Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Trump should give this speech every day to Nov 8 [link]

Trump emerges in center, outmaneuvering Clinton [link]

Donald Trump’s scandals [link]

There’s no Hillary Clinton “email scandal.” There are four of them. Or maybe six. Or none. An explanation of why the Clinton email scandal is so confusing. [link]

When Donald meets Hillary: who will win the debates? [link]

Energy divides candidates, but draws little attention [link]


Scientific American:  What do the candidates know about science? [link]

Some policy answers on climate from the presidential candidates [link]

Oops: New Poll finds that #Hillary supporters are pretty racist too: [link]…

Nicolas Sarkozy says climate change not caused by man [link]

345 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Second link (“Trump emerges in center, outmaneuvering Clinton”) should be http://www.nysun.com/national/trump-emerges-in-center-outmaneuvering-clinton-as/89715/

  2. “Climate change is the greatest existential threat that humanity has ever faced.”

    Humanity is the greatest existential threat that humanity has ever faced.”:

  3. Trump is correct to focus on growth. Increasing the pie always beats dividing up a static pie. The incentives are being sucked out of the system making it difficult for a return to the growth rates of the last century.

    For the 8 years prior to 2000, the growth in Adjusted Gross Income was 73%. Current trends taken to the end of 2016 will result in 78% growth of AGI for the last 16 years. Had the last 16 years of growth been at the same rate as the previous 8 years, the AGI would have stood at $19 Trillion instead of the current $11.2 Trillion and an additional $1.2 Trillion in Income Taxes would have been collected this year, not to speak of SS, Medicare and Corporate Taxes.

    We have a deficit of $600 Billion forecasted this Fiscal Year. With a small dip in the next 2-3 years forecasted, absent a recession, that number will begin to inexorably rise by 2020, primarily due to Baby Boomers retiring. Greater growth and the resultant added $1.2 Trillion per year would have eliminated the $600 deficit this year and would have addressed these impending Social Program costs in the years ahead.

    Clinton is stuck in the past with small defeatist ideas. Her tax plan is a crescendo of envy politics estimated to increase tax revenue of between $50 and $100 Billion per year. This includes implementing the so called Buffet rule of having everyone making in excess of $1 million per year pay an effective tax of 30%. That is only 2% over what they pay now and results in a puny $27 Billion per year. When the top marginal rate was 91% in the 1950s and 1960s, the top 1% paid 30 to 35% as an effective rate.

    I have reservations about Trump’s rosy forecasts for increasing growth and his use of dynamic scoring. Maybe it is not achievable. But trying to expand the economy with 1930s ideas doesn’t cut it and puts us on a Keynesian path along with Japan where they spend 40% of taxes on Debt Service. At least he is in the right ball park playing the right game and if he can pull it off then the economy and taxes for social programs can grow dramatically more than under the Clinton plan.

  4. The polling people at Texas Lyceum have Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump leading Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton by just seven points among “likely voters,” and Clinton actually leads by one point among all registered voters. Trump holds a pretty commanding 54 to 19 lead over Clinton among whites, while Clinton dominates Trump among black voters, 62 to 2.

    • Border Wall: Most Texans aren’t feeling Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the Mexico border.

      59 percent of you all don’t want Trump to build that wall, compared to just 35 percent who are in favor of the wall. The demographical breakdown of this poll is pretty telling of who, exactly, is backing Trump in Texas: 75 percent of Hispanics and 72 percent of African-Americans oppose the wall, while 53 percent of white people are in favor of it.

      Voter Identification: This year, the courts struck down Texas’ voter ID law,

      Overall, 74% of Texas adults agree that voters should be required to present a government issued photo ID in order to vote. While Republicans are overwhelmingly inclined to agree (94%), Democratic opinion is more mixed, with 58% agreeing and 40% disagreeing.


    • By statistics you quote voting by unregistered voters brings raises Hillary Clinton by 5 points. That is noteworthy but not surprising. If the D’s can get more unregistered voters they can win by a healthy margin – that would not be surprising if it happened. Regardless, this presidential election will go down in history … as the worst between unqualified candidates, for different reasons, in all of history.

      • Concur!

      • History is usually written, like, after stuff happens, While I’m sure a Hillaryous presidency would be one of the worst, a Trump presidency has the potential for being one of the best. He’s a wild card at this point while Clinton is a certain disaster.

        Write that down.

      • By definition, unregistered voters can’t vote, unless they register.

        Now the Democrats are pretty good at getting them registered, even if they are not qualified to vote. Add in expired voters – hey, living challenged people have rights too – and Hillary wins going away.

      • Writer Impeach Barry below says a Clinton presidency would be one of the worst but a Trump presidency has the potential of being one of the best. Even if not one of the best, anything better than Clinton’s “worst’ is good…. Something, anything is better than nothing and some (chance) percentage of being a good / great thing certainly beats 100% certainty in a bad thing. If climate change policy were this easy to understand people might agree on what to do.

  5. A youth football team in Beaumont has been thrown into the middle of the debate over football players protesting police brutality by kneeling or sitting during the national anthem. According to the Beaumont Enterprise, the entire Beaumont Bulls team, a bunch of eleven and twelve-year-old kids and their coaches, took a knee during the anthem before Saturday’s game, and video of their protest went viral.

    Beaumont youth football team at center of national anthem debate

  6. They can’t find enough dirt on Donald. Now they offer to pay for it. I’m betting they start making things up before this is over. From the article:

    Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is offering to pay for new information on Donald Trump, hoping that damaging audio or video on the Republican presidential candidate will be submitted to his super PAC.

    Brock, founder of the left-wing Media Matters and operator of Correct the Record super PAC, recently posted the plea on Correct the Record’s website and is referring to the project as “TrumpLeaks,” NBC News reported.

    Brock asked for video or audio of Trump that has yet to be released.


  7. It’s hard to guess how the debates will go. Hillary has much more experience in political debates. The questions and moderators are likely to favor Hillary. OTOH Trump is an experienced TV performer. I didn’t like his performance in primary debates, because he made promises without explaining how he’d fulfill them. But, most Republican viewers did like his performance, Enunciating desirable goals was enough for them.

    • SCOTT ADAMS’ BLOG: When Reality Turned Inside Out

      You might remember a few months ago when Clinton had lots of policy details and Trump had few. Clinton still holds the lead in the number of bullet-points-per-policy, but while she rests, Trump has been rolling out policy details on one topic after another. Perception-wise, the optics of “who has policy details” has flipped. (Reality isn’t important in this context.)

    • It’s pretty easy to guess how the debates will go.

      Clinton couldn’t hold her own against a 74 year-old obscure socialist in Democratic primary debates.

      Trump cleared a field of 16 competitors including popular governors from Texas, Florida, and Ohio. US Senators and House members and titans of industry. And he did it without teleprompters or coaches.

      Clinton doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell.

      Write that down.

  8. Here is a link to a piece by Michael Mann in today’s Washington Post entitled “Deniers club: Meet the people clouding the climate change debate from The Washington Post”

  9. #Hillary supporters are pretty racist too

    ‘Too’ being the operative word.
    The Trump supporters are the “irredeemable” and “deplorable” racists.
    I’m just trying to stay current.
    Oh, and I’m a Southerner.
    Born deplorable.
    Likely to die deplorable.

    “Stronger Together”
    Guess I’m not invited.

  10. Usually do not comment on politics, but this has been quite a week.
    Hillary’s health problems that her campaign was dishonest about–and may still be. She did fall amd break her elbow in late 2009. She did fall, concuss herself followed by major blood clot complication in 2012. And she did fall (but got caught by security) on 9/11. I have had a bad case of walking pneumonia. Hurts to breathe. Bad cough, which she had. Doesn’t make you faint or fall like she has now three times in 6 years.

    And on the Trump side, an incredible economics speech that, if the soundbite gets repeated, will go far and reach many voters:
    ‘It used to be that cars were made in Flint and you could not drink the water in Mexico. Now cars are made in Mexico and you cannot drink the water in Flint.’

    • Rud,

      Think folks will look past the ‘sound bite’ to see that Trump is actually expecting to see wage reduction?

      “He said U.S. automakers could shift production away from Michigan to communities where autoworkers would make less. “You can go to different parts of the United States and then ultimately you’d do full-circle — you’ll come back to Michigan because those guys are going to want their jobs back even if it is less,” Trump said.” http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2015/08/12/trump-autos/31589899/

      • DT, see below. But as to your comment here, I don’t hear it like you do. There were very high paying jobs in the UAE around Detroit. Most eventually went south to non-unionized Honda, Toyota, VW, and BMW plants–but Detroit did not. So Detroit has suffered mightily. The difference between no job and a decent job at a lower wage rate than the artificially and temprarily inflated UAW rate is core to this election.
        BTW, I was a lend lease exec at a large US truck manufacturer when we had to renogotiate the UAW assembly labor contract in Springfield Ohio under near bankruptcy supervision. So this gets very personal, real quick.
        You ever as ‘management suit’ been spat on by union labor as a ‘negotiating’ tactic? I have.

      • Spat on? Lucky you. I moonlighted as a security guard in the Marine Corps. I had a two week stint guarding a Sparklett’s bottling plant in northern California during a friggin’ Teamster’s Union Strike. Unarmed. Try keeping a game face on in that situation. We spread a rumor that we were off-duty LAPD that helped a lot. A couple of teamsters got a little beat up when they caught a guard alone and double-teamed him. Lucky for us they happened to pick a big Mexican street thug who laid them both out in about two seconds.

    • Rud,

      Re fainting, exhaustion + pneumonia leading to dizziness or fainting does not sound abnormal. But then I’m no doctor.

      Personally, I’m not that interested in the health issue, beyond looking at the VP candidates. Both of which look better than the leads.

  11. THE WHITE HOUSE: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States in 2015

    Today’s report from the Census Bureau shows the remarkable progress that American families have made as the recovery continues to strengthen. Real median household income grew 5.2 percent from 2014 to 2015, the fastest annual growth on record. Income grew for households across the income distribution, with the fastest growth among lower- and middle-income households.

    • That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren’t Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks

      People are not suddenly getting big-fat paychecks…

      “Men with earnings” saw their income rise only 1.5%….

      Good grief! Their earnings in 2015, at $51,212, were lower on an inflation adjusted basis than they’d been in 1974!

      If soothsayers want to know why men are frustrated, and more than frustrated, they can just look at the chart above: no improvement in real wages since 1974! For the median middle-class man in the workforce today, that boils down to no improvement in his entire working life!

      So with men’s median income inching up only 1.5% and women’s income 2.7% in 2015, how could household income have jumped 5.2%? Something else must have been at play. Here are some thoughts.

    • Deconstructing The “Median Income B……t”

      Note: Income is in 2015 dollars. Data for 2013 and beyond reflect the implementation of the redesigned income questions.


      Reminds me of climate “data”.

      • In both 2015 and the first half of 2016, incomes were boosted by a drop in gasoline prices.

        “Oil prices play into this in a very, very big way,” Green said.

        Follow the link to see the swan dive in gasoline prices which began in 2014 and continued into and throughout 2015.

        The warmists have a “solution” for that.

        They believe that spending twice the money to produce half the energy is “economic growth.”

  12. Why pay for no benefit?
    42% of US adults don’t want to pay even $12 a year to stop climate change

    at Q20 which basically asks if people are confident that greenhouse gas obligations will be met. Fully 31% of people don’t think the US will reduce emissions, and two thirds don’t think India or China will. So who wants to pay for something that is likely to fail?

    • An article by an alarmist/warmist that explains how the globalism vs. nationalism debate (and concomitantly the debate over immigration) is so inextricably intertwined with the debate over CAGW and fossil fuels.

      Michael Klare, The Rise of the Right and Climate Catastrophe

      Global geopolitics and the possible rightward lurch of many countries (including a potential deal-breaking election in the United States that could put a climate denier in the White House) spell bad news for the fate of the Earth. It’s worth exploring how this might come to be…

      The Brexit vote has complicated the task of ensuring the European Union’s approval of the [Paris] agreement…

      [Brexiteers] oppose British submission to international laws and norms….

      Keep in mind as well that Angela Merkel and François Hollande, the leaders of the other two anchors of the European Union, Germany and France, are both embattled by right-wing anti-immigrant parties likely to be similarly unfriendly to such an agreement. And in what could be the deal-breaker of history, this same strain of thought, combining unbridled nationalism, climate denialism, fierce hostility to immigration, and unwavering support for domestic fossil fuel production, also animates Donald Trump’s campaign for the American presidency….

      Echoing the views of his Brexit counterparts, he complained that “this agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use on our land, in our country. No way.” …

      In Europe, ultra-nationalist parties on the right are riding a wave of Islamaphobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, and disgust with the European Union…. Although climate change is not a defining issue in these contests as it is in the U.S. and Britain, the growing opposition to anything associated with the EU and its regulatory system poses an obvious threat to future continent-wide efforts to cap greenhouse gas emissions….

      Elsewhere in the world, similar strands of thinking are spreading, raising serious questions about the ability of governments to ratify the Paris Agreement or, more importantly, to implement its provisions. Take India, for example.

      Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)…has also made no secret of his determination to promote economic growth at any cost, including greatly increased reliance on coal-powered electricity. That spells trouble….

      Russia is similarly likely to put domestic economic needs (and the desire to remain a great power, militarily and otherwise) ahead of its global climate obligations….

      Such nationalistic exceptionalism could become something of the norm if Donald Trump wins in November, or other nations join those already eager to put the needs of a fossil fuel-based domestic growth agenda ahead of global climate commitments. With that in mind, consider the assessment of future energy trends that the Norwegian energy giant Statoil recently produced. In it is a chilling scenario focused on just this sort of dystopian future….

      The 2016 edition…added a grim new twist: “rivalry.” It depicts a realistically downbeat future in which international strife and geopolitical competition discourage significant cooperation in the climate field….

      In such a future, Statoil suggests, the major powers would prove to be far more concerned with satisfying their own economic and energy requirements than pursuing collaborative efforts aimed at slowing the pace of climate change. For many of them, this would mean maximizing the cheapest and most accessible fuel options available — often domestic supplies of fossil fuels. Under such circumstances, the report suggests, the use of coal would rise, not fall, and its share of global energy consumption would actually increase from 29% to 32%.

      In such a world, forget about those “nationally determined contributions” agreed to in Paris and think instead about a planet whose environment will grow ever less friendly to life as we know it. In its rivalry scenario, writes Statoil, “the climate issue has low priority on the regulatory agenda. While local pollution issues are attended to, large-scale international climate agreements are not the chosen way forward.”….

      At this point, electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil-fueled ultra-nationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.

      • Australia’s China contradictions go global

        The Sydney and Melbourne population ponzi projections are out of this world:

        This migrant boom will come from the emerging regional powers in China and India and will transform Australia’s two largest metropolitan centres into comprehensively Asian cities.

        Let’s not kid ourselves that such a transformation won’t completely alter our strategic outlook. It will spell the end of ANZUS in anything but name as Australia finds security in Asia rather than from Asia.

        That’s fine if we choose to go that way. It will mean Australia is a Chinese client state and will express its foreign policy via the Chinese sphere of influence. Whether it owns a few power stations or not will be irrelevant. The economy will simply be integrated with Chinese people and capital flows.

      • David L. Hagen

        See below for Taleb expose of the “Intellectual Yet Idiot”.

  13. Mark Cuban (guessing it’s okay to intro him since he’s a billionaire and made money in bidness) was initially a Trump fan. Then Trump spoke.

    Cuban changed orientation, Trump stomped his feetsies and suggested Cuban ain’t smart enuf to understand what Trump is trying to do.

    Cuban apparently wishes to find out: http://www.sbnation.com/2016/9/16/12944134/mark-cuban-donald-trump-10-million-talk-politics-tweets-twitter

  14. Are Climate policies imposed by appeal to scientism?
    In Science, Scientisim, and the “Intellectual Yet Idiot”, David Klinghoffer reviews:

    ” Nassim Nicholas Taleb, of Black Swan fame, denouncing what Taleb calls the Intellectual Yet Idiot class.” . . . Who are the “IYI”? They are “policymaking ‘clerks’ and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts.” A key identifying marker of the IYI is an eager credulousness when presented with prestige scientific or science-flavored ideas. The eagerness to believe is a function of concern for the IYI’s reputation with peers.

    See: Nassim Nicholas Taleb The Intellectual Yet Idiot

    With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
    Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. . . .
    The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. . . .
    The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and rarely seen outside specialized outlets, social media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.
    Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.

    [Emphasis added.]
    Klinghoffer concludes:

    Taleb notes a worldwide revolt against the IYI class, by those with “skin-in-the-game” against those “without skin-in-the-game.” . . .Taleb offers an always-timely reminder that debates in science are derived as much from celebrity, sociology, class identification, and considerations of personal prestige as they are from science.. . .

    How do we rebuild robust debate to the public square and restore the foundations of the scientific method?


    Mikhail Gorbachev’s feline spokesman, Gennadi Gerasimov, once teased suspicious Western correspondents by sneering at them in the early days of the great perestroika and glasnost experiment, “We have done the cruelest thing to you that we could possibly have done. We have deprived you of an enemy.” He was laughing at us, but he was dead right. The Cold War was a period of moral clarity when the other side really was an evil empire….

    Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West has struggled to find a new bogeyman. Noriega would hardly do. The Taliban crumbled at a touch. Saddam Hussein was not up to the job, and the failed attempt to make him look more dangerous than he was has made the populace more incredulous than ever. Even the Iran of the Ayatollahs turned out to be quite keen to make friends. Al-Qaeda and now the Islamic State have an unconvincing fuzziness about them, nasty for sure but not as big as the headlines that are written about them. So what a relief to return to the old and trusted Russian menace, even if it does not really exist and its supposed aggression consists mainly of retreats….

    Why then, when so much of what we hoped for in the long Soviet period has come to pass, do we so actively seek their enmity?

    Hillary Clinton’s comparison of President Putin to Adolf Hitler in a speech in California in March is the most striking example of this willingness to adopt the most extreme possible language, even by senior figures in government. Diplomats and media follow the same course, squawking about a “New Cold War” and seeking the most alarmist possible interpretation of every Russian action. But much of this NATO-related chatter increases the very fear and tension against which this odd alliance (whose actual purpose was fully achieved in 1991) claims to be defending us. We are now talking ourselves into a conflict for no good reason….

    It is time not for a New Cold War, but for the Consolation of All Sorrows. If we do not recognize this, there will be many more sorrows to be consoled, here and there.

  16. Danny T, I am focused on climate and energy, not Trump.
    But was blown away by a brilliant marketing maneuver he just pulled this PM in Miami. Hit the south Florida (very anti-Trump) media an hour ago. One of his massive rallies.
    The new intro music was the famous Les Miserables song, ‘Do you hear the people sing’. Then he greeted the throng as Les Despicables. Go listen to that song on the Broadway sound track. It is track 9. I just did three times. Then understand who and how he is appealing to, and why if he keeps that song up as intro for the rest of the campaign, that song plus his very clever Flint flip commented on above might well make him unstoppable– for better or worse, and I ultimately fear worse.

    • Rud,

      Thanks. Appreciate your insight and your work on the climate and energy topics.

      Yep. He’s a marketer. But he’s a marketer running for Prez. And folks don’t seem to care.

      • Folks vote. Thats how we set it up a long time ago. And if the system isn’t working for them, they can vote ‘Les Mis’. Whether you or I like it does not matter, any more than supposed CAGW. Thats why Trump’s new theme and greeting is so scarily brilliant.

      • They way we set it up was that male property owners were supposed to have the right to vote. Things would sure be different if it had stayed that way.

      • They way we set it up was that male property owners were supposed to have the right to vote.

        This is a fiction that has gotten a lot of traction, and is simply wrong.

        The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible.

        George Washington had some blacks and women that voted for him in 1788-1789.

        Then sufferage got more restrictive.

        But by the time the 19th amendment was passed about 2/3rds of the states and territories let women vote.

    • I’m pretty sure it won’t be as bad as all that. JMO.

      • jim2,


        There was a great reviesw of The Century of the Self published by Media Lens. In it, the author quotes a passage from the film:

        Politicians and planners came to believe that Freud was right to suggest that hidden deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. They were convinced that it was the unleashing of these instincts that had lead to the barbarism of Nazi Germany. To stop it ever happening again, they set out to find ways to control the hidden enemy within the human mind. (The Century of the Self – The Engineering of Consent, BBC2, March 24, 2002)

        The critic goes on to state:

        As you’ll know, if you’ve read Elizabeth Fones-Wolf’s study of the period, Alex Carey’s work, and countless books by Edward Herman, Noam Chomsky, and many others, this could not be further from the truth. Post-1945, as now, the real fear of politicians and planners was the existence of dangerous +rational+ desires and fears – popular desires for equity, justice and functioning democracy; popular fears that unbridled capitalism and militarism would once again lead to horrors on the scale of the two world wars. Freud’s theories were incidental – useful in refining traditional methods of popular control perhaps, but a sideshow.

        In Curtis’ film, Bernays is presented more as a cause than effect. In reality he was joined by all sorts of other like-minded mind managers from the time period: scientists like John B. Watson, the founder of behaviorism, for example, and Ivy Lee, the unsung hero of embedded journalism, crisis management and the press release. Public relations evolved as a means of rescuing corporations from the wrath of public opinion, most notably in response to events like the Ludlow massacre.

        People like Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays are great exemplars of what Peter Bachrach called “The theory of democratic elitism”, but they didn’t create this philosophy. They merely updated it to correspond with new developments in technology and communication. You can go back Mosca or Schumpeter or a whole slew of other anti-democratic philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Xenophon or the Pythagorean Brotherhood.

        The overriding theme is that real democracy might produce “leveling tendencies”, in other words, an egalitarian society in which “regular people” might actually be able to participate in the running of their government.

        What has emerged as the primary form of governance around the globe is what social scientists describe as polyarchy. There’s a fancy definition for it, but the basic gist is that we get to vote every few years to elect some rich guy, write letters to our “representatives”, and if we’re really uppity – attend a demonstration – but by no means should we be permitted to actually make decisions collectively on matters of any import. Important decisions are the purview of the enlightened ones – people like Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and Mitt Romney.

    • Daniel Henninger addressed Les Déplorables on WSJ
      Hillary’s epitath

      puts back in play what will be seen as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the politically incorrect. . . .it was only a matter of time before les déplorables—our own writhing mass of unheard Americans—rebelled against the intellectual elites’ ancien régime of political correctness. . . . describe “people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them . . . and they’re just desperate for change.” . . .But in the eight years available to Barack Obama to do something about what rankles the lower-middle class—white, black or brown—the non-employed and underemployed grew. A lot of them will vote for Donald Trump because they want a radical mid-course correction. . . .
      Evangelicals at last week’s Values Voter Summit said they’d look past Mr. Trump’s personal résumé. This is the reason. It’s not about him.

      Trump adopted “Les Deplorables” at Miami. Brilliant response by those Hillary considers “unredeemable”!
      Reminds me of Keith Green singing There is a Redeemer

    • “Then he greeted the throng as Les Despicables.”

      Les Deplorables.

      Try to keep up.

  17. RE: Energy divides candidates, but draws little attention [link]

    The latest Reuters poll shows that energy issues rank dead last, right behind environmental issues.

    Most important problem facing the US today


  18. Many if not most of the media are so intent on damaging Trump they are very enthusiastic when they think they “have” him. He uses their zeal against them in a sort of social Taekwondo, to totally punk them. He is brilliant. From the article:

    Media Outraged After Trump Tricks Them To Cover Endorsements From Military Heroes


  19. Actually, Billary’s campaign strategist was one of the first to disparage Obummer’s national pedigree and commitment to the USA. From the article:

    Penn Strategy Memo, March 19, 2007: More than anything else, this memo captures the full essence of Mark Penn’s campaign strategy–its brilliance and its breathtaking attacks. Penn identified with impressive specificity the very coalition of women and blue-collar workers that Clinton ended up winning a year later. But he also called Obama “unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun,” and wrote, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” Penn proposed targeting Obama’s “lack of American roots.”


    • Yep. The media “elites” sure got punked.

      But watch the festival of cognitive dissonance that happens today among Trump’s critics and the media. They need to explain why the birther thing was racist. What exactly is the reasoning for that connection?

      Jake Tapper says the connection between the birther movement and racism is so obvious that you would have to be “naive” to think it wasn’t about race, given that Obama is black. And also given that the “birther” idea had no credible evidence.

      But how does that explain why Trump said Ted Cruz was Canadian? Is it because Trump is also racist against Canadians?

      That’s the problem the media will have to wrestle with today. And Trump has turned all of them into idiots because there is no real answer to the Ted Cruz analogy. A rational person would look at this situation and say that Trump uses every available option to win, and birtherism helped him get this far because it gave him a launch pad.


      And some are very, very unhappy about it.

      Marc Lamont Hill: Trump Acting Like “Arbiter Of Citizenship,” Statement Was “Disgusting And Pejorative”

      Congressional Black Caucus Tears Into Trump Over Birther Statement: “Deplorable,” “Disgusting Day”

      Clinton Campaign: Trump Can Never Distance Himself From Birtherism

    • One of the reasons for the low media trust numbers above relates to how the MSM is handling the story of Clinton surrogate Sid Blumenthal shopping the Birther story in 2008. The journalist involved confirms it. Yet CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC are all silent and even denies anything to it. Comments related to the story are deleted.

      The travesty isn’t who started it. The crime is the blatant media bias and censorship around the entire affair.

      • Really? You’re going with ” they started it” to deflect about Trump’s YEARS of birtherism? Really?

      • Yep. The Birther story originated with Sid Blumenthal, so technically not Clinton, but come on.

        Meanwhile, former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher tweeted Friday that Blumenthal had “told me in person” that Obama was born in Kenya.

        “During the 2008 Democratic primary, Sid Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Co.,” Asher said in an email Friday to McClatchy, noting that he was at the time the investigative editor and in charge of Africa coverage.

        “During that meeting, Mr. Blumenthal and I met together in my office and he strongly urged me to investigate the exact place of President Obama’s birth, which he suggested was in Kenya. We assigned a reporter to go to Kenya, and that reporter determined that the allegation was false.

        “At the time of Mr. Blumenthal’s conversation with me, there had been a few news articles published in various outlets reporting on rumors about Obama’s birthplace. While Mr. Blumenthal offered no concrete proof of Obama’s Kenyan birth, I felt that, as journalists, we had a responsibility to determine whether or not those rumors were true. They were not.”

        Blumenthal, who worked in the White House with President Bill Clinton and later was employed by the Clinton Foundation, could not be reached Friday but said in an email to The Boston Globe, “This is false. Period.”


      • Even there, they say Blumenthal was just echoing something going around in the crazy blogosphere circles already. He was not an originator of it, and Trump should not imply he was. Plus they dismissed it quickly, while Trump seems to have taken five years to almost begrudgingly get to the same conclusion after having risen to king of the crazies on this for a while.

      • J

        It is not just the commission but the omission. Fifty years ago I don’t ever remember a story covered by the MSM with a left wing tilt. But that view was based on the stories they covered. What about all the editorial decisions that left out stories. We’ll never know what never got covered due to media bias.

        But now with alternative news outlets, the news consumer can play Monday morning quarterback and question the editorial judgment when stories are left on the floor. Why didn’t CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN cover a particular story? In this case, not only was there no mention about the Blumenthal linkage, but the Big Boys ruled there was no truth, at all, that Clinton had involvement in any way.. At a minimum, they could have explained why, in their journalistic opinion, the story was bogus or not relevant, but instead they ignored it completely. Independents are catching on to how partiality can be in the form of silence.

  20. Unless I’ve missed it, why is the issue of Social Security failing in ten years (or so) not a big deal this election? People just plan on not worrying about it until it happens? Kind of strange.

    • I think the feeling is that the government will do whatever has to be done to make SS work.

    • It is already a huge problem with the General Fund subsidizing SS and Medicare this year $401 Billion, which represents 2/3 of the current year deficit. All Social Program spending is to increase by $600 Billion by 2020. Add expected increases in Debt Service costs and the cost curve gets out of control.

    • Some of us stopped expecting to ever see a dime of our money coming back from SS a long time ago.

  21. Dr Curry,

    Article in yesterday’s Seattle Times on a paper published in The Cryosphere on polar bears. Laidre & Stern, UDUB. (University of Washington for those east of the Continental divide.)

    Analyzed 35 years of satellite data to determine spring melt and fall freeze up. Showing later for first and earlier for second. About 3.5 weeks each. Lead in was BAD NEWS FOR POLAR BEARS UW scientists find dire ice conditions across Arctic.

    The science part seems ok. It’s the media comments by the researchers that is garbage. As in parroting unsupported opinion rather than sticking to what is scientifically known. Surprisingly to me, the journalist seemed to do a decent job, for journalists, of reporting the story.

  22. Pingback: Rafe’s Roundup Sept 17 | Catallaxy Files

  23. “Scientific American: What do the candidates know about science?”

    For that matter what does Scientific American know about science now that it has become a climate activist? If they knew science they would know that activism and science don’t mix because activism, zealotry, and research fads compromise the ability of researchers to carry out unbiased scientific inquiry and to seek the truth for truth’s sake.

    • Scientific American belongs to the Nature publishing empire. I traced the change to the Nature Publishing head editor, who comes from the far left end of the political spectrum. This guy in turn has been slowly shifting the organization into a left leaning political stance. My impression is the far left realized they had to reload after the Soviet Union collapsed, Eastern Europe liberated itself, and China shifted to its neofascist capitalist hybrid system. They reloaded in the universities, have been engaged in a slow, methodical take over, have achieved significant power, and are now engaged in a repressive stance to drown any dissent. Those of you in the USA are only in the initial phases. Here in Europe it’s more advanced, to the point that “moderate left” is seen as right wing, and the media’s idea of “neutrality” is to praise Raúl Castro because his dictatorship doesn’t execute prisoners in public.

  24. “Renewable energies may reduce trade in hydrocarbons”?

    There’s some good information in this study, but it’s amazing how the authors CAGW brainwashing blinds them to the existence of this:


    And this:


    Trade globalisation in the last two centuries

    Historians and economists generally identify two periods of trade globalisation, the first beginning around 1870 and the second during the 1970s. The column argues that new data from 1827 onwards shows…that both periods of globalisation were surprisingly fuelled by a regionalisation of world trade.

    To better understand the chronology of globalisation, we put together the most comprehensive bilateral trade dataset to date. It tells us that the First Globalisation began in Europe in the 1840s, before expanding to other continents later in the 19th century. Technological innovations (oceangoing steamships, transcontinental telegraph) and pro-trade policies (bilateral free trade treaties, the gold standard) of the second half of the 19th century are considered the sparks for globalisation. This can’t be the case if globalisation began before they were created….

    The First Globalisation had therefore already begun in the 1840s, before steamships, the telegraph or the gold standard, and before the wave of bilateral trade treaties signed by Western European countries in the 1860s. This was, however, a period of political stability in Europe after the Congress of Vienna in 1815. In the mid-19th century there were also unilateral reductions of trade protection, for example the repeal of the British Corn Laws in 1846. We found similar examples in other European countries. In the 1870s the Russian and American ‘grain invasion’ prompted higher tariffs in most of continental Europe. Trade costs, however, kept falling during this protectionist backlash, which suggests that it was compensated by the decline of other trade barriers.

    After 1918, totalitarian regimes emerged in the USSR, Italy and Germany, and the protectionist measures that were adopted after the Great Depression condemned any possibility of returning to the liberal golden age.

    High protectionism lasted until after WWII and the adoption of the GATT in 1947, which created multilateral liberalisation among developed economies. The Treaty of Rome (1957) began European integration, and internal customs barriers were abolished altogether in 1968. Finally, the generalisation of containerisation in the 1970s reduced transport costs….

    Our research shows that globalisations are also regionalisations….

    During both periods of globalisation, nations focused on long-distance trade. The First Globalisation was built on colonial trade, and the Second was inspired by European-American and Asian-American trade. So the major role of regionalisation in both globalisations is surprising.

    Several hypotheses may explain this phenomenon. First, pro-trade policies have been primarily adopted between neighbouring partners… Second, regionalisation may also be due to the increased complexity of the goods that are traded. Language and cultural barriers, which are highly correlated to distance, may have become more important….

    Both globalisation and regionalisation resumed in the 1960s.

    But regionalisation has recently been fading, as the WTO has grown to include almost all countries in the world. The conversion of emerging and former socialist countries to free trade in the 2000s has stimulated long-distance trade.

    The dynamism of trade between Asia and the rest of the world is expected to persist, especially with the emergence of new actors such as India and Bangladesh. On the other hand, continued sluggish growth in Europe could limit the growth of intra-European trade. If so, the margin of growth for trade seems to be particularly large for long-distance trade, which gives a central role to TTIP and the TPP.

    Alternatively, perhaps globalisation has already peaked? The reorientation of Chinese growth to the domestic market should reduce its dependence on international trade. Growing inequalities in western countries generate opposition to globalisation. Renewable energies may reduce trade in hydrocarbons. Finally, the development of foreign direct investment substitutes local production for international trade.

    • It would be impossible to overestimate the impact the U.S. shale revolution has had on global oil prices. It created a supply glut, which in turn demolished global oil prices.

      According to a recent presentation by Oxy Petroleum, the largest oil and gas producer in the Permina Basin, its cost to produce that marginal barrel of shale oil is now around $40, due to advancements in shale oil technology.

      The reserves are vast, according to Pioneer Natural Resouces, which also says it can profitably produce oil from the Permian Basin at an oil price of $40 per barrel from its sweet spots.

      And as Rigzone explains, the US’s renaissance as a major oil producer and player in global oil markets has had the effect of shifting the techtonc plates of the markets:

      Why The US Is A Major Roadblock For Oil Output Freeze

      The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and Russia meet…in Algiers in two weeks’ time. The pressure is mounting on both sides to not only freeze output, but possibly even cut it.

      Whatever the rival factions decide, one producer has managed to top them all in terms of production growth over the last five years and will never be likely to join in any group efforts to control supply. And that is the United States….

      “If OPEC were to cut its production in Algiers, or really freeze its production, then prices would rise, and what producer would benefit the most rapidly from those high prices? It would be the U.S.. We would be back soon enough in a situation where the U.S. will move toward its previous boom-rate of growth and therefore start absorbing market share again,” Wood Mackenzie analyst Ann-Louise Hittle said.

      “It’s another reason why it’s difficult for OPEC to agree to a freeze” she said….

      “The structure of the U.S. oil industry and the high number of players involved in U.S. crude production would simply not allow for a freeze,” JBC Energy senior analyst Alexander Poegl said.

      “How would you limit production growth, as there is no provision for the government to enforce this?” Poegl said.


      • Yep, this is a huge benefit to the citizens of the US. It would be great if any other country froze output. That would mean more US jobs for Les Deplorables and benefit the companies as well. Awesome

      • Way too optimistic. We are seeing a lot of unsound commentary coming out of companies involved in light tight oil. And even if I rely on the figures put out by oxy I have to conclude their potential to be developed reserves at $40 per barrel are 5 % of the figure if price goes above $80.

        By the way, I’m also seeing projections which assume today’s depressed service company charges will remain as is even if activity picks up.

        Furthermore, we are already seeing the end of the road in the Eagle Ford and the Bakken/Three Forks. For those who aren’t in the oil industry: the Bakken/Three Forks are the North Dakota light tight oil reservoirs. The others are mostly in Texas. Right now we are debating what’s the actual reserve sensitivity to prices.

        I tend to think almost all company projections are too optimistic (I am an oil and gas consultant, work partime in property valuations). My advice, at this point, to clients is NOT to buy shares of oil properties operated by others, and focus on operating what they buy.

      • Fernando,

        This is not rocket science.

        If one can understand that some cars get 10 MPG while others get 20 MPG, one can understand what’s going on with the Permian Basin shale.

        Another way to look at it is comparing the performance of an iphone 5 to a new iphone 7.

      • fernandoleanme said:

        …we are already seeing the end of the road in the Eagle Ford and the Bakken/Three Forks.

        This is another claim based upon peak oil ideology. But, just like your claims regarding the Permian shale, it has no basis in facutal reality.

        The same advancements in fracking technology that are being used in the Permian shale are being used in the Eagle Ford shale, with results that aren’t all that shabby.

        A good example is the Whitetail Lease. Well #1H was completed in April, 2012. Three new infill wells were completed in 2015, and they have produced at rates about double what the first well did. The new fracking technologies make a big difference.

      • Glenn, I have been in this business for over 40 years. You will need to do better than show me single well curves to make your point.

        To the general audience: as I mentioned before, the oil industry will need a much higher price to survive and deliver oil in the future. There has been a significant workforce reduction, equipment is slowly being cannibalized, and it’s a given that prices must rise. The timing is uncertain given the price war between the Sunni group led by Saudi Arabia, and the Iran-Russia counterpart.

        Developing and producing these low quality rocks requires cash flow, and this cash flow can’t really be generated at current prices. Furthermore, a lot of this oil is too light, and this means the USA has to import heavier crudes and export the lighter ones it has in surplus. The system is very complex, and we see a lot of disinformation being spread around. The basic message is that we are still running out of oil and prices will have to go up if we are to meet future demand. As for the climate link, there’s no way we can ever meet the oil production curves used in RCP8.5. Any and all studies done using rcp8.5 are useless.

      • °°°°°fernandoleanme said:

        Glenn, I have been in this business for over 40 years.

        But that hasn’t prevented you from falling in love with peak oil theory.

        Rigzone did an article recently that analyzed the extent to which peak oil theory has fallen out of fashion, and the events that have caused this:

        Here’s One Sign That ‘Peak Oil’ Is Dead

        The theory that oil prices would have to rise as supply inevitably declined gained hold on popular imaginations in the mid- to late 2000s, but has since languished in internet obscurity, as new discoveries and technology, including the shale revolution that helped push U.S. oil production to a 40-year high, have ensured plentiful amounts of crude in recent years.

        Underscoring the trend is the fact that Google searches for “too much oil” recently outstripped searches for “Peak Oil.” Prices per barrel are currently languishing around $45.

        °°°°°fernandoleanme said:

        You will need to do better than show me single well curves to make your point.

        Are you arguing that the new completion techniques have not greatly enhanced individual well performance?

        Are you arguing that individual well performance doesn’t impact aggregate well performance?

        Are you arguing that the performance of an iphone 7 is no better than that of an iphone 5?

        Here’s the net:

        same reservoir rock + newer completion technologies = more oil, and at a lower cost to produce

        °°°°°fernandoleanme said:

        To the general audience: as I mentioned before, the oil industry will need a much higher price to survive and deliver oil in the future.

        I don’t know of anyone in the oil industry who disputes this claim.

        World oil demand is expected to continue to increase at a clip of about 1.0 to 1.5 million BOPD for the next couple of decades. Russia and the Gulf States have only so much conventional oil that can be produced at a cost of $10 to $20 per barrel. And these low-cost producers, with few exceptions, are producing at full throttle.

        Crude Glut Belies Risk From OPEC’s Dwindling Output Cushion

        The low oil prices have caused a collapse of investment in new oil and gas projects. Because of the long lead times of upstream projects, the effects of this won’t be seen for years.

        Low-cost conventional and slightly more expensive (but still relatively low-cost) shale oil won’t be able to meet projected future oil demand. More costly-to-produce oil will be needed. But investment into this more expensive-to-produce oil won’t recover until prices rebound.

        As prices rebound, the rigs will go back to work in the more costly-to-produce shales — those within the Permian and Mid-continent (STACK, SCOOP) shale complexes, as well as the Eagle Ford, Bakken and Niobrara.

        This is so because, if we look at the inventory of future potential oil projects out there, the cost to produce oil from the shales is very competitive in comparison to other alternatives:

        No one, however, expects the oil markets to work without a great deal of friction and volatility, as this article from Rigzone explains:

        Kemp: Persistence Of Instability In The Oil Market

        °°°°°fernandoleanme said:

        There has been a significant workforce reduction, equipment is slowly being cannibalized, and it’s a given that prices must rise.

        I don’t know anyone in the upstream oil and gas industry who disputes this.

        °°°°°fernandoleanme said:

        The timing is uncertain given the price war between the Sunni group led by Saudi Arabia, and the Iran-Russia counterpart.

        This imagined “price war” is not what has devastated global oil prices.

        What devastated global oil prices is a surfeit of relatively low-cost production from US shale producers.

        If Saudi Arabia or Russia were to cut production, and global oil prices rebounded to their pre-2014 levels, the U.S. shale producers would once again, and in short order, flood the global markets again with oversupply.

        And if this were not enough, then there are the vast shale resources in Argentina and Mexico:

        BP’s Dudley Favors Argentina Shale Over Costly Texas Permian

        °°°°°fernandoleanme said:

        Developing and producing these low quality rocks requires cash flow, and this cash flow can’t really be generated at current prices.

        Finding financing for upstream oil and gas projects with sound economics has never been a problem.

        °°°°°fernandoleanme said:

        Furthermore, a lot of this oil is too light, and this means the USA has to import heavier crudes and export the lighter ones it has in surplus.

        That’s why congress’s lifting the ban on exporting US crude oil in January of this year was so important. Now the US can export its surfeit of light crude, which is much in demand in the rest of the world.

        U.S. Exports First Freely Traded Oil in 40 Years

        °°°°°fernandoleanme said:

        The system is very complex, and we see a lot of disinformation being spread around.

        Right. And we see this especially by those in love with peak oil theory.

        °°°°°fernandoleanme said:

        The basic message is that we are still running out of oil and prices will have to go up if we are to meet future demand.

        I don’t know of anyone in the oil an gas industry who believes that technological advancements can completely overcome the depletion of conventional oil and gas reservoirs. But a great deal has been done, and perhaps more can be done, to cushion the blow. The peak oil apocalypse imagined by many peak oil theorists has not happened, and in fact the very opposite has happened.

  25. “We will be one people, under one God, saluting one American flag,” Trump declared from a podium in front of a half dozen American flags.


  26. The Electoral Collage vote is tightening. Of course, this is harder to predict even than the popular vote itself. But … from the article …

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – An election analysis conducted in the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project shows that the race has tightened considerably over the past few weeks, with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump projected to win Florida, an essential battleground state, if the election were held today.

    The project, which is based on a weekly tracking poll of more than 15,000 Americans, shows that the 2016 presidential race could end in a photo finish on Nov. 8, with the major-party candidates running nearly even in the Electoral College, the body that ultimately selects the president.

    The States of the Nation project, which delivers a weekly tally of support for the candidates in every state, shows that the race has tightened in several traditional battlegrounds. Pennsylvania has been moved from a likely win for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to a tossup; Ohio has been moved from a tossup to a likely win for Clinton. And Florida is now considered a likely win for the Republican nominee, with 50 percent support for Trump to 46 percent support for Clinton.

    If the election were held today, the project estimates that Clinton has a 60 percent chance of winning by 18 electoral votes. Last week, the project estimated that Clinton had a 83 percent chance of winning the election.


  27. Three observations.
    The Scientific American article claimed to have canvased 10 million readers for input to the list of questions. In an election everyone should have an opinion.
    The media always hype the ‘close race’ angle for drama.
    The 1972 election where Nixon won by a landslide. After Watergate, the mantra around the water cooler was “don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for him”.
    Success has many parents. Failure is an orphan.

  28. Obummer and Clinton are two brilliant bulbs, that’s for sure. They want more migrants. Let’s see how that’s working out in Germany. From the article:

    Germany is blowing up again over migration. The Saxon town of Bautzen has, like dozens of similar places across Germany, a barracks for some of the million or two Middle Eastern migrants who have been streaming across the Mediterranean for the past year-and-a-half. People in Bautzen aren’t used to foreigners, and now groups of young men have taken to congregating in city’s central square, the Kornmarkt. The migrants say they come there for the free internet. This upsets the locals, 80 of whom waged a pitched battle against 20 teenage migrants on Wednesday evening. Alcohol was involved on both sides. To judge from the video at FAZ.com, accounts differ on who is to blame. The Germans say that the young migrants (whom they refer to as UMAs, the German acronym for unaccompanied minors seeking asylum) are harassing women and smashing things. The UMAs, in turn, say the locals (whom they refer to as “Nazis”) accost them every day with shouts of “Foreigners out!”


    • Could point, Jim. Obama and Clinton are idiots for advocating for proportionately a similar number of migrants as Germany has.

      Oh.. Wait.

      • They are idi0ts if they import any migrants at all from terrorist countries without deep vetting. Even importing Islamists is questionable due to the fact that Islam is a form of government that isn’t compatible with ours in the US. Importing Islamists is simply asking for trouble.

  29. Jake Novak @CNBC right again.


    I need to read the emails he is talking about. It seems Clinton doesn’t like Barry very much. And the feeling is mutual.

    Dang those emails, huh?

    When are more libtards going to join Nancy Pelosi in condemning them and begging everyone to not mention them.

    The advantage of wearing your heart on your sleeve is you never have to worry about getting email hacked because it won’t reveal anything new about you. For most Americans, especially white men I guess, we lead boring honest lives and there’s nothing in our email that would lead anyone to believe otherwise. Or at least I like to think most people are like that. I suppose some are vicious little gossips. Looks like Colin Powell is a little gossip. Maybe it comes with elitism. I don’t know. I avoid people like that.

  30. Email Leaks: Dem Megadonor Jeffrey Leeds Tells Colin Powell The Clintons ‘Hate’ Obama For 2008 Loss. Had health concerns about Hillary 18 months ago. Also said Obama wouldn’t be upset if she lost.


    • Don’t forget Assange has promised a bunch more Billary-related emails next week, I believe it was. Probably will be a feast for Trump and the conservative media.

  31. “Nearly half of all Trump supporters described blacks as more “violent” than whites, compared with nearly one-third of Clinton supporters who did the same.”

    From the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2013:

    Homicides, white offender: 2755
    Homicides, black offender: 2698

    Did I commit a racist act by posting this factual information?

    • No. You’d have to point out that despite there being five times more whites than blacks, blacks committed almost half of all homicides. If you white then pointing out that members of your race are less violent that makes you a racist. The problem is that it’s justified racism. The data supports it.

      • It’s racism if you think it’s genetic. I see it as a social problem. So rather than ignore the statistics the better option is to study this real problem and try to fix it. Evidently whatever has been done over the last 50 years didn’t help enough. I’ve been dirt poor (we really struggled when my family arrived in the USA), and I worked as a volunteer in poor neighborhoods.

        It seems to me parenting quality is very poor, and the fix may require having very extended school periods, feeding children a decent diet, and teaching them in turn how to behave. It’s a huge task.

      • Fernando –

        ==> It’s racism if you think it’s genetic. <==

        Indeed, that is the definition of racism, isn't it?

        But perhaps you should enlarge your view of the social casualty.

        A good listen.



      • You made up your own definition of racism that includes genetics.

        I generally don’t try to have serious discussions with people who refuse to settle on a dictionary as a broker for the meaning of words. I’m not going to make an exception in this instance.

      • Here’s the deal with genetics. Every person is unique and born with both superior and inferior aspects when compared with others. There is tremendous overlap amongst so-called races so much so that individuals must be compared not whole races.

        The bottom line is you’re either American or you’re not. If you’re not and you don’t want to embrace the US constitution, its laws, and its culture then get the phuck out. Otherwise I don’t care what color you are, what God you worship, the gender of the person you love, or anything else. What I care about is whether, as a fellow American, you have my back when I need you as I have yours.

        This is what Trump is appealing to in all of us. For a great many black citizens the chips are down. He recognizes this and asks to be given a chance to help. Help doesn’t come in the form of an incremental increase in free but sub-standard food and housing. Self-respect isn’t won that way it merely contributes to a hopeless cycle of feeling left out and mistreated. What we need to do is bring good schools and good jobs to those that have been left behind. We need to acknowledge that everyone with every kind of God-given talent and ability is needed to keep the wheels on the American train and every last person is given the opportunity to earn the respect of others and respect for themselves.

  32. Bernie Sanders is on fire.


    But it’s very very small fire. 150 people turned out in Akron to see him waving pompoms for Hillary.

  33. From the article:

    Debate Rules Being Set by Hillary Donors

    Campaign contributions from ‘bipartisan’ debate commissioners given exclusively to Clinton


  34. Shock poll:

    RCP poll average Hillary less than 1% in both two-way (0.9%) and four-way (0.5%) contests.

    The trend is our friend.

    Are you feeling the love now, boys?

  35. Here’s the unseemly underbelly to Obama and Clinton’s oper-borders immigration policy.

    In construction boom, immigrant workers face perils of exploitation

  36. http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/

    According to the LA Times/USC daybreak poll Trump is up to 20% of the black vote. That’s more than the last three Republican nominees *combined*. This is why Clinton is doubling down on the racist card. She has no choice but to try pounding that wedge of division between Americans. That my friends is truly deplorable. Hillary Clinton is one sick kitty in body, mind, and spirit.

  37. From the article:

    Just minutes from this temporary work site, at the state-run employment agency Job Service North Dakota, it is a far different world. There is a shortage of workers for highly skilled positions in drilling and oil pump maintenance, among others.

    “There were layoffs when oil really tanked,” said Cindy Sanford, who heads the agency’s Williston branch. “Now what’s happening is those companies are bringing people back.”

    North Dakota is now seeing hints of a recovery from the bust. As crude prices have rebounded to the $40 range after a stunning crash, there are signs that the industry is slowly regaining its footing.

    While oil production still continues to decline, analysts expect it to stabilize next year. Meanwhile, the number of active oil rigs is rising again and they have become more efficient and productive, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

    “The industry is going to resume a very modest, but positive, growth in supply in 2017,” said Raoul LeBlanc, a US energy analyst at IHS.

    But Besler believes the industry can rise again. If prices can be sustained in the $50-60 per barrel range, Besler said, “that starts to bring the outside money back in, the investment groups that were pouring money into the Bakken before.”

    The city of Williston is anticipating that Bakken will power the local economy for decades to come, budgeting $1 billion on roads, bridges, and a new airport.

    Companies are once again competing for workers. A recent job fair had 56 companies planning to fill 300 positions.


    • Baker Hughes: US Oil Drillers Add Rigs For 11th Week In 12

      “With a large proportion of (rig) gains from smaller operators and oil now sub $45 we would not be surprised to see a flattening or even decline over the next few weeks,” analysts at U.S. financial services firm Cowen & Co said in a report this week.

      Longer-term, however, analysts expect the rig count to rise slowly for the rest of 2016 before jumping higher over the next two years with a rebalancing of supply and demand. While U.S. oil futures for the balance of 2016 are only fetching around $44 per barrel, calendars 2017 and 2018 are trading near $48 and $50, respectively.

    • As to the difficulty of meeting the demand for white collar workers as oil prices and drilling activity rebound, there is a difference of opinion within industry insiders:

      Jobless Recovery Looms For White-Collar US Oil Workers

      Today, companies can raise production by re-deploying idled rigs and completing unfinished wells, but recruiters warn later on they may struggle to find specialists they will need to find new deposits and further boost productivity.

      “If in two years you need a reservoir engineer with experience, where are you going to find that person? It’ll be very difficult,” said Darroh, the recruiter.

      Oilfield services giant Halliburton Co, which laid off more than 20,000 workers in the past two years, is playing down such concerns. Mahesh Puducheri, global vice president of human resources, said attractive benefits and pay – often above $100,000 per year – act as strong incentives.

      “Even though people would leave to go to another industry, the moment oil and gas pricing starts to pick up, we expect them to come back to our industry,” he told Reuters. “We’ve never had issues attracting people back.”

      Others are less confident and consider shortages of skilled labor as a long-term risk. Yet their message is they have to live with that risk while market conditions remain uncertain.

      “I can’t go hiring people until I’m confident my own customers will have money to spend instead of paying down their debt,” said Ian Bryant, president of Packers Plus, which supplies parts used in hydraulic fracturing.

  38. There was quite a contrast in how Trump responded to the bombing in New York City vs. how Clinton responded.

    First Trump’s response, which is important to watch so one isn’t misled by Clinton’s characterization of his response:

    Moments After Chelsea Explosion, Trump Promises To “Get Very Tough”

    And then Clinton’s response, which can be seen about half way into this video:

    Chris Christie: You Can Call NJ, NYC Bombings Terrorism

  39. VIDEO: ISIS wing claims responsibility for Minnesota mall attack

  40. Tri-state Bombs

    The Tri-state area has too few deplorables. Practically 100% Democrat.

    You see it’s because deplorables don’t put being politically incorrect in front of a safe, prosperous, law-abiding society. Deplorables defend themselves and their neighbors and they don’t care if their neighbor is deplorable or not they defend all Americans. All hell breaks loose when the deplorables disappear. Demonstrably so.

  41. Is that a hospital gown Hillary has on?

  42. Do they have any suspects yet for the two apparently unrelated attacks?
    If they had been islami£ terrorists you would have thought that would have been more spectacular and actually on 9/11


  43. Watch Trump pull into the lead in RCP 4-way polling. Five of seven polls are too old to have the deplorable pneumonia video fully factored into it.

  44. The Latest: Somali Father IDs Son as Minnesota Mall Attacker


    The father of the man who stabbed nine people at a central Minnesota mall has identified him as a 22-year-old college student.

    Ahmed Adan told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis that police told him Saturday night that his son, Dahir A. Adan, died at Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud.

    He says police didn’t mention the attack on the mall, but they seized photos and other materials from the family’s apartment.

    Authorities haven’t publicly identified the attacker. They say the attacker stabbed nine people Saturday night before an off-duty police officer shot and killed him. None of the victims suffered life-threatening injuries.

    Ahmed Adan, who is Somali, says his son came to the U.S. 15 years ago and was was a student at St. Cloud Technical and Community College. He told the Star Tribune he had “no suspicion” that his son might have been involved in terrorist activity.

    The Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for the attack.

  45. Smoking Gun – 2008 Clinton campaign strategy document, exposed by DCLeaks hack, has a whole section discussing how to highlight and exploit Obama’s “Lack of American Roots”.

    Hat Tip to American Thinker.


  46. CNN lies by omission to help Billary. They should have all their press passes revoked and given to Matt Drudge!! What’s wrong with these idi0ts anyway. If you hear a big boom and see a lot of smoke from it, calling it a bomb is perfectly natural. Idi0ts!!! From the article:

    CNN’s Jake Tapper asked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on State of the Union on Sunday morning about the supposed contrast between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their responses to the explosions Saturday in New York, editing out Clinton’s reference to “bombings” to create a false distinction.
    Tapper cited Trump referring to a “bomb” in New York, then played a clip of Clinton criticizing him for saying that — leaving out Clinton’s reference, seconds before, to what she called “bombings.”

    Here is the Tapper’s question for Christie, with the edited Clinton clip:


    • How’s that biased reporting working out for CNN?

      Oh yeah… trust in the media is at an all time low and Fox News is the most watched, most trusted outlet.

      No one but blinkered libtards trust CNN and they won’t change their vote under any circumstances. Don’t sweat it. Hillary’s getting run out on a rail. There’s no stopping The Donald.

  47. It’s as if migrants from terrorist countries reach some sort of critical mass, like uranium in a bomb. Yep, we need more migrants from terrorist countries. From the article:

    Authorities are investigating the stabbings of nine people at a Minnesota mall as a potential act of terrorism — a finding that would realize long-held fears of an attack in the immigrant-rich state that has struggled to stop the recruiting of its young men by groups including the Islamic State.

    A young Somali man dressed as a private security guard entered the Crossroads Center mall over the weekend wielding what appeared to be a kitchen knife. The city’s police chief said the man reportedly made at least one reference to Allah and asked a victim if he or she was Muslim before attacking. The rampage ended when the man was shot dead by an off-duty police officer. None of the injured suffered life-threatening wounds.

    The motive is still unclear, but FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Rick Thornton said Sunday the stabbings were being investigated as a “potential act of terrorism,” and the Islamic State claimed responsibility. Authorities were digging into the attacker’s background and possible motives, looking at social media accounts, his electronic devices and talking to his associates, Thornton said.


  48. So far in the weekend bombing and stabbings the perps so far identified are foreign-born Muslims. I haven’t found any MSM outlets that have brought up this fact and it takes a bit of digging to get names and birthplaces which then instantly reveal the Muslim connections.

    What the phuck are we supposed to do? Remain blind to the nature of these attackers, how few of them there are in America, and how easy it is to single them out? We have to stop this politically correct nonsense and start profiling. Big time. And not be shy about it.

    Trump/Pence 2016

  49. VIDEO: NY, NJ bombings: Authorities suspect possible terror cell, officials say

    New York police say they’re looking for 28-year-old Ahmad Khan Rahami in connection with the Chelsea bombing over the weekend.

    Khan is a 28 year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, born in Afghanistan.

  50. Scott Adams – Assessing the Risk of Trump


    For over a year now I have been blogging about Trump’s talent for persuasion, and that gives people the impression that I prefer him as my president. That is not the case. I’ll tell you why at the end of this post.

    The best choice for president depends on the types of challenges ahead. And the future has a habit of surprising us. We have no way to predict whether Clinton or Trump would end up being the right match for an unpredictable future.

    That said, let’s talk about assessing the risk – to the country – of Trump versus Clinton. My observation of their histories and their personalities suggests that Trump offers America an entrepreneur’s profile of risk, whereas Clinton would be more like investing in a CD at your bank. Which is better? The answer for you probably depends on how old you are, how selfish you are, and how much money you have.

    If things are going well for you and your family, you probably don’t want to rock the boat. In that case, Clinton is a good choice for you. But if you are young, or things are not working out well for you and your family, it would be rational to accept higher risk with the hope of getting a bigger/faster improvement.

    But how big is the Trump risk to the economy and the country in general? Let’s talk about how Trump has managed risk in the past. That’s the best way to predict how he will do it in the future.


    –more at link

    • S.A. seems stupidly blind to the risks of Billary.

      • He’s only speaking for himself and made that pretty clear. If you’re wealthy (Adams is loaded) your life won’t change much no matter who is elected.

      • The Dimowits want to throw cold water on fracking and if elected will make all kinds of draconian regulations – I should say tons more on top of the tons we already have. If the Fed-supported stock market finally goes south and the economy does the same, even the rich might get fleeced. It’s happened in other countries before.

      • jim2,

        The Dimowits want to throw cold water on fracking….

        It’s unphucking believable. Can you imagine what our current account deficit would be if not for the fracking revolution?

  51. Trump flips Colorado. Now leading by 4%.


    This puts him in the lead in electoral votes. It’s just going to get worse.

  52. Trump flips Nevada. Now leading +2.

    Even farther in electoral vote lead.

  53. Reuters/Ipsos 9-15



    He’s gonna flip flippin Pennsylvania!

  54. Easy resolution unlikely for contentious Dakota pipeline

    The 1,172-mile (1,886 km) Dakota Access pipeline was slated to start up by the end of the year, transporting more than 470,000 barrels per day of crude oil through four states into Illinois before it hooks up to another pipeline down to Texas.

    But in a stunning twist last week, the U.S. Justice Department and other federal agencies intervened to delay construction in what industry and labor representatives called an “unprecedented” move.

    The halt on the $3.7 billion project was the result of a groundswell of protest from Native American tribes and environmentalists, some of whom now are vowing to continue the fight until the project is permanently suspended….

    “We’re entering unchartered waters if a reroute happens at this stage and I can’t think of another example of a case where this has happened,” said Afolabi Ogunnaike, a senior analyst at consultancy Wood Mackenzie….

    North Dakota’s governor, Jack Dalrymple, told Reuters on Friday that he hoped regulators would give the go-ahead for construction to resume shortly. If that does not happen, an alternative solution does not appear to be easy to come by.

      Dakota Access Pipeline Provides High-Quality Jobs

      The AFL-CIO supports pipeline construction as part of a comprehensive energy policy that creates jobs, makes the United States more competitive and addresses the threat of climate change. Pipelines are less costly, more reliable and less energy intensive than other forms of transporting fuels, and pipeline construction and maintenance provides quality jobs to tens of thousands of skilled workers.

      We believe that community involvement in decisions about constructing and locating pipelines is important and necessary, particularly in sensitive situations like those involving places of significance to Native Americans. However, once these processes have been completed, it is fundamentally unfair to hold union members’ livelihoods and their families’ financial security hostage to endless delay. The Dakota Access Pipeline is providing over 4,500 high-quality, family supporting jobs.

      Furthermore, trying to make climate policy by attacking individual construction projects is neither effective nor fair to the workers involved. The AFL-CIO calls on the Obama Administration to allow construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue.

  55. The Existential Madness of Putin-Bashing

    Arguably, the nuttiest neoconservative idea – among a long list of nutty ideas – has been to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia by weakening its economy, isolating it from Europe, pushing NATO up to its borders, demonizing its leadership, and sponsoring anti-government political activists inside Russia to promote “regime change.”…

    In that devil-may-care approach, the neocons are joined by prominent “liberal interventionists,” such as billionaire currency speculator George Soros, who pulls the strings of many “liberal” organizations that he bankrolls.

    In February 2015, Soros laid out his “Russia-regime-change” vision in the liberal New York Review of Books with an alarmist call for Europe “to wake up and recognize that it is under attack from Russia” – despite the fact that it has been NATO encroaching on Russia’s borders, not the other way around.

    But Soros’s hysteria amounted to a clarion call to his many dependents among supposedly independent “non-governmental organizations” to take up the goal of destabilizing Russia and driving Putin from office….

    Amid this anything-goes Putin-bashing, The New York Times, The Washington Post and now Hillary Clinton’s campaign have escalated their anti-Putin rhetoric, especially since Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has offered some praise of Putin as a “strong” leader.

    Despite the barrage of cheap insults emanating from U.S. political and media circles, Putin has remained remarkably cool-headed, refusing the react in kind. Oddly, as much as the American political/media establishment treats Putin as a madman, Official Washington actually counts on his even-temper to avoid a genuine existential crisis for the world.

    If Putin were what the U.S. mainstream media and politicians describe – a dangerous lunatic – the endless baiting of Putin would be even more irresponsible. Yet, even with many people privately realizing that Putin is a much more calculating leader than their negative propaganda makes him out to be, there still could be a limit to Putin’s patience.

    • Newsflash: The cold war is over. Russia is a democracy. The communist Soviet Union is dissolved. We won.

      Russia has a great pragmatic culture and people. It’s is not a religious state which ought to be the first qualification for friends of the US. They are being aggressive in Ukraine? No shiit? In their own backyard with a renegade region once part of Russia. We have business there in their back yard? I don’t think so.

      I’d sure as phuck rather be besties with Russia than say Saudi Arabia. Women can drive cars and work and go to school in Russia. Russians don’t take hostages and saw their heads off in live internet podcasts. Russian men and women can drink and eat and party and fornicate all they want. Sort of like a lot of Americans I know.

      Russia is a natural ally and we should be treating them like one. Perhaps the best thing with having Russia for a friend is that they don’t want or need us to protect them. How refreshing and unique is that?

      • Yet you complain when the US media even looks slightly pro-government. They have a pro-government media and no room for any other type. Is that your preference or would you call that restricting freedom of speech? Putin cracks down on free speech.

      • I suppose any politician worth his or her metal picks their devil, or devils.

        With Clinton it’s the Russian menace and those “monsters” (as Milo Yiannopoulos satirically calls them): straight, white, working-class men, who by now we all know are “deplorable” and “irredeemable.”

        With Trump it’s the Islamic menace and illegal immigrants.

      • Glenn –

        Let me just see if I understand you correctly:

        ==> With Clinton it’s the Russian menace and those “monsters” (as Milo Yiannopoulos satirically calls them): straight, white, working-class men, who by now we all know are “deplorable” and “irredeemable.” <==

        So are you saying that criticizing Russia is the equivalent of attacking all straight, white, working-class men?

        If so, it's truly fascinating to watch such a shameless display of political correctness.

      • It can be both, and you can add to that Assad’s forces that are causing most of the deaths and refugee crisis and are blockading supplies to civilians in Aleppo. The Russians and Iranians are allied to these people. Not so simple now, is it?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Syria is an Obama mess. Give the rebels just enough arms to keep from losing but not enough to win and have a lot of what is given go to our fundamentalist enemies. Iran and Russia wouldn’t be involved if the situation had been resolved quickly, preferably without our involvement. Instead we get incremental failure in typical Obama style.

      • Russia were involved on Assad’s side from the beginning. The US did well to get the chemical weapons out from there and that was only with Russian help because Assad is their puppet. Defining the rebels was always a problem. Some of these factions are even attacking the Turks. It is a mess and always was.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’m familiar with the PKK. They have been attacking the Turks for a long time. As far as I know they are still listed as a terrorist organization. Just because a new fight started doesn’t mean the old one ended. Just because something is a mess doesn’t mean you are obliged to make it a bigger mess. You really think the chemical weapons are gone? Want to buy a bridge?

      • steven, you haven’t said what you would have done for the rebels against the Syrian and Russian forces. Was there an easy solution that everyone but you missed?

      • stevenreincarnated

        I wouldn’t have done anything for them. The revolt would have lasted about 2 weeks. Assad is a secular leader. The nations in the Middle East need a secular leader for a few generations before they will be ready for democracy. Both Assad and his father have kept the fundamentalists from taking over in Syria. It may not be the perfect situation but it is the best we can hope for at the present time.

      • steven, so you would have let them and the Russians squash the revolt and besiege rebellion strongholds, much as they are doing now. What is the difference between what you are suggesting and what is happening there now?

      • stevenreincarnated

        What is happening now and has been happening for years now is that we are supplying the rebels with enough arms to keep the fight going. It would have been over quickly if not for our interference. That is the difference.

      • It is not that simple. Read this. If they are getting arms, it is not from the US, thanks to Obama.

      • My article is more recent (2015 versus 2012) and includes what may be a mention of those weapons in this sentence.
        “The CIA gave some weapons and supplies to the rebels, though not many.”
        They have not relied on US weapons. They have other supply routes.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Like I said, enough arms to keep them going but not enough to win. What other routes? Ones you know of or ones you imagine to exist?

      • stevenreincarnated

        So nothing specific other than captured equipment which sort of goes without saying. You could have said Turkey which almost certainly has supplied the rebels but they wouldn’t have until forces not friendly to the Kurds would be available to receive them. In other words, that rebel group which we may not name. Perhaps some from the Gulf States, but there would probably be some specifics somewhere by now if the amounts were substantial. It would also have been very difficult for them to get supplies to Syrian rebels dues to the south being controlled by Syrian backed Hezbollah. The east being Iraq which means you might as well say they were from us. The north being the previously mentioned Turkey which would be more concerned with not supplying the PKK then if the rebels lost or not. It looks like the US can take credit for the endless war although it is possible they may have to give out minor awards to others for their assistance.

      • Calling Putin more names and treating Russia like an enemy probably won’t stop him from cozying up to Iran. But hey, that’s just my opinion. Maybe Putin likes humiliation and rejection. Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket.

      • Why should I care about Russia’s internal politics or its press when I have major concerns about US internal politics and press? I know I care for Russia’s politics more than Saudi Arabia’s. One phuck of a lot more. And I don’t like spending a shiit-ton of money trying and mostly failing to keep the middle east safe for the House of Saud to do business with the west. I know I care a lot about embracing a country where women are chattel and most of the population wants me dead because I don’t follow their religious edicts. Either address those differences or lose by default.

    • One of the more fascinating aspect of this election is watching the frightwing acting as apologists for Russia. I assume it’s mostly explained by a reflexive need to support Trump, who panders to Russia – but it’s probably important to allow for the possibility that they really are not particularly bothered by Russia’s record on human rights, freedom of speech, free press, corruption, etc.

      Hard to believe, but stranger things have \happened.

      • Our record isn’t much better than Russia’s.

        Our press is mistrusted by a large majority. We probably kill more non-Americans than Russia lately and possibly for quite some time. We turned the middle east into a phucking quagmire of blood and suffering.

        And I must reiterate. Russian women can drive, work, go to school, dress like they want, worship who they want, and phuck who they want.

        You don’t consider that, like, an important thing that compares in a positive light to the Saudi empire where women get stoned to death for adultery and other dark age shiit? Get a clue.

      • ==> You don’t consider that, like, an important thing that compares in a positive light to the Saudi empire where women get stoned to death for adultery and other dark age shiit?,<==

        I don't play games of moral equivalency I'll leave that for you.

        Russia is a authoritarian/totalitarian state. Rationalizing it's chronic violation of human rights, freedom of speech, free press, and it's rampant corruption are not worthy of defense.

        I'll leave that for you, also.

      • And I have never felt differently about Russia since the approximate fall of the Berlin Wall. We won the cold war. We have been allied with Russia in the past. We might all be goose stepping in the Third Reich today if it wasn’t for Russia and the horrible, horrible sacrifices they made in WWII. Communism was defeated in Russia. Learn to accept it.

      • ==> And I have never felt differently about Russia since the approximate fall of the Berlin Wall. We won the cold war. We have been allied with Russia in the past. We might all be goose stepping in the Third Reich today if it wasn’t for Russia and the horrible, horrible sacrifices they made in WWII. Communism was defeated in Russia. Learn to accept it. <==

        It is possible to be extremely critical of Russia while still recognizing the role that it played in defeating Naziism, and while recognizing that communism failed in the Soviet Union.

        What a fascinating display of binary thinking. Keep it up.

      • Communism was defeated in Russia. […]

        And now they’re Hillary’s worst nightmare.

      • Russia’s got nothing on the US when it comes to spying on citizens. All that spying, and New York gets bombed anyway. I guess they probably know where all the angry, white men are, though.

      • Remarkable –

        ==> Russia’s got nothing on the US when it comes to spying on citizens. <==

        I like to think I'm not completely uninformed about the American political landscape, but I certainly would never have anticipated the widespread rationalizations and apologies for Russia emanating from righwingers.

        That certainly isn't an excuse for Clinton's exploitation of Russia for red-baiting, but her red-baiting does take on a different light in the context of the rightwing defending the authoritarianism/totalitarianism in Russia.

      • Trump still thinks Putin called him bright when a more accurate translation of the word is flashy.

      • J0shua | September 19, 2016 at 6:35 pm |

        “I don’t play games of moral equivalency I’ll leave that for you.”

        Well isn’t that just precious. He just walks away from the hard conversations. Women stoned to death for committing adultery. Oh Oh I simply don’t talk about those things says J0shua with a swish and a swirl.

      • but I certainly would never have anticipated the widespread rationalizations and apologies for Russia emanating from righwingers.

        Gee, so the expected and frequent “widespread rationalizations and apologies for Russia emanating from leftwingers” are ok but an occasional and unexpected “widespread rationalizations and apologies for Russia emanating from rightwingers” is wrong?

      • “Keep it up.”

        Thanks. I was worried I wouldn’t have your permission.

        What a tool.

      • Putin called Trump brilliant. I suppose that could mean flashy.

        Trump called Putin a strong leader. I suppose that could mean strong smelling.

      • Yes, Trump took the meaning wrong, but that is par for the course. He bases a lot of his thoughts on a foundation of mistaken ideas. This is very Bushlike of him.

  56. Dems must be in a super panic. Trump is flipping blue states like steaks on a barbecue and has tremendous momentum. The chance of him losing a debate to Hillary is about zero. Trump’s goto answer is always to point to a Clinton/Obama failure. Or something ingrained in the public mind like erasing emails under subpoena or being extremely careless with classified material or the mess in the Middle East, terrorism at home, an economy growing at less than 2% for longer than ever before, a doubling of national debt in 8 years… Trump is running on Clinton’s record and Clinton has nothing to run on except hyperbolic claims of “racist” and “nuclear codes” .

  57. US destroys Syrian “Cease-fire” with “accidental” attack on government forces:

    An airstrike by the U.S.-led coalition, which involves fighter jets from several countries, killed dozens of Syrian soldiers on Saturday and further undermined an already-eroded cease-fire. Assad appeared on state-run media in Syria to condemn the attack, which the U.S. apologized for and said was an accident.

  58. Putin flattered Trump but not excessively according to Dartmouth Russian language expert. HuffPo misleads Jim D again. When will Jim learn to do a little fact checking once in a while?


    Putin’s full sentence, according to Mikhail Gronas, chair of Dartmouth College’s Russian department, translates to: “Well, he is a very bright person, talented without a doubt. But this is not our business to determine his merits, this is the business of the U.S. voters.”

    Had the Russian leader meant brilliant in terms of intelligence, he would have said “blestiashchii” (блестящий) instead of using “yarkii,” which Russians use for light or colors, Gronas said.

    “To a Russian ear, the general tone of Putin’s phrase is complimentary, but not over the top,” he told NBC News.

    • Colorful. Yes, we call some leaders colorful. Trump fits that for sure. It’s over-the-top showy lifestyles in a Gadaffi or Saddam type of way.

  59. Trump shatters GOP records with small donors


    ‘He’s the Republican Obama,’ one operative says as Trump monetizes his Republican supporters.

    Donald Trump has unleashed an unprecedented deluge of small-dollar donations for the GOP, one that Republican Party elders have dreamed about finding for much of the past decade as they’ve watched a succession of Democrats — Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and, to a lesser extent, Hillary Clinton — develop formidable fundraising operations $5, $10 and $20 at a time.

    Trump has been actively soliciting cash for only a few months, but when he reveals his campaign’s financials later this week they will show he has crushed the total haul from small-dollar donors to the past two Republican nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney — during the entirety of their campaigns.

    All told, Trump is approaching, or may have already passed, $100 million from donors who have given $200 or less, according to an analysis of available Federal Election Commission filings, the campaign’s public statements and people familiar with his fundraising operation. It is a threshold no other Republican has ever achieved in a single campaign. And Trump has done so less than three months after signing his first email solicitation for donors on June 21 — a staggering speed to collect such a vast sum.

    “I’ve never seen anything like this,” said a senior Republican operative who has worked closely with the campaign’s small-dollar fundraising operation. “He’s the Republican Obama in terms of online fundraising.”

    Clinton counted 2.3 million donors as of the end of August, the result of decades of campaigning, a previous presidential bid and allies who painstakingly built her an email file of supporters even before she formally announced her second run. But Trump had zoomed to 2.1 million donors in the past three months alone, his campaign has said.

    –more at link

  60. I’m so grateful Obumbles fixed our health care system. From the article:

    Despite years of Obama’s promises that America’s health care costs would go down if Obamacare was passed into law, new statistics show that care and insurance premiums have risen more this year than in the last 32 years.
    A report by Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits released on September 14 found that the average American family’s health care plan costs over $18,000 a year. That is up 3.5 percent over 2015, a hike exceeding the growth in wages.

    While it is bad on individuals, in the chronically poor Obama economy, it is worse on employers.

    “Employees are paying a whole lot more for health insurance than they did a decade ago. The average family plan cost $11,480 in 2006, of which workers had to pay $2,973,” CNN Money reported.

    Deductibles are also rising quickly, forcing workers to pay more out of pocket when using their insurance.

    Over half of workers pay a $1,000 deductible or more, a jump of 31 percent sine 2011. According to a recent piece in The New York Times, employees of small businesses have even higher deductibles at $1,800 a year average. Worse, one in five workers pay $2,000 or more.


    • Pointing out problems is easy. We have a ‘candidate’ quite capable of doing so.

      Solutions are not so easy. Wonder what ‘the candidates’ plan is to do that?

      • Creating the problem was easy and without Redimowits votes. Obumbles did it. Billary will continue it and probably make the situation worse. That’s the point.

      • Jim2,
        “Billary will continue it and probably make the situation worse.”


        How will Trump ‘fix it’?

        Again, stating an identification (maybe) of a problem is easy.

        Solutions? You state specifically that Republican’s ‘weren’t involved’ yet what you choose not to mention is they also haven’t been ‘involved’ since the original ACA passage dating to 2010. That’s 6 years. Shouldn’t they have been involved during that time? Guess they were waiting for Trump.

      • The point is, don’t vote for Billary.

      • After 6 years of ‘no involvement’ I’d go further and suggest to also not vote for a Republican. I don’t know about you, but my money goes to pay those folks and if they’re not working they should be fired.

      • Good, then you can vote for Trump with a clear conscience. He is neither Dimowit nor Redimowit.

  61. http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/09/19/muslims-get-out-sign/

    Minnesota restaurant needs to hire three new employees to keep up with increased patronage after putting up “Muslims Get Out Sign”.

    You know, the bad thing about Hillary’s “get out the vote machine” is it might not be in all the right states. The Democrats are fighting the last war. That would be a fine strategy if they were running against Jeb Bush who would have a neoconservative campaign and platform just like Bush/McCain/Romney. The democrats are fighting the last several wars and that’s not going to apply well to Trump’s campaign and platform which are both a pretty radical departure from anything ever seen before with unexpected states becoming battlegrounds. States like Minnesota.

  62. Hillary’s left eye badly misaligned with right in speech today.


    Is that a symptom of pneumonia?

    I don’t think so.

    • Same eye that she had to wear the fresnel lens over when recovering from brain trauma.

      What are we not being told about her health?

      I demand that Vladimir Putin release Clinton’s full medical records with no further delay!

  63. Leading cause of strabismus in adults:


    Stroke (the leading cause of strabismus in adults)


    “Brain tumors” – a persistent rumor that she was found to have a brain tumor when she was MRI’ed in the 2012 loss of consciousness, fall, and concussion.

    What are we not being told?

    • This is messed up. Watch that left eye keep burying itself inward over and over during this speech. Kind of makes you cringe to watch it.

      • The last time I saw her on TV, it appeared she had had a face lift. But the recovery time for that is a lot longer than a few days. Is there some chemical treatment to shrink skin??

  64. Shock poll:

    Trump doing as well with hispanics as Romney. Outperforms Romney in critical states like Nevada.


  65. Yep, we need more EF’in migrants. Go TRUMP!!! From the article:

    An iconic American company, McDonald’s, has quietly outsourced the jobs of 70 white-collar professionals in Ohio to foreign H-1B workers.
    The H-1B outsourcing in the nation’s heartland showcases the growing corporate use of foreign H-1B workers to replace American white-collar professionals, and it comes after companies have used waves of legal and illegal migrants to slash blue-collar jobs and wages in Ohio and around the country.

    Also, the 70 Ohio jobs that McDonalds outsourced to lower wage foreign graduates are not Silicon Valley technology and software jobs — they’re white-collar accounting jobs performed by graduates from mainstream business schools. That outsourcing of mainstream business jobs spotlights the growing movement of foreign workers into all corners of the nation’s white-collar professional economy.


  66. The hits just keep on coming …

    “If you can’t go and see about them, then don’t worry about your legacy,” Farrakhan charged. “‘Cause the white people that you served so well — they’ll preserve your legacy.”

    “The hell they well,” he added sarcastically.

    Farrakhan went on to say Obama “didn’t earn” a legacy with the black community, even though “we put you there.”

    “You fought for the rights of gay people; you fought for the rights of this people and that people,” he said. “You fight for Israel. Your people are suffering and dying in the streets.”


  67. A good cause? Help get ill-gotten patents nullified. From the article:

    Unpatent is a crowdfunding platform that eliminates bad patents.

    We do that by crowdsourcing the prior art — that is all the evidence that makes clear that a patent was not novel — and filing reexamination requests to the patent office.


  68. From the article:

    PRINCETON, N.J. — Americans’ reports of what they have read, seen or heard about Hillary Clinton over the past two months are dominated by references to her handling of emails while she was secretary of state.


  69. Canada just announced:

    “If Trump wins we will build a wall. And America will pay for it.”

  70. Microsoft says it will cure cancer in 10 years. This is a result of capitalism and free market principles and the incentives for profit. Meanwhile government plods along at glacial speed in its usual stodgy approach just like 100 years ago. Adam Smith and the invisible hand rule.

  71. Negative Effects of Immigration on the Economy

    US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the cost of overall growth….

    In a recent post, I showed that looking at data since 1950 or so, the percentage of the population that is foreign born is negatively correlated with job creation in later years. I promised an explanation, and I will attempt to deliver on that promise in this post.

  72. Free Trade’s Unwilling Victims

    When people talk about the benefits and harms from trade, they usually refer to the labor market….

    That’s why recent research from economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, showing that trade with China hurt lots of U.S. workers, made such a splash….

    So trade with China hit the U.S. working class hard in terms of jobs and wages. But its consumption benefits flowed far more to the middle and upper-middle classes. This shows how difficult it is to wave away the distributional effects of international trade. Not all boats rise equally, and many sink, when a big shock comes from overseas.

  73. From the article:

    Forty minutes after the explosion in Chelsea Saturday night, Donald Trump told a crowd in Colorado that a bomb had gone off in New York and said, “We better get very tough, folks. We better get very, very tough.”

    For the next 48 hours, the media denounced Trump for jumping to conclusions about a “bomb” — and especially for the wild suggestion that government policy had had anything to do with it. (How about our policy of naturalizing 858 people from terrorist-producing countries who were still under orders of deportation? Is it deplorable to ask about that policy?)

    That night, CNN boasted that it placed “numerous requests” to the Trump campaign, demanding his evidence that it was a bomb.This explosive-filled device with a detonator that blew up in a dumpster — what makes you think it was a bomb?

    Hoping to get a snappy riposte from the pouty pantsuit on Trump’s wild leap from an explosion in a dumpster to a “bomb,” the press asked her to comment on Trump’s “conclusion” — as they termed his statement of the blindingly obvious.

    Hillary referred to the bombing as a “bombing,” then snipped, “I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this … I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions.”

    True, there was a bombing, but that doesn’t mean there was a bomb. Let’s not fly off the handle. It could have been an exploding Edible Arrangement.

    Even after the dumbest mammal in North America, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, had admitted it was a bomb, journalists were indignant that Trump had called a bomb a “bomb” before they said so.


  74. Wow, this idea that everybody can be a millionair, if they are only allowed to borrow enough for all of us.


    Then we must realize, it has been musical chairs all along, Jubilees!

    • From the article we read that there’s been a great deal of malinvestment in the developing world (with the truckloads of money it borrowed):

      Much of the money was wasted, skewed towards “highly cyclical and rent-based sectors of limited strategic importance for catching up,” it said….

      This has undermined what UNCTAD calls the “profit-investment nexus” that ultimately drives growth and prosperity.

      Malinvestment, however, is something which the US economy also suffers from.

      Typically the private and public sectors would borrow $1.50 or $1.60 each year for every $1 of GDP growth. That was the golden constant. It had been at that ratio for 100 years save for some minor squiggles during the bottom of the Depression. By the time we got to the mid-’90s, we were borrowing $3 for every $1 of GDP growth. And by the time we got to the peak in 2006 or 2007, we were actually taking on $6 of new debt to grind out $1 of new GDP.

      And the U.S. has done nothing to ameliorate the monstrous debt the U.S. private sector built up during the Clinton-Bush go-go years:

      The U.S. corporate sector is still on a debt binge, unfazed by the Great Financial Crisis:

      And if Clinton gets elected, with her plans to invest untold amounts of money on highly inefficient renewable energy, the crisis of malinvestment in the United States will grow much more acute.

    • Not to worry.

      If the foreign countries can’t pay their debts to the big money center banks, the U.S. and EU will step in to take all the bad debt off the private banks’ hands, and with no haircut. It will be a repeat of what we’ve seen so many times in the past.

      The taxpayers of the U.S. and EU will be left holding the bag, just like they were in Europe after the Great Financial Crisis, and just like they have been in the U.S. so many times since 1982.

      In Bad Money, Kevin Phillips enumerates no less than twelve times since 1982 that the U.S. government has stepped in to bail out the private banks for their derelict lending practices.

  75. Recalculating the Climate Math

    The future of humanity depends on math. And the numbers in a new study released Thursday are the most ominous yet.

    Those numbers spell out, in simple arithmetic, how much of the fossil fuel in the world’s existing coal mines and oil wells we can burn if we want to prevent global warming from cooking the planet. In other words, if our goal is to keep the Earth’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius—the upper limit identified by the nations of the world—how much more new digging and drilling can we do?

    Here’s the answer: zero.

    That’s right: If we’re serious about preventing catastrophic warming, the new study shows, we can’t dig any new coal mines, drill any new fields, build any more pipelines. Not a single one. We’re done expanding the fossil fuel frontier. Our only hope is a swift, managed decline in the production of all carbon-based energy from the fields we’ve already put in production.

    The new numbers are startling. Only four years ago, I wrote an essay called “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math.”….

    But the new new math is even more explosive….

    This is literally a math test, and it’s not being graded on a curve. It only has one correct answer. And if we don’t get it right, then all of us—along with our 10,000-year-old experiment in human civilization—will fail.

  76. The “Science” Underlying Climate Alarmism Turns Up Missing

    In the list of President Obama’s favorite things to do, using government power to save the world from human-caused “climate change” has to rank at the top. From the time of his nomination acceptance speech in June 2008 (“this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal . . .”), through all of his State of the Union addresses, and right up to the present, he has never missed an opportunity to lecture us on how atmospheric warming from our sinful “greenhouse gas” emissions is the greatest crisis facing humanity….

    But is there actually any scientific basis for this?….

    But, guys, have you actually checked the empirical data to see if your “lines of evidence” stand up? Climate skeptics have been carping for years that the serious studies that should have been done to back up the “lines of evidence” seem to be completely lacking. And now, this morning, we get this, first appearing at the ICECAP website: “The most important assumption in EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding has been conclusively invalidated.”

    The news is that a major new work of research, from a large group of top scientists and mathematicians, asserts that EPA’s “lines of evidence,” and thus its Endangerment Finding, have been scientifically invalidated….

    Meanwhile, Hillary is saying that she supports Obama’s climate agenda because she “believes in science.” Does she even know that science is a process of testing hypotheses against data, and not a set of enforced orthodox beliefs? Don’t count on it.

  77. How Energy and Conservation Became Partisan Issues

    “It’s a sad development,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal advocacy group that supports pro-environment elected officials. “I’ve worked on these issues for 40 years. The Clean Air Act of 1990 passed with over 400 votes in the House and nearly 90 votes in the Senate. It was a very bipartisan effort and we still live with the benefits of the Clean Air Act of 1990.”

    “We know that in order to make progress, we have to have folks on both sides of the aisle supporting environmental measures,” added Karpinski, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention in July in support of Hillary Clinton. “Sadly, in the last 20 years we’ve seen a split and that has been driven by a couple things.”

    The two factors he named were the rise of Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, which he said is populated by the global warming “denier” camp who “think climate change is a hoax.” The second factor he named was that gusher of campaign contributions that flows into GOP coffers from “the oil industry, the coal industry, the Koch Brothers.”

  78. So you have a black man shot and killed by a black policeman, with a black chief of police, and yet the cry is “RACISM!” Go figure.

    GRAPHIC: Chaos In Charlotte, NC; Two People Shot, CNN Reporter Tackled Live On Air

  79. Backlash Against Trade Deals: The End of U.S.-Led Economic Globalisation?

    Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP.

    In Clinton’s case this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as “the gold standard of trade deals” – and it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal.

    Given the significant trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.

    The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP “writes the rules for global trade—rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class.”….

    But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South…..

    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions. All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-à-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations…

    If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize of all.

    So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.

  80. Free trade lowers prices — but not on things poor people need (and it pushes up housing prices)

    Part of the economic argument for free trade deals is that they benefit workers by producing cheaper goods — even if you lose your manufacturing job, you can buy stuff a lot cheaper with the next job you get.

    Now, a study by economists from MIT, NBER, University of Zurich and UCSD shows that the benefits of low costs are unevenly distributed. Because free trade doesn’t have much impact on food prices, people who spend most of their earnings on the food they need to live get a lot less benefit from free trade deals — while those of us with disposable income to spend on gadgets and fashion and fancy housewares reap the low-price dividend in spades.

    Meanwhile, there’s another way that the price changes from trade can hurt the working class. Trade pushes up the incomes of the wealthier classes, and the resulting demand will tend to raise the prices of things that can’t be traded overseas, such as housing. Working class and poor Americans pay a larger percentage of their income in rent. And rent has gone up and up.

  81. Progressives Are Targets of Hillary’s “Basket of Deplorables” Speech

    The first and obvious point is that it was heartfelt. She, like the rest of the Elite, harbors deep feelings of contempt for the common Joe and Jane. …

    The Dem Elite…offer their contempt in terms of identity politics. To them the great unwashed are a mass of bigots and worse… It cannot be otherwise. Every exploiting, parasitic Elite feels contempt for its subjects, so this is not news. Imagined superiority, after all, is what justifies, in the minds of the few, their rule over the many.

    And certainly Hillary’s words will give the attendees at a $250,000 per plate event a feeling of moral superiority that they are not among the “irredeemables” but are in fact among the Redeemers. And if that sounds messianic, that is because it is. Such a feeling of moral superiority is also a handy way to take the edge off the guilt welling up from the way these folks rake in their lucre. Well worth the $250,000 price of admission! A case in point are those in the room who made off with a bundle after the 2008 crash, which was made possible by the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the Clinton “co-presidency.”…

    But now a question arises. Romney tried to keep his contempt for the people a secret, but Hillary boasts of hers. Why?…

    We may make sense of this by suggesting that Hillary’s remarks were aimed not at Trump supporters but at progressives. Her purpose is to shame liberal voters who might be willing to consider and discuss the issues that Donald Trump is raising in a rational way. After all, if you speak in favor of Trump because you support some of his ideas, you too may be quickly classified as a “deplorable.”…

    Hillary knows that progressives fear like death itself the racist label…

    Yes, my dear progressive, this ploy is meant to scare you out of rational thought about issues of war, peace and Empire, which can affect the very survival of human civilization….

    So far this ploy has been working deplorably well, if we may put it that way. A uniformity of thought amongst progressives, a rigid groupthink, has emerged in this electoral season, which is downright scary.

    And Hillary’s bit of stereotyping hides the fact that by any reasonable measure, Hillary is the arch racist of the two major candidates, as noted some time ago here….

    Fortunately a small but growing number of leading progressives are refusing to be intimidated by Hillary’s shameful ploy. They refuse to be sheep. They have had the courage to think. Some of those who have done so to one degree or another are Bill Blum, William Greider, Glen Ford, Stephen F. Cohen and John Pilger as discussed here.

    We would do well to follow the lead of these and others who have joined them.

    The discussion of the candidates’ policies must become fully rational – especially on questions of war and peace. Let’s abandon stereotypes, smears based on personality, not policy, and ploys based on fear of put into a “basket.” Instead let’s discuss the issues that will affect our survival. Let us think and put things in proper perspective. For if we do not think, we may perish.


    [M]ost Democrats aren’t that self-critical. In particular they won’t admit their candidate for president is an elitist with a low opinion of millions of Americans, and that her dismissiveness of working-class people is driving lots of them into the arms of Trump….

    Hillary’s recent description of Trump supporters as a ‘basket of deplorables’ is a prime example….

    Hillary’s supporters laughed at her line, and later wondered why it was newsworthy. The media declared it a minor faux pas at worst, certainly not as devastating to her campaign as Romney’s remarks were to his.

    Along came liberal pundits to declare that Hillary bravely defied ‘political correctness’ to speak the truth about Trump’s bigots. If anything, she didn’t go far enough. In the Washington Post, Stacey Patton wrote: ‘The only thing Clinton should have apologised for was her lowball estimate.’ Jamelle Bouie had a similar take: ‘We’re going to need a bigger basket.’

    This reaction showed that Clinton’s comments were not just an individual politician’s one-off gaffe, but a strongly held view shared by many liberals.

    Consider the optics of the event where Clinton made her remarks. It was an ‘LGBT for Hillary’ fundraiser, headlined by Barbra Streisand, with attendees paying up to $50,000 for the pleasure. Here is Clinton – a woman who left the White House in 2001 $500,000 in debt but has managed with her husband to amass a $200million fortune, without starting her own business or working in the private sector – addressing other wealthy types. If this doesn’t scream ‘elite’ – in both economic and cultural terms – nothing does.

    These are insiders speaking to one another…. They are patting themselves on the back for being ‘aware’ and supposedly tolerant. Rich and powerful people making it clear that they are not like the hicks out there in middle America. We’re better than them.

    Hillary is also using an insider’s language: see her litany of ‘phobias’. These are terms she and her influential supporters wield all the time as weapons, words that enable them to occupy the moral high ground. From their dominant perch in the culture, they are the ones who get to accuse others of suffering from ‘phobias’. They also get to define what constitutes a ‘phobia’. Want tighter controls on immigration? You’re a xenophobe. Want to see greater security against terrorist attacks? Islamophobe. Disagree with Black Lives Matter? Racist.

    What do you call sweeping generalisations about groups of people, and unfairly assigning malign, hateful motives to them, as Hillary does to Trump supporters? Well, you could say that is the definition of bigotry. Clinton and company believe that, as long as it is in the name of fighting racism, sexism, etc, then it is okay to denigrate huge swathes of people. Trashing the white trash is today’s socially acceptable form of elitist bigotry.

    What does this mean for the election?

    For many Americans, this presidential election has become a referendum on the political establishment… Her ‘deplorables’ comments only consolidate her in that role. And her comments also play right into Trump’s hands… [H]e is certainly having an easy time being able to position Clinton as elitist.

    In dismissing so many as ‘deplorable’, in such an open way (she knew the remarks were being recorded), Hillary shows that the Democrats are willing to write off white working-class votes….

    Now Clinton is not even pretending to care; in her own words, they are ‘irredeemable’….

    In that regard, it is interesting to see how many have proudly embraced the ‘deplorable’ label. Go online and you can buy a range of merchandise: ‘T-shirts, key chains, car decals, buttons, pendants, coffee mugs and even a deplorable pocket watch.’ Outside a Trump rally, a supporter holds up a sign saying ‘Deplorable Lives Matter’…

    Maybe they are simply people who are fed up with Clinton, the Democratic Party and the American political establishment generally, who all, in their own way, treat them as inferiors.

    • Nothing new about it. I bought and read this book in 1998.


      Culture maverick Jim Goad presents a thoroughly reasoned, darkly funny, and rampagingly angry defense of America’s most maligned social group – the cultural clan variously referred to as rednecks, hillbillies, white trash, crackers, and trailer trash. As The Redneck Manifesto boldly points out and brilliantly demonstrates, America’s dirty little secret isn’t racism but classism. While pouncing incessantly on racial themes, most major media are silent about America’s widening class rifts, a problem that negatively affects more people of all colors than does racism. With an unmatched ability for rubbing salt in cultural wounds, Jim Goad deftly dismantles most popular American notions about race and culture and takes a sledgehammer to our delicate glass-blown popular conceptions of government, religion, media, and history.

  83. Scott Adams: How to Know an Election is Over


    In the 2D world in which most people live, Clinton and Trump are polling about evenly, and either one could win. The 2D world is all about facts and policies and common sense. In other words – all the stuff we think we care about but really don’t.

    In the 3D world of persuasion, however, the election is already over. There is still some mystery about how large the margin will be, but Trump is already the President of the United States unless something big happens in the next few weeks. How do I know that?

    Listen to this clip in which Clinton asks why she isn’t leading by 50 points. Ignore the content of what she says, because no one cares about content.

    Just feel it.

    And see the future.

    –more at link

  84. Clinton, Trump both come up cold on climate change

    WHEN 22ND-CENTURY historians look back on 2016, they’ll marvel at how little attention the current presidential campaign paid to developments like these:

    • California withering under more than four years of drought

    • Catastrophic flooding in Louisiana in August

    • All of Massachusetts fell under drought conditions, with a pocket of extreme drought — yes, that’s a technical term — expanding to engulf more than half of the state.

    • A study commissioned by the City of Boston that was released in June warns that, if the current level of greenhouse gas emissions remains unchecked, the melting Antarctic ice sheets could raise sea levels here more than 10 feet by the end of this century. That’s a calamitous change that would put 30 percent of the city underwater.

    Yet, judging by the campaigns of both major-party candidates for the presidency, one would think that global climate change is a mere blip on the radar, a niche issue of little widespread interest or consequence.

    Both candidates bear some responsibility here; although there are degrees of difference, neither has made it a focal campaign issue. While July was busy becoming the hottest month in 136 years of record-keeping, Donald Trump made no reference at all to climate change in his nomination-acceptance speech, and Hillary Clinton made only two passing references in hers.

    • For a handful of people, like those of us who follow CE, energy and environmental issues are important. But for the majority of Americans, they’re barely on the radar. They’re just not important.

      • Energy is part of economy. Trump is all over putting coal miners back to work and unleashing the energy sector in general creating some 2 million jobs.

        Energy is also part of terrorism. Trump is all over making the US energy independent and not reliant on importing oil from countries that hate us.

        Most people don’t consider the environmental impacts important so you get partial credit.

  85. From the article:

    It is known that she suffered a traumatic brain injury in late 2012 when she fell and struck her head. What is also known is that she was diagnosed with a transverse sinus thrombosis — blood clot in the major vein at the base of the brain. Almost all patients with a transverse sinus thrombosis suffer swelling of the brain and increased intracranial pressure. Most have headaches, balance issues and visual disturbances — all of which Clinton was reported to have following that event.

    Clinton’s physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring Clinton’s physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported.

    If, as is statistically likely, Clinton’s transverse sinus is still blocked, she would still have increased pressure and swelling and decreased blood flow to her brain. That swelling would place pressure on the exposed portion of the sixth cranial nerve at the base of her brain, explaining the apparent lateral rectus palsy. And such a deficit can be partial and/or intermittent.

    Additionally, when patients who have decreased intracranial blood flow becoming volume depleted (dehydrated) or have a drop in blood pressure loss of consciousness can occur. That could explain her witnessed collapse in New York City on 9/11.


    • She is on warfarin.

      People are put on rat poison for a number of conditions that don’t let them tolerate the modern blood thinners with fewer side effects.

      It is likely that her real physical condition would cost her votes if it were known.

      • Danny Thomas

        Eh. DVT’s are relatively common. Too much time flying and sitting and not enough exercise (assuming not a lot of ‘spare’ time). Blood thinners are not uncommon. Your aspirin a day is one. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/data.html

        We have two terrible candidates and one will win based on the quality of their job interview and record.

        Trump is overweight. You do realize there are a number of conditions which might be the cause and Trump could lose votes ‘if the real physical condition’ was known.

      • Your characterization of her medications is incorrect.

        Warfarin from what I can tell is not commonly prescribed.


        The claim that Trump and Hillary have similar health status is an outright lie. Trump isn’t dropping in his tracks on the campaign trail.

      • Danny Thomas


        Do more homework.

        “Each year, about 2 to 3 million people in the United States will need to take a blood thinning medication.”

        Warfarin, Heparin, Xarelto, Pradaxa, and the like are widely perscribed. Some require frequent lab follow ups (warfarin is one) of every 1-4 weeks. They can be offset (if needed) in an emergency situation. Some of the newer meds (Xarelto) does not yet have a simple offset to improve clotting in that emergent situation.

        There are risks and benefits to medications of all sorts. Leaving those determinations to the actual doctors and patients makes most sense.

        “The claim that Trump and Hillary have similar health status is an outright lie.” How do you know? Two separate doctors have provided evaluation of two humans. Are you in a better position to evaluate? If so, which one, and why?

        If you’d actually care to learn: “Warfarin is also used in people who have already developed a harmful blood clot, including some patients who have had a stroke, heart attack, a clot that has traveled to the lung (pulmonary embolism or PE), or a blood clot in the leg (deep vein thrombosis or DVT).”

      • http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-3949/warfarin-oral/details

        Warfarin is commonly called a “blood thinner,” but the more correct term is “anticoagulant.” It helps to keep blood flowing smoothly in your body by decreasing the amount of certain substances (clotting proteins) in your blood.


        Tell your doctor right away if you have any signs of serious bleeding, including: unusual pain/swelling/discomfort, unusual/easy bruising, prolonged bleeding from cuts or gums, persistent/frequent nosebleeds, unusually heavy/prolonged menstrual flow, pink/dark urine, coughing up blood, vomit that is bloody or looks like coffee grounds, severe headache, dizziness/fainting, unusual or persistent tiredness/weakness, bloody/black/tarry stools, chest pain, shortness of breath, difficulty swallowing.

        Doesn’t sound good.

      • Danny Thomas

        For comparison:


        Side Effects
        List Viagra side effects by likelihood and severity.
        The following side effects are associated with Viagra:

        Common side effects of Viagra:

        BackacheLess Severe
        DizzyLess Severe
        Feel Like Throwing UpLess Severe
        Head PainLess Severe
        IndigestionLess Severe
        NosebleedLess Severe
        Stuffy NoseLess Severe
        Temporary Redness of Face and NeckLess Severe
        Visible Water RetentionLess Severe
        Infrequent side effects of Viagra:

        Acute Infection of the Nose, Throat or SinusSevere
        Problems with EyesightSevere
        Chronic Trouble SleepingLess Severe
        DiarrheaLess Severe
        FeverLess Severe
        Flu-Like SymptomsLess Severe
        Inflammation of the NoseLess Severe
        Joint PainLess Severe
        RashLess Severe
        Redness of SkinLess Severe
        Sinus Irritation and CongestionLess Severe
        Trouble BreathingLess Severe
        Urinary Tract InfectionLess Severe
        Rare side effects of Viagra:

        Abnormal Heart RhythmSevere
        Abnormal Increase in Muscle ToneSevere
        Abnormal Liver Function TestsSevere
        Abnormally Low Blood PressureSevere
        Atrioventricular Heart BlockSevere
        Bleeding from the LungsSevere
        Blood Clot in the BrainSevere
        Blood coming from AnusSevere
        Blood Pressure Drop Upon StandingSevere
        Chest PainSevere
        Chronic Heart FailureSevere
        Complete Stoppage of the HeartSevere
        Continued Painful ErectionSevere
        Decreased White Blood CellsSevere
        Diabetes that is Not Under ControlSevere
        Disease of Inadequate Blood Flow to the Heart MuscleSevere
        Disease of the Muscle of the Heart with EnlargementSevere
        Disease of the NervesSevere
        Eye Disease Caused by Blood Flow ProblemsSevere
        Eye HemorrhageSevere
        Fast HeartbeatSevere
        Feeling FaintSevere
        Fluid Retention in the Legs, Feet, Arms or HandsSevere
        Hearing LossSevere
        Heart AttackSevere
        Heart Throbbing or PoundingSevere
        Hemorrhage in the BrainSevere
        High Amount of Sodium in the BloodSevere
        High Amount of Uric Acid in the BloodSevere
        High Blood PressureSevere
        High Blood SugarSevere
        Increased Pressure in the EyeSevere
        Inflammation of the BladderSevere
        Inflammation of the EsophagusSevere
        Low Blood SugarSevere
        Poor VisionSevere
        Problems with Bladder ControlSevere
        Retinal EdemaSevere
        Retinal HemorrhageSevere
        Rupture of a TendonSevere
        Separation of the Vitreous from the Retina in the EyeSevere
        Skin Rash with SloughingSevere
        Stroke caused by Bleeding in the BrainSevere
        Transient Ischemic AttackSevere
        Abnormal DreamsLess Severe
        Abnormal Heart Electrical SignalsLess Severe
        Accumulation of Fluid or Edema in the Male GenitalsLess Severe
        AnxiousLess Severe
        ArthritisLess Severe
        AsthmaLess Severe
        Bloody UrineLess Severe
        Bone PainLess Severe
        BronchitisLess Severe
        Burning StomachLess Severe
        ChillsLess Severe
        Contact DermatitisLess Severe
        CoughLess Severe
        Difficulty SwallowingLess Severe
        Dilated PupilLess Severe
        DrowsinessLess Severe
        Dry EyeLess Severe
        Dry MouthLess Severe
        EaracheLess Severe
        Enlarged BreastsLess Severe
        Episode of Short-term Memory LossLess Severe
        Excessive SweatingLess Severe
        Excessive ThirstLess Severe
        Feeling WeakLess Severe
        Frequent UrinationLess Severe
        GoutLess Severe
        Herpes Simplex InfectionLess Severe
        HivesLess Severe
        Increase in the Amount of PhlegmLess Severe
        Inflammation of the Covering of the TendonLess Severe
        Inflammation of the GumsLess Severe
        Inflammation of the Large IntestineLess Severe
        Inflammation of the Lining of a JointLess Severe
        Inflammation of the Lining of the Stomach and IntestinesLess Severe
        Inflammation of the Voice BoxLess Severe
        Involuntary QuiveringLess Severe
        ItchingLess Severe
        Migraine HeadacheLess Severe
        Muscle PainLess Severe
        Muscle WeaknessLess Severe
        Nerve PainLess Severe
        NumbnessLess Severe
        Numbness and TinglingLess Severe
        Orgasm ProblemsLess Severe
        Pain in the EyeLess Severe
        Painful, Red or Swollen MouthLess Severe
        Painful, Red or Swollen TongueLess Severe
        Pink EyeLess Severe
        Problem with EjaculationLess Severe
        Puffy Face from Water RetentionLess Severe
        Ringing in the EarsLess Severe
        Sensation of Spinning or WhirlingLess Severe
        Sensitive to LightLess Severe
        Sexual ProblemsLess Severe
        Skin UlcerLess Severe
        Stomach CrampsLess Severe
        Sun-Sensitive SkinLess Severe
        Swelling of the TesticlesLess Severe
        Throat IrritationLess Severe
        Throwing UpLess Severe
        Urination During the NightLess Severe
        Weak Reflexes

        Doesn’t sound good does it? And that 4 hour thing?

      • Danny Thomas

        Oh. And it’s not ‘good’ to have indications of bleeding when one is on a blood thinner. But I think you know that.

      • Danny Thomas

        Since you don’t seem to care for ‘rat poison’ did you compare with something more contemporary?

        “Easy bruising or minor bleeding (such as nosebleed, bleeding from cuts) may occur. If any of these effects persist or worsen, tell your doctor or pharmacist promptly.

        Remember that your doctor has prescribed this medication because he or she has judged that the benefit to you is greater than the risk of side effects. Many people using this medication do not have serious side effects.

        This medication can cause serious bleeding if it affects your blood clotting proteins too much. Tell your doctor right away if you have any signs of serious bleeding, including: unusual pain/swelling/discomfort, unusual bruising, prolonged bleeding from cuts or gums, persistent/frequent nosebleeds, unusually heavy/prolonged menstrual flow, pink/dark urine, coughing up blood, vomit that is bloody or looks like coffee grounds, severe headache, dizziness/fainting, unusual or persistent tiredness/weakness, bloody/black/tarry stools, difficulty swallowing.

        Get medical help right away if you have any signs of very serious bleeding, including: vision changes, confusion, slurred speech, weakness on one side of the body, changes in the amount of urine.

        A very serious allergic reaction to this drug is rare. However, get medical help right away if you notice any symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, including: rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face/tongue/throat), severe dizziness, trouble breathing.

        This is not a complete list of possible side effects. If you notice other effects not listed above, contact your doctor or pharmacist.” http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-156265/xarelto-oral/details#side-effects

        Doesn’t sound good.

  86. This article challenges one of the main mythologies that is used to peddle globalization: that the losses to workers in advanced economies caused by globalization are offset by gains to workers in developing economies.

    Income inequality in a globalising world

    • Since the turn of the century, inequality in the distribution of income, together with concerns over the pace and nature of globalisation, have risen to be among the most prominent policy issues of our time.

    • At the recent annual G20 summit in China, there was broad agreement that the global economy needs to be more inclusive. As the economic pie increases in size, at the same time it needs to be divided more fairly.

    • This column looks at inequality trends in recent decades.

    • Absolute inequality, as opposed to relative inequality, has increased since the mid-1970s in almost every region of the world.

    • What’s the difference between ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’ inequality, and which trend is more important?

    • Relative inequality indicators have been by far the most widely used in empirical economic analysis, but, based on economic theory and empirical evidence, it is far from clear that we should favour relative over absolute notions of inequality. The evidence suggests that many people do perceive absolute differences in incomes as being an important aspect of inequality.

    • The inclusivity aspect of growth is now more imperative than ever, as was illustrated by the recent Brexit vote and the rise of populism (especially on the right) in the US and Europe, with its hard stance against free trade agreements, capital flows and migration.

    • These are clear manifestations of a growing discontent among the working middle classes, particularly in the industrialised world, who see globalisation as the primary source of growing inequalities, and an obstacle to their prosperity.

    • Not only are high levels of inequality widely perceived to be socially unfair, but as present events are making abundantly clear, they also have negative implications for political stability, crime and corruption, among other things.

  87. From the article:

    Mohammed Idrees used to travel to London once or twice a year, but these days the Saudi civil servant is asking his wife and children to cut back on using the family car to save fuel and has installed a solar panel for the kitchen to reduce electricity costs.

    For decades, Saudi nationals such as Mr. Idrees enjoyed a cozy lifestyle in the desert kingdom as its rulers spent hundreds of billions of dollars of its oil revenue to subsidize essentials such as fuel, water and electricity.

    But a sharp drop in the price of oil, Saudi Arabia’s main revenue source, has forced the government to withdraw some benefits this year—raising the cost of living in the kingdom and hurting its middle class, a part of society long insulated from such problems.

    Saudi Arabia heads into next week’s meeting of major oil producers in a tight spot. With a slowing economy and shrinking foreign reserves, the kingdom is coming under pressure to take steps that support the price of oil, as it did this month with an accord it struck with Russia.


  88. Texans’ Duane Brown raises fist during national anthem

    In a symbol of protest about the series of deadly shootings of black men at the hands of police that has triggered unrest throughout the nation, Texans offensive tackle Duane Brown raised his fist during the national anthem Thursday night at Gillette Stadium.

    Brown became the first player from a Texas NFL team to protest during the national anthem, joining a wave of NFL players and other athletes inspired by San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s decision to kneel during “The Star Spangled Banner” in protest of racial injustice and police brutality.

    The move was reminiscent of the black-gloved protest by U.S. track athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith during the 1968 Olympics.

    “Just a symbol of my support and raising awareness for the recent killings of unarmed black men, I think it’s something that needs to be changed,” Brown told the Chronicle. “I was just showing my support. It’s frustrating. I’ve showed my position. It keeps happening, so it’s very frustrating… I know it’s not a comfortable topic, it’s not comfortable for everybody to see it. It comes from a person in my position in our league. I can handle it.”

    • It’s difficult to take these football players, what with their multi-million dollar a year salaries, seriously. They fall into the same category as movie stars and other entertainers who are so highly paid.

      Rationally speaking, there is no way to justify their enormous pay checks.

      I suppose that’s why they need to mount their moral high horses, so they can feel good about themselves.

      • The NFL is losing fans. These players, if they keep it up, will ruin the NFL for themselves, but sadly, for everyone else also. The NFL and owners should tell them to take their protests elsewhere.

  89. From the article:

    BRATISLAVA (AFP) – A last-gasp push to seal a landmark free trade deal between the European Union and the United States before the end of Barack Obama’s presidency has failed, EU ministers agreed on Friday.
    “It is not realistic to reach the final agreement by the end of the Obama administration,” said Peter Ziga, the trade minister of Slovakia which currently holds the EU’s six-month rotating presidency.

    The decision puts the fate of the trade deal on the US side in the hands of Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump, who are both running their presidential campaigns on anti-trade deal platforms.


  90. David Springer –

    Good thing nobody around here was foolish enough to do what they talk about in this article, eh?


    A lesson in how to misread a poll: Blip in black voter support for Trump comes and goes quickly



    Talk about too funny…

    • I did an FOI to get the USC data from Dornslife and performed a reanalysis.

      It turns out they have only 20 black voters in the polls, 19 Democrats and 1 Republican. They are distributed 10 each on polled Tuesdays and Wednesday.

      I can say with 95% confidence that at least three of them are colluding in how to vote in the poll.

      Thanks for asking.

  91. In the REALLY too funny department:

    Hillary Clinton tweeted that she gave a front row debate seat to Mark Cuban a fellow billionaire who tweets insults at the Donald and vice versa. Cuban tweeted that it’s true he’ll be there to give Donald all the support he deserves.

    Trump quickly responded that he’s invited Jennifer Flowers to sit next to Mark Cuban. Jennifer Flowers tweeted back that she’d be delighted to be Donald’s guest at the debate.

    It took me ten minutes to stop laughing.


  92. Clinton is under attack from some sectors of both the left and the right for her unapologetic war mongering, unwavering support for permanent war, and constantly keeping the Islamic hornets’ nest stirred up. This one comes from the right:

    Most Dangerous Person On the Planet Today: Hillary Clinton

    The irony of the day, week, month and year is Hillary’s statement “I Know How to Do This“.

    • Hillary supported Bush’s inane war in Iraq.
    • Hillary supported Bush’s inane war in Afghanistan.
    • Hillary was the mastermind of US failed strategy in Libya.
    • Hillary is the single person most responsible for Benghazi.
    • Hillary supports president Obama’s drone policy.
    • There has never been a war Hillary did not support.

    The most surefire way to make a terrorist out of a non-terrorist is to kill an innocent child or bomb an innocent person’s home. Doing so is sure to radicalize friends and family.

    There is nothing more un-American or unconstitutional than bombing other countries indiscriminately with no declaration of war, and with little or no regard to the lives of innocent victims.

    Hillary Clinton supported those policies as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton, like George Bush, like Dick Cheney, and like president Obama are all guilty of terrorism.

    If you disagree, please put yourself in the shoes of a mother whose 4-year old daughter was “accidentally” killed by a US drone. Envision your neighbor’s house “accidentally” blown to smithereens by drones.

    Is it not terrorism because it’s an accident? What practical difference does it make?

    In the eyes of the families of innocent victims, no words better describe such actions than “US terrorism“. I guarantee that is precisely how you would feel if it was your son or daughter killed, or it was your house blown up….

    How many terrorists did the US radicalize in the process?

    How many innocent civilians died? How much compensation did the US pay? Sorry, that’s classified information.

    Given US drone policy, it’s a wonder there has not been more terrorists incidents in the US. One surefire way to have more incidents in the US is to accept Obama’s plan to take in 65,000 Syrian refugees.

    Hillary’s refugee policies would ensure we would have more terrorist attacks in the US.

    Globally, her statements prove she will continue the disastrous, counterproductive, and illegal policies of the Bush and Obama administration.

    Logically speaking, Hillary Clinton is the biggest threat to world peace and the most dangerous person on the planet.

  93. “In another exchange, Trump seemed rattled as Clinton accused him of saying that climate change “is a hoax, perpetrated by the Chinese.”
    ““I do not say that, I do not say that,” Trump interjected, shaking his head — though he has done so several times.”

    A ‘tough’ moderator shoulda followed up about here with questions clarifying Trump’s positions on CC.

    It’s so quiet around here.

  94. Duty Donald has a problem with people who don’t any tax:

    On July 18, 2011, [Duty Donald] appeared on Fox News and was asked about President Barack Obama’s comments that well-to-do Americans should make a sacrifice for the country by paying more in taxes. He replied:

    Well, I don’t mind sacrificing for the country to be honest with you. But you know, you do have a problem because half of the people don’t pay any tax. And when he’s talking about that he’s talking about people that aren’t also working, that are not contributing to this society. And it’s a problem. But we have 50 percent. It just hit the 50 percent mark. Fifty percent of the people are paying no tax.

    • “Well, I don’t mind sacrificing for the country to be honest with you.” Yeah. Sacrificing you and I and all his socialist oriented supporters here willing to pony up and pay him back his $900 million in (likely squandered?) ‘business loss?

      “There is, of course, only one way for Trump to clear up this matter: release his tax returns. They might indeed show how he was a genius at avoiding taxation—but also a hypocrite.”

      The wailing on from those ‘displeased’ with ‘big government and socialism’ here today is deafening.

      But Hillary, something, something, must be the reporting, something, something……….sex tape!

      • Teh Donald was just strengthening his credentials as the law and order candidate…. by preventing government theft via taxation.

        The man’s a business genius, I tell you. Self – sacrificing by losing all that money to combat crime. Who else could have schemed up a way to lose 900 million?

      • I actually wrote that comment before reading this:


        Rudy Giuliani called Donald Trump a “genius” Sunday, in the wake of a New York Times report indicating he may have legally avoiding paying taxes for nearly two decades.

        “The reality is, this is part of our tax code. The man’s a genius. He knows how to operate the tax code to the benefit of the people he’s serving,” the former New York City mayor told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”


      • Danny Thomas

        “The man’s a genius.” Hmm. That’s how Giuliani winds up evaluating a ‘businessperson’ who’s lost $900?

        There is hope! I could be a ‘genius’ too!

      • Chris Christie too. I think he sent his surrogates out to spread the word. He’s a genius. He lost nearly a billion dollars on poor business decisions, and had to be rescued, but we don’t talk about that part. It’s like the captain who wrecked his boat through poor decisions, but at least he was able to climb onto the rescue ship. Genius.

      • He’s a genius because he used readily an available write-off that is commonly used by people in real estate.

        They’re all geniuses also, even if they didn’t lose as much as 900 million to write off, but they aren’t as geniusy as Trump is, because he’s the best person in the world to elect as president because he’s better at using the loopholes because he lost more money.

      • Let’s also note that anyone who commits tax fraud and doesn’t get caught is also a genius.

  95. The last time Donald paid taxes, Deranged Donald was talking about his 1 yo baby physical attributes:

    Daily Show host Trevor Noah on Tuesday unearthed a 1994 clip of [Deranged Donald] apparently discussing the potential size of his 1-year-old’s breasts.

    In the footage, which Noah played during a Tuesday Daily Show segment, comes from an episode of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous during which Host Robin Leach asks [Deranged Donald] and his second wife, Marla Maples, what physical attributes their daughter, Tiffany, has from each parent. [Deranged Donald] says she has Maples’ legs and then adds, “We don’t know whether or not she’s got this part yet,” while cupping his hands around his chest. “But time will tell.”

  96. The last time Donald paid taxes, he tried to buy Mike Tyson off rape charge so he could bet against him.

  97. Donald Trump will get 35% (+/-1.5%) of the popular vote. Bet on it.

  98. So, if a businessman loses a billion dollars due to their own poor decisions, the IRS forgives them a billion dollars in income tax over the decade or so, thereby transferring that loss from the failed businessman to the American people. Doesn’t seem right that the American people pay for individual incompetence. There needs to be a law that protects the American people from having to pay for individual or corporate incompetence. It should be called the Trump Law.

    • In perspective, a billion dollars is twice Solyndra, just for one person, and that is just from the one year revealed so far.

      • Danny Thomas

        “In perspective, a billion dollars is twice Solyndra, just for one person, and that is just from the one year revealed so far.”

        Yep. Sure should be getting really loud in here anytime now!

    • However, I still need clarification on whether the loss counts against tax liability or gross income. If gross income, the loss to the taxpayers is just the loss times the tax rate (maybe 40%), still not chump change.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Lots of companies don’t pay taxes but they do pay politicians to write reasons into the tax code why they shouldn’t have to pay them. I suppose the companies that don’t pay the politicians are probably suffering from it. I support a lower tax rate for companies with a simplified code that eliminates the loopholes and special favors.


      • A sensible modification would be to limit this kind of carry-forward to one million dollars, so small/normal businesses can get some relief from set-backs, but when it gets to $917m, that’s a ridiculous level of failure for the IRS to support. People who fail like that should have to pay at least the normal income tax when they start making income again. Why reward them at a cost to the country?

      • Danny Thomas


        ” I support a lower tax rate for companies with a simplified code that eliminates the loopholes and special favors.”

        Does that include a negative tax rate which could lead to purposeful ‘bad business decisions’ of $915m losses in order to offset future profits? Is that what apparently happened with Trump?

        Also, do you support lower tax rates so none of the rest of us have the requirement to pay our taxes? I could decide to ‘lose money’ this year so I don’t have to pay taxes for the next 18.

        Not suggesting he’s done anything wrong but quite obviously the part about being a ‘good businessman’ is questionable due to the evidence of a $915M loss in one tax year. And effectively, you and I are financing that loss.

      • However you might whine about it now, JimD, it appears what Trump did was totally legal. And, I doubt you are qualified to re-write the tax code. What on Earth do you know about real estate development of commercial buildings?

      • stevenreincarnated

        I have no idea what tax breaks he received so I’d be hesitant to state how they should be corrected. I also don’t know how much money he actually lost. There are different ways of losing money that don’t actually involve the bottom line but do go against tax liability regardless.

      • Yes, his succession of massive failures cost the American people hundreds of millions of dollars that a more adept businessman wouldn’t have. That’s where the story should be.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, I don’t expect someone to pay anymore taxes than he is required to. I don’t, do you? The way to fix it is to change the requirements. As to specifics on how to do that I am neither a tax attorney nor an accountant and my interest in the topic isn’t down to details so I have no specific recommendations other than the less influence politicians can exercise over the profitability of specific companies the better from my point of view.

      • No, Steven, I don’t have an issue if he played by the rules. I do have an issue with the volume and the representation of being ‘a good businessman’ with a record of having lost $915M. I mostly have issue with the hypocrisy (not you, just to be clear) in portraying business such as Ford as being ‘unAmerican’ for relocating processes in their best interests to places like Mexico when they’re just ‘playing by the rules’ also.

        “I have no specific recommendations other than the less influence politicians can exercise over the profitability of specific companies the better from my point of view.” Agree. It’s why presidents use blind trusts. Trump’s instincts for business MAY come in to play w/r/t policies and his family. That’d be a natural reaction IMO. And, IMO is all the more reason he should be distanced from business interests should he be elected.

        Actually, this is mostly a non-issue I’m having fun with. If he followed the rules, good on him. But most folks with only support ‘their side’ and won’t apply the same standards to the other. It cracks me up and it’s fun to watch (and cause) the spin.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, if I bought a practice next year and made a small amount of money but not enough to cover my good will depreciation, I would have a negative income. Without knowing details you have no idea how much he actually lost.

      • His casinos were already near a billion in debt around 1990. There isn’t much doubt about where his claimed losses came from.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, all I can tell you is you need to make sure you understand the tax laws completely before trying it. Good luck.

      • Steven,
        Thanks. I don’t understand all the tax laws and feel comfortable stating that no one (including Trump) does.

        The only way to gain a better grasp of Trumps understanding would be to ………see his returns. Until then we have to rely on his word and evidence at hand. Evidence is he ‘lost’ $915M in 1994/5. His word……….well let’s just say…….it vacillates.

        The rest is speculative.

      • stevenreincarnated

        If I were Trump I wouldn’t release my tax returns either. He would be asked questions all day long every day about things he couldn’t possibly be expected to know and a big deal would be made about each and every non answer and wrong answer. His tax return is about a 3 foot high stack of papers. I have enough trouble understanding my 6 or 7 page one.

      • He just needs to release the front pages, not the schedule forms, and that answers most of the questions.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, because obviously people wouldn’t ask him questions that required knowledge from his schedules, right?

      • Things like a billion in losses might be questioned, but mostly just knowing how much income he had, how much tax he paid and how much went to charitable deductions, interest on debts would be the main focus, and the front page answers those. However, yes, if he has lots of debts overseas that might be interesting to look at further. We know all these things about previous candidates.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Each and every thing you say you want to know about leads to further questions in more detail. He’d be in a bog never to return by opening himself up to that mess. Better to take the heat from not handing them over.

      • If he doesn’t release them, it doesn’t stop the speculation. No taxes paid for decades, owing big money overseas, losses that cost the taxpayers lots of money, etc. He has to measure the speculation against the truth, and it seems he has a mole at Trump Tower leaking stuff slowly on top of all this.

      • A big IF.

        “If Trump were truly smart — and wanted to lead by example — he would have disclosed his tax returns, showed the loopholes he used, and vowed to close them.

        I have plenty of problems with the Clintons’ financial behavior, as I wrote. But at least Hillary Clinton is proposing tax code changes that would cost her and her family money. Trump, by contrast, is proposing tax changes that would greatly benefit the commercial real estate business, which is his primary field, and would greatly benefit his own family. And when I asked his campaign last week whether he was proposing any tax changes that would cost him and/or his family any money, I got no reply.

        This whole column and most of the articles I’ve read are based almost entirely on just one page of Trump’s tax filings — the front page of his 1995 New York return. So, you see, we have learned quite a lot from Trump’s tax returns — and we could learn a lot more when and if more of them make their way into the public domain.”


      • stevenreincarnated

        That’s right. There is going to be speculation either way. One way he says I obeyed the laws and filed a return and he is done and they can continue to speculate. The other way he is faced with a barrage of specific speculative questions about things he won’t know the answers to and they can continue to speculate.

      • “he says I obeyed the laws”. Would you trust me if I said that? Jim D? Or anyone else. I don’t see any harm asking for evidence. And the evidence is he’s under audit which carries a negative connotation.

        Releasing them now might be an issue but he made that decision at a time when the speculation would not have been an issue. Part of being the ‘decider’.

        Just have to wonder if considering ‘wall street’ money and the foundation if that comfort would exist had Clinton said no.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, I think my point was that the tax returns are so complicated that people that are going to believe him will if he doesn’t go to jail for fraud and people that aren’t going to believe him are going to look in that mess until they find something to question him about and still aren’t going to believe him regardless. One way will place him in a situation of having to try and understand and relay rather complicated answers to people that probably won’t understand the answers anyway, and the other requires very little effort on his part. Now should he have released them 6 months ago is a valid question, but nobody took him seriously until recently so would anyone have started looking in time to get it all settled?

      • Steven,

        It was his choice. So whatever speculation occurs is on him.

        And he’s said he’s willing to release them if Clinton releases the e-mails. Whatever. And I don’t believe that anyway.

        It’s the same kind of distraction for which his campaign is notorious.

      • stevenreincarnated

        He isn’t saying he will release anything. He is making the point that she destroyed evidence and obstructed justice.

      • Danny Thomas


        He was pretty clear. Here’s the quote: “I will say this. We have a situation in this country that has to be taken care of. I will release my tax returns — against my lawyer’s wishes — when she releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, I knew what he said. She had them deleted in such a way that the FBI couldn’t recover them. She can’t hand them over because she doesn’t have them. If she did have them hidden away somewhere and handed them over she would be admitting guilt to even more crimes. When he says he wants her to hand them over he knows that can’t happen so all he is doing is what I said, pointing out the destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice. When they are handed over by Wikileaks or whoever, he will make it a point that he specified Clinton was to hand them over and he still won’t release his tax returns.

      • If she delivered them on a silver platter while shackled with the police outside waiting to take her to prison, I still don’t believe he’d do it. But he and I have trust issues. And my relationship with her is only a tick better. (And it appears I’m not alone).

        But I’ll give Trump credit in that at least he didn’t sell us on how Transparent he’d be, just his hypocritical view of his that she needs to be. “that can’t happen so all he is doing is what I said, pointing out the destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.” We know that she made reckless decisions but don’t have the same luxury with him except w/r/t his public persona and much of that (you know the list) is unattractive. Her pile is high, his pile is too.

        This election sux.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, it isn’t his opinion, it’s the law. The difference between public and private records is that one we have the right to see and the other we might like to see.

  99. The last time Donald paid taxes, Tim Kaine was helping the poor in Honduras and you could get fined for not rewinding your VCR tapes from Blockbuster

  100. The last time Donald paid taxes, MTV was still playing videos and the Kardashians looked like this:

    • Just about anyone with half a brain takes what tax deductions and whatever other provisions are available. Network security companies often hire hackers, some of which have broken the law, because they understand how the internet and computers work. We should elect Trump to fix the tax laws as he understands them and knows what needs fixing.

      • Danny Thomas

        My half a brain proposes he go back and disallow offsetting indicators of ‘bad business’ such as $915M ‘losses’. Sounds like a good plan. First, one must verify that the $915M wasn’t ‘squandered’. And 2nd, if due to bad business decisions the carry forward should be disallowed.

        You don’t wanna pay for Obamacare. Folks who use that are just ‘playing by the rules’. Well I don’t wanna pay for Trumps bad business decisions. Do we have an agreement?

      • It was his business, not yours. Although being the Socialist you are, I can see why you would like to have the government dig more deeply into anyone who makes a positive contribution to our Country. You would prefer to give the money to pot smokers and smoochers.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Although being the Socialist you are, I can see why you would like to have the government dig more deeply into anyone who makes a positive contribution to our Country.”

        $915M loss is a ‘positive’ contribution? It’s not, Jim. It’s a negative contribution and being the socialist you are you’re financing it, and I am also unwillingly. Digging more deeply? Heck, if he’s not paying taxes (and this is the only evidence we have) he’s not even contributing. Point your venom at him for expecting you to finance his wealth.

        It doesn’t take a ‘genius’ to lose $915M. It takes someone making bad business decisions.

        Solyandra only took about half that much outta our collective pocket. We’ve certainly heard you whine about that. Why the pass on twice as much?

        Surely double standards aren’t rearing their ugly heads once again are they?

      • Danny. Do you REALLY not know the difference between giving Solyndra taxpayer money and an individual utilizing the tax laws provided by the government? It’s only fair that if the government taxes profits that it provide tax relief when things don’t go well.

        Again, you would rather see money go to pot smokers and smoochers who do nothing to earn it except vote Dimowit.

      • Jim2,
        ” It’s only fair that if the government taxes profits that it provide tax relief when things don’t go well.” Why?

        If someone makes bad business decisions you’re expecting me to finance that. Maybe they’re just dumb and should be pot smokers and smoochers and not in business. Only a socialist would think I should pay for the betterment of others so interesting you suggest it you socialist you.

        “Again, you would rather see money go to pot smokers and smoochers who do nothing to earn it except vote Dimowit.” I dunno. Can I see the cost benefit analysis especially in comparison with $915M loss? Bet you can buy a lotta dope for that about of money.

        Your expressed here choice is to give your money to Trump. My choice might be different. Do I not have the same right to choose as you? Maybe I don’t care for Trumps methods so why must I financially support them. Kinda like taking your money w/o you being comfortable with it, to support dopers and smoochers as long as the only vote Democrat. Guess it’s okay if they vote Trump though, huh?

        Is that a double headed double standard I see over there?

      • Danny

        Is what Trump did legal? If so, case closed. If his tax treatment was legal, your beef is with Congress.

  101. Don Donald:

    [A]s close to a snake in nature and look as a human could be, it was lawyer Roy Marcus Cohn who taught [Don Donald] how to live.

    More specifically, Roy Cohn mentored [Don Donald] to:

    – abuse the legal system to routinely cheat people;

    – dodge paying taxes through use of — to be polite — inventively aggressive techniques.

    – exploit falsehoods and innuendo to achieve his goals.

    For three decades, ending with his death in 1986, Cohn was New York and America’s most famous and infamous attorney.

    Both a celebrity and an embezzling thief, Cohn served equally as an adviser to the Archdiocese of New York and as a facilitator for Mafia bosses. Cross him and you were dead.

    “Roy is evil,” three former business associates — unknown to one another — used those exact three words when refusing to speak with me about Cohn in 1979, six years after the city’s preeminent fixer had become [Don Donald] mentor.

  102. “The office of New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has issued a “notice of violation” to Donald J. Trump’s foundation, ordering it to immediately stop soliciting donations in New York.”

    Curious if he’ll get a pass from his supporters on this one. Schneiderman may have needed a new hobby since Exxon thingy is a bit of a mess, but if this (not having correct documentation) along with $915M tax losses are indications of ‘being a good businessperson’ then I’ve gotta get a new dictionary.

    Is this law, or is it order? “the Donald J. Trump Foundation had been fund-raising in New York this year when it was not registered to do so under state law.”

    Before anyone asks. Yes, the Clinton foundation should be viewed under the same scrutiny.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s