is on the top 100 list of safest cities in America. My town doesn’t even have police just a county sheriff whose patrol area encompasses us. I was a city council member here and all that sort of makes me a qualified expert on government in low crime municipalities.


        Thanks for playing.

      • 1993 to 2013 saw a 56% increase in the number of guns per person in the US. The same period when gun violence decreased by 49%. Why would we want to stop what is working? That was working until Obama and the race baiters ginned up the war on cops.

      • Peter,

        You are the one making the “safer” claim. Not me. I’m not so naïve as to believe the world is a safe place. I also noted that I don’t carry a firearm where ever I go. If some people feel safer going armed, fine. Safety is not the primary or even secondary purpose of the right to own firearms.

        Pointing to an inanimate object and saying it is responsible for the actions of humans behaving unlawfully or irresponsibly is what is not rational. Tens of thousands of people are killed using automobiles every year in this country. Is the solution to restrict car ownership to a select few? Would we all be safer if everyone had to walk all the time or take the bus? Perhaps. But the fact is most car owners act responsibly, just as do most gun owners. And when the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is taken into consideration, there better be a very compelling reason to limit the rights of the vast majority of citizens who act in a responsible manner.

      • Interesting choice to compare the number of guns and number of cars.

        I’d have gone with the number of knives and the number of guns since they’re used in similar fashion. Knives in the right hands lead to good eats. In the wrong hands, more deaths than “assault” rifles according to infowars. Guns in the ‘right hands’ lead to good eats and in the wrong hands, well, you know.
        Just to toss it out. Being on the ‘terrorist’ watch list I’d consider to be a ‘compelling reason. Wanna take their cars away too? Given sufficient time for ‘extreme vetting’ for maybe 60 days or so, is it reasonable to have the conversation?

      • I am curious, do you know what the purpose of our 2nd Amendment is Peter? It’s ok if you don’t. A large number of Americans don’t.

        I’ll give you a hint. It isn’t there because a large number of the Founding Fathers were avid deer and duck hunters.

      • From memory:

        A well regulated militia, being essential to a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be abridged.

        The word ‘regulated’ in late 16th century english meant ‘practiced’. Militia meant the same thing then as now – a local formal or informal fighting force that can be called up when needed. So the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that all able bodied men could practice marksmanship to be ready, if needed in an emergency, to defend the constitution against aggression whether it be foreign or domestic.

        This continues to be the raison d’être for the 2nd amendment to this day – the individual right and duty to defend the constitution of the United States.

      • I was pretty confident you knew Dave.

        You stopped a bit short though. The reason they believed it to be an individual right was because they knew that monarchs and despots were able to rule based on having a monopoly on the means of force.

        “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
        George Washington

        Mao pretty much stated the same thing with his “Power comes from the barrel of a gun.”

        Of course about this time some idi0t tosses out the “Well does that mean it is ok for private citizens to have nuclear weapons?” Not sure what to do with tards like that, except ignore them.

    • Chicago is getting to look a lot like Cd. Juárez did a few years back.

      At that time Cd. Juárez was the most dangerous city in the world.

      Directly across the Rio Grande River and the border was the United States’ safest city at that time, El Paso.

      Al Jazeera Fault LInes did a very insigtful documentary on the two very different worlds of Cd. Juárez and El Paso.

      Fault Lines – Mexico: Impunity and Profits – full episode

      Now, with the type of corruption, impunity and lawlessness in law enforcement that Obama has ushered in, the United States is beginning to look a lot like Mexico.

  5. RE: Hillary Clinton’s invisible guiding hand

    Kriegel isn’t there due to any brilliant choice of Billary. Mook chose him and has used him for Obama and other Dimowits.


    • More …
      Director of Analytics Elan Kriegel
      (reported by Politico’s Darren Samuelsohn on March 25, 2015) Co-founder of BlueLabs. Battleground states analytics director at Obama for America June 2011-Nov. 2012. Senior modeling analyst at the DNC, 2010-11. Worked as a radio and television producer. M.A. in quantitative methods in the social sciences from Columbia University; B.S. in mathematics and anthropology from the University of Wisconsin.


    • There’s quite a study in contrasts between those like Elan Kriegel who believe politics is a science and those like Trump who believe it is an art.

      It will be interesting to see who wins, the scientist or the artist.

      • Why do you assume that either thinks it’s one or the other?

        Trump hired a pollster to help run his campaign, and has been reading from her written instructions ever since.

  6. Wow! I guess that stuff about Clinton’s health are true!


    Like Giuliani says, just Google “Clinton’s health problems” and all kind stuff shows up.

    And this is a very reliable group, that is reporting on her health. Just look at what they uncovered about Obama!


    Who else knew that Obama hypnotized jews with hand signals during his speeches?

    These are the kind of people who realize that we need Trump tp save us from Isis with his secret plan that he developed and that he might change if his generals can come up with something better after a month of trying.

    • Do you know many others who have a series of coughing fits? Others who had to wear prism glasses?

      I’ve been around a very long time, with very severe allergy sufferers and in locations with very high pollen. I’ve never seen a even one coughing fit. Certainly not on an airplane I’ve I’ve flown nearly 2 million miles.

      Never seen a soul with prism glasses.

      I don’t need anyone else to tell me I should or should not be concerned. I only need my own eyes and experience.

      • Ken,

        Try Graves disease. It’s fairly common. Sis had it. Two surgeries and prism glasses.

        “Graves disease affects about 1 in 200 people. The disease occurs more often in women than in men, which may be related to hormonal factors. Graves disease is the most common cause of thyroid overactivity (hyperthyroidism) in the United States.”

        Then coughing: http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/whats-causing-cough-10-causes–1758473

        Not suggesting Clinton has any. I’m not a physician and wouldn’t even attempt a remote diagnosis. Just saying maybe you’ve not actually ‘been around’ all that much even if it’s been for a long while.

      • Danny, have you seen the video from her early departure from the 9/11 ceremony this morning? My eyes see a person with a serious medical condition.

      • Ken,


        But I’d never speculate a medical condition (for either) as A) not qualified and B) not examined her.

        Just surprised at your comment w/r/t prism glasses and coughing which is why I sent the link and commented.

      • Now she has pneumonia Danny. Question is, how did she get it? Look at the video, focus on her feet. She is out and they drag her into the van. She is not a healthy woman. I’ve seen at least one doctor piece it together as advanced Parkinson’s. Time will tell,I guess.

      • Ken,
        Dragging feet? Is that a medical diagnosis? If she was faint, sure.
        Did you read the details (B.P., Cholesterols, etc.) in the CNN article? Does that help with your evaluation? Do we not trust the doc? Do we trust Trump’s doc?
        “I’ve seen at least one doctor piece it together as advanced Parkinson’s.” Dr. Drew said ‘brain damage’. Quick google search finds possible UTI or a few others: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/21/we-ran-hillary-clintons-symptoms-through-webmd-and-the-diagnosis-isnt-pretty/

        No doctors exam and no lab tests or neurological = speculation, not a diagnosis. If I’m buying Trump’s Doctor’s letter of health, I’m buying the doctors report on Clinton’s pneumonia.

      • Dr. Drew said ‘brain damage’

        I don’t think that disqualifies a candidate

    • Nice own goal, J0shua, given Hillary’s collapse today.

      I commented on Friday that she looked like death warmed over. Sure enough this morning she left the 9/11 memorial service early and collapsed at the curb waiting for her ride to pull up.

      A press blackout followed then a few hours later her doctor releases a statement saying she was diagnosed on Friday, the day I said she looked like sh*t, with pneumonia.

      The coughing fit she had in Cleveland earlier in the week, blamed on allergies, I said looked to me like “walking pneumonia”.

      You may call me Impeach_Barry – Medicine Man in the future in respect for my diagnostic powers from a distance.

  7. Voting has begun! From the article:

    Brace yourselves: Election Day has begun.

    Some federal write-in absentee ballots, which are typically reserved for people serving dangerous foreign deployments or stints on submarines, have already started to come in. And that trickle of ballots will soon become a flood, with early voting set to begin in several states around the country.

    The first round of early ballots will be dropped in the mail in North Carolina on Friday, kicking off a nearly nine-week sprint of early and absentee voting before the final results are tallied on Nov. 8.
    Alabama elections officials will begin putting ballots in the mail on Sept. 15. By the following week, ballots from all 50 states will be on their way to members of the Armed Services and registered voters living abroad.


  8. Now I understand why Trump started using a teleprompter so frequently..in 24 unscripted minutes;

    He said he knows more about ISIS than the U.S. generals

    He suggested he’d fire the generals if he wins

    He praised Vladimir Putin

    He said Putin is a stronger leader than President Obama

    He said his reading of the body language of the intelligence officials he has met showed they didn’t like Obama

    He said his trip to Mexico was a success because the Mexican official who arranged it has resigned

    He said that sexual assault in the military is due to allowing men and women to serve together

    He repeated his claim that America should have seized Iraq’s and Libya’s oil

    He said the oil could be taken by leaving a certain group behind, without explaining what he meant

    • Yep, he is prone to hyperbole. Now scrutinize his actions as much as his words. Then do the same for Clinton.

    • And Hillary spent her 24 minutes off script explaining mistakes she’d made as a first term senator from NY and then Secretary of State. She explained that just because she had poor judgement in the past didn’t mean she’d have poor judgement in the future. The dear girl learned from her mistakes and won’t repeat them. How comforting.

  9. I just want to point out that Mussolini was a very strong leader in his country, very strong. Very popular. He was an effective leader. A stronger leader than Obama.

    And so was Mao. That’s what some people are saying.

    • So your argument is that a strong leader is automatically either a commie or a facist? You might want to rethink that.

      Putin is based. He stopped the Oligarchs and is building a middle class for Russia. He doesn’t tolerate organized degeneracy because he knows it serves only to enslave people to the Oligarchy.

      Russia’s been there. He’s not letting them go back.

      • ==> So your argument is that a strong leader is automatically either a commie or a facist? ==>

        No. Nice reversal.

        My argument is that praising Putin for being a strong leader is a simplistic and weak rhetorical tactic, of the sort that Trump employs regularly, (without, apparently, his supporters taking notice).

        He praised Putin by virtue of his being a strong leader and popular (an arguable assertion, btw). By the same logic, we could praise Mussolini or Mao, and compare them favorably to Obama also. Of course, in doing so, we would have to ignore all of the context related to their “strength” or popularity.

        Would Trump have the stones to publicly praise Putin for the actions that he has taken as a “strong leader”? For the policies that he has enacted? Of course not. Perhaps Trump will go on record as praising Putin for “building a middle class in Russia?” Lol!

        So what are the attributes of “strength” that Putin has, that Obama feels praise-worthy? What are Putin’s actions that he feels have positively manifest as popularity? Are you going to refute that his administration is rife with corruption? Are you going to defend Putin’s treatment of the press and dissidents?

        An autocratic dictator can, by virtue of an undemocratic exercise of power, manifest “strong” leadership. Is that something that we should praise, as a model to use for comparison?

      • “An autocratic dictator can, by virtue of an undemocratic exercise of power, manifest “strong” leadership. Is that something that we should praise, as a model to use for comparison?”

        I’m not really getting much out of your argument except the sort of Facist by association tactic, so I don’t have much to say.

        However, I will address this last point.

        You really think democracy operates by ‘democratic’ power?

        America is run by the power of the Oligarchy and propaganda to a far greater extent than autocratic Russia. Democracy is a ruse. The propaganda machine rules all.

        At least in autocracy the source of power is visible and thus accountable to some extent.

      • ==> You really think democracy operates by ‘democratic’ power? ==>

        In a relative sense, over the arc of history, yes, absolutely. I have little doubt that as a non-aristocrat and a minority, born into the middle class, I have more political stake than the vast majority of non-aristocrats ever born on the planet. It isn’t even close. I’m not absolutist, nor an alarmist, and don’t bring a binary approach to these questions.

        If you think Russia under Putin is more democratic than the U.S. during the Obama administration have at it. If Trump agrees with you, he should have the integrity to be explicit about his beliefs so that voters get a fuller picture of his ideology.

      • ==> I’m not really getting much out of your argument except the sort of Facist by association tactic, so I don’t have much to say.<==

        My argument is that it is cheap and facile to praise a corrupt autocrat for the quality of being a "strong leader." That doesn't make one a fascist, but it makes one to be a oerson who is willing to exploit cheap arguments to denigrate a political opponent. Comoaring Obama to Putin on the basis of "strength" as a leader, without even attempting any qualification is as valid as a similar comoarison to Mussolini or.Mao.

        My point stands. Whether you choose to "get anything out of it" or not.

      • Or perhaps you’d like this metric?


        You boyz are hilarious.

      • Until the oil bust in 2014, Russia had robust economic growth with no increase in inequality.

        That’s the very opposite of what neo-liberalism has wrought: sputtering growth with exploding inequality.


      • “Or perhaps you’d like this metric?

        This is Empire. America goes around the world blowing up everyone that isn’t feminist and gay.

        I think that’s why they call it the Evil Satan.

      • “What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he’s free.”—Albert Camus

      • “For the liberation of the labourers in the initial phases of the Industrial Revolution was indeed to some extent contradictory: it had liberated them from their masters only to put them under a stronger taskmaster, their daily needs and wants, the force, in other words with which necessity drives and compels men and which is more compelling than violence.” — Hannah Arendt

      • Jesus, I just found myself agreeing with a Josh post.

        Very close to my thoughts about Colin Kapernick. I would not argue there is no injustice in our nation. But I invite Colin to offer up a place that’s better.

      • “My argument is that praising Putin for being a strong leader is a simplistic and weak rhetorical tactic”

        Your confirmation bias is showing. Sometimes a strong leader moving his country forward is a strong leader moving his country forward.

    • stevenreincarnated

      Putin is a nationalist. To understand Putin you have to look at the world through the eyes of the Russians. Here is a good article on what they see.


      • Russia is very patient.
        We fly around the Black Sea and then get indignant when Russian planes buzz ours?
        When was the last time Russian planes were buzzing around Mexico or Canada or the Caribbean?
        The establishment is playing on residual cold war anti-Russianism to beat the war drum against Russia.
        It’s pure insanity, horridly dangerous.

        They hate Russia because they know their $ has less power there because the people and culture don’t fall for the lie of ‘liberalism’, i.e. slavery via dissipation.

      • nickels,

        For those deep into liberal internationalism, liberal imperialism, neo-colonialism or neo-conservatism, something like a populist, nationalist, caudillo (strongman) like Putin of Russia, Lazaro Cardenas of Mexico, or Getúlio Vargas of Brazil — who very much served the interests of the rank and file of their nations — just doesn’t compute.

        If you happen to speak Spanish, Emir Sader has a great essay where he explains all this:

        Emir Sader: El neocolonialismo intelectual

      • Nickels – exactly right. The cold war ended 25 years ago. Russia is not our enemy. In fact it’s a democracy no longer the communist country of the cold war era. I thought we were supposed to support democracy?

        Some doubt the strength of the Russian democracy given it’s a one-party system headed up by Putin. My concern isn’t the strength of the Russian democracy. My concern is the strength of the US democracy which appears like it might become a one-party system headed up by the Clintons.

        Russia should be our alley not our enemy. We should be helping them become a better democracy. Instead we seem bent on making ours worse instead.

        Isn’t that just precious?

    • It’s important to listen to what Trump actually said, and not what the spin doctors claim he said.

      DONALD TRUMP: And you know the beautiful part of getting along. Russia wants to defeat ISIS as badly as we do. If we had a relaitonship with Russia, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could work on it together and knock the hell out of ISIS?


      It’s always a great honor to be so nicely complemented by a man [Putn] so highly respected in his country and beyond.


      He does have an 82% approval rating according to the different pollsters…


      He is very much of a leader. You can say, “Oh, isn’t that a terrible thing.” The man has very strong control over his country. Now it’s a very different system and I don’t happen to like the system. But certainly in that system he’s been a leader far more than out president has been a leader. We have a divided country.

      — Russia comments begin at minute 00:13:35
      Donald Trump Participates in Commander-In-Chief Forum (Full) | NBC News
      a; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yNVAx68FB0

  10. From the article:

    Election 2016: New Polls Point To A Dramatic Trump Surge

    And the news for Clinton is about to get worse. Tomorrow, Emerson College will release a spate of new polls on the state of the presidential race in New England and New Jersey — states that typically vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, and by a substantial margin.

    Another unexpected factor is the African-American vote. Emerson, alone among polling organizations, has found Trump increasing his support with a voter group that typically tilts Democratic. Among African Americans Trump garners 15% in Virginia, 15% in New jersey, and 16% in North Carolina, according to Emerson’s recent polling.

    Trump, meanwhile, is neck-and-neck or leading in states like Nevada and Wisconsin, and may even have a shot at Oregon – all of which have trended Blue in recent years.

    The upshot? Forget about what the mainstream media says. Nine weeks out – and with three critical debates still ahead – all bets are off for who will win the presidency in 2016.


  11. Trump simply combines being an experienced CEO with being a reality show host. Give a CEO a problem and he says he will have his people look into it. The host will give you a jazzy sound bite. Trump does both well. All the psycho-babble about Tumpis just that.

    • Agree with you David. The hostility and partisanship of US politics drives me bonkers. No one is actually talking about anything of substance. They are far to busy trying to prove the other side is horrific beyond all human comprehension.

      • I agree. I don’t think either candidate will be what their ardent supporters or opponents think. Historically, Trump has been pretty liberal. And Hillary is so corrupt and I think also, ultimately pragmatic that any important things that need to be done will find away to get done regardless of any subsidies for wind/solar. And cheap natural gas kind of makes coal a moot point.

        As much as I’d like to see major movement on nukes, I don’t think that red tape will be cleared up to the point of nukes being very competitive with gas in the foreseeable future.

        Right now, my big problem is with this CAGW non-sense is that is at best a major distraction from much more good that could be done in the world and prolong some needless suffering and will waste some resources (cause so too big projects to be done). At worst it could some significant humanitarian crisis (or make some worse than need be)–this is probably almost certainly true for the developing world, but probably only trivially true for the US (I think the big problem for the US is potential for some regions to over develop sun and wind and I really don’t like our over reliance on natural gas. Using it for both our base and peaking production and heating seems bad risk strategy and could be a serious problem if we get hit with some major winter weather disaster, which I think isn’t unlikely over the next decade).

      • Sorry for the poor readability. English isn’t my strong suit and I’m not having a good pain day.

      • And the dishonesty of it drives me nuts, as well as seeing how pervasive the silly meme is. ;)

      • Aaron,

        Your English is fine.

      • I think Trump combines the best of the democratic and republican parties and eschews the worst. He’s his own man and I like his platform positions and willingness to engage the public to make policy.

        The two campaign slogans are instructive:

        Hillary: “I’m with her.”

        Trump: “I’m with you.”

        Hillary’s expects the people to support what she wants. She is an elitist. You are not capable of forming the right policies. Trump is a populist. He puts in place the policies desired by a majority of voters. We say what we want, he bullies it into practice. We the people are capable of forming policies.

        That is exactly how I position myself in elected office. I have a voter survey to work from on all sorts of municipal policy questions. I work to make the majority positions expressed by the voters into what their local government actually delivers. Always. I serve the public the public doesn’t serve me.

      • If you think Trump is really with you, you have fallen for the same spiel he used on his Trump U victims. Trump has always been for himself, and has yet to prove otherwise.

  12. RE: Hillary Clinton Is Raking In Fossil Fuel Money At An Alarming Rate


    Bucking Oilfield Tradition, Clinton Bumps Trump in Oil, Gas Cash


    Oil Industry Does Better Under Democrats, Fracking CEO Says

    Anybody else see how all that crashes head on with this?:

    RE: Election 2016 — Both Party Platforms Fail America On Energy [link]

    [Samders] fervent anti-fracking and anti-nuclear stands have killed the Democratic Party’s rational all-of-the-above energy strategy. All-of-the-above is the only way to quickly decrease coal, reduce emissions, maintain reliability and retain a diverse energy mix in time to avert the worst of climate change.

    Instead, the Democratic Platform is now basically renewables, efficiency and storage, a mix shown not to be able to fully power America until after it’s too late. It also appears to criminalize climate denying (page 29).

    And since natural gas is the primary energy source used to back-up (load follow) renewables, this new Democratic Platform is not internally consistent. It seeks to roll-back much of the Obama legacy of streamlining gas pipeline projects and giving states regulatory authority over fracking as a way to replace coal with gas and renewables.

    The oil and gas industry has chosen to ignore Clinton and the Democratic Party’s anti-fracking platform, believing it to be so infeasible, so unachievable as to be something straight out of Fantasy Land.

    From the Rigzone article linked above:

    As for Clinton, Hirs said it appears she wants to achieve solar power dependence by 2040.

    “That seems to equate solar power with getting rid of crude oil and fossil fuels. Conceivably it could happen, but it’s going to cost us a fortune. There are no economic incentives in place to make us change our habits,” he explained.

    Is the oil and gas industry underestimating the fanatacism of the warmists? Is it making a mistake in backing Clinton?

  13. On CBS this morning, Kellyanne Conway was a guest. Rose asked her what Trump would do about North Korea. (A better question is what is Obummer doing about North Korea, or what did Clinton as SoS do about North Korea since they were and are actually in charge.)

    At any rate, they and other journalists are just salivating over the possibility they can get Trump of one of his reps to say he would use nuclear weapons on NK.

    Of course, they were disappointed this morning.

  14. Researchers name new parasite after Barack Obama

    For those who believe that politicians are parasites comes a form of vindication today. In the Journal of Parasitology, a new species of parasite has entered the scientific taxonomy: Baracktrema obamai.


    The 2-inch long creature is approximately 30 to 50 times longer than it is wide and has “post-cecal terminal genitalia.” It lives in the lungs of two species of freshwater turtles found in Southeast Asia. Both species are considered threatened with extinction.


    It’s not the first parasite to be named after the president: In April, 2012, the University of New Mexico announced that a new species of hairworm was discovered near Obama’s father’s birthplace in Kenya. Named Paragordius obamai, the hairworm is unique because it can reproduce without a male.

    In addition to parasites, Obama has been the inspiration behind the naming of a trapdoor spider, a lichen, a brightly colored fish and an ancient lizard named “Obamadon.”

  15. What would Clintonomics bring? Breaking down Hillary Clinton’s economic policy?

    The lack of Euroscepticism will doom America!

  16. Socialism works so well …

    No drugs? We’ll try BLACK MAGIC: Desperate Venezuelans turn to ritual slaughter to save sick relatives as failing economy leaves hospitals with empty shelves and no medicine
    Venezuelans are turning to black magic in an attempt to treat sick relatives
    Comes as growing shortages intensify in the failing Left-wing country
    Hospitals have run out of drugs to treat patients as well as other supplies
    Rituals include sacrificing birds and making desperate offerings to Gods
    Shamans, herbalist, witches and priests cash in on people’s fears


  17. BUILD THAT WALL!!!! From the article:

    A day after the UK announced a ‘great wall of Calais’ on its southern border to keep migrants out, the left-wing establishment has rallied to condemn the plan, with many comparing it to the policies of U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump.

    The wall was announced by the UK’s immigration minister Robert Goodwill on Wednesday, after attempts to illegally enter the UK via Calais quadrupled. Construction is expected to begin this month.

    • What say you Tony B?

      • jim2

        If it will do any good it should be built as considerable violence is being perpetrated every day by migrants against lorry drivers and tourists running the gauntlet around the Calais ferry/tunnel.

        It is all of a part with the illegal encampment of up to 10000 economic migrants in Calais. Very few are Syrians and genuine refugees. Most are young males, many from sub Saharan countries . People are supposed to claim refugee status (if they are genuine refugees) in the first safe country they come to which won’t be Britain as numerous countries lie in the way.

        This all must be affecting the economy of Calais. We haven’t driven over through the tunnel for three years because of the violence. The French need to get a grip.

        Perhaps Obama or Hillary might like to welcome another 10000 migrants?


      • jim

        By the way I haven’t come across any of this outrage that is claimed. From Hadrian’s wall to Offa’s dyke to walled towns and castles, walls have been used for years to secure borders and keep citizens safe


      • Thanks, Tony. It’s nice to hear a non-US perspective. Of course, our two countries are alike in many ways. OTOH, I already know the opinion of some societies that are very not like ours and, frankly, I don’t like those opinions nor do I like their mores and morals.

      • The number they suggest is 500,000

    • Silly poly-tishans. Building a barrier makes tons of sense. Concrete is wrong tool. Using a layered system (think about the location folks). First and tallest are wind turbines, fronted by extreme (vaporizing) high temp solar, fronted by a simple chain link fence (energized).

      Simplez and dual purpose. And don’t forget free!

  18. RE: Five reasons Donald Trump is a more effective orator than you think

    This is another one of those articles that pits the cognitive “elite” — such as the author himself, Kevin Morrell, believes himself to be — against the great unwashed.

    The world of those like Morrell is the world of the pretentious and snobbish, of the high and mighty. They believe themselves to have risen above the irrationality of the uneducated and ignorant masses. They sit high upon their perch, peer down at the rest of us, and sneer.

    Some of the key passages that reveal Morrell’s aloofness, conceit and complete detachment from factual reality:

    • “Trump’s insults often read like the work of a child…” [As if the insults of the cognitve “elite” don’t “often read like the work of a child.”]

    • “Trump uses simple language and playground insults in his campaign rallies….” [As if the cognitve “elite” don’t use the same sort of simple language.]

    • “[T]he sense that a Washington elite governs under the thumb of wealthy lobbyists….” [As if it were not an objective reality that the Washington elite governs under the thumb of wealthy lobbyists.]

    • “This ushers in distrust of elites, collective grievance and a search for scapegoats.” [As if the elites — the guys who, after all, are in charge — had nothing under the sun to do with causing the current conditions, so there’s no reason to hold them accountable.]

    • “Simplistic explanations, grandiose promises and establishment bashing – Trump’s trademarks – are able to flourish in this environment.” [“Simplistic explanations” like “the science is settled”? Or “grandiose promises” like we can “achieve solar power dependence by 2040”?]

    • “Instead of a war of words, both sides of the Atlantic are facing a war of identities… [S]eeing Trump’s policies (build a wall, ban Muslims, etc) as actual “policy” is mistaken.” [Of course Morrell’s tribe — the cognitive “elite” — never uses groupism or tribalism to mobilize political campaigns or organize society.]

    • “Trump breaks the rules in a campaign fuelled by his ‘You’re fired!’ brand of sensationalism that continually transforms questions about detail and policy into battles of personality and identity.” [And of course the cognitive “elite” — the CAGW and race baiting apoplectics — never resort to sensationalism.]

    • “Clinton could forensically dismantle Trump on policy, but unfortunately for her camp, Trump has turned this – and perhaps subsequent election years – into a smack-talk summer.” [Right. Clinton has such a stellar track record on policy achievements. If the election turns on policy, Clinton loses hands down.]

    • “The Apprentice gave Trump household recognition and the aura of success.” [And Obama and Clinton’s “experience” and track record on the economy, on foreign and domestic security, and on foreign relations give them an “aura of success”?]

    • “Last week witnessed a change in tactics by Clinton: a direct attack on Trump, slamming his ‘racist ideology’….” [Race baiting is something new for Clinton and the Democrats? It is “a change in tactics by Clinton”?]

    • “This reverse attack can be very effective partly because it creates a false symmetry: Clinton says Trump is racist, Trump says Clinton is a bigot – they are as bad as each other. It is an age-old playground technique.” [Imagine that. What goes around, comes around.]

  19. Gary Johnson says he doesn’t know what Aleppo is during interview.

    NYTimes writer, reporting on the “gaffe”, doubles down and proves he also does not know what Aleppo is.

    NYTimes editors issue correction and get it wrong…..twice. Three times if you count that they didn’t know the capital of Syria was Damascus.


    This is the same paper that says Obama is brilliant even after he said Hawaii was in Asia and Austrians spoke “Austrian”.

    Like Obama’s advisor said, today’s reporters are 27 year-olds who know nothing about the world and will parrot whatever they are fed by his admin.

    • All someone needs to do to understand the intelligence level of your average journalist is check out the curriculum at Columbia School of Journalism. Taylor made for 4 years of partying.

      • I read a column by an old-time news reporter a few years back and he said he was astonished that the goal of journalism schools had changed from “reporting the news fairly and accurately” to “changing the world”.

        He said the CSJ faculty even admitted so and were proud of it.

      • It makes sense harkin.

        If you have a high sense of self importance and believe your opinions should matter, but don’t have what it takes to succeed in politics or other field of endeavor which might help you make a difference, becoming a journalist is the way to go.

    • That is one of the most delicious stories ever. The self perceived intellectual elites come face to face with reality.

    • If Hillary or Trump got a paper cut every time they did something worse than that, we could make hotdogs to feed a lot of starving kids.

  20. ‘It’s useless to hold a person to anything he says while he’s in love, drunk, or running for office.’ Shirley MacLaine. Considered by some comedians to be the world’s oldest granola bar (fruits, flakes, & nuts), she may be on to something here.
    President Obama seems to be in ‘love’ with his legacy.
    Hilary Clinton seems to be ‘drunk’ with power.
    Donald Trump seems to be ‘running for office’.
    All this is open to dispute, but the question remains. The public has the right to hold such people to their word, is Shirley MacLaine providing insight on our expectaions?

    • John,

      I don’t need Shirley McLaine to tell me that. It is self evident to anyone who has followed politics. Never believe what a politician says while running for office. And believe very little of what they say after they win.

      It’s one reason I don’t get excited by furor over Trump’s comments. He’s at least entertaining.

      • “It’s one reason I don’t get excited by furor over Trump’s comments. He’s at least entertaining.”

        And a fool or jacka$$, some people say. I dunno.

        “Thus, Trump has trotted out “unstable Hillary Clinton,” “a totally unhinged person” and “like an unbalanced person.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/06/trump-in-series-of-scathing-personal-attacks-questions-clintons-mental-health/?tid=a_inl

        And his surrogates: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/18/trump-spokeswoman-diagnoses-hillary-clinton-with-dysphasia-despite-not-being-doctor/


      • Hi Danny. I’m there with you. I’ve seen plenty of comments about ‘The Donald’ they voice that same idea. I think timg56’s comment was aimed more at the ‘Celebrity’ opinions and how they sway his view of politicians. It’s my comment that prompted his reply. I see you’re a fan of the Washington Post. I’m a subscriber myself (although I have a bone or two to pick with the delivery guy). Did you remember that JPS wrote them their own march? One of my favorites. In Europe they called it the ‘Washington Two Step’ (a popular dance tune). That phrase has different (political) meaning today in my part of the world. Try to persuade others to your view (it is an election year and that is the fashion). But we are all alone with ourselves in the polling booth. (BTW on a different topic, my wife just reminded what an an a**shole I can be, h/t to Peter in Australia).

      • JMH,
        “my wife just reminded what an an a**shole I can be,” :)

        My wife does too and a few here regularly do the same. Must be outta luv!

        WaPo is interesting. They surely align with ‘the boss’ view. It’s a great tool to show thinking not influenced by being so tight with the Trump campaign. And they’re quick and everywhere.

        This blog is considered ‘skeptical’. Yet some (by no means not all) show no skepticism at all when it comes to one side (Trump) and only skepticism when it comes to the other (Clinton). My view is there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of both. Confirmational biases all around I suppose.

        Enjoying your input.


      • Danny, Call me John. WaPo (they claim to be balanced, I swear I’ll catch it for this one) gives one of a side of a side, I also get the Baltimore Sun. Both heavily slanted but from different perspectives. Add this to that, the cable, MSM, internet, even Climate Etc. All trying to influence Your thought. Consider what you consider what to consider (I hear Gregorian Chant here, bad joke). As a twenty-year county polling judge we (bipartisan) tried our best to make sure every vote was included. Who watches the watchers? It’s us little old f*rts at the tables that point you to the voting booth. Vote for your beliefs.

      • John,

        Being there with Danny puts you at risk of being seen as a strutting peacock.

        Well, probably not. You can stand on your quality contributions here.

      • John,

        I grew up in the DC area. (was a Washington Star paperboy, though my younger brothers later added the Post to their duties). Became interested in politics when Nixon was running for his first term. Later was selected as a participant in Boys State for the District of Colombia. I wasn’t referring to celebrities – though I discount their political opinions almost as much – but to politicians themselves. Running for Office 101 teaches you to say whatever it takes to garner support. Whether or not you mean it is irrelevant.

  21. CIA propaganda tool, Newsweek, pumping out drivel about BLM and their protest that Climate Change is racist:

  22. Five reasons Donald Trump is a more effective orator than you think [link]

    A few things I noticed about Trump when he spoke:

    1) It wasn’t a speech. This man was giving a talk to his company at a Townhall. Informal, unscripted, top of the head. “We’re in this together, this is the state of things, here is where we need to go from here.” Twice he looked at his sheet of paper to grab a talking point.

    2) Whenever the crowd gave him some energy, he immediately went down that path for a bit to acknowledge the crowd and capitalize on that energy.

    I think the day of the great orator is over, because any attempts to actually use full on oratorical techniques are to prone to Fuhrer comparisons. So no one even really tries.

  23. I just added a new article to the main post, a very provocative read

    Here’s the most powerful (and chilling) case for Trump you’ll ever hear

    • Good article. It exaggerated Trumps defects a bit, but is right about the needed conservative makeover. Also, I hate it when people use the term “golden age.” It never existed. But there did exist a time when people in the US were better off than now, not a Utopia, just better off. Now, we as a country, as a world force, are circling the drain.

      Trump’s general thrust is in the right direction.

      • jim2 I thought it was a good analysis of some of the ‘conservative’ elites. Pretty good article until the last two paragraphs when the author jumped aboard his ideological band wagon.

        The thing about the Conservatives is that they have been like this since the 30’s, at least. They were criticized then for being all talk. And appeasing the Left.

        We live in a country that was founded on the principles of Freedom. Of individual rights. Yet, our culture is dominated by an intellectual class that aligns itself with a 3rd rate philosopher who argues, not for freedom, but for the collective. For group think. For rule by elites. For State Power. For centralization. For conformity to a centralized, one-size-fits-all world view. The political ideology of the Left is dominated by this thinking and has been going in this direction since Wilson and the Statist League of Nations. The Left dominates in the media, in academia, in the arts, in entertainment, in education and we all suffer for it.

        It seems obviously true that our current predicament is caused by this collectivist ideology adopted by the Left but you can’t help but ask, ‘Where the hell was the loyal opposition?’ What exactly has the Right done to insure freedom, to make sure we have limited government, which means limited State Power which means a greater civic society and a less goverment centric society.

        I’ve engaged several #NeverTrump conservatives on Twitter and the petulance, the immaturity, the shallowness of their thinking is breath taking. They actually think that if Clinton wins it will cause the Right to rally around it’s principles and win big in 2020. That whole analysis is simply out to lunch, is divorced from reality, from life as lived on the ground by real people instead of in an academic Ivory Tower where people are merely ciphers, place holders in one’s thoughts. And it shows that some Conservatives are woefully unaware of their own history which is a history of great articles and speeches dominated by even greater capitulation and appeasment of the Left. Their lack of courage to pursue their principles in the face of a shrill and hostile Left is depressing. Their unwillingness to suffer the slings and arrows of the Lefts smears and sneers is pathetic. One of these #NeverTrump intellects told me he couldn’t possibly vote for Trump because Trump was a bore. That’s too weird even for Alice.

        What we have is a monopoly of political power and like all monopolies, the feedback gets short circuted and the system runs off the rails. We are on a path to self-destruction unless the Left can be challenged and stripped of much of the power it wields. And that would be cultural power as well [look up Milo Yianopoulos]. All the assumptions of the Left need to be challenged and of the 17 people who ran for candidate on the Republican ticket, only two of them even hinted that they understood there was a problem. Fiorina and Trump. Fiorina said it explicitly. Trump lives and breaths it daily. He seems immune to the control the Left exercises using political correctness. I don’t care if he smashes that edifice with a scalpel, an ax, or a Howitzer. It needs, desperately, to be destroyed. Romney couldn’t do it and ran like a sissy girl when the Left attacked him. Most of Trump’s challengers are pracationers of PC, in the same way that Paul Ryan is. Anyone who argues for or against an action by using the reason, ‘We’re just not like that,’ has been captured by the Left and isn’t aware of it.

        So, without positing past Utopias or future Utopias (anyone who is selling Utopia is a con artist looking to fleece the unwary) we can embrace a kind of change that brings us more of what we want in a way that is healthy. And that would be Trump, with all his warts. And definitely not the Argentine version of Eva Peron with all her pathological lying and crass, low-class corruption.

  24. This is sweet! From the article:

    Watch this Navy vet ask Hillary how anyone who’s entrusted with America’s most sensitive information can have any confidence in her when she clearly corrupted our national security — and others would’ve been prosecuted and imprisoned for doing the same.

    It’s the question we’ve posed many times — and would all relish the chance to confront her with to her face, as this Naval officer did.


  25. Decius Mus remains skeptical about whether Trump can actually make much of a positive difference. But he insists that genuinely committed conservatives have little choice but to place the last tattered remnants of their hopes in his campaign. It’s “worth trying,” he claims. And if you don’t agree? Well, then “you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.”

    How nice that we have someone available to define who is and who isn’t actually a “conservative” (and that, coincidentally, only those who agree with Decius Mus meet the objectively defined standard). We used to have someone here to do that for us, but he hasn’t been around for a while.

  26. Looking at the presidential race from this side of the pond, I think there needs to be added to the bottom of the ballot paper “None the above”

    • They have campaign buttons. You achieve this effect by choosing not to select any candidate in the President category. It’s called an under voted ballot.

      • John

        I am the President and only member of the ‘A plague on all your parties, party.’

        Must get a campaign badge made. or perhaps one that reads ‘None of the above.’ which I see Rob has also endorsed


      • Maybe we can merge our ‘parties’. Mine is POP (pissed off party). This with ‘plague on parties’ (POP) leads to POP-POP. No manoeuvering (?sp) needed for position of first place.

      • You achieve this effect by choosing not to select any candidate in the President category.

        Not really.

        For “none of the above” to work, if it wins, nobody gets elected, there’s another election, and everybody on the original ballot is excluded.

      • AK, I couldn’t agree more. We don’t do that here (US) we have the electoral college (throws it back to the House) not another election. But I get your point. Our friends across the pond have this ‘vote of no confidence’ thing. How does that work for you guys? Ak, I would suggest you left out the ‘IF’ in your observation that ‘For “none of the above’ to work, if it wins, nobody gets elected, there’s another election, and everybody on the original ballot is excluded’. You do not need to win my vote.

      • John Maurice Herron,

        I probably have at one point or another lamented that voting NO is the best option, but for the life of me I can’t remember exactly where or when. What *have* you been reading? :-)



        Here I am talking politics *again* instead of working on those dratted plots for you. Tell our American oil company sponsors I agree with them: There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

        … and that I’ll deliver my contractually obligated contributions very soon.

        Hopefully our UK sponsors can overlook my foot-dragging:

        BP recognizes that the existing trend of increasing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide is not consistent with limiting the global average temperature rise to 2°C or lower

        The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and is in large part due to an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities. It makes clear that substantial and sustained reductions of GHG emissions are needed to limit warming to 2°C, the threshold recognized by governments as limiting the worst impacts of climate change.


    • Hi Rob, tonyb. You guys have a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy. While Danny and I have a Federal presidential constitutional republic. Opposite sides of the pond with different systems of governance, but as Arch pointed out we still seem to get a chance to vote. I’m late back to you guys because I went back to read curryja’s late entry article. Used an old trick of mine for insight. Pick a key element (reactionary) and substitute it’s opposite (revolutionary) then consider.

      • It used to be unitary, now we have 4, England, Scotland, Wales, Ulster.
        We all get confused on how this is supposed to work and the OD on pain killers

      • Hi Rob. Sorry to get back to you late. Time zones. Having spent time in the UK as a Yank, I have my own perspective on ‘across the pond’. Your whole country fits into our state of Minnesota. Yet the land in the UK is used more judiciously. What’s our (US) problem? The hubris of scale? Please share your confusion because, although thousands of miles away, I’m right there with you.

  27. DeSmogBlog: Hillary Clinton is raking in fossil fuel money at an alarming rate [link]
    She doesn’t have to accept the money. She’s a moderate. She’s already letting the Greens down. Judging by her past, she’ll be in effect an ally of fossil fuels. Mileage may vary.

    • How is she letting the Greens down? I missed it!

      • “During her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton’s staff was working with TransCanada to obtain approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
        Clinton has also declared fracked natural gas a “bridge fuel” and she says that coal will play an important role in America’s energy future.”
        Some people get worked up about the above issues.

      • This is what Billary said about coal. From the article:

        Appearing at a CNN town hall in Columbus, Ohio, on Sunday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised that in her administration, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”


      • Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal

      • Great article Glenn. It illuminates the lyin Billary we already know. It also shows the tight link between her and the oil and gas companies and why the coal miners need to vote against her. From your article:

        Industry-Backed Launch

        The Global Shale Gas Initiative, Clinton’s program for promoting fracking, was announced on April 7, 2010, by David Goldwyn, the State Department’s special envoy for energy affairs, at the United States Energy Association (USEA), whose members include Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Shell.

        In a widely covered event in Krakow three months later, Clinton announced that “Poland will be part of the Global Shale Gas Initiative,” and the State Department would “provide technical and other assistance.”

        Goldwyn, who did not respond to multiple requests for comment, spoke to National Journal last month, explaining that “[Clinton’s] instruction to me was that it was OK to talk about helping other countries get access to their own resources, as long as the focus of our engagement was how they could do it safely and efficiently, and that’s why the program had almost an entirely regulatory focus.” Goldwyn emphasized that the shale gas initiative was not designed to help the private sector and instead should be seen as “a really very modest government-to-government.”

        But the emails show an aggressive effort to engage private energy companies and use Poland as part of a larger campaign to sell fracking throughout the region.

    • Oil and gas companies will funnel all kinds of money to the Dimowits, hoping they can keep coal on its heels.

  28. From the article:

    The University of California is laying off a group of IT workers at its San Francisco campus as part of a plan to move work offshore. Laying off IT workers as part of a shift to offshore is somewhere between rare and unheard-of in the public sector. The layoffs will happen at the end of February, but before the final day arrives the IT employees expect to train foreign replacements from India-based IT services firm HCL. The firm is working under a university contract valued at $50 million over five years. This layoff affects 17% of UCSF’s total IT staff, broken down this way: 49 IT permanent employees will lose their jobs, along with 12 contract employees and 18 vendor contractors. This number also includes 18 vacant IT positions that won’t be filled, according to the university.


    • There was a considerable outsourcing of all types of work to Indian call centres and data processing. This peaked several years ago and many British firms now like to claim their customers needs are met by UK based personnel.


      • Make India Great Again … oh, wait …

      • It takes awhile for actual data to make it back into the teaching curriculum. As I was leaving Business School, they were just starting to evaluate the metrics collected on productivity verses cost for moving off shore. Data was indicating cost savings had been over estimated.

      • tonyb, I’ll share with you a personal moment. Spent time in Wales, UK. US Navy uniform. Before I left, at the airport, a flower child spit on me and called me a baby killer. Read Kipling’s Tommy.

      • Read Orwell’s Rudyard Kipling:

        We all live by robbing Asiatic coolies, and those of us who are “enlightened” all maintain that those coolies ought to be set free; but our standard of living, and hence our “enlightenment,” demands that the robbery shall continue.

        A humanitarian is always a hypocrite, and Kipling’s understanding of this is perhaps the central secret of his power to create a telling phrase. It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase, “making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep.”

        It is true that Kipling does not understand the economic aspect of the relationship between the highbrow and the blimp. He does not see that the map is painted red chiefly in order that the coolie may be exploited. Instead of the coolie he sees the Indian Civil Servant; but even on that plane his grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very sound.

        He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.

        — GEORGE ORWELL, Rudyard Kipling

      • John

        It is a tribute to my history teacher that I instantly remembered much of ‘Tommy.’



        It is less of a tribute to my English teacher that I had forgotten Orwell’s piece until you reminded me.

        Both pieces are excellent. There are many similarities in the West between now and the last years of the Roman empire when assimilation, weakness, corruption, accommodation and a loss of direction all combined-together with climate change- to fatally weaken the resolve of the empire. Trying to recreate the conditions that led to the modern high point of western culture (now in our back mirror?) becomes difficult once the structure has been weakened or dismantled. When the Romans left Britain in 410AD the locals realised there was now a power vacuum. They asked the Romans to return (see the ‘groans of Britain’) but by then Rome had its own insurmountable problems.

        The west is at a pivotal point and needs to protect its ideals and culture. It does not need to do that by ‘beggaring’ our neighbours but we must realise that what we want are not necessarily what other cultures want.

        We need to protect ourselves and our ideals, but as ‘Tommy’ and Orwell recognised that can make uncomfortable bedfellows/.

        Is Donald Trump one of those uncomfortable bedfellows?


      • Cogent thoughts tonyb. You took ‘Tommy’ further than I intended. Thanks.

      • John

        Who will protect us when the Romans leave?

        We had the British Romans for around 200 hundred years. The American Romans for around 75 years. they seem to be leaving the field of battle perhaps after having their confidence shaken after 9/11

        If no one is looking after the western empire it will collapse. Can either Trump or Clinton be trusted to hold the line? Or is the west destined to disintegrate due to lack of leadership?

        My bet is that Trump could be one of those uncomfortable bedfellows we need in times of trouble. Clinton certainly not.


      • “My bet is that Trump could be one of those uncomfortable bedfellows we need in times of trouble. Clinton certainly not.”

        I can’t see myself being ‘comfortable’ in bed with either.

        Now how am I supposed to clear that visual from my mind? Thanks Tony. :)

  29. “College Progressives at Penn State University were not happy with the steep entry price to a “Conversation with Chelsea” event featuring former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton, the least successful member of the Clinton political dynasty.”

    “The event, which took place Wednesday in State College, Pa., charged $500 just to get in the door, and $1,000 for a photo with Chelsea. For $2,700, attendees would be granted access to a special reception with the guest of honor.”

    It’s expensive being a college progressive. I would have hoped to hear about student loans and the rising costs of a college education.

  30. Seeing the future of climate policy under the next president [link]

    Its not so much what either candidate says, rather, the important policy moves are where they will put government money. If the EPA is shrunk financially to some life-support level, they will not be able to enact their CO2 agenda, especially when EPA has not been addressing regulatory infrastructure needs as high-lighted by the Flint water issue. During Obama’s imperial Presidency, more and more EPA money had been diverted from EPA’s infrastructure role to fight climate change per instructions of the White House.

    If I were EPA czar and presented with a limited budget, the very first personnel to be found “redundant”, would be all those minions who held positions related to CO2, starting from those who worked on the “Endangerment” finding onto the current War on Coal. All the data, all the briefs, all the emails, all the position papers, all the projections would be eliminated, deleted, nails through the hard disc drives of everyone in all the offices who had a mention of CO2. Research monies would be recalled and redirected towards infrastructure.

    If I were President, then my jobs program would be aimed at infrastructure renewal, contracts with contractors who posted a bond, contracts that included jail time for fraudulent billing etc, and lift the minimum minority worker requirements for a minority contractor participation agreements. All the hiring of one or two minority workers to fill a quota would be over. I would also tie into the infrastructure employment process an educational and certification process for trade workers.

    As President, I would focus my education priorities upon trade skills. Over a 4 to 8 year Presidency, a slight deviation from the Middle Class college education attainment perspective would not lessen the USA’s global competitiveness.

    As President, I would encourage monies to be spent on military research endeavors as this type of spending has been the most fruitful spending for the past 80 years. Innovations have come from military research rather than all the academic spending to date, sorry to say.

    Of course, I am not running for office of any kind. I like that since I can think and say what I want and not worry that my opinions may not be popular.

    I think pure thoughts. How lovely.

  31. RiH – So you are probably also down on the situation where college graduates are a fortune in debt for having been indoctrinated by liberal/progressive professors for four years and gained no marketable skills.

    • Life was so much simpler when all we needed to do was read the morning newspaper for only fifty cents.

    • Our kids graduated with what I would consider relatively useless degrees and student loan debt of $70,000 to $60,000 apiece. They were in college when I met and married their mom. Fortunately I inherited great kids. Both went back to school, with our help, and mow have very productive careers.

      Bernie Sanders plan was unworkable, but this nation should be able to assist any student to become a college graduate whatever their financial situation.

      • Why? Many would do much better if they skipped the college degree and ventured into a skilled trade instead.

      • What I forgot to include is any student qualified to go to college.

        And I would extend the concept to assisting non-college bound students to get training. As a nation we can afford it and unlike a lot of other ideas, it is one which literally is an investment in our future.

        My undergraduate education was paid for thru the GI Bill. We could expand that concept to include other areas or opportunities to serve our nation. Imagine doctors serving four years in areas where good health care is lacking. Or young people supplementing teachers in the classroom, increasing the amount of individual attention students get.

  32. Science shows that non-condensing ghg (including CO2) have no significant effect on climate. Water vapor, the only ghg which condenses, is one of the three significant climate drivers.

    The average amount of time that passes between when a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon until it emits one (the relaxation time) is about 10 microseconds. Heat is conducted in the atmosphere by collisions between molecules. The average time between collisions of molecules in the atmosphere at sea level conditions is less than 0.0002 microseconds.

    Thus it is about 50,000 times more likely that a collision will occur (thermal conduction) than a photon will be emitted. The process of a molecule absorbing the energy in a photon and conducting the energy to other molecules is thermalization. Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.

    Thermalization explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

    Water vapor has been increasing since it has been measured world wide (1988). If human activity is contributing to global warming (or countering global cooling) it is because of contribution to increase in water vapor (mostly from irrigation and burning hydrogen rich fossil fuels). Of course increased water vapor causes the planet to warm which further increases water vapor so there is a cumulative effect.

    Changing from coal to natural gas increases water vapor.

    • Your conclusion seems a non sequiter Dan. The CO2 molecule adds heat to the atmosphere that would not otherwise be there. The heat ultimately leaves via a photon emitted by some other GHG molecule, probably water. But CO2 still has a role to play.

      • DW, my pet peeve, argued vociferously at WUWT yesterday, with a guest post submitted to AW at 0330 this am. The GHE does NOT add heat. All energy comes in from the sun as ISR. The GHE prevents energy (OLR) from radiating back to space. Disturbs the TOA balance by hindering cooling. Direct analogy to a blanket, which also hinders cooling (convective rather than radiative mechanism). CO2 does not heat; it prevents cooling.

      • Rud

        I followed that entire discussion and was fascinated with the back and forth. Your concept to this finance guy is so simple I am never quite sure of the difficulties others, who appear to be well versed in physics, have with your points.

        The blanket analogy is one of the first things I learned about the issue

        7 years ago and have not heard a
        better description.

      • Ristvan, the GHGs add heat to the atmosphere that would not otherwise be there. This is because the absorbed photon is not re-emitted. That absorbed energy is immediately transferred to the surrounding air via kinetic collisions. It is diffused, along with the energy of other photons absorbed by other GHG molecules.

        This diffused heat then leads to some GHGs emitting photons. Some (a) of these photons go back to the surface, causing the surface cooling to be, on net, less than it would be if there were no GHGs. Some (b) go out to space, while others (c) are absorbed and diffused by other GHG molecules.

        What the GHGs do is basically create a random walk for the energy, due to the kinetic diffusion of that energy in the atmosphere.

      • Dav – Consider also: CO2 does absorb radiation but only at one terrestrial wavelength, 15 microns (pressure, etc. broadens this to about 14 to 16 microns at sea level). There are about 50 water vapor molecules for each CO2 molecule at sea level conditions and each water vapor molecule absorbs terrestrial radiation at hundreds of wavelengths (all also pressure broadened). The additional CO2 only adds one part in thousands of ‘opportunities’ for absorption. Also, the added CO2 at surface means added CO2 at very high altitude. This adds ghg for additional radiation to space (helps cooling) as shown e.g. the spike at 15 microns in Fig 1. End result is the assertion of no SIGNIFICANT effect on climate.

    • DP, a lot of your argument is very sketchy and IMO does not reflect how the greenhouse effect actually works. GHGs hinder radiative cooling because they absorb and re- emit infrared omnidirectionally (scattering), so less is ‘up’ than started out ‘up’ at the surface where insolation initially heats. Quantum radiation random ping pong, so to speak. It is really that simple. Kinetic energy gain of CO2, scarcity of CO2 (the old trace gas canard), CO2 cannot heat, those are all essentially blind alley arguments.
      Radiative infrared cooling to space in T equilibrium exactly offsets surface incoming solar heating energy. Incoming shortwave radiation, reflected shortwave radiation (albedo) that does not reach the ‘surface’ to heat, and outgoing longwave cooling radiation are now measured at top of atmosphere by satellites.
      The two main GHGs at that notional prior to AGW equilibrium are H2O and CO2. By far the more important is H2O. In 1880 with CO2 nominally 280ppm, without gaseous H2O Earth woul have been ~-18C rather than ~+ 14C and there would be no life for us to blog about. From that GHE slightly hindered cooling fact all else including all climate feedbacks flows. You might benefit from reading essay Sensitive Uncertainty. IMO, it does not help the skeptical cause to get confused or sidetracked on well established basics. Not a winning position.

      • “skeptical cause” and “winning position” sound like political objectives. My objective is to understand what causes climate change.

        I have successfully identified what has been driving climate change since reasonably accurate world wide measurements of average global temperature have been made available (98% match with measured 1895-2015). My findings are there for all to see and challenge at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com .

        I welcome comments with enough specificity to tell what you are commenting on. Non-specific comments like “your argument is very sketchy” and “Not a winning position” don’t qualify.

  33. A disgusting human being. From the article:

    Speaking in Homewood, PA on Friday, Bill Clinton criticized the “coal people” in West Virginia for supporting Donald Trump.

    “We all know how [Hillary’s] opponent has done well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky,” the former president told the crowd at the Greater Pittsburgh Coliseum. “The coal people don’t like any of us [Democrats] anymore.”

    Clinton added that “they all voted for me. I won twice, and they did well.”
    Bill Clinton speaks at the Community Family Life Recreation Center at Lyon Park on September 6, 2016 in Durham, North Carolina (Getty Images)


    • “We all know how [Hillary’s] opponent has done well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky,” the former president told the crowd at the Greater Pittsburgh Coliseum. “The coal people don’t like any of us [Democrats] anymore.”

      Clinton added that “they all voted for me. I won twice, and they did well.”

      Right. The miners “did well” under Clinton.


      • opluso and Danny Thomas,

        So are you two vouching for Clinton when he claims that the “coal people”…”did well” during his presidency?

        And Danny Thomas, do try to stick “with facts.”

      • “with facts”. Why should I do that again Glenn, you usually ignore facts and strawman arguments.

        What I will say, as Opluso has already done so quite reasonably, is that blaming Clinton, or frankly most of the other administrations, ignores the impact of mechanization.

        “The economic and energy contexts for the coal industry are changing. Coal employment continues its LONG HISTORIC DECLINE due to ongoing mechanization of the industry (see Figure 2).”http://www.maced.org/coal/exe-summary.htm

        “Under every other recent president—Democrats and Republicans—Kentucky has lost coal jobs. More than 16,000 jobs disappeared during Ronald Reagan’s two terms in office. Did Reagan also have a “War on Coal?” What about George H.W. Bush? Bill Clinton?”

        So could your purpose of singling out Clinton been, let’s just say, political in nature? More lost their jobs in that industry under Reagan. Expect you’ll be taking him on soon, right? If you weren’t wanting to provide just a ‘political’ picture and not the more accurate reason coal has lost so many jobs.

        My question back to you is do you wish to ‘box in Clinton and paint him with a tar brush’ or actually look for the reasons?

        One thing you’ve managed to ‘teach’ me Glenn is if you say it, one should be skeptical.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Well there you go with your argument by gibberish again, combined with an attempt at an ad hoc rescue.

        So let me ask one more time: Are you vouching for Clinton when he claims that the “coal people”…”did well” during his presidency?

        That was, after all, Clinton’s claim that I challenged, and which you and opluso responded to.

        And Danny, do try to stick “with facts.”

      • ad hoc: “formed, arranged, or done for a particular purpose only.”

        My purpose, Glenn, is to show that mechanization caused most of the employment fall. Additionally, reduced natural gas prices have had more recent impacts.

        What was the purpose of your ad hoc posting of a chart showing employment levels out of context by removing the Reagan & Bush1 years?

        Coal miner employment didn’t fare as poorly under Bill Clinton as it did under Reagan. Is that factually sufficient?

        Doing ‘well’ needs a definition.
        Show me this (But I’ll predict you won’t.): fatality rates Clinton vs. others back to say 1950, 1960, 1970;
        income under Clinton vs. others (same time frame you choose);
        Health statistics under Clinton vs. others.
        Production per capita would also be an indicator of ‘doing well’.

        Facts will do.

      • Danny Thomas,

        So if you believe that the “coal people”…”did well” during Clinton’s presidency, do you also believe that Gore invented the internet?

      • As predicted. You won’t do the work. Your ad hoc (for a purpose) showing of the chart of employment without consideration of: mechanization, mortality rates on the job, income changes, and health changes is disingenuous.

        What is your ad hoc(key) reasoning for asking your question? It’s known as argumentum ad lapidem or alternatively post hoc ergo propter hoc or a plain old false equivalence.

        So do you seek a reasonable understanding, or do you prefer to continue to go about your argumentation in such a horribly embarrassing manner? (See how framing those question work?)

      • Danny Thomas,

        Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts. I’m not at all interested in all your gibberish.

        Do you believe the “coal people”…”did well” during Clinton’s presidency, as Clinton claimed?

        Do you believe that Gore “took the initiative in creating the internet,” as he claimed?

        These claims are objective in nature, so if you believe that the “coal people”…”did well” during Clinton’s presidencey, where’s the evidence of that?

      • I’m not at all interested……………..in your unsubstantiated political gibberish.

        If you believe they didn’t do well, do you believe they did under Reagan, Bush1, and Obama? (Such a stupid game but I’ll play it too). These claims are objective in nature.

      • A second factor is production:
        Other plots will show a continued fall of production. With falling production the effects of mechanization is worsened. With mechanization, how is the President to be blamed? He’s supposed to smash the machines for high employment? He can be blamed at times for less production for instance possibly for what the EPA does.

      • I know the argument is about Slick Willie and Coal Country, but in drilling that far into detail one can lose the forest through the weeds.

        National unemployment rate:


        National unemployment rate annual change:


        Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

        Years offset by one so that outgoing administrations still “own” fiscal policies set while they were still in office, not the incoming new administration.

        More where those came from.

      • Brandon

        Overlay actions by the Federal Reserve on tightening interest rates. They have a significant impact on the business cycle and have had on the 11 recessions since WWII. They will be the ones to tip us into the next recession, not a President. It is never a question of if a recession, rather just when. The old adage “Don’t fight the Fed” got to be popular for a reason.

        As William Martin, Chairman of the Federal Reserve in the 1950s and 1960s, once said ‘Our job is to take away the punch bowl just as the party is to get started.”

        Much as the control knob is too simplistic, so is the correlation with a political party. There are many other intervening variables beside Presidential policies.

      • Ragnaar,

        Clinton’s claim that miners “did well” during his presidency is a lie.

        Any claim that Clinton is not part and parcel of the problem, even though he is not the entire problem, is a lie.

        The claim that the problem was caused in any significant way by “worsened…effects of mechanization” is a lie, its purpose being to exculpate those who, in reality, caused the problem.

        The problem was caused by policy decisions made by our ruling overlords. These people operate consciously and deliberately, and with intent and purpose. The system they have created may indeed be sustainable from a purely economic point of view. But it is not sustainable politically.


      • I really enjoy debate by dueling diagrams. Much easier than thinking!

        The lowest levels of Black Lung Disease (5 yr moving avg) were reached during the Clinton presidency:


        In 2012, the prevalence of severe black lung, known as progressive massive fibrosis, in miners in West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky reached 3.2%, up from a low of 0.4% in 1998. In 1974, the level was 3.3% for miners in those states.


        As demonstrated earlier, Clinton had little (possibly nothing) to do with the loss of coal mining jobs. Acid rain regulations were passed in 1990. Clinton wasn’t sworn in until 20 January 1993. The cap-and-trade provisions saved money overall but did encourage continued switching to “cleaner” (often western) coals. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for eastern coal.

        In other words, surface mining of coal (particularly low-sulphur) displaced underground mining over time just as, today, natural gas is displacing coal overall:



        The real question is what to do about replacing the relatively high-income underground coal mining jobs that will inevitably disappear? Unfortunately, the answers provided by politicians are typically BS.

      • cerescokid said:

        Overlay actions by the Federal Reserve on tightening interest rates.

        That is absolutely right. When Carter decided to initiate the war on those Americans who have to work for a living, what was the first thing he did?

        Here’s how Christian Parenti describes it in Lockdown America:

        The economic indicator of paramount importance in this story is, of course, the average rate of profit: the raison d’être of market economics. The crisis of the late sixties and seventies sent corporate profits into steep decline. Harrison and Bluestone explain: “From a peak of nearly 10 percent in 1965, the average net after-tax profit rate of domestic non-financial corporations plunged to less than 6 percent during the second half of the 1970s — a decline of more than a third.”….

        Regardless of the exact etiology of the profit slump, one thing is for sure, the solution to the crisis was, as we shall see, to attack labor….

        The crisis of the seventies was finally dealt with in 1979 when Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve; it was the opening salvo of a new “class war.” Late in 1979 Volcker dramtically tightened the money supply by boosting interest rates, thus cutting borrowing power and buying power, and diminishing economc activity in general. This monetarist squeeze accelerated when Reagan took office, until interest rates, which had been 7.9 percent in 1979, reached 16.4 percent in 1981. As a direct result, the US economy plunged into its most severe recession since the Great Depression.

        In the eyes of Paul Volcker this was a good thing. For the economic stagnation and low profits of the seventies to be vanquished the American people would have to learn how to work harder for less; Reagan’s plan was to cut taxes on the rich, gut welfare, and attack labor. As Volcker told the New York Times: “The standard of living of the average American has to decline… I don’t think you can escape that.”

        In 1981 as the recession was reaching new depths and many in Congress were calling for relief, Volcker again explained the utility of his aritifical economic disaster: “in an economy like ours with wages and salaries accounting for two-thirds of all costs, sustaining progress [in price reduction] will need to be reflected in moderation of nominal wages. The general indexes of worker compensation still show relatively little improvment, and prices of many services with high labor content continue to show high rates of increase.”

        The chairman’s goal was labor discipline. The recession — though hard on many businesses, particularly small firms — had not yet achieved its purpose: wages were still rising.

        Not until the behemoth First Illinois Bank collapsed under the weight of its bad loans and Mexico seriously threatened a default on its $90 billion foreign debt did Volcker relent and open the Fed’s spigots, easing interest rates and making credit available throughout the economy, thus stimulating economic activity.

        But according to Harrison and Bluestone,

        the deep recession did precisely what it was designed to….

        The real average weekly wage fell more than 8 percent between 1979 and 1982, and failed to recover at all in the next five years. Essentially, with wage growth arrested by unemployment, what growth occurred during the Reagan period rebounded mostly to the profits side of the captial-labor ledger.

      • opluso said:

        I really enjoy debate by dueling diagrams. Much easier than thinking!

        So then you agree with Clinton when he says that the “coal people”…”did well” during his presidency,

      • Glenn Stehle:

        Clinton’s claim that miners “did well” during his presidency is a lie.

        Any claim that Clinton is not part and parcel of the problem, even though he is not the entire problem, is a lie.

        The claim that the problem was caused in any significant way by “worsened…effects of mechanization” is a lie…

        Strong words, weak logic. The only “evidence” you’ve provided to support your argument is a misleading graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that covers all mining jobs in the US and conveniently truncates historical trends. I provided some of the context you purposely avoided.

        “Did well” is undefined and subjective. It is hard to prove that any opinion “is a lie” but you come pretty close to failing that test yourself with your unsupported assertions.

      • opluso said:

        Clinton’s claim that miners “did well” during his presidency is a lie.

        Any claim that Clinton is not part and parcel of the problem, even though he is not the entire problem, is a lie.

        The claim that the problem was caused in any significant way by “worsened…effects of mechanization” is a lie…

        Strong words, weak logic….

        “Did well” is undefined and subjective. It is hard to prove that any opinion “is a lie” but you come pretty close to failing that test yourself with your unsupported assertions.

        It looks like the miners themselves strongly disagree with you. Even Clinton acknowledged this. To wit:

        “We all know how [Hillary’s] opponent has done well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky,” the former president told the crowd at the Greater Pittsburgh Coliseum. “The coal people don’t like any of us [Democrats] anymore.”

        But hey, I do understand. Aloof, conceited, snobbish, and pretentious “elites” believe they know everything.

      • ” “We do not want federal money to fund training for new jobs that pay half of our current salaries. ” http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_wages_state_industries.pdf

        For an industry with great inherent hazard and doing so poorly the numbers don’t look too bad. The ‘pay half’ statement is unsupported.

        Since we recognize that the sheer volume of jobs has been dropping for OVER A CENTURY, mostly due to mechanization (see production levels for confirmation) there must be a large number of folks in need of additional training. At least one candidate recognizes an area of concern which has gon on too long without being considered: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/
        ******following comment contains a further link for those concerned.

        Coal has a place at the table, for how long who knows.

      • ********http://www.coalfield-development.org/what-we-do/quality-jobs

        “The crew members who participate in QJI work for Coalfield doing hands-on construction work for 33 hours a week. Six hours a week are devoted to classes in which crew members attend a local community college for all general course classes and major course classes. Along with course work, local community colleges partner with Coalfield to give credit for certain on the job training activities that take place during the 33 hour portion of work. This enables crew member to essentially be full time students and give them the opportunity to complete a degree in two years’ time. Crew members also commit to fully participating in 3 hours of life skills training a week where they are challenged to learn about managing finances, culture, physical health, and other things necessary to live a quality life.”

        The win goes definitively to Clinton on this issue.

        Trump is unable to recognize the efficiencies of the times: “But can Trump save the coal miners? Well, coal mining isn’t the big employer it once was, nor will it ever be again. This is mainly due to technology and market forces more than anything else, and that includes clean air laws. Mountaintop removal mining, an odious process that literally destroys the gorgeous mountains of the “Mountain State” requires fewer miners to meet production goals. It once took hundreds of men to work a mine; it now takes about a dozen or so.”


      • Danny Thomas said:

        The win goes definitively to Clinton on this issue.

        Well again, this is one of those edicts that comes down from on high, from the aloof, conceited, snobbish, and pretentious “elite” journalists, who believe they know everything and can tell people what is proper to think, to feel, and to believe.

        The miners themselves, however, see things very differently:

        The Rise of Trump – Fault Lines.
        How West Virginia turned from being a blue state to a red state


      • Glenn Stehle:

        Perhaps there’s an additional factor in Trump’s support in these regions:


        “Association between an Internet-Based Measure of Area Racism and Black Mortality”

      • Opluso said:

        Perhaps there’s an additional factor in Trump’s support in these regions.

        And that “additional factor” is, it goes without saying, “racism.”

        It has to be that, doesn’t it?

        After all, the white “booboisie” is entirely too stupid to know what’s in its own best economic interest.

        So these faceless nobodies — this untouchable caste reduced to stereotypes that are no less reductive and demeaning than those employed by the most ignorant and bigoted white Southerner — support Trump because they are barely controllable creatures of untamed instincts.

        This mindless but widely held perception is given doctrinal crediblity through an endless rhetorical reiteration of anti-white working-class stereotypes.

        To get the accusation against Trump supporters you’re leveling completely out in the open, here’s the map you linked: “The Distribution of Racism by 210 designated marketing areas (DMAs):


      • Glenn

        When the Fed had the Fed Funds rate in double digits and within 6 months of Reagan’s inauguration the Democrats were blaming Reaganomics, that began my transformation from left to right. A high schooler in economics should have understood the impact of historic high interest rates but the Democratic leadership preached to the economic illiterates that it was Reagan’s fault. That turned me.
        In July 1982 I applied for a 30 year fixed at 17.5%. No thanks, took land contract instead. Kids today with sub 4% probably can’t wrap their heads around mortgage rates that high.

      • The President drives the economy with one or two control variables. So the key to a successful economy is to have the President pick the smartest driver of the economy and let them drive it. As far as I know the control variables are:

        Spend more/spend less
        Interest rates/Money supply

        As we know, sometime the response to control inputs is quick and firm, and sometimes it’s laggy and soft. See the real world.

        For decades I’ve been critical of the economic control knob theory. What would some libertarians replace it with? Minimal and predictable changes. Gradual departicipation moves. Stop bailing companies out. We might ask, does the economy belong to the Federal government? Are positive results credited to the government?

        Someone suggested CO2 hijacked the temperature rise in about 1950. The government hijacked the economy as well. Yes, before then it was chaos. We needed stability is argued. I find the two situations similar. We prevent chaos with large powerful control knobs. Chaos meet hammer. We are experts in the field of hammers. With chaotic systems, we can sell hammers. Not that they’ll actually do much, but you can see, they do smash things.

      • Glenn Stehle:

        Thanks for reposting the graphic. Don’t know why it didn’t show up as an image in my post.

        We may never settle the “did well” debate so we might as well address the other items on the list. You suggested another possible motivation:

        But hey, I do understand. Aloof, conceited, snobbish, and pretentious “elites” believe they know everything.

        From someone who is constantly quoting from elite literary sources, you should tread lightly here. Regardless, Trump’s supporters seem to make an exception if the elite know-it-all is an irreligious billionaire running for national office on an anti-immigrant platform.

        It is true that Trump’s support is overwhelmingly white but that correlation, alone, says nothing about racist attitudes. That’s why you need additional supporting data such as the map you reposted for me or examples of online rants or the various videos of racist outbursts at Trump rallies. Sadly, there are plenty of these to choose from so be my guest. Still, such correlation is not perfect proof of causation so I’ll grant you’ve still got some room to wriggle. I’ll even stipulate that many other issues are raised (trade policy, anti-Washington sentiment, etc.) by Trumpeteers.

        Yet if you honestly don’t think racism is an important motivating factor for an unfortunate number of Trump’s supporters, you simply aren’t paying attention.

      • cerescokid,

        Overlay actions by the Federal Reserve on tightening interest rates.

        I could, but I don’t exactly consider it my duty to support your argument for you.

        [The Fed] will be the ones to tip us into the next recession, not a President.

        The argument here is, well it’s twofold:

        1) Bill Clinton lied when he said his administration was good for coal country.
        2) Our choice between Hillary and Donald matters for the economy in the upcoming election.

        I’m sidestepping (1) because:

        a) it might be true and therefore detrimental to my desire to see Hillary elected over Donald and
        b) local/regional data don’t necessarily make a good proxy for indicating the health of the national economy.

        I further parry you point above by noting that the executive branch appoints Fed Chairs. Thus I find it difficult to conclude that presidents don’t have some significant influence on economic outcomes during their tenures.

        It is never a question of if a recession, rather just when.

        Yes, clearly economic fluctuations are due to natural variability, not anthropogenic forcings. [giggle]

        Much as the control knob is too simplistic, so is the correlation with a political party.

        I don’t actually disagree. Like I say in my blog post, the plots are for my own political talking point fodder.

        There are many other intervening variables beside Presidential policies.

        What’s going on in the global economy for one. It’s push-me-pull me. I argue that the US triggered the 2008 financial crisis when the subprime mortgage market (with help from some hubristic bond-traders) succumbed to bursting its own bubble. Ripples on a pond. It’s difficult to keep track of the echoes vs. new signals, e.g. European austerity vs. depressed oil prices due to the glut from shale fields. Transitioning from manufacturing to a service economy and otherwise competing with cheap overseas labor is tough to pin on any single president or political party.

        Too many things for me to enumerate in a single blog comment, and way too many of them for me to ever competently understand. So I look at gross indicators, and guess.

      • Brandon,
        “Yes, clearly economic fluctuations are due to natural variability, not anthropogenic forcings. ”

        No. It’s both! (no tag ’cause that’d ruin the humour!)

      • It’s an inside joke for me. Given the choice between two types of dessert, I invariably choose “some of both”. This used to cause much consternation on the part of She who was offering the choice.

  34. Kerry takes Trump’s good advice. From the article:

    Kerry says US-Russia agreement could be ‘turning point’ in Syria conflict

    The United States and Russia announced early Saturday a breakthrough agreement on Syria that foresees a nationwide cease-fire starting early next week, followed by an unlikely new military partnership between the rival governments targeting the Islamic State and al-Qaida.


    • Snowball’s chance in hell of working. Kerry and Obama are delusional. Neither Russia nor the US speak for most the rebel combatant factions. Russia might speak for Assad’s regime. US might speak for the Kurds over Turkey’s violent objections since we are arming and training them. Right, that covers less than half the combatants. I am somehow sure ISIS will also agree to the Russia/US thing—NOT.
      Perhaps they think they have the Sourcer’s Apprentice magic wand, can wave it like Mickey Mouse did, and all the rebel factions will obey like brooms?

      • I was being a bit sarcastic. But if you listen to Trump and Clinton lately, they say many of the same things. It’s just that I trust Billary less than Trump to be telling the truth about what they will do when in office.

      • It depends on what the US’s priority is.

        If the US’s top priority remains regime change in Syria, then it and its allies in the region — mainly Turkey and Saudi Arabia — will continue to fund and supply arms to the rebels.

        U.S., Allies to Boost Aid to Syria Rebels.
        Shipments of arms, supplies are aimed at pressuring Assad while countering Russia, Iran


        If the US’s top priority changes from regime change to defeating ISIS, then the support for the rebels will dry up, that is assuming the US still has sufficient influence over its allies in the region.

        Without the support of the US and its allies, ISIS will be severely impaired.

  35. Seeing the future of climate policy under the next president [link]
    “I would just say, the specific sort of marker that a lot of scientists and scientific institutions have put forth is the warming of the atmosphere beyond 3.7 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.
    That’s kind of the point at which a lot of scientists say we will be irrevocably locked into a future of these climate impacts, and we’re at the point right now where scientists say a lot of that is already baked in.”

    “At this point, in terms of the emissions that are already in the atmosphere and the rate of emissions now being produced today, scientists are saying, we’re probably set to go past that tipping point.”
    – Coral Davenport

    ““This illustrates the high uncertainty in predicting tipping points,” says lead author Professor Sybren Drijfhout from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton. “More precisely, our results show that the different state-of-the-art models agree that abrupt changes are likely, but that predicting when and where they will occur remains very difficult. Also, our results show that no safe limit exists and that many abrupt shifts already occur for global warming levels much lower than two degrees,” he adds.”

    So which one is it? The tipping point is 2 C or we don’t know? I think it was first said to be 2 C in 1975.

    This appears to be what the IPCC said recently:
    ““With increasing warming, some physical systems or ecosystems may be at risk of abrupt and irreversible change.” The report points out that coral reef and Arctic ecosystems are already undergoing irreversible changes. And it warns that tipping point risks “increase disproportionately” as temperature rises above 3.0 C, “due to the potential for a large and irreversible sea-level rise from ice sheet loss.”” 

    The 2 C tipping point seems overplayed.

  36. I’m a lovo. Convince me.

  37. If I only Trump for president, imagine how much safer we would be with respect to North Korea.

    Trump has told us the simple things that he would do to keep Korea under control.

    He would encourage China to get rid of the North Korean leader “one way or another”

    He would stop trading with China so that it would put pressure on North Korea.

    HE would have talks with the leader of North Korea.

    And he would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons even as we reduce our level of military support for those countries.

    If only Trump for president. He would ask Muslim immigrants questions so as too extreme extreme get them.

    He would make Mexico pay for building a wall along our Southern border without even telling them how it will be built.

    He would keep us safe from Isis by holding all the oil without explaining how he would do that.

    And of course he would also use his secret sauce method for destroying Isis a method which maybe he would alter if his generals came up with an idea that was as good after they had a month to develop their plans.

    Thankfully it will only be a few short months until Donald Trump is our president. I am so glad that he will take over and he will fix everything. He will even end violence and crime in this country.

  38. I’m strictly a lovo (low information voter). A snazzy bumper sticker and a catchy slogan is enough for me. I was beginning to be concerned that my pen pals here at Climate Etc were getting agitated over politicians. Fortunately this put it all in perspective. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-08/climate-change-isn-t-just-making-us-hot-we-re-angrier-and-more-violent
    D*m those anthropoids and their CO2. Why can’t they leave us real people alone?

  39. It’s deja vu all over again. This is so reminiscent of the primary. The Redimowits were scratching their collective head, then their collective @$$, then their head, … they were totally befuddled that Trump was doing so well in the polls and winning states. The Dimowits are now suffering from the same ailment. From the article:

    NEW YORK — With Election Day less than two months away, Democrats are increasingly worried that Hillary Clinton has not built a formidable lead against Donald Trump despite his historic weaknesses as a national party candidate.

    Even the Democratic nominee’s advisers acknowledge that she must make changes, and quickly. Clinton leads Trump by three percentage points, having fallen from her high of nine points in August, according to the latest RealClearPolitics average. That tightening has frustrated many Clinton allies and operatives, who are astonished that she isn’t running away with this race, given Trump’s deep unpopularity and his continuing stream of controversial comments.


  40. House passes Sept. 11 legislation as Obama veto threat looms

    Congress sent President Obama a bipartisan bill that would allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia….

    The House passed the legislation Friday by voice vote….

    The White House has signaled Obama would veto the legislation over the potential for it to backfire and apprehension about undermining a longstanding yet strained relationship with a critical US ally in the Middle East.

  41. Now emperor Obama is overruling the courts, with another big win for Warren Buffett:

    Feds halt work on part of oil pipeline despite court ruling

    The federal government stepped into the fight over the Dakota Access oil pipeline Friday, ordering work to stop on one segment of the project in North Dakota…

    The government’s order came minutes after a judge rejected a request by the Standing Rock Sioux to halt construction of the $3.8 billion, four-state pipeline…..

    Tribal leaders allege it violates several federal laws and will harm water supplies. The tribe also alleges that ancient sites have been disturbed during construction….

    A joint statement from the Army and the Departments of Justice and the Interior said construction bordering or under Lake Oahe would not go forward…

    The president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council said he was disappointed with the government’s decision to intervene and called it ‘‘flagrant overreach’’ that will result in more oil being moved by trucks and trains.

    • How is it the administration can do this by fiat? This is very disappointing and it is definitely an overreach. I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t happen under a Trump administration. It would under Billary.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I hope it happens under the Trump administration a lot. Perhaps then we can get bipartisan action to prevent it in the future.

      • steve – Obummer has been doing it a lot. No bipartisan effort to stop him at all.

      • It is federal land, so they have the right.

      • Having the right doesn’t mean Obummer is right. He seldom is.

      • stevenreincarnated

        jim2, there won’t be any bipartisan effort towards stopping it as long as the liberals can ignore the constitution while in power knowing that the conservatives won’t do the same. It is only after the stove gets hot for both sides that action will be taken.

    • Fascinating to watch Trump supporters fawn over Putin’s strong leadership even as they feign concern about Obama’s executive overreach.

  42. Hillary Clinton’s National Security Advisers Are a “Who’s Who” of the Warfare State

    It’s a story we’ve seen before in President Obama’s early appointments. In retrospect, analysts have pointed to the continuity in national security and intelligence advisers as an early sign that despite his campaign rhetoric Obama would end up building on — rather than tearing down — the often-extralegal, Bush-Cheney counterterror regime. For instance, while Obama promised in 2008 to reform the NSA, its director was kept on and its reach continued to grow….

    That backdrop is what makes Clinton’s new list of advisers so significant.

  43. New York Times and the New McCarthyism

    Traditional U.S. journalism and the American people are facing a crisis as the preeminent American newspaper, The New York Times, has fully lost its professional bearings, transforming itself into a neoconservative propaganda sheet eager for a New Cold War with Russia and imposing a New McCarthyism on public debate.

    The crisis is particularly acute because another top national newspaper, The Washington Post, is also deeply inside the neocon camp.

    The Times’ abandonment of journalistic principles has become most noticeable with its recurring tirades about Russia, as the Times offers up story after story that would have embarrassed Sen. Joe McCarthy and his 1950s Red-baiters….

    So, now, presumably if someone suggests questioning a claim from the U.S. government or from the NATO alliance, that person is automatically a “Russian agent of influence.” ….

    Yet, the Times holds itself out as some paragon of objectivity. This delusion further underscores how out of control and indeed dangerous the Times has become as a source of U.S. government disinformation, while accusing others of spreading Russian disinformation which often isn’t disinformation at all….

    But there is something even more insidious about what The New York Times and The Washington Post have been up to. They are essentially saying that any questioning of the official U.S. government narrative on any international topic puts you in league with Moscow in its purported attempt to “weaponize” information, whatever that is supposed to mean.

    The two newspapers are engaging in a breathtaking form of McCarthyism, apparently in some twisted effort to force a neoconservative ideological conformity on the American people in support of the New Cold War….

    This McCarthyistic investigative style has already begun to have a chilling effect on public debate in the United States where dissident views on Russia, Syria or other hot topics are quickly disparaged as enemy propaganda. Almost anyone who questions whether a new, costly and dangerous Cold War is necessary is immediately tagged as a “Russian agent of influence,” a “Putin apologist,” or a “Moscow stooge.”

    In this case, the Democrats have been particularly aggressive in playing the Joe McCarthy role by denouncing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in such overheated terms, even suggesting his disloyalty for suggesting that he could, as President, get along with Putin.

    During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, defense of freedom of thought required courageous journalists, most notably Edward R. Murrow, to stand up to the often unfounded smears against the patriotism of Americans. In 2016, however, it is the prestige news media, particularly The New York Times and The Washington Post, that have been leading the rush into the New Cold War and into the New McCarthyism.

  44. After Climategate emails started to awaken me to reality, I realized that George Orwell was right when he concluded in 1946 that a new technological matrix of deceit was arising from the ruins of WWII.

    Although dying from tuberculosis, he moved to the Scottish Isle of Jura to start writing NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR

    I am not a student of history, but I believe it was the father of the elder President George Bush that designed the plan after WWII for the National Academy of Sciences to construct and maintain a web of deceit by limiting public research funds to “scientists” who willingly joined the “97% scientific consensus” for Standard Models of Reality!

  45. Changing from coal to natural gas has no significant effect on climate but increases water vapor which increases rain which increases the probability of flooding.

  46. IMO, everything one needs to know about Clinton can be gleaned from her comments about the “deplorable” Trump voters. She is disdainful and elitist, as are most of the political class on both sides of the aisle.

    Time to vote all of them out. That, IMO, is the basis of support for Trump: he isn’t one of “them”. He may not be ideal, be he isn’t one of the political class.

    • ken

      that comment about deplorables even made it over here to the main bbc tv news.

      We had comments like that about ‘leave’ voters which really irritated them and look what happened.

      It was a crass and stupid remark which surely must have repercussions with those who are not diehard Clinton fans.


  47. “Yesterday, Hillary Clinton claimed that roughly “half of Trump’s supporters” could be characterized as either “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.””
    I must be in the other half. We have some country don’t we. Deplorables? Almost a quarter of us.

    • Here you go, on Youtube:

      Clinton: Trump supporters in ‘basket of deplorables…
      a; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZHp4JLWjNw

    • That makes 10% racist, 10% sexist, 10% homophobic, etc. Possible, and it may even be conservative in this country, and majorities in those categories would be Trump supporters. Anyway she later said ‘half’ was not to be taken literally.

      • And what percentage should apply to her supporters? I’ve worked with Democrats since the 1960s. Neither side is clean. Her statement is an outrage and should give pause to each of her acolytes.

      • +1 the Hillary portion.

        And going further. Outrageous statements by Trump are equally deserving of treatment along the lines of: that “statement is an outrage and should give pause to each of his acolytes.”

        We can’t accept/reject from one w/o accept/reject from the other.

      • Maybe with that statement, she will lose whatever support she may have from those classes, although very few people would self-identify those ways so it is not a big risk. I don’t think she’s worried about that.

      • “Maybe with that statement, she will lose whatever support she may have from those classes”.

        Wait. Is she running for president of some of us, or all of us?

        Even she’s apologizing for the comments. Yet you’re choosing to defend them?

        Here are her words: ““You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” she said to applause and laughter. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

        You and your buddy are standing there, you look over and realize one of you is ‘deplorable’. Really?

      • Yes, I said she quickly pulled back on taking the half too literally. In fact, her values allow for none of those prejudices, so what she does as President won’t conform to what they want, and in that sense she is not acting on their behalf. However in terms of the economy, security, education, healthcare, the environment, she acts on their behalf too. Regarding laughter, what we heard getting laughs at the Republican conference makes this look tame. She made a reference that hinted at basket cases, and that got laughter because most of them would see Trump as one too given the media on his temperament.

      • “Yes, I said she quickly pulled back on taking the half too literally.” But you didn’t. You justified.

        It was a deplorable thing to say. Don’t you agree?

        I’m sorry, but I can’t abide much by acceptance of bad behavior (deeds/words) while rejecting it on the other. Just the way I feel.

      • I was saying “half” may not be far off, given it means 20% of polled Americans may fall into at least one of those categories, but as I said, those are not black and white categories. There are always degrees of prejudice. You don’t have to be a white supremacist to be racist. There are many things that can make someone look racist to someone else even if they don’t think they are themselves. It’s subjective.

      • Liberal drama queens seem to confuse apathy with -ism or phobia. If someone is LBTGQXYZ and cannot exist without special legislation, then Misc. is their pigeonhole. The deplorables don’t fear the Misc., just don’t have time for their whining.

        the great thing about overselling causes is that the percentage of deplorables increases.

      • Capt.
        Are you willing to accept: “the great thing about overselling causes is that the percentage of deplorables increases.” applies to all sides?

      • All of those categories are subjective because few would self-identify. You can design a questionnaire that would put people on a spectrum about their attitudes to various classes of people, but it won’t be black and white. Trump stokes these fears and it seems to work. His fearful rhetoric pulls his supporters along the spectrum towards where he is.

      • Funny how diversity is a strength until someone needs a pigeonhole for political purposes.

      • Maybe you want a more inclusive basket that tolerates the intolerant rather than calls them out.

      • Danny, without a doubt, which is why I am non partisan in most respects.

        JimD, Fear is used by both, _____phobia is fear isn’t it?

      • The only fear Hillary uses is the consequences of someone like Trump being President. Trump plays on all kinds of fears about security, immigrants, Muslims, other countries, the economy, jobs, healthcare, terrorism, you name it. Every speech is about going to hell in a handbasket.

      • “The only fear Hillary uses is the consequences of someone like Trump being President. ”
        That’s just plain 100% absolutely wrong. She just used ‘the fear’ that if someone is a supporter of Trump that one in two is ‘deplorable’ (and you defined it) so that means it you or me bud. Think about that. That’s a deplorable thing to say.

      • That’s not a fear. It’s actually an opinion. However, sometimes real opinions are better not mentioned in a PC world (unless you are Trump, that is).

      • “That’s not a fear.”

        Again, wrong!

        “It’s actually an opinion.” Are you giving a ‘pass’ for an equivalent comment from the other side. What if Trump said 1/2 the Clinton supporters were ‘deplorable’. 50% chance it’s you!

      • I don’t care what Trump says. His credibility is shot by his past statements.

      • Mitt Romney. 47%.

        The end.

      • Trump says worse things about blacks and Hispanics. It makes his demographics tough in states that matter. Romney’s remarks were about people on welfare, who I don’t think Republicans like anyway, so it probably wasn’t important to them.

      • “Trump says worse things”
        Like that’s a justification. Are you serious?

      • That was in response to your 47% remark, and yes Trump has said worse than that.

      • Bad behavior by one does in no way justify bad behavior by the other.

        It just doesn’t.

      • Clinton was giving her opinion and not mincing words, as I am sure Romney was. You call it bad behavior if they express it in a non-PC way for their audience at the time.

      • “Clinton was giving her opinion and not mincing words, as I am sure Romney was. You call it bad behavior if they express it in a non-PC way for their audience at the time.”

        And what does Trump do?
        I call it bad behavior. (that’s a period at the end)
        Will note that ‘the audience in today’s day and age, is America.

      • Jim D said:

        However in terms of the economy, security, education, healthcare, the environment, she acts on their behalf too.

        Pay to play.

        Impunity and profits.

        Rogjt. Clinton “acts on” my “behalf.”

      • She has policies that benefit the people who can’t pay to play; minimum wage, free college, expanded healthcare, environmental protection. This is what the Dems do. There are even some rich people supporting her because they share those values. Call it a shared ideology, but there it is.

      • JimD, “The only fear Hillary uses is the consequences of someone like Trump being President.” or Bernie or anyone else she is running against. Fear that someone might dismantle the Utopian society that doesn’t exist. “What do you have to lose?” “Everything!”

      • America is not so bad.

      • not so bad leaves a lot of room for improvement.

      • They are recovering from two wars and a recession within the past decade or so. Even with that, their economy and quality of life are still the envy of the world. Sometimes people don’t appreciate where we are given the recent history.

      • stevenreincarnated

        We don’t need free college. We need jobs for the people that graduate from college. We don’t need to increase the minimum wage. We need to reduce the number of unskilled laborers so the supply doesn’t dwarf the demand. We have enough environmental protection. I pay thousands a year to keep from going in the sink what I can put directly into peoples mouths. We don’t need expanded health care as per Obamacare. Insurance rates are skyrocketing, insurance companies are running, Obamacare is dying. We also don’t need politicians that promise everything that the rich are going to pay for and then write tax laws that make sure that won’t happen. If it did happen the rich would just move anyway. Sort of like the corporations have been doing. Trump is right about a lot of things. Clinton is telling the same old stories about the same old policies that don’t work for the disappearing middle class.

      • You don’t need coal-mine jobs, you need technical modern-day jobs, many of which are helped by some college training. You want to just forget the people who can’t afford good healthcare. I guess that’s just a values judgement on your part. Some people do care about better education and healthcare for all, and about making the ladder to the middle class easier to climb for the less well off. Call me a socialist. If rich people can’t live off 8 million per year instead of 10 million per year, let them move to other countries if they want. Those wouldn’t be true Americans anyway. I hear Monaco is nice.

      • Steven,
        “We need jobs for the people that graduate from college”. Yep. How?
        “We need to reduce the number of unskilled laborers so the supply doesn’t dwarf the demand.” Yep. How?
        “We have enough environmental protection.” Based on?
        “I pay thousands a year to keep from going in the sink what I can put directly into peoples mouths.” What are all your neighbors doing? All of ’em.
        “Obamacare.” Eh. I’ll leave that one alone for a different conversation.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim D, let me know when that great society project starts showing some success.

      • It started to in the previous Clinton era, but then Bush came along and turned a profit into a deficit. Obama continued with heathcare reform, but then the Republicans came in and stopped further progress. So it’s moving along with interruptions. I’m optimistic.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Reduce corporate taxes. Bring more companies and jobs to the US instead of chasing them all away.

        We can start by reducing the flow of immigrant unskilled labor.

        Based upon the many regulations that govern my profession, a considerable number of them which are ridiculous. I’m not sure what my neighbors are doing but the other dentists are doing the same thing I am.

      • Allow US multinationals to compete on the same terms as others for international markets: don’t force them back. That would kill Apple, for example. Allow for the most efficient unskilled labor through competition that keeps our prices down. Even “unskilled” labor, like in agriculture, does have levels of efficiency which could be regarded as skill, and we would want the best.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Johnson started the great society. It suddenly started to work in the Clinton era and suddenly stopped due to those despicable Republicans? What made it start working and what made it stop?

      • You want to use the term great society, but it probably does not define the Democratic platform. However planks would include the general welfare, equality, tolerance, social mobility, and, ideally, peace. Republicans are not particularly interested in any of these.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, you want to have too much unskilled labor to have supply and demand increase their pay. Then you want to force the pay up so we automate the jobs away. Now you have a bunch of unemployed unskilled labor on the government dole. Why not just reduce the amount of unskilled labor to where the companies have to pay them a living wage and not bother with the people living off the government?

      • This is where education comes in. The number of unskilled jobs may be reducing or shipped overseas in some cases. Only the Dems seem to realize this shift and what it entails about college education being more available.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Reducing corporate taxes isn’t forcing them back It’s inviting them back.

      • Increasing tariffs on American companies overseas (Trump’s idea) is forcing them back.

      • stevenreincarnated

        The great society isn’t a term I made up. If you wish to figure out what it is you can look it up.

      • No it is something from history, which surely needs modernization which is why I recommend comparing it with the Dem platform.

      • stevenreincarnated

        You don’t get to replace my words with what you say Trump said and argue against that.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Go ahead and compare it. Let me know what you think is different enough to be worth discussing.

      • You can check what I said were the Dem priorities on their own merits. Don’t bring in 50-year-old historic references to divert it.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t care how many well trained people you have the job has to be there for them to be employed. What is so difficult about that for you to understand?

      • The reality of globalization is that unskilled jobs are going overseas to keep the prices competitive in the global marketplace. Trying to reverse that is jamming up the gears of American industry. What can America do? They can make use of the fact they have the world’s best universities, and that they lead in innovation, not by coincidence, to develop the types of industry that will be profitable in the future. This is why I am optimistic about America’s role in the future.

      • stevenreincarnated

        50 years and what do you have to show for it? More single parent homes. Educational levels dropping through the floor. Poverty rate on the increase and the middle class in decline. It hasn’t worked out too well so far. Maybe the next 50 will be better.

      • Indeed many European socialist countries have carried out similar plans better when you use metrics like poverty rates, health and school education. We can learn from them.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I think history is important, you know, you can learn from it or so they say.

      • stevenreincarnated

        We can start by enforcing fair trade practices and make our country friendly to business. If that means making the socialists cry I’m sorry. But at least the tissue I hand you will be made in the USA.

      • We have Europeans buying out American beer and car companies. What else do you want to happen?

      • stevenreincarnated

        50 years and who knows how many dollars and you want to start learning now? lol

      • Half of those 50 years had Republicans trying to stop it, so, yes, progress is not as good as it was in those European countries.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Those Republicans. I swear. Every 4 years they just destroy those wonderful programs the Democrats have set in place. Then they have to start from scratch! Show me where that happened.

      • Yeah, now you’re taking. They put us in wars, ramp up the deficit, try trickle-down Reaganomics that didn’t work any of the times they have done it, but promise it will work next time. What do you do?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, I’m glad you agreed with my sarcasm and didn’t bother with the show me where that happened part of the comment. I remember the Carter years well and Reagan was a breath of fresh air. I don’t see a difference between parties as far as starting wars goes.

      • Your comment was suggesting that the Republicans obstructed progress, and yes I agreed. Mainly because their trickle-down economic model doesn’t work. There is no civilized country where that works. Yet, every time they will just try it again like a broken record. Absolutely no learning going on on that side of the aisle.

      • stevenreincarnated

        You say they obstruct progress but I just can’t remember a time when the policies once set in motion were ever stopped. I’m asking for you to show some examples. I can’t prove a negative so the ball is in your court.

      • Their tax cuts raise the deficits making other spending on things like welfare harder. They want to remove guaranteed entitlements and seem not to like to secure their future, and they keep wanting to revert to a healthcare system that is unaffordable by the poor and chronically sick. This is all counterproductive from a progressive viewpoint.

      • stevenreincarnated

        No no no, not what they say they want to do. Politicians are always and forever saying what they want to do. Show me what they actually did.

      • OK, we will ignore that they want to privatize social security and repeal Obamacare and consider only that they run up deficits and jeopardize the entitlement budgets by not acting on them. The progressives progress, and the Republicans just put the brakes on and make promises to dismantle any progress. This would all have been so much faster without Republicans digging their heels in at every stage.

      • stevenreincarnated

        want to do

        have done

        figure out the difference and get back to me

      • “trying to stop it” is what I said at the beginning. You don’t think they are trying to stop the progress of these programs. We can disagree on that. They may not be succeeding, but they are trying.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Even if they had managed to repeal Obamacare which was created through the deception of the public, how would that excuse 50 years of failed progressive policies? Now, show me where they stopped a policy that had been started and the stopping of which would have had an effect on the great society. Maybe they eliminated the department of education and I just didn’t notice? You know, something meaningful.

      • “trying to stop” – failing, but trying to stop. They make promises, but fail. They do slow it down, however, because they don’t do anything to advance these programs.

      • …not to be taken literally.

        Of course, she was lying, we know that.

      • Not to be taken mathematically. She meant divided into two groups, so one group is half in that sense.

      • stevenreincarnated

        So no actual examples of where Republicans have managed to stop programs. Only the desire to have thrown more money down the drain into programs that seem to have had a net negative effect on our society.

      • How about Bill and Hillary’s universal health care effort of the 90’s? The Republicans, as tools of the drug and insurance industries, stopped that. We could have had universal health care that much earlier and saved countless lives, but no, the Republicans were having none of it.

      • Jim D, attempting to carry water for slippery Billary, struggles with a bucket of mud.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Nobody liked her plan made behind closed doors. A quick trip to Wicki :

        “Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that “there is no health care crisis” by stating “there is an insurance crisis” but also indicated “anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn’t living in it.”[18]”

        I always thought that quote was funny, don’t you?

      • So there’s an example of Republicans stopping a progressive plan that you doubted existed. Social Security and Medicare came in under the Dems. The Republicans bided time and did nothing along these lines. So, as I say, progress has been made by the Dems, Republicans, not so much. Poverty is another Dem target since at least Kennedy’s New Frontier, and while there are welfare programs, it is still possible to be in poverty with a full-time job (see minimum wage relative to poverty level). So these battles against the Republicans continue.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t see any bad words. Perhaps I’ve exceeded my commenting limit? If I have will all my comments now go to moderation and how long does that last?

      • cr!sis. I know. That one hit me once too.

      • This is the sort of mindless drivel you put out every day Jim D:

        “There are many things that can make someone look racist to someone else even if they don’t think they are themselves. It’s subjective.”

        Apparently for Jim D it is appearances which count. And how they count is subjective.

      • stevenreincarnated

        The Democrats didn’t want it either.

      • The Democrats were the only side trying.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Too bad anyone that thought it would work in the real world didn’t live there as per the Democratic Senator.

      • There were successes and failures, all led by the Dems. What are some lasting Republican achievements? They just try to block things. However, I do give them the EPA, which now they may regret.

      • stevenreincarnated

        They say they are trying to block things but I fail to see concrete evidence that is true. They should be though because we have swung too far left and are burdened with expensive programs that don’t work and affect our nation negatively.

      • They do work because countries following these types of programs have lower poverty, better health and better education.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Are you referring to Greece?

      • Are even they better with poverty levels, health and education than the US? I would say that is interesting if true.

      • stevenreincarnated

        You said “they”. Who are you talking about and why aren’t you talking about the ones you leave out?

      • America has closed the gap on socialist European democracies with its social programs, especially Obamacare that means the poor and unhealthy are less likely to run out of money paying medical expenses. This is just humaneness, like those other countries have had in place for decades. Other measures relate to the affordability of higher education, the crime rate, and lack of ghettos.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Name a nation that you think is doing well as a socialized democracy and we can explore why that might be. The generalized claim that they are all doing well I have already shot down just by mentioning Greece. If you can’t be specific about a nation then you have no confidence that you will like what might be behind the statistics.

      • Take your pick: UK, France, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium. Essentially northwest Europe.

      • stevenreincarnated

        OK, lets do France. The first thing we need to do in order to emulate France is to cut our spending per student, correct? Looks like we need about a 30% cut. Is that what the Republicans were doing? Trying to keep the Democrats from cutting education spending?


      • Are we going to imitate each country? No. What we look at is whether the government pays medical costs rather than depending on how much money the person has to pay for it. Certain things come under basic care in these countries (pre-natal, dental, being common cases). The US is moving that way, but is not there yet. Another thing would be affordable universities. Welfare such as childcare may also be subsidized. Anyway, as a rule, we look to these countries as examples of where the government can help people with basic but common needs.

      • stevenreincarnated

        You don’t wish to discuss details, only generalities. The reason is that the only answer you have is to spend more money on projects that aren’t failing due to a lack of funding. If you want to fix problems you have to identify the actual cause first.

      • I don’t have details, not being a presidential candidate, but the generalities of universal healthcare are attractive (in the same sense as Medicare and Medicaid) and are already working in some countries. This is how this discussion started, and that is as far as I would go.

    • Deplorable thing to say by Clinton. I’d personally venture to say that it’s one of a number of cross segments (although I hate to say it) and that it ‘supports’ all sides more so than just one, but at what percentage, who knows? If it’s ‘a quarter’ I’m more concerned than before. Color me skeptical.

    • Anyone who is not a “sophist who helps the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war” is to be painted with the face of evil: “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.”

      After all, there is no rational reason to oppose the Davoisie oligarchy’s economic, political and cultural agenda, right?

  48. Billary and Obummer have odd ideas about freedom of the press. From the article:

    Clinton Aides Attack, Threaten Reporter for Saying Hillary Looked ‘Low Energy’ at Friday Press Conference


  49. Finding the Political Bottom

    Trump has built his brand around the idea that he will protect legal American citizens of all types – who he loves – against bad people in other countries. Trump is saying he’s on Team America. Period.

    But Clinton just insulted 40% of American voters by calling them racists. Clinton literally – and publicly – turned on her own citizens.

    Trump, by contrast, has attacked only professionals who are in the cage fight against him, including politicians on both sides, and the media. Judge Curiel is a professional (in a legal battle context). The reporter with the bad arm is a professional. Mr. Khan was acting as a professional because he entered the cage, armed. If you’re a professional – and can defend yourself – Trump doesn’t mind coming after you with a flamethrower.

    But Clinton’s Alt-Right speech did not target professionals. Clinton attacked American citizens. Lots of them.

    I’m also a professional in this context because I’m writing about politics. If Clinton criticizes me, that’s fair game. I knew what I was getting into. But if she goes after ordinary voters, that’s crossing a line. It is divisive to the point of treason. She crossed that line with the Alt-Right speech. If Trump lets that slide, it’s a mistake. I don’t think he will.

    • The court queers are working overtime to help Clinton demonize the non-exception LGBTs, along with a lot of other good, decent Americans of all walks of life.

      “To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”

      Clinton then said some of these people were “irredeemable” and “not America.”

      Clinton made the comments before introducing Barbra Streisand at an LGBT fundraiser in downtown New York.

      According to average ticket prices and attendance figures provided by the campaign, Clinton raised around $6 million at the fundraiser, at which some attendees paid $50,000.

      Trump said in a statement: “For the first time in a long while, her true feelings came out, showing bigotry and hatred for millions of Americans.”

      Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, forcefully condemned Clinton “in the strongest possible terms” Saturday at the Values Voter Summit in Washington.

      “The truth of the matter is that the men and women who support Donald Trump’s campaign are hard-working Americans, farmers, coal miners, teachers, veterans, members of our law enforcement community, members of every class of this country, who know that we can make America great again,” Pence said.

      “Let me just say, from the bottom of my heart, Hillary, they are not a basket of anything,” Pence continued. “They are Americans and they deserve your respect.”


  50. Looking at the B Day post, found some new stuff to read:
    “But historically practice overruled the problems of epistemology. Atmospheric scientists found and created their proper audiences, which furnished them with legitimacy and authority.”

    I’ll give me take. I am a CPA and I practice. I do tax returns. Questions of my knowledge or related to epistemology don’t often come up. I have knowledge that covers about 99% of the situations I face. And when it doesn’t I disclose that to my client so they know we are in a gray area. I like the climate scientists have gained legitimacy and authority and I have my audience. People like myself have staked out material areas as belonging to people like us. But we deal with a much simplier subject matter, trying to interpret what the IRS and Congress wants with the tax laws. I think that climate scientists have arrived at the same place as I have, but with a mucher higher level of uncertainty. I’ll recycle something: 1.5 to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2 with 66% confidence. I know we have good accounting climate scientists and lots of expensive measurements going on. But I am sorry. That’s not good enough. I could probably draw up a flow chart of a large companies 2015 cashflows, all of them with amounts if I wasn’t busy and got paid enough. The whole system and it will tie out. For that, I get to practice and I get that other stuff about too. Also part of practice is value. By voting with their dollars, my clients tell me I provide value. I think practice and value are closely tied. You provide value and you get to practice. If you practice, I think you need to provide value. With the premature roll out of renewables I might argue we are getting negative value. With wide uncertainty in the IPCC’s sensetivity value above, it don’t see much value. We are still at Hansen 1984. The climate scientists get to practice of course. It’s not up to me. But without a doubt, they have established themselves and it doesn’t look like skeptics are going to be able to do anything about that. It will have to be done by the middle and the left.

    Explanation: The CPA Exam I took had these sections; Auditing, Business Law, Accounting Theory, and Accounting Practice. Theory and Practice are closely linked as are Practice and Epistemology (knowledge) in the quote above. Practice is the everyday stuff we do.

  51. Note to Billary and Obummer, single-payer health care isn’t the panacea you believe it to be.

    Hospitals in England are on the brink of collapse, warn NHS chiefs


  52. To be grossly generalistic, half of Hillary supporters are in a basket of leeches. You know, illegals who pay no taxes, minorities with single mothers on welfare and men in prison, government employees at make-work jobs that don’t contribute to GDP, and so on.

    I might need to walk that back tomorrow. It’s probably more than half.

  53. What’s the difference between a Clinton leech and a Trump deplorable?

    The deplorables have private sector jobs and a father who is married to their mother.

  54. You all know what I wrote about Clinton and her leeches is true. It’s just not politically correct to point it out. I can because I’m not running for president. Pointing it out cost Romney an election. You see, some leeches are not happy being leeches. Those need to be given a hand up into becoming happy, productive members of mainstream America. The rest of the leeches, the happy leeches, need to be punished so they are no longer happy at being a leech. They can either roll over and get a job or go to prison where they can’t reproduce. Either way we need to drastically reduce the number of leeches sucking the blood out of good, hard working Americans.

  55. Instructive here.

    Hillary has a yuge advantage in a single income group: those earning under $35,000 year. These are largely the 47 percenters who pay no taxes. The basket of leeches. The useless eaters living off the productivity of good Americans.



    By income

    Clinton holds a distinct edge among lower-income voters, reflecting her strong support among blacks and Latinos. Trump has a lead among middle-income voters.

    Under $35,000 Hillary 53% Trump 36%
    $35,000-$75,000 Hillary 38% Trump 50%
    Over $75,000 Hillary 45% Trump 44%

    • Hillary is racing to the bottom of the barrel for voters. In the mud where the leeches are found. She wants to reward millions of criminals residing illegally in the US by making them citizens to get their vote, completing the capture of the mud dwellers and swelling their ranks so they outnumber the middle Americans who obey the law and pull their own weight.

    • Hillary is racing to the bottom of the barrel for voters. In the mud where the leeches are found. She wants to reward millions of criiminals residing illegally in the US by making them citizens to get their vote, completing the capture of the mud dwellers to swell their ranks so they outnumber the middle Americans who obey the law and pull their own weight.

      Hillary has a such grand vision for America, eh?

      What kind of phucking dumbass who isn’t in the basket of leeches does it take to support this? I don’t get it. Hillary should have about zero support from working class Americans yet she has about 40% of them. I really, really don’t get it.

    • If Hillary becomes president I’m moving to Russia. LOL

  56. Actually I believe Hillary is simply desperate. She’s gambling that Trump will take the bait, like I did, and point out that half of her supporters are a basket of leeches.

    If he doesn’t take the bait then she’s lost the high ground and probably another 1% in the polls. Enjoy the further decline over the next week leech mongers!

    Hard to believe, isn’t it? I love it so!

  57. Here’s the most powerful (and chilling) case for Trump you’ll ever hear http://theweek.com/articles/647544/heres-most-powerful-chilling-case-trump-youll-ever-hear

    Utter dreck, Judith. I stopped reading shortly after the first paragraph where the author writes:

    The Republican Party is in the midst of an ideological civil war. Donald Trump won a plurality of votes in the GOP primaries despite breaking sharply from party and conservative movement orthodoxy on immigration, trade, and foreign policy.

    Trump won the Republican primary by a YUUUUUGE majority not a plurality. Any author with his confirmation biased head far enough up his ass to not know that isn’t worth wasting one’s time reading. Write that down.


    Trump won 1543 out of 2474 delegates. That’s over 62%. A landslide in other words. Not only that the number of individual Republican primary voters electing those delegates set an all time record of 14.8% of eligible voters easily besting the previous record of 11.6% in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won it. Trump easily won more votes than any Republican primary candidate in history.


  58. Clinton was right: Trump HAS lifted up the deplorable

    Surely no right-thinking American disagrees that racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamophobia are, indeed, deplorable….

    Trump has lifted them up. He has given them voice….

    The only debate seems to be what percentage of Trump’s followers are animated by his bigotry. Fifty percent like Clinton said Friday? (She has since expressed regret for saying “half.”) Ten percent? Twenty? The roughly 40% of Republicans who chose Trump against 16 other candidates while the primaries were still competitive?

  59. Will “Basket of Deplorables” become the new “47 Percent”?

    Nothing says ‘woman of the people’ like a political candidate who got filthy rich while serving in the Senate and State Department insulting millions of voters while surrounded by celebrities, right?

    Hillary Clinton shifted her attack from Donald Trump to his supporters at a fundraiser in New York City, putting “half” of them into “a basket of deplorables.” That’s a memorable turn of phrase, but will Hillary want to forget it?….

    This sneering, condescending, and insulting stereotyping of millions of voters perfectly encapsulates the Clintonian quarter-century, especially with their above-the-law antics since leaving the White House….

    If they’re smart and well organized, [Team Trump] will soon start pushing “basket” memes of their own — ads that feature…normal folks who don’t want business as usual in Washington and sneering elites insulting them.

  60. Hillary’s media is torching its standards to cover the election

    America’s two most prominent newspapers [The New York Times and The Washington Post] used to compete for Pulitzer Prizes and readers, but now they’re competing to see which can suck up more to Clinton….

    The unsubtle point was clear: journalists must focus all their firepower on Trump, or they will get a beatdown from the Clinton Praetorian Guard. She must be protected, even if that means taking the “new” out of “news.” How odd for businesses protected by the First Amendment to demand that others shut up.

  61. This Is Critical: Hillary Can’t Back Down

    [A] big chunk of Trump supporters are haters. Racists, misogynists, people who are angry at the social and demographic changes in the country that most Americans see as progress. They want to stop it in its tracks and they want payback for what has happened already….

    [T]his is not just what she and likely the great majority of her supporters believe. It has been the premise of most reporting on the campaign and validated by a vast cache of public opinion data confirming these points.

    It may have been easier not to say this and left herself vulnerable to a faux-populist counterattack. But she did say it. She cannot unsay it. And since it is not only basically true but in fact a matter of central importance to the entire election, it is truly critical that she not back down.

  62. Desperation drives campaign strategy of demonizing Trump supporters

    This week could be the point of no return for the faltering Clinton campaign.

    The elitism that is a defining characteristic of the contemporary political establishment has lured the campaign into a strategic blunder. They are in a panic with Trump closing the polling gap in battleground states….

    How else to explain Bill Clinton disparaging “coal people”?

    But last night’s “basket of deplorables” speech by Hillary Clinton to a wealthy gay and lesbian group should become a catastrophe….

    Elites “deplore” so many aspects of the common folk in America. And the common folk know it. That is why resentment of the elites is such a powerful driver of politics this cycle.

    • She hid behind a pillar to keep the press from filming her coughing.

      There has always been something wrong with Hillary (most people haven’t moved a dead body so they could loot the victim’s office) but now she has health problems too.

  63. From the article:

    There is nothing more to learn about Hillary Clinton’s home-brew server, deleted e-mails, chronic cough or anything else that makes her look bad, according to The Washington Post. And The New York Times, stung by Clinton’s woeful performance at last week’s presidential forum, believes the debates are going to be a total disaster unless moderators get much, much tougher with Donald Trump.

    To judge from her tone, the Gray Lady finally has found somebody she wants to waterboard. Naturally, it’s a Republican, not a terrorist.

    America’s two most prominent newspapers used to compete for Pulitzer Prizes and readers, but now they’re competing to see which can suck up more to Clinton. On Friday, both papers’ editorial pages turned on fellow liberal card-carrier Matt Lauer for his performance as the moderator of the commander-in-chief forum, with The Washington Post blasting him for being too tough on Clinton and the Times accusing Lauer of letting Trump ramble, boast and lie.


  64. Sickly, slippery Billary. From the article:

    Hillary Clinton had a “medical episode” that required her to leave a 9/11 commemoration ceremony early on Sunday, a law enforcement source who witnessed the event told Fox News.

    Related Image

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, center, accompanied by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., center left, Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., second from left, and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, center top, attends a ceremony at the Sept. 11 memorial, in New York, Sunday, Sept. 11, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)Expand / Contract
    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attends the 2016 ceremony at the Sept. 11 memorial in New York. (AP)
    The Democratic presidential nominee appeared to faint on her way into her van and had to be helped by her security, the source said. She was “clearly having some type of medical episode.”

    An unverified video of the episode appeared to show Clinton collapsing as she was helped into the van.

    After more than an hour of radio silence, Clinton’s campaign issued a statement saying the former Secretary of State “felt overheated.”


    • The video is real and it is very troubling. We need to see her medical records.

      • Yes, it is disturbing. I think a lot of people have dismissed Billary’s health problems. But this video may give them pause. There’s too much smoke not to be a fire.

      • Here is a picture of London guardsman collapsing in the heat during the queens birthday parade in June.


        I have no idea if Hillary has deeper health issues but in the video I saw she was wearing what looked like a thick woollen trouser suit with a blouse that had a scarf appendage. It was 80 degrees F and I understand she was standing in the sun for 90 minutes. If all that is true a partial faint seems very possible.

        Have you any evidence of other genuine health concerns?


      • TonyB,
        ANY indications of health problems are of course speculative.

        Clinton, according to reports, has DVT (deep vein thrombosis). She’s a bit heavy, probably works such that she doesn’t exercise enough and travels extensively. All of these had exacerbate DVT. DVT’s can lead to blood clots which break loose and travel to the heart which crushes them and sends them on to lungs. Then, due to low oxygen levels, can lead to syncope (fainting). So that’s a bit of her known history.

        We need to know the situation. IMO she should get to a doc, get a new check up and release the details. Conspiracies live on with much less information and this one will too if mishandled.

      • Now they’re saying pneumonia: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/politics/hillary-clinton-health/

      • Tony, given she was the only one with a problem, I have to think it is a problem with her. And recall, this is on top of other incidents of coughing fits, zoning out, and stumbles.

      • Yes, now saying pneumonia. Question: how did she get pneumonia? And if she has pneumonia, a contagious disease, why is she in public? Why does she hug a little girl?

        I’ve now seen at least one physician with the opinion that she has advanced Parkinson’s. Don’t know if I believe it; the case he makes is strong. Explains her falls, odd head motions, etc.

        Watch the video. Focus on her feet as the go off the curb. She has no control at that point. She is being dragged into van.

        She is not a well woman.

        It was not that warm as I was in NYC at the time. And she was there less than an hour as I understand.

      • Pneumonia is pretty much non-communicable. It’s usually caused by bacteria that are always there but get out of hand, typically when the patient doesn’t get proper bed rest when they have a cold.

        Another way to get pneumonia, IMO, is when somebody suffering from routine allergies (pollen or other spores) gets pumped full of anti-histamines. These drugs suppress parts of the body’s immune system, making it more vulnerable (IMO) to infection.

        (The medical community mostly dismisses this possibility, AFAIK, but I think they’re wrong. Typical allergic reactions are part of the body’s defenses against disease, and the only way to suppress those reactions is to suppress part of those defenses.)

    • Chris Cillizza at the WaPo, who just last week was ridiculing those questioning HC’s health, now says it’s an issue. Got that? Her sycophants are now declaring her health a legitimate issue.


      The most telling thing about this episode is that the details of the severity of her condition would not even be known if it was left to the press to provide the info, The alarming video was shot by a bystander on his cell phone. The press entourage was corralled away from her, not allowed to follow her and was only told of her location 90 minutes later.

      If this video had not been captured, the media response today would be totally different i.e. “alt-right delusions, she’s fine, nothing to see here, move along, oh yeah btw Trump is Hitler”

      On a positive side for the democratic nominee, her campaign has been searching for ways to make her seem less haughty and aloof and it now appears she allows Secret Service personnel to actually touch her. Only if she’s about to face plant in the gutter but hey it’s a start!

  65. 9/11 Part II. From the article:

    Just as the Constitution makes national security the President’s highest priority, U.S. law mandates the secretary of state to develop and implement policies and programs “to provide for the security … of all United States personnel on official duty abroad.”

    This includes not only the State Department employees, but also the CIA officers in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. And the Benghazi record is clear: Secretary Clinton failed to provide adequate security for U.S. government personnel assigned to Benghazi and Tripoli.
    The Benghazi Committee’s report graphically illustrates the magnitude of her failure. It states that during August 2012, the State Department reduced the number of U.S. security personnel assigned to the Embassy in Tripoli from 34 (1.5 security officers per diplomat) to 6 (1 security officer per 4.5 diplomats), despite a rapidly deteriorating security situation in both Tripoli and Benghazi. Thus, according to the Report, “there were no surplus security agents” to travel to Benghazi with Amb. Stevens “without leaving the Embassy in Tripoli at severe risk.”

    Had Ambassador Stevens’ July 2012 request for 13 additional American security personnel (either military or State Department) been approved rather than rejected by Clinton appointee Under Secretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy, they would have traveled to Benghazi with the ambassador, and the Sept. 11 attack might have been thwarted.


  66. Universal spying is already in the hands of the wrong President. From the article:

    “Obama has managed to put together the most intensive surveillance state in the history of the world,” the ‘Snowden’ director told THR while discussing his film at the Toronto Film Festival. “This is pretty frightening when you think about the implications.”
    Oliver Stone warned against the dangers of global surveillance in a sit-down with The Hollywood Reporter at the Toronto Film Festival.

    The Snowden director, speaking about his biopic of famous whistleblower Edward Snowden, spoke about the current state of the country’s surveillance system, which says has intensified under the Obama administration.

    “I thought Obama, like everyone else, was going to be a reformer. He had criticized the surveillance prior,” Stone told THR. “Since 2013, I have to tell you it’s gotten a lot more serious because they’ve expanded the surveillance. It’s gotten better.”

    Toronto: Oliver Stone Says He “Hopes” Obama Will Pardon Edward Snowden, But Has Doubts


  67. This might give Billary a huge fit of apoplexy. From the article:

    WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has said the organisation is preparing to release a further 100,000 documents related to Hillary Clinton, after new sources came forward following the leak of Democratic National Committee emails in July.

    In an interview with FOX host Sean Hannity, Assange said that WikiLeaks has “tens of thousands, possibly as many as a hundred thousand, pages of documents of different types, related to the operations that Hillary Clinton is associated with.”


  68. From the article:

    A prominent American Muslim scholar has argued that differences between Islam and other faiths run deeper than most suspect, and extend even to the question of separation of church and state.
    Writing in Friday’s LA Times, Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World, states that Western suppositions that all religions are basically the same and want the same things is fundamentally wrong.

    These differences, Hamid contends, run all the way from views of the sacred text (Muslims believe that every single word of the Qur’an comes directly from Allah) to an understanding of the nature of the state and its relationship to religion.


    • Jim

      This is common knowledge surely? Or perhaps it isn’t common knowledge to our leaders?


      • It’s hard to believe Western peoples don’t understand and believe this, but that apparently is the case.

    • This kind or article is aimed at reinforcing the idea that Muslims can’t live peacefully in western society. It is aimed at dividing needlessly. Muslims can and do live happily in western society, especially in secular countries such as the US. We see examples of religious suppression in France, and that is not good because then they don’t feel equal. I would call that out whether it happens in Muslim or Christian countries. Thankfully the UK laws also treat Muslims with respect, not making special cases.

      • France is the most secular of any western democracy after an act dating to 1905


        The Muslims in France want to be treated differently which is why there is friction with the French state


      • Well, I hope Britain doesn’t ban burkinis and hijabs. That is just ridiculous.

      • “This kind or article is aimed at reinforcing the idea that Muslims can’t live peacefully in western society.”

        Muslims have not been able to live peacefully in any society, even Muslim societies. If you look at the list of terrorist attacks just in the last 30 days you’ll see most occur in Muslim majority countries.


        “It is aimed at dividing needlessly.”

        The ones dividing needlessly are those thinking murder and violence are religious practices.

      • But that generalization to all American Muslims just makes you look prejudiced in some way.

      • “Well, I hope Britain doesn’t ban burkinis and hijabs. That is just ridiculous.”

        Well, they didn’t ban child rape in Rotherham for years because they didn’t want the local Pakistanis (or multiculturalism) to suffer from bad press, and so political correctness was given priority and 1,400 children were victimized……….so the hijabs are probably safe.

      • Yes, there are laws, and there are problems if those are not enforced. The simple lesson from Rotherham was that PC does not come before the law, and no one has advocated that it should.

      • Jim D whistles past the Islam grave yard, once again. Islam isn’t compatible with someone expressing their sexuality, unfettered freedom for women, and a whole host of other things we in the West need to protect at any cost. Even if that cost is banning Islamists.

      • Are they not just part of the fabric of this multicultural country (think the late Muhammad Ali, or Kareem Abdul Jabaar)?

      • Would you like some sweet cream with those cherries?

      • Don’t you think their attitude is typical of American Muslims?

      • “The simple lesson from Rotherham was that PC does not come before the law, and no one has advocated that it should.”

        I guess so if you don’t count officials and witnesses at Cologne, Ft Hood, Paris, San Bernardino, Belgium, WTC/pentagon, Boston, etc.etc. where people who had information regarding radical Islamists and potential violence chose to do nothing or were discouraged from pursuing leads due to political correctness.

      • Sure, there is a line where reporting suspicious behavior is important, but does not include just looking Muslim. The other extreme is Trump asking all Muslims to register with the government and take a patriotism test.

      • JimD, “But that generalization to all American Muslims just makes you look prejudiced in some way.”

        Radical Islamic terrorism and “Islamist” aren’t generalizations. Anyone capable of separating church (mosque) and state or for that matter race and state fits in with the typical ‘Merican crazies. “American” muslims range from Nation of Islam radicals to your local Ramallah American club types. The generalizing is dropping the “radical”, “fundamentalist” and “extreme” labels the get some groups on the Southern Poverty Law Center hate group list with the 900 plus others.

      • The point is: what fraction of American Muslims would you consider to be good people?

      • JimD, “The point is: what fraction of American Muslims would you consider to be good people?”

        I don’t have a problem with “good” people, the 5% to 10% that are lunatics are the problem. Nation of Islam is a prime example.


      • Do they have more “lunatics” than the general population?

      • New black panthers tend to identify with Islam, but aren’t dedicated to it.


        Anti-Semitic groups and holocaust denial groups tend to be excellent candidates for deportation or denied entry.

      • Do you extend that to Naz! sympathizers?

      • JimD, “Do you extend that to Naz! sympathizers?”

        Yep, unless of course they happen to be rocket scientists :)

      • Do you ask that on an immigration form? How about if someone already in the US says it on the internet? Do you deport them on the spot, and to where, Germany? Just talking practicalities here.

      • JimD, “Do you deport them on the spot, and to where, Germany? Just talking practicalities here.”

        There are actually laws JimD. The US can be selective on who they allow to emigrate, after emigration they can be deported without much trouble, but once a citizen, things get a bit more involved. It is really great to be a sovereignty and a citizen. Unless of course you let warm and fuzzies screw all that up.

      • There are no laws against free speech or having particular opinions, but it looks like you want some.

      • Jim D | September 11, 2016 at 9:34 pm |
        There are no laws against free speech or having particular opinions, but it looks like you want some.

        Well, since the liberal/progressives are so fond of moslems perhaps we should deport them in pairs (one of each). This would be a win/win.

      • Now you’re just mocking the Trump view.

      • JimD, “There are no laws against free speech or having particular opinions, but it looks like you want some.”

        Being able to consider a persons character prior to allowing emigration or granting citizenship is a right of sovereignty and always has been. That “fire” limit to free speech is pretty useful. Now you can take an extreme warm and fuzzy side and allow swarms of JimD haters into your neighborhood because they have some right harass you and shout you down, but as non-citizens you can also tell them to bugger off.

        This is the neat thing about the “good moral character” for naturalization. It can be selectively enforced unless or course you think there is no such thing. That is the biggest difference between the parties right now.

      • Does your good moral character test allow for people having other religions?

      • JimD, “Does your good moral character test allow for people having other religions?”

        Does their religion allow separation of church and state? Does their religious conviction require them to have several wives?. Does their religious conviction require them to kill people that make jokes about their religious convictions? If their religion requires they ignore the laws of the land, damn right.

      • OK, so it is clear from that that you really do fear them all, so how about the people with that religion in the country? Would you put them in internment camps until they convert, force them to register with your police state, or just ignore them?

      • If the religion is also a form of government, the we in the US should apply a religious test.

      • So are the US Muslims trying to change the government rather than just live their own lives? Do you know any Muslims? They would appreciate American freedoms and opportunity just as much as you do. A lot of people would benefit from knowing a Muslim to see that they are normal people, not this dehumanized thing that Trump would have you believe, same with Mexicans, by the way.

      • JimD, “OK, so it is clear from that that you really do fear them all, so how about the people with that religion in the country?”

        I don’t fear them in the least Jimbo. I am worried about people that think marriage with a 5 year old is socially acceptable. Do you have any moral lines you think shouldn’t be crossed or is it Katie bar the bar? Maybe you are a NAMBLA kinda guy?

      • Muslims can abide by American laws, you may be surprised to know. Laws come with the territory. Even Mormons now abide with monogamy because it is the law. Some religious sects have had issues with the marriage laws and are prosecuted. Law comes first.

      • I have to use Europe’s experience as a guide. The outcome isn’t good.

      • JimD, “Muslims can abide by American laws, you may be surprised to know. ”

        Sure they can, but “muslim” is a generalization. An “islamist” is a fundamentalist Muslim which likely won’t abide by any secular law. If a person is a member of the Radical Traditional Catholicism movement, I don’t want them emigrating either. You have this bizarre pretense of actually understanding stuff you know squat about. That said, exactly what would be your “moral” lines again?

      • You need to make the distinction, and I have been asking questions to see if you know the difference with little success. Now, if you do, you would let the average Muslim immigrate and vet them for extremists, as is the current policy.

      • “The point is: what fraction of American Muslims would you consider to be good people?”

        “Good” in this case relative cultural norms. A good Muslim in Saudi Arabia doesn’t believe women should be allowed to drive, attend college, or go out in public without concealment in a burka. I don’t have a particular problem with that being the law of the land in Saudi Arabia. It’s not my business to make the whole conform to western norms.

        So the real question is what fraction of American Muslims would I consider to be compatible with American cultural norms where women are treated equal, can go nearly naked in public, bacon is sold next to beef, alcohol can be consumed by anyone over 18, and so forth.

        I don’t really know, Jim. Any fraction that don’t agree with our laws. Some of them demonstrably go off the deep end with Islamic nuttery and start mass murdering in the name of Allah. Have you ever heard of a US Christian committing mass murder in the name of Christ?

        The idea that all religions are equal and all must treated equal is unadulterated BS. Some of them are not compatible with our laws. Islam is the biggest single source of religious nutcases that start killing infidels because their God commands it. Let’s try to deal with the facts despite the facts making the PC nutcases uncomfortable at their mention.

      • JimD, “Now, if you do, you would let the average Muslim immigrate and vet them for extremists, as is the current policy.”

        There is no policy that allows the “average” Muslim to immigrate. The majority of Iraqi emigrants worked with the US during the war and are political refugees, that is “normal”.. Syrian refugees that meet “normal” immigration requirements are pretty small, so Syria is a very different situation than “normal”.

        Economic and “war” refugees have never been a US priority and should not become one, which is the point. America has always been more about the persecuted masses which pretty much excludes “average” any group. Merkle letting economic refugees run wild without quota is the issue to begin with Jimbo.


      • So much for “the huddled masses” then. That part of defining America is already gone in your view. By average Muslim, I mean maybe a family emigrating from a non-war-torn country, maybe headed by a qualified professional. These people can compete with average Indians and average Chinese on equal terms, but maybe not according to you. For war refugees, the UN is trying to allocate millions of Syrians. The 10k taken by the US is a very small fraction and these are heavily vetted for a couple of years, mostly consisting of families. I think I heard it is 80% women and children.

      • “Now you’re just mocking the Trump view.”

        No Jim D, they are just mocking you.

        And par for the course you miss the point completely.

  69. Slippery Billary has been diagnosed with pneumonia.

    • Past few days by a brave few: “Hillary looks ill, very low energy, maybe she’s sick”.

      HC Campaign response: “She’s in the best of health and anyone who says she’s ill or questions her well-being in any way is not a journalist”.

      Today said by just about everyone: “Wow did you see the video, she was out on her feet and they had to basically load her into the van like a piece of freight”.

      HC Campaign response: “Relax, she’s just very ill”.

      • Ummm. The Hillary campaign is like Hillary, you can tell they are lying when their lips move.

        I’m not sure if Hillary and company lie deliberately or if they just have so little acquaintance with the truth they don’t know what it looks like.

  70. For Tony, from the article:

    From the Financial Times: Its symbiotic relationship with Donald Trump has catapulted Breitbart News to the centre of American politics.
    Now the news organisation wants similar standing in the UK and Europe, encouraged by the growth of grass roots rightwing politics.

    In the wake of Brexit, Islamic terror attacks and the European refugee crisis, readership of Breitbart’s UK site is up 135 per cent year on year to 15m monthly page views in July, giving it a bigger reach than The Spectator and Vice Media.

    The news organisation, which was founded a decade ago by Andrew Breitbart, a US political blogger, already has a website in Jerusalem and is now aiming to open French and German sites before the end of the year. It is also eyeing a foothold in India. Breitbart’s London operation also has room to grow with only eight to 10 journalists compared to about 100 in America.

    Financed by private backers, Breitbart is one of a number of digital start-ups threatening traditional media. In the US, it is the 34th biggest news site, with 150m page views in July, according to rankings from Similar Web.


    • jim

      I read breitbart when one of you guys link to it, other than that it is not one of my ‘go to’ news sources.

      lets see if they start to appear more in the future when I search by specific subject.


      • lets see if they start to appear more in the future when I search by specific subject.

        You do know that Google (and IMO probably all the major search engines) have algorithms that bias searches.

        AFAIK they don’t talk about them, but I’ve seen claims that they tend to rank links higher if a lot of people click on them.

    • “Financed by private backers'”

      Unnamed? How about ‘private backers’ who are more involved directly with a political candidate than Soros? I can’t find that Soros ever had his staff hired to run the campaign of the candidate. Robert Mercer is an ‘unnamed’ major investor in Breitbart. Breitbart and Mercer were tied at the hip backing Cruz. Cruz lost. Breitbart and Mercer are now tied at the hip with Trump.

      You rail against Soros and are silent about this?

    • Should I regret or rejoice over having invented the internet?

  71. I highly doubt anyone is telling Trump what to say. The words still sound like his own. The idiosyncrasies like “believe me”, “trust me”, and repeating important words or points two or three times are still present, The points are still all the same points. What’s missing from the past is ad hoc commentary and attacks on people who aren’t Hillary or Obama.

    I think what’s happening is they convinced him to use a teleprompter and not wander off on tangents from the planned stump speech. The stump speech is still his and approved by him. He’s way to controlling and full of self confidence to allow someone else to put words in his mouth. I think he did that one time and one time only when he endorsed Paul Ryan. The endorsement was so stilted and half hearted you knew he was doing it grudgingly at the request of someone else. Never happened again.

  72. In a nutshell.

    Donald Trump seeks public approval.

    Hillary Clinton seeks power.

  73. Scott Adams today @ http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150264994381/the-race-for-president-is-probably-over

    The Race for President is (Probably) Over

    Posted September 11th, 2016 @ 10:58am in #Clinton #Trump

    If you are following breaking news, Hillary Clinton abruptly left the 9-11 memorial today because she was reportedly “overheated.” Her campaign says she is fine now.

    You probably wonder if the “overheated” explanation is true – and a non-issue as reported – or an indication of a larger medical condition. I’m blogging to tell you it doesn’t matter. The result is the same.

    Here’s why.

    If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton’s “overheating” wouldn’t matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority.

    Hillary Clinton just became unelectable.

    The mainstream media might not interpret today’s events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he’s running unopposed.

  74. http://tinyurl.com/jjpe4bf

    From Scott Adams blog:

    The Race for President is (Probably) Over
    Posted September 11th, 2016 @ 10:58am in #Clinton #Trump

    If you are following breaking news, Hillary Clinton abruptly left the 9-11 memorial today because she was reportedly “overheated.” Her campaign says she is fine now.

    You probably wonder if the “overheated” explanation is true – and a non-issue as reported – or an indication of a larger medical condition. I’m blogging to tell you it doesn’t matter. The result is the same.

    Here’s why.

    If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton’s “overheating” wouldn’t matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority.

    Hillary Clinton just became unelectable.

    The mainstream media might not interpret today’s events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he’s running unopposed.

    • Interesting thing. I tried twice posting the above comment using a direct link to Adams blog. It was twice rejected without even going into moderation. It would seem the powers that be, somewhere, are rejecting articles that link to Adam’s blog. I was able to post everything else except the link to his blog which I got around by making it into a TinyURL link.

      I’d like to think it’s not a conspiracy but Scott Adams has become extremely popular in POTUS election blogging. Both campaigns read his articles and he has appeared on twice on CNN for interviews about it as well as some talk radio shows and podcasts. He’s been eerily accurate in his predictions of the Trump phenomenon over the past year and predicted a year ago that Trump would win in a landslide.

      In December Adams put the odds at 50:50 that Hillary would become unelectable by November 8th for health reasons. He gave even odds that she would become unelectable for legal reasons because she’d be subject to almost sure conviction of criminal wrongdoing in evading laws that required government record retention after she’d been elected. That appears to be the case now. There’s not time enough to prosecute her before the election but the Republican held house will surely do it after the election.

      Now both her health and her crimes are conspiring to make her unelectable and to make matters worse Trump is now appearing presidential and quite willing to negotiate his hard line policy positions to the satisfaction of a majority of the American public.


      • Impeach,

        Scott supports Hillary … for his personal safety …

        Hard core lefties come unglued when they encounter a Trumpeter. They have tried so hard to maintain an apartheid community devoid of traditional American values. When outed, Trumpists are hounded all the way to flyover country.

    • Interesting thing. I tried twice posting the above comment using a direct link to Adams blog. It was twice rejected without even going into moderation. It would seem the powers that be, somewhere, are rejecting articles that link to Adam’s blog. I was able to post everything else except the link to his blog which I got around by making it into a TinyURL link.

      I’d like to think it’s not a conspiracy but Scott Adams has become extremely popular in POTUS election blogging. Both campaigns read his articles and he has appeared on twice on CNN for interviews about it as well as some talk radio shows and podcasts. He’s been eerily accurate in his predictions of the Trump phenomenon over the past year and predicted a year ago that Trump would win in a landslide.

      In December Adams put the odds at 50:50 that Hillary would become unelectable by November 8th for health reasons. He gave even odds that she would become unelectable for legal reasons because she’d be subject to almost sure conviction of crimiinal wrongdoing in evading laws that required government record retention after she’d been elected. That appears to be the case now. There’s not time enough to prosecute her before the election but the Republican-held house will surely do it after the election.

      Now both her health and her criimes are conspiring to make her unelectable and to make matters worse Trump is now appearing presidential and quite willing to negotiate his hard line policy positions to the satisfaction of a majority of the American public.


  75. Disturbing:

    • It will be interesting if we start seeing more of Kaine than Hillary over the next several weeks.

  76. Other views and WaPo commentary:

  77. This video is viral as hell. Millions of views spread across dozens of individual postings on youtube. Here’s the Alex Jones Channel posting of it which has the most views for any individual vid I could find at 450,000.

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

  78. Recovery time from bacterial pneumonia up to 12 weeks in the elderly or those with other health issues.

    Clinton is both elderly and has other health issues requiring blood thinners and thyroid hormone replacement.

    Too late to replace her. Ballots are already printed. Early ballots have been mailed out.

    • Ideally she’ll try to tough it out, will decline further as a result, and collapse on stage in a debate with Trump.

      • You never cease to amaze, big Dave. That you would wish illness on someone is low even for your politics.

        Afraid she’d take him out debate wise if she didn’t? Your choice of words is “ideally”.

        He already has set himself up as the dolt, and her the wiley old pro so folks expect her to do so much better than he in the debates.

      • Where do you get the dolt bit Danny?

        Trump may be egotistical, impetuous, a braggart, and a long list of other things. However a dolt is not one of them.

        As for Hillary’s health, I don’t give it much thought. If she does have health problems, they are likely to be self-resolving. As in – if the campaign doesn’t do her in, the first year in office will.

      • Tim,
        It’s ‘positioning’.

        I don’t think he’s a ‘dolt’ I think he wants to set very low expectations then exceed them making him look stronger than he is.

        It’s the ‘Art of the Deal’ all over again.

      • OK

      • “That you would wish illness on someone is low even for your politics.”

        I was trying to spare you some purse clutching. I’d be happier if she died and thus spared the country the long prosecution drama that’s going to happen whether she wins or not. The house isn’t going to let her off the hook there’s just not enough time left to do anything before the election. If she loses I don’t want her prosecuted. I just want her gone. Preferably gone by way of death.

    • I made the point a few weeks ago as to how early some groups of people could vote and what would happen if circumstances drastically changed.

      The two scenario were either some sort of scandal or health issues.

      In that case presumably the election goes ahead although the early voters views might have changed?


      • Tony,
        “In that case presumably the election goes ahead although the early voters views might have changed?”


        The line in the sand is artificial no matter where drawn.

        We vote early (& often:)) for a number of reasons, many of which lead to debate.

      • TonyB,
        Here’s an article from today discussion the early voting which may be of interest: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-12/early-voting-begins-as-election-continues-to-tighten

      • Danny

        Thanks for that.

        Was it ford who said something like;

        ‘when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?’

        Your article says;

        “By and large people know who they’re going to vote for,” said Maurice Carroll, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University poll, who as a pollster and journalist has watched elections for 40 years. “There’s a potential for a change only if something dramatic happens between when people vote and Election Day.”

        I see a number of very closed minds on this blog. But surely there must come a point when even they come to realise they can not support their favourite and either abstain or change their vote?

        I was pretty neutral in our recent Brexit vote. What changed my mind was David Cameron failing to negotiate any worthwhile concessions from the EU whilst claiming he had and a variety of world leaders (notably Obama) plus organisations like the IMF forecasting the laying to waste of our economy and trying to scare people. Entirely counterproductive. We don’t react well to bullying. All these things happened relatively close to the vote and persuaded me to vote leave.
        If you have voted nearly 2 months before the event you can’t react to changing circumstances such as Clinton’s health or the release of more incriminating evidence on those emails, or Trump blowing up due to some scandal or loose words.


      • Hi Tony,

        Yes. If folks have already voted, something like this might make that a wasted vote: https://www.niyitabiti.net/2016/09/hillary-clinton-may-drop-out-of-election-as-democrats-meet-to-line-up-candidates-amid-health-scare/


        My readings lead me to believe that I’m not the only one who is an ‘undecided.

      • Danny

        Ironically, if they were any good, an alternative candidate to the much disliked Clinton might do better than she would. I don’t know many of the candidates but surely those older than Clinton would not be considered?

        There must come a point when a substitution can’t be made, either constitutionally or because the candidate wouldn’t have time to establish themselves. Consequently if Clinton is going to bow out it must be very very soon.

        Would early votes for Clinton be transferred to the new candidate automatically?


      • Tony,
        “Would early votes for Clinton be transferred to the new candidate automatically?”

        Too many varying states rules to answer well. Guessing (semi educated) that those votes would be tossed out and those folks allowed to vote with a provisional. But that’s a guess and only applies to some states. Expect the pundits will delve more deeply and will provide links as warranted.

        “an alternative candidate to the much disliked Clinton might do better than she would.” and she’s still ‘projected’ to win (electoral college).

        My guess is this is just fodder for discussion and she’ll remain the candidate but my guess is strictly speculative. There are no laws of which I’m aware that address this. It’s up to the parties and the nominees.

        If either party had a truly strong candidate this election cycle was ripe for a runaway vs. the other no matter who.

      • Danny

        The problem is, as you say, that there is no strong candidate.

        Bearing in mind there is probably a 4 or 5% ’embarrassed to say we will vote for Trump’ factor (like ‘leave’ voters on our Brexit vote) It could well be that this health issue will knock her out of the contest. If Assange or the FBI release more incriminating emails that could also be a knockout blow.

        I wouldn’t bet money on Clinton winning


      • TonyB,

        Interesting times: “WikiLeaks then decided it had gone too far with the tweet and published another tweet a few hours later saying: “We removed our earlier poll on what people perceive are the reasons for Clinton’s medical issues as the possibilities are too speculative.” http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/709737/WikiLeaks-admits-error-tweet-mocking-Hillary-Clinton

        And Trump shows class: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/12/donald-trump-reacts-hillary-health-collapse-hope-gets-well-soon/

      • Oh, and this election cycle, I wouldn’t ‘bet’ on anything.

        “But getting two out of the seven initial newspaper endorsements is no small feat. The Journal’s justifications for endorsing Johnson are interesting because they don’t agree with his position on marijuana legalization or on eliminating the Department of Education and Common Core, yet they find the other two candidates so unpleasant a possibility that they’re willing to work past those differences.” http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/12/gary-johnson-has-more-daily-newspaper-en

      • It just keeps getting more and more interesting. Congress has subpoenaed 3 Clinton IT folks. Wonder how deeply they’ll look? They didn’t have much luck ‘the last time’.

        “Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails. “It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” (Double standards? Where have I heard that before?)

        “Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”

        “Most troubling, researchers found a suspicious pattern in the White House email system blackouts, including periods when there were no emails available from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. ”

        “Eight years later, in 2003, a whistleblower told the NSA the George W. Bush White House was no longer saving its emails. The NSA and another watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (which had represented outed CIA agent Valerie Plame in her case against the Bush administration), refiled their original lawsuit.”

        “Eventually, the Bush White House admitted it had lost 22 million emails, not 5 million.”

        There’s a lot more in the link. Surely the wolves will be howling here about the scandal, RNC’s involvement, and will damn the behaviors.


      • Tony –

        ==> Bearing in mind there is probably a 4 or 5% ’embarrassed to say we will vote for Trump’ factor (like ‘leave’ voters on our Brexit vote) <==

        That is interesting. What is your evidence for determining that is "probably" the case?

      • Danny

        As Shakespeare wrote ‘something is rotten in the State of Denmark’


        Clinton is that quote and meaning personified. How can anyone seriously think of voting her into office?

        Historic note. Shakespeare was born at the very start of one of the coldest pulses of the Little Ice age (thought I ought to keep roughly on Climate etc core topic)


      • Tonyb,

        “Clinton is that quote and meaning personified. How can anyone seriously think of voting her into office?”

        Well, there are some +/- 45% whom polling indicates might do just that. And there are somewhere near that figure who indicate they’ll vote either against her or for Trump who says he’ll ‘fix it’ yet won’t tell us how.

        And Trump has a few comparisons of his own, most I’d prefer not to repeat. The preference is to not make comparisons of anything but behavior attributable to the persons and or their stated preferences.

        Each have issues on the behavioral side, each have issues and some merit on their statement side.

        Unfortunately, some can only see parts of the picture for each.

      • As Shakespeare wrote ‘something is rotten in the State of Denmark’


        Clinton is that quote and meaning personified. How can anyone seriously think of voting her into office?

        Historically speaking, whenever somebody claims there’s something rotten in Denmark, there is seldom anything rotten in Denmark.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t really see why the idea that people in the White House would have a different server should come as a surprise. I’m sure people in the Obama administration do also. They aren’t allowed to conduct political business using government resources. That would be against the law. From my understanding they weren’t as careful at keeping the government and the political emails on the proper accounts as they should have been and that would have made some subject to action. If there was classified information sent on the wrong email that could have been very severe action but I haven’t heard any allegations that there was. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t because my knowledge is superficial. The 22 million emails were found and in the possession of the Obama administration. To the best of my knowledge Bush himself wasn’t involved but H Clinton was a vocal critic of the secret emails.

      • Steven,
        Were they allowed to use the private server for official business?

        “”some employees … have communicated about official business on those political email accounts.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

        “The 22 million emails were found and in the possession of the Obama administration.” I’ve found: “Computer technicians have recovered about 22 million Bush administration e-mails that the Bush White House had said were missing, two watchdog groups that sued over the documents announced Monday.” Says about.

        We’ve got the makings of a pretty darn entertaining conspiracy here. 22 million! Plausible that outta that figure some, oh, what the heck let’s say, 30,000 or so are missing? Out of 22 million, might some have been later classified as classified? It’s fun when it’s current, why can’t we resurrect the past.

        ” But the National Archives must sort out which documents are covered by the Freedom of Information Act and which ones fall under the Presidential Records Act, which means they could be withheld for five to 10 years after the Bush administration left office in January, Sloan said.”

        Especially with this: ” A federal judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds in 2007, but Sloan said the missing e-mails raise the “strong possibility” that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never received all the documents he requested during the leak investigation.” http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/

        Why do I hear music playing in the background?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Powell’s emails to Clinton I actually find more interesting. The discussion they had was Powell advising Clinton on how to avoid compliance with the FOIA.

      • It is interesting. One should be skeptical of both the provider and the receiver, don’t you think?

      • Votes for the Clinton/Kaine ticket can’t be transferred to anyone else as that would be voter fraud. More importantly campaign donations for Clinton/Kaine can’t be used for anyone else as that would be financial fraud.

        The consensus appears to be that if Clinton were to drop out then Kaine is elevated to the top of the ticket and Kaine can then choose any VP he wants because 1) votes are for a ticket not an individual and 2) donations are for a ticket not an individual. If both Clinton and Kaine withdraw then it’s a three-way race with Trump, Johnson, and Stein.

        Keep in mind a write-in candidate is always allowed. The problem with the ballots aren’t so much they are already printed the problem is that the deadline for getting on the ballot has passed. The political party doesn’t set that deadline. State law sets the deadline. The law would need to be changed in each individual state and that isn’t going to happen in the next 57 days. Laws can’t be passed that quickly except for emergency measures and most of the state legislatures are in recess so even recalling a quorum is questionable. Many of those legislators on recess won’t want to disrupt their plans to help Democrats recover.

      • Jos@ua

        Here you go.


        Plenty more like it. I would also cite you the recent UK general election and the Brexit vote.

        That extra few per cent is by no means certain of course but I would be surprised if the Clinton camp wasn’t nervous about the possibility of it existing.


      • stevenreincarnated

        No, it wasn’t legal and action could have been taken against them as I stated. I also stated if they found classified material it could be severe action. At least no evidence of bleach bit and smashed phones. The Obama administration has the 22 million emails. I’m sure they searched them. Hardly an administration that would pass up a partisan opportunity. Are there more emails that weren’t in the 22 million they found. That is quite possible. It is also possible they passed on information on little scraps of paper and burned them afterwards. You can’t prove a negative.

      • Wonder how many of those 22 million Russia got their hands on. Assange, or Snowden even?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Yes I do. And if Powell isn’t protected by statute of limitations he should be charged. It seems a certainty to me that some of that information was classified. He would have charged a lowly private had one been caught violating the law like that. He should be made an example of. I am not in the position of excusing crimes based on political party.

      • “I am not in the position of excusing crimes based on political party.”

        Thank you. I get to feeling pretty lonely at times.

      • stevenreincarnated

        It wasn’t clear to me the 22 million was off the official server. It was stored and mislabeled. I assumed that was from the government server.

      • Can’t get that nailed down. More from Politico here: “An investigation into e-mails that seemed to have disappeared from the Bush White House has resulted in restoration of 22 million of the missing messages and a deal to uncover what could be millions of other e-mails that allegedly fell through cracks in the archiving system, two nonprofit groups said Monday.
        However, an untold number of official e-mails from President George W. Bush’s era will probably never be recovered because it would be extremely costly to do so, lawyers involved in lawsuits brought by the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said.”


        Sounds like there might be more out there.

      • stevenreincarnated

        There could be but it doesn’t sound like it was on purpose to me. If you are trying to hide specific emails there are more devious ways of doing so than making the entire white house email system disappear. That isn’t going to go by unnoticed. Something more on the line of what Powell and Clinton did makes much more sense.

      • “There could be but it doesn’t sound like it was on purpose to me.” Lost me here. It sounds very much like it was on purpose to me.

        Specifics to missing Cheney e-mails adds to that.

        “Documents produced so far show the Bush White House was lying when officials claimed no e-mails were ever missing. The record now proves incontrovertibly that Bush administration officials deliberately ignored the problem and, in fact, knowingly allowed it to worsen,” CREW said in a press release.” (Politico)

        What’s more devious that hiding a few amongst 22 million vs. hiding a few from 55,000?

      • Peter Norton in the 90’s had a disk wiper u could get off the shelf. Probably not as good as bleachbit, but money could by a clean disk during Bush 43 era.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, a quote by CREW isn’t evidence anymore than if I presented a quote by Trump stating Clinton is a crook would be. I really don’t think the 22 million emails are the right track to follow but we are both doing nothing but pure speculation at this point. I think the right path to follow would be to find out who else Powell has talked to about how to avoid compliance with the FOIA. Was it his idea? Was it wide spread practice? To me this is much more interesting than the emails that were later recovered. If they knew they were there and didn’t want them found I’m sure they could have thought of something. There must be at least one hammer in the White House.

      • Steven,
        “pure speculation”. Absolutely. And we’re not alone.

        Isn’t that what’s going on with the ‘e-mail scandal’ as it relates to Clinton?

        Dems did their best to hang an albatross around the neck of the Bush admin. At this time, Chaffetz, is diligently doing that around Clinton’s yet ignoring (at least so far) what appears to be less than optimal philosophy if not actual handling by Powell.

        You might find this Vox work pertinent: http://www.vox.com/2016/9/13/12770636/hillary-clinton-email-scandals-explained

        and how it’s actually being ‘investigated’: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/chaffetz-fbi-clinton-email-228052

      • There are multiple ways of making system backups, usually with a trade-off between cost to back up and cost/time/difficulty of recovery.

        It makes perfect sense that there was an entire incremental system backup going on regularly that wasn’t part of the normal backup-recovery system.

        Many people might not have even known such a “last resort” backup system existed, or what it actually captured. Others might have preferred not to speak up, knowing most of the politicians would have been making unreasonable demands once they knew about it.

        The talk about costs to recover makes it sound very much like that to me. (Speaking professionally. Systems architecture is one of my areas of expertise.)

      • stevenreincarnated

        No. We know she had a private server. We know she had classified information on that server. The special access information would have had to have gone through an air barrier to my understanding. We know she destroyed emails and that at least some portion of those were work related. There is no doubt that laws were broken.

      • Steven,

        The FBI report (highly redacted) https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-01-of-02/view

        Apparently there is a lack of trust in the FBI doing it’s job.

        Interestingly, phone records are not handled in the same manner. Who knows who is speaking with whom and what’s discussed. Yet paper trails are the talk of the town. If there be 30,000 deleted or 22 million temporarily missing with an associated unknown quantity ‘unrecoverable’.

        I dunno. Like you said. Speculative. And even when parsed out (FBI) still remains speculative.

        Politics, I guess.

      • Tony

        That’s an op-ed for a reason. I assume that you’ve read the many articles that presented analytical perspective in the other direction? I would certainly hope that you had before you will sign the adjective of “probably.” And I hope you would think skeptical about whether and how much brexit is analogous

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, I had a security clearance. I know I don’t have any trust in how the FBI handled this case. I know I would be in prison right now had I done the same things. One man took pictures of the control room of a submarine. He never sent them to anyone. He was charged. One man cleaned out his desk and accidentally threw some classified information in his bag. He was charged. One man knew a police chief was trouble and sent a classified document to his friends still in Afghanistan to show them they need to watch out. He didn’t use the right server to send it so he was charged. There is a double standard and my view is, if anything, it is backwards. The highest ranking people should be the best at following the laws, not the worst.

      • Anything coming out of Billary’s mouth or that of her staff is speculative because lying is de rigueur for them.

      • Jim,
        Okay. Fair enough (although doesn’t in any way address ‘records’).

        How would you characterize what comes out of Trump’s mouth?

      • josh%a

        Can you link me to some of these alternatives study.

        It just seems to me (and a variety of other commentators) that there is often felt to be a certain shame in voting in a particular way.

        We had it with our recent general election and with Brexit.

        Trump is an abrasive and divisive character and my experience of politics tells me that a number of people would rather not admit to voting for him. It is also true in other walks of life whereby the front runner does not always win.

        With our two recent UK examples that was some 5% of the population. Whether that is true in the Presidential circumstances none of us can know until the numbers are in. I think you are fixated on the word ‘probably’ but if you want to substitute ‘possibly’, ‘pretty likely’ etc please do so.


      • tonyb –

        A simple use of the Google will turn up quite a bit, for example:


        There are quite a few more if you look, which I would suggest before making up your mind.

        Notice that Trump did not out-perform the polls previously, as suggested by the author.

        Notice that while the author of the op-ed said that Trump does better in on-line polling, that doesn’t seem to be the case; the reality is that Clinton performs worse – not what you’d expect to see if there was a “hidden vote.” The point is that Trump only does better in a relative sense, not because more people say they will vote for him in online polling than the # who say they will in other types of polling.

        Is it possible? I guess so. As a skeptic I think that many things are possible. Is it “probable” or “very likely? As a skeptical person, I would need to see stronger evidence before making such statements. Certainly, you can agree that there is a substantial difference between “possible,” and “probable” or “very likely?” And certainly, you can agree that Trump supporters would see a reason to push that narrative, making their arguments somewhat suspect.

        ==> We had it with our recent general election and with Brexit. <==

        What is the evidence you have used to make a certain statement about the causality behind the error in polling on Brexit? I think there could be many explanations for the polling inaccuracy – and to pin it to one particular explanation would require a rather high bar of proof. I have been surprised by much of the data about Brexit voting – for example, that "leave" did not perform more strongly in areas which would likely have lost jobs due to immigration.

        For the use, there are also a lot of considerations. Consider, for example, that someone living in "red" territory would feel a degree of social desirability bias if stating a preference for Clinton.

      • Josh&a

        This article nicely sums up the ‘shy’ brexit voter. Just like in the general election many people considered you shouldn’t vote ‘leave’ or Tory but many kept quiet and did just that.


        Like in America, the polling industry is worth many millions to the pollsters and we have had innumerable articles, learned tv discussions and radio items about why people don’t always tell the truth when asked by pollsters, with particular reference to Brexit which must by now be one of the most examined set of stats in recent history because no one expected the result..

        That ‘shyness’ was worth 4 or 5% in both these elections whose results came as a total surprise to all experts.

        America may be different and it may be that many may consider voting Clinton is just as bad as voting Trump so they cancel each other out.

        It is possible however that Trump is considered the more outrageous of the two and therefore an expressed intention to vote for him might be considered unacceptable in some circles.

        We shall wait and see


      • tonyb –

        There may have been myriad reasons that the polling was wrong on Brexit. Do you really consider that article you linked to be presenting evidence that stands up to even mild skeptical scrutiny, let alone skeptical due diligence?

        Say it ain’t so, tonyb.

      • tonyb –

        BTW – this article:


        discusses one reason why a skeptical person might be reluctant to try to generalize about the polling inaccuracy on Brexit to explain polling on a presidential election in the U.S.: the fact of Brexit being a binary decision.

      • Josh&a

        Its one of very many articles some more technical than others combined with numerous analysis on tv and radio.

        mind you, all bets are off IF Hillary decides to pull out. Another candidate of sufficient stature would interact with trumps poll ratings in a different way. Presumabl all Hillary’s democrat support would transfer to the new person whilst they might also bring in new supporters who are currently alienated by her. However, all rumours at present so lets see how it develops

        BTW Can I spell your name properly yet without going into moderation. What did you do to merit that?


      • tonyb –

        ==> What did you do to merit that? <==

        It's not entirely clear to me. I know that David Springer complaining about me to Judith was somehow instrumental.

        Judith originally said she was putting me in moderation for 24 hours…turned out to be permanent. Of course, her blog, her option to do whatever she wants.

        One issue was my high volume of comments, but then again, people like jim2 and Glenn are much more prolific than I was (they go past Judith's limit of % of posts allowable, often).

        I know that my comments annoyed a large % of "denizens," leading to a lot of calls that I be moderated, so I suppose that Judith was also responding to the popular sentiment.

        I have also been critical of Judith's arguments…which I suppose probably has something to do with it. For one, the fact that I was critical of Judith's arguments is the primary reason that people get so annoyed with me. my presence stimulated a lot of antagonism, which I suppose was the ostensible reason primary reason for being put into moderation…but IMO, that antagonism was almost always people (like Don) attacking me personally, not the reverse – so the logic of putting me in moderation escapes me and suggest to me a double standard, and that my criticism of Judith's arguments at least partially explains that double standard.

    • I’ll wager it ain’t new monia, but rather some old mania. She has something else more serious going on – who knows what. If she had pneumonia she would be in the hospital, not Chelsea’s pricey palace apartment, where there is no press room. As for what she or her sycophants say, what foo would believe it? However, never letting a crisis go to waste, this could be an opportunity to weasel out of a live debate. Trump would eat her lunch in a live, public debate. Any boxing strategy lasts until the first big punch is landed.

  79. Clinton cancels travel plans after health episode

    The campaign also announced that Clinton canceled plans to fly to California on Monday for two days of fund-raising, a public event, and an appearance on Ellen DeGeneres’s talk show.

    Clinton’s illness opened a new conversation about her health as she enters the final and busiest stretch of campaigning before the Nov. 8 election….

    Clinton was already under pressure to offer additional details about her physical fitness, most recently after a lengthy coughing fit interrupted a speech she was delivering in Cleveland last week.

    Clinton tried to make light of that event.

    “I’ve been talking so much,” she said, struggling to catch her breath during the Ohio speech. “Every time I think about Trump, I get allergic.”….

    As with other problems that have dogged Clinton on the campaign trail, opponents said the candidate’s refusal to provide basic information, in this case health records, seeds distrust and skepticism about an issue that could have an easy explanation.

  80. Congressional bullying on behalf of Big Oil

    CONGRESSMAN LAMAR SMITH of Texas spent most of the summer unsuccessfully trying to scuttle an ongoing investigation by Attorney General Maura Healey of Massachusetts into whether Exxon Mobil Corp. withheld damning information about global warming that its own scientists uncovered decades ago….

    It might have something to do with thehundreds of thousands of dollars he’s received from Big Oil over the years, and the fact that Exxon Mobil calls Texas home….

    Smith has subpoenaed e-mails and other documents from Healey that he seems convinced will prove she’s in cahoots with environmental activists out to destroy the oil business — a view that mirrors Exxon Mobil’s stance. Healey says she’s simply seeking to determine whether the oil giant perpetrated fraud against consumers and investors by keeping secret the truth about climate change — even as it publicly campaigned to cast doubt on the legitimacy of global warming. She’s stood up to the political bullying by refusing to comply with Smith’s demands. Her chief legal counsel, Richard Johnston, called the subpoena “completely unprecedented in its intended interference with an ongoing regulatory investigation by a state’s attorney general.”….

    Ten attorneys general signed a letter demanding that Smith back off. The 11-member Massachusetts Congressional delegation labeled his actions “damaging and pointless,” and Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted: “You picked a fight with the wrong state & the wrong AG.”

    Smith, however, remains unfazed. He’s scheduled a Sept. 14 oversight hearing….

    • As a House committee chairman, he does indeed have the power to issue subpoenas — no matter how frivolous or punitive — and, in rejecting one, Healey risks being held in contempt. But Smith isn’t empowered to have any say in who or what attorneys general choose to look into on behalf of constituents. Allowing him to do so would set a dangerous precedent.

      Actually, he does have the authority to look into barratry. More importantly, if there’s a RICO violation on the part of conspiring AG’s, it’s quite appropriate for him to look into it.

      The “right” of the Federal Government to oversee the process of “justice” in various states has very strong precedents, among them the whole Federal intervention into Civil Rights conflicts.

  81. Re “Election 2016 — Both Party Platforms Fail America On Energy” (James Conca, Forbes Magazine.)

    Predicting that Hillary Clinton will be elected president in November but that control of the Congress ends up being divided between a Republican House of Representatives and a Democratic Senate, then what the Republican and Democratic platforms say or don’t say about energy policy means absolutely nothing.

    The EPA has full legal and constitutional authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate all of America’s carbon emissions, not just those of the coal-fired power plants. The EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions is not being utilized anywhere nearly to its full potential.

    The only practical pathway towards reducing America’s carbon emissions to the extent Hillary Clinton says they need to be reduced passes directly through the EPA.

    Once she assumes office, if Clinton doesn’t push the EPA towards comprehensive regulation of all of America’s greenhouse gas emission sources, she is simply making empty promises concerning the issue of climate change.

  82. California Just Doubled Down on Fighting Climate Change

    [W]hen Governor Jerry Brown signed two bills into law Thursday aimed at reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, it put the world on notice that the Golden State aims to be a major player in the fight against climate change.

    The thing is, it’s far from clear just how the state will go about achieving that target….

    [F]inding an additional 40 percent in emissions cuts may prove difficult for a variety of reasons.

  83. More politics and theology dressed up in scientific drag:

    Less Than a Month After Historic Floods in Louisiana, We Know Climate Change Played a Role

    Not long ago, whenever a freak blizzard blanketed the Eastern Seaboard or torrential rains brought floods to the Midwest, we were discouraged from mentioning the words “climate change.” Global warming was real, we were told, but climate science measured change on a planetary scale—it had little to say about individual weather events.

    Just a few weeks after 30 inches of rain fell on parts of southern Louisiana, causing floods that killed 13 people and forced tens of thousands from their homes, the picture is a lot different. Researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have already taken weather data from the event, plugged it into high-resolution climate models, and come up with results.

    They report that climate change upped the probability of catastrophic rainfall occurring along the Gulf Coast from once every 50 years to once every 30 years—an increase of 40 percent (and that’s being very conservative, they say). Put another way, residents in the area have a lot less time to recover before they can expect another deluge….

    [I]t’s only recently that computing power and global climate models have progressed to the point where researchers can take short-term weather data, perform the numerous model runs needed to come up with a significant result, and figure out how much human activity has tipped the scales toward extreme weather….

    The hope behind this type of work is that global warming will no longer be just an abstract concept, with effects that are hard for normal people to wrap their heads around. Instead of presenting scary numbers about what a century of sea-level rise might look like, the science has gotten to the point where it can explain, in sometimes painful detail, just how much the disasters affecting us today are of our own making.

  84. VIDEO: New Trump ad hits Clinton over ‘deplorables’ remark

    Donald Trump’s campaign is pouncing on Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” remark at a fundraising event over the weekend, launching a new ad blasting the Democratic nominee’s comment and accusing her of “viciously demonizing hard-working people.”

    The new Trump ad will run throughout the week on broadcast and cable TV beginning Monday, backed by a $2 million ad buy in battleground states Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida, according to the campaign.

  85. VIDEO: Trump on ‘Deplorables’ Remark: Hillary Clinton Looks Down On Our Proud Citizens As Subjects For Her Rule

    “I was deeply shocked and alarmed this Friday to hear my opponent attack, slander, smear, demean these wonderful amazing who are supporting our campaign by the millions,” Trump said of Clinton’s remark. “Our support comes from every part of America and every walk of life. We have the support of cops, soldiers, carpenters, welders, the young and the old and millions of working class families who just want a better future and a good job. These were the people Hillary Clinton so viciously demonized. These were among the countless Americans Hillary Clinton called deplorable, irredeemable and un-American.

    “Nobody has heard anything like this,” Trump said at the National Guard Association Conference. “She called these patriotic men and women every vile name in the book. She called them racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamaphobic. She called half of our supporters a ‘basket of deplorables’ in both the speech and an interview.”

    “She divides people into baskets as though they were objects, not human beings,” Trump said.

    “Hillary Clinton made these comments at one of her high dollar fund-raisers on Wall Street,” Trump said. “She and her wealthy donors all had a good laugh. You heard them. They were all laughing. Good solid laugh. They were laughing at the very people who paved the roads, and these are the roads that she with all of her security drive on. Paint the buildings she speaks in and importantly all of the other functions.”

    “Hillary Clinton spoke with hatred and derision for the people who make this country run. She spoke with contempt to the people who follow the rules, pay their taxes and scratch out a living for their family. A hard-earned living, too,” Trump said.

    “While Hillary Clinton lives a sequestered life behind gates and walls and guards she mocks and demeans hard-working Americans who only want their own families to enjoy a fraction of the security enjoyed by our politicians,” he said. “After months of hiding from the press, Hillary Clinton has revealed her true thoughts. That was her true thoughts. She revealed herself to be a person who looks down on the proud citizens of our country as subjects for her rule. She viewed it as hers. Her comments displayed the same sense of arrogance and entitlement that led to violation of federal law as secretary of state.”

  86. VIDEO — CNN’s Gloria Borger: “I Think People Catch Pneumonia All The Time On The Campaign Trail”

  87. VIDEO – Gingrich: The Left Uses Vicious Racial Attacks to Block Serious Discussion of their Policy Failures

  88. Trump supporters’ opinions of blacks are not that different from those of Clinton supporters:

    From a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted March 21-April 12 as read by Kornacki:

    View blacks as less ‘intelligent’ than whites:
    Trump supporters: 32%
    Clinton supporters: 22%

    View blacks as more ‘lazy’ than whites:
    Trump supporters: 40%
    Clinton supporters: 25%

    View blacks as more ‘rude’ than whites:
    Trump supporters: 44%
    Clinton supporters: 30%

    View blacks as more ‘violent’ than whites:
    Trump supporters: 49%
    Clinton supporters: 31%

    View blacks as more ‘criminal’ than whites:
    Trump supporters: 46%
    Clinton supporters: 32%


    • “While this device is being discussed in the context of U.S. law enforcement,” said Tynan, “this could be used by foreign agents against the U.S. public and administration. It is no longer acceptable for our phones and mobile networks to be exploited in such an invasive and indiscriminate way.”

  89. From the article:

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is leading Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton 40 percent to 39 among likely Iowa voters included in a new Simpson College/RABA Research survey when the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are also options.
    When matched up head to head in the poll taken Sept. 6 to Sept. 8, Trump leads with 43 percent over Clinton who sits within the three percent margin of error at 42 percent. Fifteen percent of those faced with a choice between Trump or Clinton chose “Not sure.”

    Among those identifying as neither Republican nor Democrat and faced with the choice of Trump or Clinton, 40 percent chose Trump, 35 percent picked Clinton, and 24 percent were not sure. Evangelical Christians chose Trump over Clinton by an astounding nearly 30 percent margin, with 57 percent selecting Trump to just 28 percent for Clinton.

    Just over half of respondents, 52 percent, expressed that they will be voting “In favor of my candidate.” Forty-one percent said his or her vote will be cast “Against another candidate.”


  90. Oil: Market war and low prices to come. From the article:

    And that weapon came out of its case Wednesday when Iran decided to interrupt the budding Saudi-Russian reduced production deal and announce that it’s not going to reduce production at all. In fact, it sure sounded like Iran will do whatever it can to make up for any supply losses to the overall market.

    That pumped the brakes on the modest crude rally and now the entire Saudi-Russian deal is more in doubt than ever. That’s too bad for the poor saps who bet big on oil based on the news of that production pact.

    All of this is a result of the Obama administration-led nuclear deal with Iran, which the rest of the Middle East has interpreted as definitive proof that the Iranian mullahs are closer and more likely than ever to get nuclear weapons.

    Just this week, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei blasted the Saudis for their maintenance and management of the Islamic holy sites in Mecca. This is a standard complaint Shia Iran makes against the Saudis every time it wants to signal yet another ramping up of the conflict between the two nations. And the conflict is really just a continuation of the real war in the Middle East that’s been going on and off for the last 1,400 years. Every violent or cold political, or financial act made by a Muslim country or even an Islamic terror group is somehow connected to the Sunni-Shia conflict. And the commodities markets are no exception.

    So if you’re watching the oil markets, all you need to do is wait to see a Saudi move to manipulate prices be quickly countered by the Iranians. And similarly, anything Iran does in connection to the United States, including the recent spate of provocative Iranian patrol boat harassment of U.S. Naval ships in the Gulf, is often not really so much about the U.S. as it is about Iran’s dispute with the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia or Saudi clients elsewhere.


  91. Trump protesters get a lesson on the fruits of respecting others. From the article:

    Fists fly at another political rally as Trump supporter punches protester in the NECK – and slaps another – as police eject anti-Trump activists


  92. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150328786191/deplorable-pneumonia

    When Hillary Clinton called half of Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables,” I said it would not move the polls more than 1%. My thinking is that we have three types of voters:

    1. The Deplorables – who already made up their minds for Trump.

    2. Clinton supporters – who already made up their minds for Clinton.

    3. Undecideds – who don’t care about stuff like this. That’s why they are undecided. And most of them probably have decided. They just don’t want to admit it.

    All by itself, the “deplorable” gaffe wouldn’t be much of an issue in the long run. Clinton had time to apologize and recover from it.

    But then Clinton collapsed with some sort of health problem – perhaps pneumonia – at the 9-11 anniversary event. The optics of a potential commander-in-chief collapsing at that holy place, and on an important anniversary, rendered her unelectable in my opinion. I base that prediction on how people will associate her health issues with the need to have a reliable commander-in-chief. Persuasion-wise, that’s a hole you don’t get out of.

    But the 9-11 situation had another impact that I didn’t realize until today. It weaponized Clinton’s earlier gaffe about the deplorables by turning it into what I call a “fake because.” Sometimes you need a “fake because” to rationalize whatever you are doing. And that’s doubly-important in this situation. Here’s why.

    –more at link

    • We already know what happens when she is the one to answer the phone at 3 in the morning. People die. That’s enough to disqualify her, IMO.

      • What would it take to disqualify Trump? Or can that even be done?

      • Trump’s record would have to be as bad as Billary’s. But that is very, very far from the case.

      • Jim,
        “record”? Not clear on to what you refer.

      • Of course it’s not clear. Sure it isn’t. Right.

      • Trump has no record is what Danny was trying to say.

        No record is better than a bad record is what Jim2 was trying to say.

        Point to Jim2.

      • “Trump has no record is what Danny was trying to say.” Um. Not exactly. He indeed has a record.

        Wanna try again?

      • A record as a public servant in an elected office?

        I don’t think so but feel free to correct me.

      • “A record as a public servant in an elected office?”

        Oh I understood what you intended to portray. But you (nor Jim) get away with that kind of deception.

        Trump is running on ‘his record’ as a successful businessperson. That record includes many things. Some reinforce that success, and some show serious character and/or professional issues.

        Any ‘objective’ reader (and we all know how important ‘objectivity’ is to you) would recognize there are good and bad ‘records’ for both major candidates. We certainly wouldn’t wish to apply some sort of double standards now would we? Of course not.

        Jim2 brought up the ‘records’. It’s up to him to honestly compare and contrast. But just like his orientation towards damning the Soros/Clinton connection while ignoring the Mercer/Breitbart/Trump equivalency confidence is high that the ‘objective’ readers won’t be afford that treat.

        So after further review. Point rescinded from Jim2 and 2 points awarded to Danny (one each for ‘the record’ and one for the ‘media’). TYVM.

      • Running a business does mean you have to do some unpleasant things from time to time. But it not like an ambassador died.

      • Jim2,
        “Running a business does mean you have to do some unpleasant things from time to time. But it not like an ambassador died.”

        Well then. First, I thank you for confirmation there is indeed a ‘record’ which requires ‘extreme vetting’. Point for Danny confirmed. Officiating by Springer disconfirmed and official remanded to minor leagues henceforth.

        Have to do? Have to? Such as? Which specifically were unpleasant? Which were inappropriate? Which in fact illegal, leading to fines? Which were invalidated in court? Which lead to injury or even death?

        Just curious if you’re one of the ‘objective’ readers to whom Springer so vehemently panders. Or should you be classified as ‘other’?

        Bengahzi is a tragedy. The boss is always responsible.

        May it be assumed you hold all bosses equally responsible? Running a business doesn’t mean people who are not ambassadors have to die.


      • In fine Democratic Party tradition Double Deal Danny is player, referee, and scorekeeper all at the same time. By unilateral decree he wins and Jim2 loses.

        Duly noted!



      • Wait. After you blew the call and Jim2 confirmed there indeed is a ‘record’ you go back to the old standby ad hom?

        Sorry, demoted now to double A leagues. And you have to pay for your own travel and motel room.

      • Trump has a multi-billion $ globe spanning empire. Some 500 independent business have his brand on them. Some of them are deeply his and controlled by him like Trump Tower, hotels, and golf courses. In a great many others they carry the Trump brand but he receives nothing but a license fee for the use of his name.

        That environment is bound to have included a great many incidents which can be framed in a bad light.

        But have it, Double Deal Danny. It’s a target rich environment for you pick up bits to lie about.

      • “Trump has a multi-billion $ globe spanning empire.”
        Secretary of state could be described as a multi-billion $ globe spanning entity.

        “That environment is bound to have included a great many incidents which can be framed in a bad light.” Yep. Agreed.

        “It’s a target rich environment for you pick up bits to lie about.” Yep, you can. I could to. Or, alternatively, you could do like I and just provide links. Other people say. Believe me.

        You’re quite entertaining when pinned to the mat there Big Dave.



      • DT – I’m sure if there is any real dirt, as opposed to bankruptcy or clearing out some apartments to build, the DNC already has it in hand. They will wait for the opportune moment, probably a few days before 11/4, to air it. That way there won’t be enough time to vet it and it will be a meme no matter what. I just hope Trump and Assange have more on her. She’s a m uch easier target.

      • Jim,
        Thank you for at least a semblance of a critical review.

        But for this: “I just hope Trump and Assange have more on her. ” We can mostly agree. My hope is that neither has more. We need to demand better from our candidates an not more ‘worse’.

        This methodology of election of a president of OUR country sux.

        I’ve likely earned the ‘double deal’ moniker. “She’s a m uch easier target.” IMO they both are. We deserve better. This sort of muckraking is likely why we don’t.

  93. Oh dear. RCP Poll average Hillary +2.4% in two-way, +2.0 in four-way. 3% swing overnight on 9/11 collapse and deplorables and most of the polls have not yet reflected the basket remark or the collapse.

    Good-bye Hillary.

  94. Bill Clinton Tells Charlie Rose Hillary Faints Frequently

    Start watching at one minute fifteen seconds 1:15 for the admission.

    • I’ve it happens every time he unzips his trousers.

      Which could explain why Bill steps out on her so much.