Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

It’s time for a new thread.

How Trump and Clinton Gave Bad Answers on US Nuclear Policy….And Why You Should Be Worried [link]

The metaphysics of Trump: [link]

Clinton confidant’s immunity deal looms over debate . FBI appears to have undermined its own investigation with ill-considered witness agreements. [link]

A historian on why so many people want Donald Trump to “make America great again” [link]

3 Ways Trump Could Abandon the Paris Climate Pact [link]

Trump’s transition team has tapped a longtime climate skeptic to set environmental policy [link]

How @HillaryClinton’s and @realDonaldTrump’s platforms compare on environmental issues [link]

Why are we so sure Hillary will be a hawk? [link]

Here’s where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stand on energy issues [link]

‘A tale of two ethics. Why many Germans think impractical idealism is immoral [link]

We are increasingly being governed by people with a diminished experience of the world beyond politics [link]


692 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Although not a supporter of any candidate, I was pleased to read that “The possibility that a climate science denier could soon become America’s president is serving as an urgent motivator for diplomats gathering in New York this week for United Nations meetings.”

  2. I really don’t have much patience for a collection of articles that is largely proHillary elitists who think they are smarter and better informed than the average American and who are trying to figure out why the average American is stupid enough to actually like Trump. It is especially irritating when they base their “superior” pondering on misinterpretations and comments by Trump taken out of context and distorted by their fellow elitists in the leftist media. (For example if I see Washington Post, I don’t even bother reading it anymore. I have caught WaPo in so many outright lies that I accept absolutely nothing they say about Trump.) What the media should be asking is “Why is so much of the American public rejecting career politicians and why don’t they trust us, the media, anymore and how can we earn back that trust?” Instead they are asking “What is wrong with these stupid people who are following Trump even though we keep telling them we know so much better than them and we are only lying to them for their own good?” I did like the Tony Wright article. I think that explains a lot of Trump’s appeal.

    • “proHillary elitists”
      Not quite sure when the left shoe got put on the other foot, but when did the Republican become the anti-elitist candidate?
      To me this is an important shift that the media ignores and probably helped create.
      Possible biggest realignment since LBJ.

      • I think the idea that Democrats are more progressive than Republicans is a lot of nonsense. In the whole history of the USA Democrats have been on the wrong side of history more times than Republicans. Democrats endorsed slavery and it was Democrats who started the KKK just for two examples.

    • proHillary elitists who think they are smarter and better informed than the average American and who are trying to figure out why the average American is stupid enough to actually like Trump.

      Everyone knows the answer to that, though. Stupid Americans are “deplorable” and “irredeemable.”

      I’m certain I fit into Hillary’s basket of deplorables. Sometimes it isn’t even what you say, it’s the questions you ask, and that makes people believe you are thinking the wrong way.

      Trump is a trailblazer. He is making people realize wanting what’s best for the country is actually a reasonable position. Of course, there are plenty of people who think that’s a stupid perspective to have. People are attacked for wearing “Make America Great Again” hats. One guy was told he had to take the hat off because making america great is, apparently, racist.

    • but when did the Republican become the anti-elitist candidate?

      Perhaps conservatives have become more liberal and less main-stream than progressives.

      The classic definition of “liberal” is one who is willing to tear down institutions and rebuild them, vs. “conservative” is one who wants to prune the tree and shape it.

      What was Obama’s “Hope and Change” but more of the same? Now, think about what Trump is saying. He is advocating for radical departures from the current course. Hillary? More of the same. Keep the system going.

    • Agree. Skimmed through a opinion column in todays Seattle Times, that was a hoot. The author was trying to downplay the “enabler” charges against Hillary and explain why Trump is sooo much worse. Her excuses and reasoning was laughable.

      Lets see, three of the last five Democratic Party Presidents were adulterer’s. On the Republican side? Zero. And the Democrats want to make Trump’s character and morals an issue?

  3. From the Historian’s article on Trump:

    That Trump has virtually no solutions or plan for the future seems to be an afterthought to his supporters.

    The wall. There is that. And renegotiating our role in NATO. And renegotiating our security arrangements with other rich countries (Asian countries). And renegotiating our trade deals. And simplifying regulations.

    Obviously, these are big and broad, but they are significant departures from the current globalist course. Some might call the approaches “solutions” or “plans” to (perceived) problems we have here in the US.

  4. The WashPo piece on Myron Ebell (whom I know) heading Trump’s EPA transition team is superficial at best, mostly green innuendo. If anyone is interested in the transition process, here is a somewhat dated intro: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_presidential_transition_of_Donald_Trump

    Note that the transition team has a lot of federal money to work with. Romney’s team spent $8.9 million, presumably before the election.

    What to do with EPA is a fascinating question. Reversing the CO2 endangerment finding would be a nice start. EPA based it on the IPCC, rather than doing their own analysis, which could come to a different conclusion.

    • David Wojick: “What to do with EPA is a fascinating question. Reversing the CO2 endangerment finding would be a nice start. EPA based it on the IPCC, rather than doing their own analysis, which could come to a different conclusion.”

      A policy of taking aggressive enforcement action by the EPA in regulating all of America’s carbon emissions — not just those of coal-fired power plants — is the only policy approach which has the slightest chance of ever achieving the Democratic Party’s highly ambitious GHG reduction targets.

      The US Supreme Court has ruled that the review process the EPA used to identify carbon as a pollutant is legally defensible under the Clean Air Act and that IPCC 2007 AR4 is a valid scientific basis for regulating America’s carbon emissions. The precedent for relying on IPCC’s AR reports has been set, and it will not be easily overturned regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

      The only reason why greater attention isn’t being paid to the science behind the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding is because the EPA isn’t using its regulatory authority over carbon nearly to the extent it might legally use that authority, if it chose to do so.

      • David Wojick

        I am looking at Trump action, not Clinton’s. As for the science, the Court refused to look at it.

      • Beta Blocker

        David Wojick: “I am looking at Trump action, not Clinton’s. As for the science, the Court refused to look at it.”

        The reason the Supreme Court didn’t look at the science is because the courts aren’t supposed to be settling fundamental questions of science. That’s not their job.

        What the courts did in ruling for the EPA concerning its CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding for carbon was to determine that the process outlined in environmental law for determining and answering the scientific questions surrounding potential environmental pollutants was indeed followed according to the process the law spells out.

        Agree with their decision or not, that’s what the Supreme Court decided, and overturning their decision will be very difficult regardless if Trump sits in the Oval Office or he doesn’t.

        What will happen if Donald Trump becomes president and attempts to throttle the EPA’s current efforts in regulating carbon emissions?

        If that’s what happens, we can expect to see the environmental activist groups sue the EPA in an attempt to force that agency to write a CAA Section 108 Endangerment Finding for carbon, then to determine an appropriate NAAQS for carbon using the Section 108 finding as a basis, and then to develop and implement a comprehensive regulatory framework for carbon covering all of America’s carbon emission sources.

      • David Wojick

        No process was followed by EPA. They merely cited the IPCC. The SC merely ruled that EPA had the authority to make an endangerment finding. If the EPA now reversed themselves, based on actually looking at the science as they should have done, the SC would have nothing to say.

        As for the Democratic position, here is my view thereon:

      • Beta,

        You keep repeating the same point. I think we get it. EPA is not using it’s powers with regard to the CPP.

        That ignores one of David’s points. The endangerment finding is not based on any Agency research or studies. They simply lifted the IPCC conclusions and said there. If I recall correctly, even their Internal Auditor pointed out that the Agency failed to follow their own process.

        I believe the SC ruling only dealt with the issue of whether the EPA was empowered with the ability to make an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act. They said nothing about the finding itself.

    • Wow a WaPo piece that is superficial and full of green innuendo. I’m shocked I tell you, shocked – not.

    • DoJ dropped the Mideast arms trafficking case against Turi today. He says because his ironclad defense woild have been not trafficking, done with express written permission of Clinton at State. And DOJ did not want the trial to bring that evidence up before the election. The Wikileaks stuff certainly would support his assertions. Very bad optics for both DoJ and Clinton, again.

    • Which basically means the US is trying to start world war III with Russia in Syria based on a complete lie.
      Not news by any means, but if he can convince more people of this, kudos.

    • The Israelis have been complaining about this for a while because American arms have been turning up in Gaza. The CIA was busy buying back arms in Benghazi when the attack happened. If she was funding ISIS and Al Qaeda, why did they attack the diplomatic mission and the compound?

    • Pew poll on climate change is interesting. Here’s the NY Times on it. Definitely go read Pew’s report.
      They studiously avoid asking people how much they’d be willing to spend in order to “stop” it.
      The only really good news for the warm is the question on alternatives to fossil fuels. The warm have successfully convinced Americans to support Easter Bunny solutions and to oppose functional ones. Which means four more years of “yes, we’re concerned, no we won’t do anything!” Works for me, I agree there’s no urgency.

    • That could be the Mk 48 that sinks Hillary ‘s campaign

  5. Having one skeptic on the Trump transition team doesn’t cut it. Having a large, well credentialed group of climate scientists who can articulate the actual debate among scientists is the only way to address the issue. Any single individual will be subject to character assassination and will become the story instead of having the science the story.. A large team provides safety in numbers. The skeptics biggest challenge is to gain legitimacy.

    • Myron Ebell is heading up the EPA transition team, not the sole member. They are preparing to take over EPA if Trump wins. Science is not the issue, running EPA is and it is a large federal agency.

      • David

        I misunderstood the link. So let me amend my previous comment. They should form a task force charged specifically to address the climate change issue. Trump needs to have the strongest scientific basis if he is going to be the numero uno skeptic. Most of the statements by politicians questioning CAGW is crap not worthy of a high school debate. They all need to up their game on global warming and on the deficit and debt. When ordinary citizens know more about the issues than the policy makers we all lose.

      • David Wojick

        Politicians do not need to make scientific arguments, nor should they. That the science is not settled is enough to say, which is all that most skeptical politicians say.

      • You are wrong. The left constantly defines skeptics as scientific illiterates. When politicians dumb down the argument to the no brain default position of “the climate has always changed”, the warmists win since it appears the politicians are in fact scientific illiterates. You don’t need to be a scientist to simply identify what the debate is about and for them to understand the basics of unsettled data and projections.

      • David Wojick

        On the contrary, unlike most of us, politicians have to publicly answer questions. As soon as a politician tries to make a scientific claim regarding climate change they will be challenged with detailed questions that they cannot answer, making them look foolish. This is why politicians often must use vague generalities.

    • Trump solves problems with lawyers and accountants. Don’t need scientists.

      • catweazle666

        “Don’t need scientists.”

        You’re absolutely right.

        As he is involved primarily in the construction of large buildings – which are invariably completed on time and in budget – I expect he will be more involved with architects and engineers.

      • If you want to really get rid of the EPA first use lawyers to castrate it and then use accountants to divert all funds away from the department so it’s defenseless. It should collapse before the 2020 elections. We don’t need no stinkin engineers. Trump knows how to do this, after nearly 3500 law suits the guy’s a genius.

    • As long as the western educational system’s sole purpose, from first grade through Phd, is is to promote “abject stupidity” (brain washing), rather than assisting a student is some limited understanding, there can be no recovery of so called “science”. Where is the requirement for ‘habilitation’ before you can start to profess? All must crash! Hard engineering and chemistry may survive as ‘trade schools’! Meteorology and physics are first to go into the volcano, as all is a combination of religious fantasy and alphabet soup, no science at all!

      • David Wojick

        Having studied it in detail, I think our science education system is pretty good. If you look at the typical State K-12 science standards a great deal is taught, as much as can be in my view, given the class time allotted for science, which is maybe 60 hours per year. That is just a week and a half if it were full time.

      • Will Janoschka

        David Wojick | October 5, 2016 at 6:19 pm |

        “Having studied it in detail, I think our science education system is pretty good.”
        Just what is the “it” that you claim to study? What is your criterion for ‘pretty good’? Learning, or brainwashing innocents into accepting myopic opinion of others without question?
        We have Phd. research academics with 20 years of formal ‘education’ , that can ‘profess’, but cannot ‘do’, Such have not bothered to ‘learn’ how to ride a bicycle themselves! They cannot ‘teach’!
        The true ‘masters’, like Richard Feynman, demonstrate how to do! Even though Dr. Feynman does incomplete, with error, all students are in awe, ” how dey do dat”? These exceptional kiss away the hurt of falling from bicycle! “Try again to ride, I can only do my best in helping ‘you’ to learn”!

  6. “A historian on why so many people want Donald Trump to “make America great again” [link]”

    A remark made by Governor Pence, directed towards Senator Kaine and Secretary Clinton something like: Mr Trump is not a polished politician as you and Mrs. Clinton are.

    I took away from that comment the thought that some of the appeal of Mr. Trump by some of the American electorate is that they want a President who will be non-conforming &/or unconventional in carrying out the office. Trump supporters believing, an entrenched Washington DC Congress, White House and Federal bureaucracy need a President providing a “Dirty Harry” moment: “Go ahead, and make my day.” A NRA solution to a grid-locked power elite.

    Many Trump supporters, frustrated by their own lives at times, seeking resolution to employment regression and having a likely scapegoat as trade agreements send what had been well paying jobs overseas, simple and direct solutions appear attractive. The situation is analogous to the cravings of climate change activists who also view their world as frustrating, and, longing for a situation: if only simple and direct solutions would be implemented by the grid-locked Washington establishment.

    The door to globalization has been open far too long to be able to slam it shut now. Closing one’s borders to a larger world out there only worked at a time of a totalitarian society i.e., the days of kings and emperors. Even Stalin’s empire collapsed with his passing, his secret files on others, and his KGB apparatus to implement his reign of terror.

    After Stalin died, the USSR was brought to its knees by internal economic spendthrift collectivism.

    The climate change activists proposals for revamping the world in their own wistful ideology is crumbling on the economic realities, that capturing the wind and the sun is not free and has consequences: the State of South Australia for example.

    One economic solution to America’s employment with well paying jobs and such benefits that accrue, comes from the “middle size businesses”. Small businesses suffer because most people are not willing or inclined to go out into the world and make their fortune by themselves; not that many risk takers. A nation of shop keepers too often leads to the economics of Bob Cratchit. Rather I opine, large enough companies that can be credit worthy at a reasonable rate; small enough that management knows workers and managers on a first name basis; and, like some examples of current automotive suppliers, or tech software developers and writers, or companies of previously merged mega-giants as spin-offs somewhere in that size; not necessarily these type of companies since these industries have evolved off-shore.

    I envision a continuously productive work force, coming into and out of the labor market with a comprehension of integrating what had just been learned with applying that knowledge to a new situation. This would of course make “retirement”, a time when all productive work ends, also part of history. No need to stop being productive, just changing what your doing and the intensity of what your doing. For instance, manual labor has evolved into using new tools. Ditch digging by hand now has its backhoe. One can run a backhoe well past the usual retirement era. Developing and using new tools is possible. Slowing down somewhat, taking time outs along the way, gets back to the quality of life issues so recently part of the millennial conversations of Bernie Sanders.

    There are challenges to developing a middle size company that isn’t tide to manufacturing; yet, finances and information and marketing need not have boarders. I look forward to more global connectivity, moving from an informational age to a knowledge based age.

    • Many Trump supporters, frustrated by their own lives at times, seeking resolution to employment regression and having a likely scapegoat as trade agreements send what had been well paying jobs overseas, simple and direct solutions appear attractive.

      I’m employed, my income is doing fine, and I’m frustrated with the globalization. My view is trade imbalance is a symptom.

      1. The Federal government makes most of its money on income taxes of one form or another, which is to say we export the cost of our government, making our goods more expensive. Countries with a strong VAT do not have this problem. Countries with a weak welfare state do not have this problem. Essentially, the US punishes its workers.

      2. The US government has such a massive and “generous” welfare state it has to import illegal aliens to get jobs we must have done, such as agriculture. Even the H2-A guest worker program is so expensive we have to import illegal aliens to pick crops despite the extant guest worker program devised specifically for ag. The massive welfare state increases the cost of government, and hence the cost of US goods and services.

      3. Imported goods are cheaper than those manufactured here, and the common argument is therefore there is a benefit to US consumers. However, this neglects the increase in welfare and SSDI lost jobs cause. I’ve found no globalists figuring this cost into their benefits analysis. Nor do they consider the potentially permanent destruction of a generation of workers who cannot find jobs.

      People like myself are doing well with the cheap goods and services. But, is it in fact good for America, under the current circumstances in America? And what about the trajectory?

      It seems to me the current approach is short term fixes, and making the problem less tractable for future generations to keep the costly welfare state going (and, incidentally, making government more central to our lives). On the other hand, we have free markets that benefit the ownership class, and many countries ready to take capitalize on US decline. I do not think it can last. The trajectory is wrong.

  7. There is a website listing IQ of some of the past US presidents
    Both current contenders are listed but I left them out no to influence anyone’s preference.

    George W. Bush – 124
    Ronald Reagan – 130
    George H.W. Bush – 130
    Dwight D. Eisenhower – 132
    George Washington – 136
    Franklin D. Roosevelt – 140
    Abraham Lincoln – 140
    Barack Obama – 145
    Theodore Roosevelt – 149
    Jimmy Carter – 153
    Bill Clinton – 156
    John F. Kennedy – 158
    Thomas Jefferson – 160

  8. Not sure where this belongs, but well worth a look.

    I just received my copy of the book, “Hubris”, and am digging in.


  9. Exxon Mobil, Solar Tax Credits, And Government Investigations Gone Wild


  10. Not sure exactly where Al Jeereza fits in the heirarchy of acceptable to not acceptable, but tossing this in anyway:
    “The truth is, Trump is doing the US and the world a service by holding a giant mirror up to our collective soul, forcing us to confront the ugliness, irrationalities and hypocrisies underlying so many of the policies we think are sensible, or at least inevitable.

    We don’t have to vote for Trump or even like him to appreciate the importance of the political, economic and strategic realities exposed by the US’ greatest reality TV star.

    If we can keep that mirror raised after he returns to The Apprentice, Trump will indeed have made America a better country than it was before he stormed the political arena.”


  11. From the article:

    An exhaustive study being released on Tuesday by a group of researchers shows in detail how Fortune 500 companies have managed to shelter trillions of dollars in profits offshore from being taxed. Mr. Trump’s efforts pale by comparison. Worse, the companies have managed to hide many of their tax havens completely, in many cases reporting different numbers to different government agencies to obfuscate exactly how they’ve avoided Uncle Sam.


  12. US Citizens take note of the ill effects when governments grow to larger, more world-class sizes. Having a centralized world government would usher in an era where anyone anywhere could be sued by anyone anywhere, and the US would be hog-tied when it comes to national defense. Bad. Bad. Bad. From the article:

    (AFP) – Britain on Tuesday announced plans to allow its soldiers to opt out of European human rights law, in a move Prime Minister Theresa May said would end “the industry of vexatious claims” against troops.
    Under the new proposal the British government said it would allow soldiers to sidestep the European Convention on Human Rights during times of conflict, depending on an assessment of the circumstances.

    “We will repay them with gratitude and put an end to the industry of vexatious claims that has pursued those who served in previous conflicts,” May said in a statement.

    The plan, announced during the ruling Conservative Party’s annual conference, is intended to prevent legal claims against members of the armed forces which Defence Minister Michael Fallon said amounted to “false charges”.

    “Our legal system has been abused to level false charges against our troops on an industrial scale.


  13. When people say voter fraud is a non-problem, they are lying. From the article (my emphasis):

    Wouldn’t it be nice if just once, some of the people whom Soros pays to tell us that voter fraud doesn’t exist admitted they were wrong? What if government documents were produced to show at least 1,000 instances of voter fraud with aliens registering or voting in a key swing state? Would they recant?

    That’s asking too much. They earn their salaries by pretending voter fraud is a myth, and convincing others in the media to parrot their lies.

    So today we learn that in the key swing state of Virginia, voter registration rolls have been polluted with an excess of a thousand aliens, and most certainly far more. This detailed study by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (which I assisted on) documents more than one thousand aliens on the voter rolls. It provides the government documents with the names.

    In just eight Virginia counties, 1,046 alien non-citizens successfully registered to vote. Mind you, these are just the aliens who were accidentally caught because when they renewed their driver’s license, they told the truth that they were a non-citizen.

    That’s because of Motor Voter. Motor Voter, or the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, mandates that anyone who applies for a driver’s license must be offered voter registration. To register, they must merely mark a checkbox that they are a citizen and sign the form. It’s a yes-no question, and thousands are lying — just in Virginia.


  14. More votes stolen from US Citizens! From the article:

    At least 86 non-citizens have been registered voters in Philadelphia since 2013, and almost half — 40 — even voted in at least one recent election, according to a legal group that sued to get voter registration records.

    Joseph Vanderhulst, an attorney with the Public Interest Legal Foundation, noted Philadelphia knows about those 86 illegal voters only because officials received specific requests — in almost every case from the voters themselves — to remove the names from the rolls. He said there is no way to know how many non-citizens might be registered to vote in Philadelphia, let alone in the rest of politically crucial Pennsylvania.

    “This is just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows how many are on and don’t ask to be taken off?”

    “If the checked [citizenship] boxes are blank, they still register them,” he said. “That’s how these people are getting on the rolls … It’s just too easy. Maybe it’s supposed to be easy — but the price of that seems to be no discretion on the front end.”

    Vanderhulst said he suspects other Pennsylvania counties operate in a similar manner, and therefore have irregularities in their voter registration rolls. He pointed to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, designed to make motor-vehicle offices one-stop shops for driver’s licenses and voter registration cards. But since non-citizens can get driver’s licenses, that has led to confusion, he said.


  15. From the article:

    Goodman told Secrets that the latest attack on his proposals again show that Democrats are hostile to free press rights generally and in the past he has noted their antagonism to conservative media which is heavily internet based and on the radio, including Sirius/XM. Ravel’s “pitiful” comment appeared to refer to conservative news attention to Goodman’s proposal.

    “Once again, Commissioner Ravel has chosen to inject divisive ad hominem rhetoric into an honest debate about the scope of press freedom in America,” he said.

    “Instead of name-calling, Commissioner Ravel should explain why she wants to assert the power as a government official to ban books and motion pictures. She also owes an explanation for what appears to be a prejudice toward press organizations like Fox News, Washington Examiner and Daily Caller.”


  16. Potentially interesting audience questions for Trump in the town hall debate on Sunday. It could be a minefield for him just talking to regular people.
    – A veteran POW who asks why Trump thinks he is not a hero
    – An American-born child of undocumented immigrants who asks he he will be deported by Trump
    – A disabled person who asks anything
    – A poor and sick person who asks if Trump will take away his Medicaid
    – A Muslim who asks if Trump likes Muslims at all
    – One of Trump’s contract workers who asks why he got stiffed
    – A relative of an innocent police shooting victim asking what Trump would do about this problem
    – A devout Christian who asks Trump for his favorite Bible quote
    – A deplorable who asks why Trump changed his stance on the birth certificate
    – An investor who lost out in a Trump bankruptcy asking when he can get his money back

    • Yeah, maybe if Clinton got to write all the questions. LOL

    • Jim D, an interesting question for Hillary Clinton, coming from someone such as yourself, might be this:

      “Secretary Clinton, regarding the issue of climate change, the EPA has determined that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant if it is present in excessive concentrations. As President, would you direct the EPA to pursue aggressive regulation of all of America’s carbon emissions, not just those coming from coal-fired power plants?”

    • Here is one for Hillary.

      Mrs Clinton, how you propose to fulfill the duties of the President from a jail cell?

  17. You can read about Hillary’s “Climate Army” here:

    It includes former Bill Clinton EPA head and former legislative director for Al Gore, Carol Browner, who prepared the ground for the Endangerment Finding. She also had computer problems and had her files wiped before leaving office.

  18. Is the Atlantic MSM? Third endorsement since 1850’s: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/

    “Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”

    “But Trump has seized on these anxieties and inflamed and racialized them, without proposing realistic policies to address them.”

    “In its founding statement, The Atlantic promised that it would be “the organ of no party or clique,” and our interest here is not to advance the prospects of the Democratic Party, nor to damage those of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.”

    • With trust in the press at an abysmal low of 32% it does more harm than good at this point when they pile onto Trump. The press is essentially the enemy to some degree for the super-majority of the American electorate who distrusts it.

      Trump made the press out to be terribly biased against him. He’s been sniping at the press consistently without remorse. The following expression is apt: ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’.

    • http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/26/newt-gingrich-hillary-clinton-was-wrong-brexit-libya-russia-more
      In the wake of the UK’s shocking Brexit vote, Hillary Clinton said these uncertain times call for “calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House.”

      On “Fox News Sunday,” Newt Gingrich said he found Clinton’s statement “hysterical,” pointing out that she’s been wrong on foreign policy on everything from the Brexit vote to toppling Muammar Gaddafi in Libya to advocating for a “reset” with Russia.

      “I mean, what has she been right about?” Gingrich said. “If we need more of this kind of experience, it’s a little bit like Casey Stengel once asking if anybody on the Mets could play the game. I mean, there’s no reason why Hillary Clinton’s experiences qualify for anything except retirement.”

      Curt Schilling: Hillary ‘the Most Despicably Corrupt, Lying Human Being to Run for the Office’

      • Danny Thomas

        Normally, I perceive you as one willing to at least consider differing views.

        Is Clinton a ‘less than ideal’ candidate? You betcha. Even she wonders out loud why she’s not leading by 50%. With this in mind might we say that Trump is a ‘less than ideal’ candidate? You betcha. And I’ll wonder out loud for him. Why is he not leading by 50%?

        The preference is not to call Trump an outright (insert moderation tripping word for stater of falsehoods). But come on. Might we have sufficient evidence for our having the audacity to doubt his veracity while we insinuate he prevaricates? Then, following the graphic you offered: The problem is his supporters just don’t care.

        This is the most questionable set of candidates in my over 10 opportunities to consider. Some may have a larger perspective.

        Curt Schilling? Meh.

      • Double Dealing Danny pretends to be objective. Film at 11.

      • Danny Thomas

        Why Dave. Thank you. At least I get credit for pretending. You, however………………..

      • C’min Danny, give David some credit. That cherry pick of trends in polling he posted the other day certainly qualifies as a pretense of being objective.

      • Danny Thomas

        Not yet. I’ll wait to see how he (or Glenn) responds to this:https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/05/week-in-review-politics-edition-12/#comment-815574

        Make sure you see thru to the denouement. How it resolves……well……..don’t wanna give anything away.

      • “Sigh”.

        The problem with Hillary, from Whitewater, moving a dead body, Benghazi the email server, to her health, is she is just the opposite of frank and honest. The email was an end run around her own administration. She had a public employee working on her private server.

        She is opaque. She is the exact opposite of transparent. Bill and her have so many shell companies that their public disclosure is meaningless. Her financial structure is what you would expect of a money launderer, arms dealer, gun smuggler etc. There is no reason for of level complexity for what has been mostly a public servant earning money honestly.

        I just don’t get why she does this. It could be rampant paranoia. It could be skirting the law for some miniscule advantage, she could be doing something wrong.

        But given Hillary has never been transparent in the past, we don’t have much chance of her being transparent in the future. Her lack of candor and win at all costs using any method attitude are deal breakers for me.

      • The Danny “balance scale” Thomas act wears thin rather quickly.

        How’s this Danny:

        “Voting for Trump is basically agreeing to a game of Russian Roulette. The problem is that so is voting for Hillary. The difference is that with Hillary you play with an automatic. “

      • Danny Thomas

        And voting for Trump there Tim? Cap gun or elephant gun?

        So I take it you’re no fan of ‘balance’.

      • Danny –

        I remember with great fondness much beloved climate etc. “denizens” four years ago who were absolutely convinced that the polls were “skewed” in Obama’s favor, only to find out that Obama actually outperformed his polling numbers.

      • If a certain select few would rake Brietbart over the coals for reaching quite similar conclusions based on their ‘first evah’ poll what they say could be meaningful. But the evidence is…………………..let’s just say I’ll take being evaluated as ‘pretending’ to be objective in comparison.

      • PA, if you always tell the truth, I can understand why you would be unwilling to vote for anyone that you suspect doesn’t always tell the truth.
        But it would be hard to find someone who doesn’t lie now and then. We have seen Trump lying recently, denying he said what he said. If you are critical of Hillary on this, why not be fair, and be critical of Trump too?

      • Danny,

        Rather than trying to read between the lines, try simply reading the lines.

        Based on your response, you missed the point. But then that could be due to unfamiliarity with firearms. I personally think one a fool to play Russian Roulette. Playing with an automatic pistol makes one both a fool and an idiot, only not for long. Which would you choose?

      • Danny Thomas

        Well duh. If you haven’t figured it out or if in some way I’ve spent the last couple of months being unclear.


        As far as missing the point. You set up the premise that we are indeed ‘playing Russian roulette’. Then you suggested Clinton as choice was equal to doing playing that roulette with an automatic weapon. Since I WAS reading, I noticed that you chose to not characterize what playing that roulette would be like were Trump the choice.

        So maybe you ‘missed the point’ in my response. Wanna give it another go?

      • We have seen Trump lying recently, denying he said what he said.

        As Lester Holt showed the media is in the bag for Hillary. If Holt wanted to interrogate both candidates that would be ok, but he chose not too and just interrogated Trump.


        The “facts” are somewhat viewpoint dependent. Take Trump and the $400 billion trade deficit with China. The trade deficit was $343 Billion in 2014 and increasing rapidly, it may well be $400 billion this year. The news organizations rated this as a lie. Trump apparently says $500 billion sometimes which is about 4 years out. Is he lying? Well, the Chinese deficit is large and growing and he is within 20% of right even with his worst number. He has identified a problem.

        Some of Trumps statements are part of a right/left viewpoint divide: “Marco Rubio was a main target last week and saw Trump twist the truth about his immigration position to warn voters that the senator is “totally in favor of amnesty.”
        You are either in favor of amnesty or you aren’t. Amnesty in the past has increased illegal immigration.

        Trump has made some less than accurate statements. Some of it is he isn’t a professional politician. Some of it may be he has been misinformed.

        Some of Hillary’s misstatements appear to deliberate and playing to her base. Some of her campaign statements like the doctors statement mean the opposite of what they say on the surface, and are legally crafted statements designed to hide the facts. She has a serious health problem that is more than a year old.

        Trump seems incapable of the legally crafty statements that Hillary spouts instinctively.

        However if you have some Trump statements that trouble you we can look at them.

      • ==> Trump has made some less than accurate statements. Some of it is he isn’t a professional politician. Some of it may be he has been misinformed. ==>

        Hilarious. How abiut when Trump declared over and over how he won the last debate based on the Internet polls?

        Just confused, or promoting obvious falsehoods like a politician. You make the call.

        The naiveté of so some called “skeptics” when it comes to Trump is downright laughable.

      • Danny,

        Re the Russian Roulette analogy:

        Trump: Playing with a revolver, possibility with more than one round in the chamber.

        Clinton: Doesn’t matter how many rounds. With a semi auto it only takes one.

      • Tim,

        I got that. (No fun in not responding)

        My modification was: With Trump were we dealing with a small non lethal hole or blowing our entire head off while taking out a few bystanders in the process. In politics, think it’s called collateral damage! (unknown consequences)

      • Well…

        Trump is not the ideal candidate and is probably “chaotic neutral”.

        Hillary is quasi-lawful evil. Lawful evil follows the law, Hillary does what she can get away with. Her supervisor for the Watergate Hearings basically had her number and from her lies to the FBI, various committees, and the debates she really hasn’t changed.

        She claimed to have left the administration by the time Obama gave his line in the sand speech. He gave the speech in August 12, 2012.

        Hillary was secretary of state until February 1, 2013..

        Hillary can’t recall numerous meetings on Syria 4 years ago when the line in the sand policy was formed? Really? She is either an outright liar, or is too mentally feeble to be president.

    • PA said “However if you have some Trump statements that trouble you we can look at them.”

      Trump’s statements are reassuring. The more he talks, the more I think he won’t be elected. As a Hillary fan, I really like the man and hope he doesn’t pull out of the race.

      Some prominent Republicans have changed their minds, and say they won’t vote for Trump. They may fear continuing to endorse him could lose votes for them. You, on the other hand, probably have little to lose sticking by Trump. Otherwise, you might be thinking about throwing in the towel. Don’t give up just yet. Anything could happen.

      • Max

        As a Brit I look completely aghast at the Election disaster unfolding in the US. They are almost each as bad as the other. Can you please clarify why you are a ‘fan’ of Hillary? Her record and her bearing makes it difficult to see how anyone can be a fan.


      • They are almost each as bad as the other.

        Not even remotely close. Each half of this divided country richly deserves Hillary. Nobody deserves King Louis XII inch (check out the columns:)

      • Hi tonyb,

        You asked why I am a Hillary fan. I will give you my reasons.

        I agree with Hillary’s policy platform.

        I like her voting record, except for her support of the Iraq invasion.

        Hillary is a seasoned politician who knows how to compromise. I think she can work with Republicans to get things done.

        Her experience as Secretary of State makes her an expert on foreign affairs.

        I am impressed with Hillary’s knowledge of issues. She prepares well, as was evident in the debates with Trump.

        Hillary came from a working class family. I believe she can empathize with the needs and concerns of working people.

        Females are more than one-half of our population. It’s time we have a woman as President.

  19. From the God works in mysterious ways dept…

    Aptly named after the bible’s book of ‘Matthew’, Hurricane Matthew is expected to devastate the southern tip of Florida where most of the state’s democratic voters are located.

    Clinton’s so-called “ground game” will be irreparably harmed as paid campaign workers, volunteers, and millions and millions of largely Clinton voters will be too busy dealing with the storm’s aftermath to vote.

    Now this is what I call global climate disruption. Giving Florida to Trump seals his election and him becoming leader of the free world is definitely a “global disruption”.

    I wish God could have come up with a less expensive way to set America right. Couldn’t He simply have caused Hillary to sneeze-fart herself unconscious halfway through the last debate instead?

    Further reading:


    • OT: How much will this hurricane add to GDP? Seems to me when we get whacked by a major storm, flood or fire I hear that most of the losses are not insured but I have never seen a GDP report where they deduct for these loses. If this storm plays out as it’s currently being “promoted” it will rank somewhere between Katrina ($50b) and Sandy (20b).
      System’s rigged.

  20. This is AWESOME!!! From the article:

    A hacker believed to be operating on behalf of the Russian government has released thousands of emails taken from the personal account of Capricia Penavic Marshall, a key Clintonworld figure who worked under Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

    The emails, which were released on the anonymously-operated site DC Leaks, are broken down into eight categories: “Atlantic Council,” “Clinton Foundation,” “Conversations with Clinton’s team,” “favor,” “fundraising,” and several others.

    The Daily Caller’s investigative team is scouring through the records.

    Marshall’s central importance to the Clintons’ political operations was realized earlier this year by Citizens United. The conservative watchdog group filed a federal lawsuit for Marshall’s State Department emails.

    At State, Marshall served as chief of protocol from 2009 to 2013. In that role, she helped the State Department and White House manage issues related to diplomatic protocol.

    She entered the Clinton sphere during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, working as a special assistant to Hillary Clinton. She later worked on Clinton’s senatorial and presidential campaigns, helping lead fundraising efforts.


    • A hacker released several hundred documents from the Hillary Clinton State Department.
      The leaked emails belonged to Capricia Penavic Marshall, a top Clinton-words figure at the State Department.

      DC Leaks announced the leak earlier today.

      We have something viral for you guys! Keep calm and wait for our news! #DCLeaks

      — DC Leaks (@DCleaks_) October 6, 2016

      Check @HillaryClinton fundraisers’ list in Capricia Marshall’s correspondence https://t.co/jruAMTGiXN #DCLeaks pic.twitter.com/io4wKnH1JU

      — DC Leaks (@DCleaks_) October 6, 2016


      Check the correspondence of the former U.S. Chief of Protocol Capricia Marshall https://t.co/Y050hCrWNk#DCLeaks pic.twitter.com/iCWybxaLRQ

      — DC Leaks (@DCleaks_) October 6, 2016


    • Jim2,

      Couple of things. Specific question. Are you sanctioning Russia hacking? Are you supporting Russia influencing our elections (answer if this as if Trump had been hacked)?

      Did you read this Re: Guccifer 2.0: “They turned out to be mundane documents hacked from the Democratic party of Virginia and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.”?

      There is a disinformation campaign taking place by all appearances. Rooting on Russian attempts at influencing our elections comes across as un-American.

      • Specific question, do you understand the meaning of “believed to be?”

      • Danny Thomas

        Questions were addressed to you, not the article. If you wish to avoid I understand.

      • OK, Dense Danny.

      • Danny Thomas

        I may be ‘dense’. But I’m a dense American.

      • Speaking of dense. There’s a big difference between “believed to be” and Wow! Awesome! (in case you’ve not figured it out yet).

      • Well, Danny, when it comes to CR_0_0_KED Hillary; I’m not upset in this case that someone illegally hacked her compadre’s computer. She is running for President. She lied about her emails. She (the buck stops with her whether she likes it or not) destroyed emails that were under subpoena. She’s a lying, CR_0_0_KED, cheating scoundrel. I have no tears, unless tears of joy she was forced to reveal some emails.

      • Jim2,
        ” someone ” is Russia. Guess you’re of the two wrongs make a right school, eh?

        So based on your rationalization:
        Hacking anyone running for prez is okay even if the hacking is done by a non-ally and that information is used to affect our elections. And your acceptance of same is done ‘joyfully’.

        That’s quite American Jim.

        I prefer other methods, but maybe you’re okay with our elections being ‘rigged’.

      • Huh? Disinformation campaign?

        Most if not all of information from Marshall and Hillary is subject to FOIA.

        That makes this an information campaign, not a disinformation campaign.

        Deleting emails, completely redacting emails, lying about availability of emails, hiding emails, or not responding at all, are all unresponsive to the request and not compliant with the law.

        The “hacker” release is an FOIA public service and unredacted information is more accurate, complete, and useful than redacted information.

        The only way to fix the current FOIA mess is .by law automatically dismissing anyone who is unresponsive to FOIA and barring them from future government service – including the presidency.

        If the Russians are bringing some integrity to the process and releasing information that should have already been available that is pretty sad.

      • PA,

        Try again starting here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/24/week-in-review-politics-edition-11/#comment-815313

        Hacking is not fulfillment of FOI! Hacking is an illegal act. Hacking by a non-ally of our government’s information is precariously close to an act of aggression.

        Justify all you wish, but sit back and consider the bigger picture before you do. This is one election and one candidate. Mentally substitute others before you respond.

        Guccifer’s disinformation here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/24/week-in-review-politics-edition-11/#comment-815324
        and it involved DCCC and was purported to be Clinton’s Foundation which are NOT subject to FOI. These are good old American enterprises.

        Methinks because the narrative supports that which would result in a resolution to your satisfaction that maybe, just maybe, you’re not taking the time to look at this fully.

        So, yes, disinformation campaign with impacts to our elections. Support this kind of activity at the peril of us all.

      • and it involved DCCC and was purported to be Clinton’s Foundation which are NOT subject to FOI. These are good old American enterprises.

        Saw an analysis that said the Guccifer 2.0 release was mostly a rehash of published leaks. The leak was supposed to be Clinton Foundation but Politico thinks it is DCCC documents.

        Well, we don’t actually know the source or veracity of the documents. They might be DCCC and they might be real. They could be hacked or courtesy of a some helpful citizen.

        There are three disappointments here:
        1. They are not from the Clinton Foundation (false advertising).
        2. They appear to have been acquired in a less than legal way.
        3. The Democratic party, from the contents of the documents, appears less scrupulous and honorable than we would like.

        I don’t support illegal surfing of private entities, even the DCCC, not even if it is entertaining and supports various conspiracy theories.

        However, hackers appear to be attacking the RNC and Trump as well. So they either have nothing interesting, better technical staffs, been lucky so far, or the data is being used for internal Democratic consumption..

      • The average Russian despise all Americans. Doesn’t matter what party they belong to.
        1) They are especially pissed that they never got credit for kicking Hit1er’s ass.
        2) They think our culture is tacky and our morals decedent.
        Most Trump supporters agree with them about #2.

      • Danny Thomas


        “Most Trump supporters agree with them about #2.”

        Wonder what Trump might think about that and if/how that might vary from his supporters?

      • Danny,
        Sorry, I’m going to have to side with the russians on this one.

      • Danny Thomas

        Guess that answered the question!

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t think Russians object to Americans based on culture. They do make fun of Americans for being fat and lazy but as far as them actually disliking us there is reason to believe that is mostly political.

  21. Gavin Schmidt on PBS Newshour spreading FUD as quickly as possible.

    • Segment begins @ 29 minutes.

    • Jim2,

      Thank you for the link to Gavin Schmidt. My take on his comments:

      All innuendo and scare mongering about damages. Massive exaggeration about sea level rise – 6 feet!

      • That is not what he said… he was discussing the difference between a storm surge of 5′, contained by mitigation infrastructure like a seawall, and a storm surge of 6′ topping that infrastructure… which might, I guess, cause some damage.

  22. Gavin Schmidt tries to leverage the first hurricane to make landfall in the US in 4,000 days; now Billary jumps on board. Charlatans!

    Hillary Clinton wants to take advantage of voters looking for information about Hurricane Matthew, the Category 4 storm currently threatening Florida.
    Politico reports that the Clinton campaign will spend $63,000 to reach Weather Channel viewers there for five days beginning on Thursday. That was confirmed by the Clinton campaign.


  23. Impressive. Rightwinger, favorite of many “skeptics” and “denizens,” spreading conspiracies about hurricane Matthew.

    Let’s just hope that none of his readers fail to evacuate because of rightwing conspiracy mongering

  24. Here’s another example of the damage to world security when the US citizens elect a weak US President (like Obama). the anti-nukes, who are responsible for blocking progress and causing massive delays and cost increases, also have a lot to answer for.

    Russia pulls out of nonproliferation agreement

    Russia’s President Putin has unilaterally announced cancellation of the 2000 Russia-US Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement to reduce each country’s weapons-grade plutonium by 34 tonnes. He cited US proposals to dispose of the US plutonium in other ways than by completing the Savannah River MOX plant, which is behind schedule and over budget. A draft bill was introduced to Russia’s parliament, with an explanatory note saying that there were both political and technical reasons to cancel the deal, even thought it could be renewed under certain conditions related to relaxing sanctions and reducing US military presence in eastern Europe. The presidential decree said the main reason for cancellation is “the emergence of a threat to strategic stability as a result of U.S. hostile actions against Russia.”

    The US Nuclear Energy Institute has called on Congress to provide money for completing the Savannah River plant, since “Allowing Russia to forgo its international obligation has significant national security implications for the United States and its allies.”

    At the opening ceremony for Russia’s MOX plant at MCC Zheleznogorsk in September 2015, Rosatom had compared its achievement in building its plant for military plutonium in four years for RUR 9.3 billion ($142 million), with the US Savannah River plant costing $7.7 billion over eight years up to then, and still only 70% complete. Rosatom says that so far its MOX plant and the BN-800 reactor running on fuel from it have been “working with civil[ian] materials only,” but if the agreement were renewed, Rosatom “can begin to fulfill Russia’s international obligations under the deal” with weapons plutonium which has higher fissile content.

    Subsequently the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has terminated a 2010 implementing agreement between Rosatom and US DOE’s National Nuclear Safety Administration “concerning cooperation on feasibility studies of the conversion of Russian research reactors to use low-enriched uranium fuel.” The NNSA said that under this agreement “NNSA and Rosatom successfully completed conversion of one reactor and confirmed that it was technically and economically feasible to convert the remaining five.” However, the USA had already suspended that agreement in 2014 on account of military activities in Ukraine. Russia also announced that it was suspending a 2013 bilateral agreement on Cooperation in Nuclear- and Energy-Related Scientific Research and Development because of the continuation of US sanctions imposed in 2014.”
    WNN 4/10/16. US fuel cycle, Research reactors


  25. It’s pretty amazing how CNN and CBS manipulate the “scientific” polls in order to provide “empirical evidence” to substantiate whatever the narrative du jour happens to be.

    What’s even more amazing is that most Democrats still believe the umitigated BS that emanates from the MSM.

    “Trust” is of a subjective nature, so it’s hard to pin down. But when most (51%) Democrats “trust” the mass media, but only 17% of Republicans and 30% of Independents do, the jury is in: The mass media has been judged guilty of bias and partiality by most people, the exception being Democrats.

  26. It looks like, if not for the politics of fear, the establishment wouldn’t have any politics at all.

    In addition to the CAGW scare tactics, we have the gun scare.

    In one breath, the establishment tells us this:

    Bill Clinton: “67-Year Low In The Rate Of People Being Killed By Illegal Gun Violence” Due to My 1994 Crime Bill

    But no sooner having said that, and in the very next breath, the establishment tells us this:

    Sometimes the cognitive dissoance gets to be more than the human mind can bear.

    • 1. There is no link between gun availability and gun violence.
      2. The centerpiece of Clinton’s crime bill was the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
      3. A decline in gun violence started after the expiration.
      4. The Obama era is setting all time records for gun sales.
      5. Gun violence started declining in 1993 before the ban and was increasing prior to the ban expiration.

      Bill Clinton is spreading a false narrative.

      • Remember, like CO2, guns have a half-life of decades. Don’t get lost in short term trends.

      • jacksmith4tx wrote:
        Remember, like CO2, guns have a half-life of decades.

        Well, according to CDIAC about 7 GT of carbon was environmentally absorbed and only 3.88 GT was added to the atmosphere in 2014.

        It doesn’t look like a long half-life if we stop emitting.

  27. Unbelievable!

    Bill Clinton, on those rare occasions when he slips up, is capable of telling the American people the truth:

    VIDEO: Bill Clinton — Small Business “Getting Killed” By “Crazy” Health Care System

  28. At those Clinton events where only a few hundred people show up, everything is painstakingly choreographed and stage managed so as to present a false narrative to the American people:

    YouTuber Discovers That Teen Girl Who Asked Question At Clinton Town Hall Is A Child Actor

    It’s all in a day’s work for the establishment, and is deja vu of this:

    The Toppling: How the Media Created the Iconic Fall of Saddam’s Statue

  29. The labor theory of value is getting hammered from all directions. Not only is there the traditional Christian critique by theologians like Reinhold Niebuhr, and the newer criticism by the techno utopians and triumphalists, but now feminists are joining the fray:

    Are Our Earnings Really Our ‘Just Deserts’?

    The theory that the distribution of income and wages reflects the marginal contribution of different individuals to output is the theoretical foundation in economics for what is known as ‘just deserts’, and has been used to justify growing social inequality, notably in the recent argument by Greg Mankiw in defense of the wealthiest 1 percent. Its thinking reinforces the idea that economics assumes a just world.

    In a new paper, MacArthur award winner and Professor Emerita Nancy Folbre systematically and thoroughly dismantles the notion of just deserts…

    Folbre has spent a lifetime working and understanding phenomena outside the remit of competitive labor markets, most recently in understanding the crucial importance of the care economy and reciprocity for the sustenance of society — the subject of a wide-ranging interview with Folbre conducted by the Institute.

    Our orthodox theory of value is in crisis.

  30. Not many American readers may know that the trade deal with UK is urgently required.
    While the UK’s Brexit heroes, the UKIP’s campaign leaders are flooring each other in fist-fights in the EU parliament’s chamber, poor £ sterling is being decisively floored by tottering Euro.
    Rejuvenated Mrs Merkel, the German Chancellor and the cocky French president Hollande are raising the stake of the punishment to be exerted on the Brexiter economy.
    According to the GDP calculated in $US, the only stable currency, UK was decisive 5th economy prior to Brexet, then post Brexit fell to 6th after France, and according to the today’s £ sterling values is about to fall into 7th place after India.

  31. From the article:

    A new survey shows vast gaps between the opinion of elites and of ordinary Americans about the burdens and costs of cheap-labor immigration.
    Twenty-seven percent of Democratic supporters, but only four percent of Democratic Party elites, said they agree that that large-scale immigration is a “critical threat.” That’s a 23-point gap, or a seven-fold difference between leaders and led in the Democratic coalition.

    In some ways, that gap in the Democratic Party is larger than the gap in the GOP, which has torn itself in two this year over the issue.

    Sixty-seven percent of GOP supporters, but only 16 percent of GOP leaders, see large number of immigrants as a critical threat. That’s a larger 51-point gap, but a smaller four-fold difference of opinion between elites and ordinary GOP members, than seen in the Democratic Party.


    • Don’t think a poll/survey is required to evaluate what any ‘political elite’ (no matter the party) think about ‘illegal’ immigration (not sure what “cheap-labor immigration” is). Since it’s been an ongoing issue since the 70’s no cost/benefit needed to answer that one.

  32. At least there a bit of sense of humor still left out there: “The registration campaign officially opened Monday and will run through Tuesday, Oct. 11. A full list of voter registration site-taco trucks can be found here.” http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/09/29/houston-residents-can-now-register-to-vote-at-taco-trucks/

  33. “A bipartisan group of House members this week also sent a letter to the director of national intelligence, calling on the Obama administration to publicly release the results of its investigation.”


  34. From the article:

    Touching on her view of developing financial regulations, Clinton declared to a crowd of Goldman Sachs bankers that in order to “figure out what works,” the “people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.”

    At the Goldman Sachs Builders and Innovators Summit, Clinton responded to a question from chief executive Lloyd Blankfein, who quipped that you “go to Washington” to “make a small fortune.” Clinton agreed with the comment and complained about ethics rules that require officials to divest from certain assets before entering government. “There is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives,” Clinton said.

    At a speech for Morgan Stanley on April 18, 2013, Clinton praised the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan — which would reduce corporate tax rates while raising the Social Security age. “But Simpson-Bowles — and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today — put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula,” she said.

    Clinton also told a housing trade group in 2013 that on certain issues, she has “a public and a private position.” “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” said Clinton. “So, you need both a public and a private position.”


  35. Anyone who is even remotely surprised by this recent news about Trump and the open mic is, unbelievably naive.

    I look forward to reading his sycophants and toadies flail around on this one.

    Now THAT will be too funny.

    • Wonder if Ryan’s gonna take back ‘the hug’?



      Even with what, the 2nd apology for ‘offending’ I can’t see room for high ground for Trump on this one.

      Been married less than a year at the time of this occurrence, history of stepping outside his marriage previously, and trying to ‘make it’ with a women he knew was married. Think that one’s gonna leave a mark and don’t expect to hear much more about B. Clinton’s ‘history’.

    • Utah has 6 Electoral votes, but they may now be gone.

      From this: http://kutv.com/news/local/jon-huntsman-jr-endorses-trump-says-it-is-time-to-create-winning-coalition

      to this: “Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and Rep. Jason Chaffetz said they can no longer vote for Trump, while former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said the Republican presidential nominee should drop out of the race.” http://www.sltrib.com/news/4444721-155/huntsman-says-trump-should-drop-out

    • Let’s see, Clinton has sex with a young, naive intern then lies about it for all to see. And that just scratches the surface of what he’s done to women.

      Just about all heterosexual men hold as their sexual quest women. Of course, that isn’t all women are to men, but that’s the way of nature.

      Men all over the world have had conversations, in the company of other men, like Trump’s. He even admitted he failed in his quest. This is nothing more than braggadocio. No actual women were hurt. But if you are a man, you know I’m telling the truth.

      Can’t say that about Clinton though. And Hillary enabled and ran damage control. She respects women, oh so much.

      • Jim2,
        Are you aware that Trump had an extra marital affair, just like Bill? Are you aware that Trump and Bill, based on evidence, hold women in about the same regard?

        Bragging? The man stated outright he (while recently having remarried himself) was trying to ‘get with’ a married (according to himself) women. (Failing is not a virtue).

        Please don’t try to justify this. What Bill or Hillary did does not justify Trump. Two wrongs don’t make a right. What ‘men all over the world’ have done also adds no justification.

        Frankly, Trumps actions were deplorable. You, unless you’re comfortable with Trumps behavior, should call him out. If not, it’s a double standard between B.Clinton & Trump and hypocrisy abounds.

      • Europeans, especially the French, would find it odd that this is even an issue, just like with Clinton, but this is a case where American prudishness can save them from a big mistake.

      • The Trump campaign was planning on bringing the women who have said they were abused by Bill to the next debate but have been unable to line up the necessary 400 buses.

      • I’m not sure I’ve ever before seen a presidential campaign strategy simply reduced to “they did it first ” to make the case for their candidate….. but that seems to be what we have now.

      • Of course, Trump’s candidacy was cratering anyway, but this obviously will be a huge hit.

        I just hope that he stays in the race as that will have the biggest impact on hurting other Republicans running for office.

        Given his ego, it’s hard to imagine him dropping out, although losing with Pence at the top of the ticket would do far less long – term damage to the party than losing with Trump at the top

        Hard to believe that the best Republicans could do against such a weak candidate as Clinton was a blowhard conman sleezeball like Trump.

      • –snip–

        A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump nationally by 5 points, 45% to 40%. That by itself is not so interesting; other recent polls have shown that as well. What is very surprising is that Clinton has now opened a 14-point lead over Trump with independents. In its September poll, Trump led with independents by 7 points. This is a net shift of 21 points away from Trump in a month. And, of course, this poll was completed before Friday’s revelations. Presumably, those independents won’t be back. (V)


      • I never bother to watch the Sunday morning news talk shows, but this Sunday may be an exception as seeing Trump surrogates trying to dig out from p***ygate will be pure gold.

      • Danny, I pity you having to defend Bill Clinton. He is 1000 times worse than Trump when it comes to abusing women. Which Soros NGO pays you to look so foolish?

      • Jim2,

        You see. That’s just it. I don’t defend Bill Clinton. First, Bill isn’t the candidate. Second, were he the candidate I’d hold him to the same standard.

        What I don’t care about is either of the sexual orientations. What I do care about is their fidelity to their spouse. You may not be married, but when I made that commitment there were vows (an example might be to uphold the constitution).

        That you’re unable to recognize the distinction says much.

      • We have two candidates to compare. Billary has enabled Bill’s abuse of women, then intimidated his victims in order to cover up. She is much worse than Trump.

      • Jim2,
        “We have two candidates to compare.”
        Gooder Worser

        XX (our choices)

        ” Billary has enabled Bill’s abuse of women, then intimidated his victims in order to cover up. She is much worse than Trump.”

        Just guessing here, because I certainly don’t know, but I’d be willing to bet she kicks his arse. And, she’s stuck to her vow AFAIK even if he hasn’t. Can you say that about Trump?

        Talk about ‘defending’. Listen to your words. ‘But Mommy, he did it and she did it’.

        Their behavior is deplorable. I’m unaware of a scale of acceptable atrociousness vs. unacceptable. Gotta link?

        How much is Brietbart paying you to defend Trump?

    • Looks like his video apology was shot on an iPhone 4. Obviously reading from the script that Kellyanne wrote for him.

      Pathetically bad. Well not work. Just another indication of incompetence. This is what they came up with after 10 hours ?

      And thanks jim2, your amusing defense didn’t disappoint.

      He offers an excuse by saying that Bill was worse? That’s his apology for saying that he tried to seduce a married woman? That he grabs women in the crotch?

      The response is that all men say stuff likes that? This is supposed to be the strategy to win over educated women swing voters?


      • Women voters (2) in the Impeach Barry household didn’t change their minds. Libtards clutching their pearls over bawdy Trump notwithstanding. I mean it’s not like he was rolling a cigar around in the pussy of a young white house office intern, right?

      • I think his handlers have control of him. He has 2 tame tweets and what looks like a hostage video in the last day.

      • Reading from a script. What other politician would ever do something like that.

        Try harder putz.

      • McCain and Condi out. The beat goes on.

    • How many unindorsements will track up over the next couple of days?

      This will roil the Republican party for decades. The Trump supporters will double down. The rift will widen. Sane Republicans will refuse to associate with Trump.

      Buy stock in popcorn. It will be a growth industry.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Obviously not the exact words but that is beside the point. What did you actually hear? That he gropes after he kisses. That women are lining up to be kissed and groped by a billionaire star. I wouldn’t think either of those a great shocker. He didn’t say he kisses whether they like it or not. He didn’t say he kisses and gropes immediately. Even if he did he obviously doesn’t because he doesn’t have 50 lawsuits going. The construction workers you worked with never used lewd words for body parts? I worked a little construction one summer and the guys there did. So did the guys in the Army and the guys and gals in the factory. I’ve hanging out with normal people and you’ve hanging out with prudish construction workers that don’t even talk about sex much less mention body parts in any other than the scientific terms and then only when discussing medical issues. I suspect the people I know are real and the people you know are imaginary.

      • Steve –

        These were real people, saying a lot of things; taking about how cheap Jews are – until I told them I was Jewish, taking about n-words, and liberals, blah, blah, and their sexual exploits and prowess, no doubt, and in graphic and explicit and lewd terms, no doubt, and in impolitic terms… but I don’t recall any bragging about assault or groping women, as doing so would come across as pathetic and lame. Imagine sitting and eaing lunch with a bunch of construction workers and taking about how when you see beautiful women you just start kissing and kissing them because you can’t help yourself. You think that’s normal locker room talk?

        Who have you been hanging out with, bro?

      • stevenreincarnated

        You heard him bragging about assaulting women. I heard him bragging about how women wanted him to kiss and grope them. If you are right there will be lawsuits. Where are the lawsuits?

      • stevenreincarnated,


        If Trump did a tenth of the things that Josh ua and the other defenders of the establishment say he did, he’d be looking like the guy in the middle of this photograph:

      • Don’t forget John Kennedy. This is just more proof that the media, by and large, it a propaganda machine set against Trump.

      • Steve-ri –


        I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

        Bush: Whatever you want.

        Trump: Grab ’em by the p***y. You can do anything.


        That’s what you’re defending as typical boys will be boys. Don’t wait, do anything. WHATEVER YOU WANT. Don’t wait… just grab them by the p***y.

        Alls I can say it that I think is a good thing that those who defend that kind of attitude as boys will be boys is a dying breed. Enjoy your last gasp of glory joking about how your daughters are a nice piece of a$$, with the tanking Trump campaign. A rich boy, propped up by millions from his father, who flaunts his boorishness to the applause and delight of his sycophantic supporters.

      • stevenreincarnated

        They let you being the key words. What part of consent don’t you understand? Do you feel you have the right to tell women they can’t let him?

    • stevenreincarnated

      If he doesn’t dwell on it like he typically does adverse things it will be forgotten news by Monday.

      • ==> it will be forgotten news by Monday. ==>

        Wishful thinking. Hardly the case. Notable Republicans are already jumping ship on this. This will have a huge impact on his campaign. I hope that his advisors are as naive as you about the impact.

        His supporters won’t be affected one bit, but many previously undecided voters will not vote for a man who said what he said on that tape. Just won’t. Particularly women.

      • This boys will be boys defense is hilarious.

        And, unfortunately, rather telling about Trump supporters. For them, this is just typical boys will be boys behavior.

      • “This boys will be boys defense is hilarious.”

        Toss out two words and this all changes: Bill Clinton

      • Also amusing is that this supposedly typical boys will be boys behavior caused a crises meeting for the Trump team, and a laughably bad video to be released on Friday night, where he offers a lame apology, to say that it’s just a distraction.

        Yeah, obviously they thought it would just all blow over by Monday if they didn’t “dwell” on it.

        Really, just beautiful.

      • stevenreincarnated

        It isn’t wishful thinking. It will only survive if it is a big discussion in the debate. If it is then you will have a list of sexual assault charges that have been leveled against Bill and the attacks on those women by Hillary against whatever charges can be found to have been made against Trump. The Clintons can’t win a morality argument against anyone that isn’t already in prison. As far as the actual things that were said, I wouldn’t say them but they are hardly rare things to hear. I’ve heard worse from groups of women. You must have led a very sheltered life.

      • The girls will be girls defense… not allowed.

      • steve-ri —

        ==> As far as the actual things that were said, I wouldn’t say them but they are hardly rare things to hear. I’ve heard worse from groups of women. You must have led a very sheltered life. ==>

        Classical logical failure.

        I worked construction for decades. I’ve heard a lot. I also know a lot of men, even many of those who worked construction, who would NEVER say the kinds of things that Trump boasted about.

        But the bottom line is that you are mistaken in your belief that I am somehow offended personally. I don’t care what Trump says about women, personally. I don’t need for him to say that stuff or not say that stuff to assess his character. But I don’t particularly care about his character, either.

        I care about his politics, and will not be voting him because of his politics.

        But the fact remains that your beliefs about the impact of this, and the potential repercussions to the two candidates going forward, respectively, as this issue will have legs, are naive and wishful thinking.

        There are voters for whom this will make a difference. Not with Trump die-hards, but with those who where considering voting for him but not sure about him. The dirt about the Clintons has been promoted loud and often for decades. The chances of it being new information for undecided voters is extremely low, and Trump banging on that issue will only be more evidence of him “taking the bait” and trying to win a campaign through an ineffective strategy. In fact, he and his surrogates have already been pounding on that issue even as his poll numbers have tanked.

        What’s that they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?,

      • Danny Thomas

        “What’s that they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?”

        I know this one.

        It’s the answer to why neither Trump nor Clinton are in the lead by 50%! At least Clinton recognized it.

      • ==> I wouldn’t say them but they are hardly rare things to hear. ==>

        Yeah. I’d say that on average every other day I hear men boasting about being able to grab women by the p***y because they’re “stars.”

        Steve – where do you hang out, bro?

      • Obama is starting a phucking with Russia over Syria and the press wants to talk about a celebrity who likes copping a feel from consenting women.


      • starting a phucking *war* with Russia

      • stevenreincarnated

        Joshu@, see above.

    • Josh ua said:

      Anyone who is even remotely surprised by this recent news about Trump and the open mic is, unbelievably naive.

      That’s exactly what Scott Adams said. He’s still giving Trump a 98% chance of winning.

      The PC Gestapo wasn’t going to vote for bad boy Trump anyway. They were always going to vote for Saint Hillary.

      Trump supporters were already well aware of what they are getting before this happened. It was already baked in the cake, so this changes nothing.


      Alicia Machado didn’t pan out the way the establishment had hoped. Nor did the establishment find kryptonite in Trump’s tax returns. As Shakespeare so aptly phrased it, both ended up being “a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.” They were both “Much to do about nothing.”

      Time will tell if the establishment has finally found its silver bullet to slay the Trump monster — a demon largely of their own making, and which they have worked day and night to conjure up.


      • –snip–

        Trump supporters were already well aware of what they are getting before this happened. It was already baked in the cake, so this changes nothing.


        Classic. Apparently, Glenn, you don’t realize that not everyone who was considering a vote for Trump is a Trump sycophant. Not everyone who considered voting for Trump realized that he is a boorish man who jokes and brags about grabbing women by the “p***y” p and hitting on married women, and decided to vote for him anyway.

        I world call not seeing Trump for what he is naive, but there is a large number of undecided, and presumably not all of them had the same opinion of Trump prior to this tape being released as after.

      • Glenn —

        This is good also:


        Time will tell if the establishment has finally found its silver bullet to slay the Trump monster — a demon largely of their own making, and which they have worked day and night to conjure up.


        Yes, indeed. It’s the establishment’s fault that Trump joked about grabbing women by the p***y. Trump doing that was the “making” of the “establishment.”

        Where would we all be if “conservatives” didn’t stick up for personal responsibility?

      • “Trump’s real crime is that he is the 2016 Republican nominee for president.”
        This is true, he’s not a republican.

      • Sorry to keep repeating myself, but Trump will get 35% (+/-1.5%) of the popular vote. It’s all in the model… we like models, don’t we?

      • Josh says “Where would we all be if “conservatives” didn’t stick up for personal responsibility?”

        Trump took responsibility. So, what was your complaint again?

      • Danny Thomas

        I’m sorry. What was that you were saying?

        “jim2 | October 7, 2016 at 8:43 am |
        Thanks for that Danny. Billary’s pattern is to do or say something nasty, then give an insincere “apology.” This is similar to that, she just got shamed for it before she could do it this time.”

        “jim2 | October 7, 2016 at 10:47 am |
        If I believed she were truly sorry for calling me a “Deplorable” that would be one thing. But I don’t. So I see the apology as a way to get away with being nasty.”

        “Danny Thomas | October 7, 2016 at 11:06 am |
        Agree. That was unacceptable. Period. (And I called her on it at the time)

        Now just try that shoe on the other foot from the standpoint of those offended by ‘the other candidate’.

        Be even handed in your evaluations.”

      • Danny, the difference is Trump was sincere in his apology while Billary isn’t. So, not an equal situation.

      • Danny Thomas

        “the difference is Trump was sincere in his apology while Billary isn’t. ”

        Choke, snortle, (throat clears). Uh. Yeah. Sure. Trump sincere and apology all in same sentence.

        Even you don’t believe the first part even if you do the 2nd.

        If one is truly repentant does on have an affair while married, then gets divorced, remarries, then attempts to have an affair.

        Someone once suggested: ‘Trumps pattern is to do or say something nasty, then give an insincere “apology” or chalks it up to ‘sarcasm’ or ‘other people say’. This is similar to that, he just got shamed for it.’

      • Danny Thomas

        I’ll assume that you cannot possibly recognize that if there was even a slightly less half-assed candidate running the right might have been able to win. As it looks, the candidate who is running almost by himself will assure Clinton as the first female president of the U.S.

        Thank you for your support.

      • Pence on Trump:

        I just tell people, Donald Trump gets it. You know what I mean? I mean, he’s a genuine article. He’s a doer in a game usually reserved for talkers. When he does his talking, he doesn’t go tiptoeing around all those thousands of rules of political correctness.

        Yeah. Trump is a doer. When he says he’s going to do something, you know he’s agonna do it. Not a talker, that guy. Nope, he’s a doer.

        You know and I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach.


        Trump: I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and f*** her. She was married.

        Trump. No, no, Nancy. This was— And I moved on her very heavily in fact. I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I took her out furniture. I moved on her like a b****, but I couldn’t get there, and she was married.


        Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful – I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.

        And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

        Bush: Whatever you want.

        Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything.


        We need a doer for president.

      • Wow!

        Trump was telling the truth about that hot mic clip not being like teh real Donald.

        Here are many more examples of Trump being not at all like teh real Donald:


      • Gee,

        Trump is crude and boorish. Like that is a surprise.

        Trump likes attractive women. Who doesn’t?

        News flash – men talk about women, not always in the most respectful way. I suspect the reverse is true to at least some degree. We are pretty much hardwired to do so.

        That the media is making a big deal of this and Hillary is expressing her outrage is also no surprise. Going back over the past 56 years we have 3 out of 5 Democratic Presidents committing adultery, to zero for the Republicans. The current Democratic candidate condoned her husband’s sexual escapades, reportedly to the extent of going after some of the women in an effort to silence them or destroy their carriers. They need to hype this to make their own character shortcomings less of an issue.

        Meanwhile we are hearing rumors of Hillary masterminding arms sales to Libyan and Syrian insurgents. Yet we are supposed to be outraged about Donald Trump talking about p*ssy.

      • Bill Clinton is still one of the Dems leading statesmen. His history doesn’t matter much to them, but for the Republicans, they need to be squeaky clean Christians, and it matters a lot to them as we find now. They have the uptight base, not the liberals.

      • tim –

        ==> That the media is making a big deal of this and Hillary is expressing her outrage is also no surprise. ==>

        Lol! You gotta love the power of selective observation. Yup. No one making a big deal out of this except “the media” and Clinton.

        I just love it when “conservatives” are so blinded and keep digging holes deeper.

        Believe it or not, Trump’s boorish behavior makes a difference to a lot of people who are generally on the Republican side of the aisle, or at least who are considering voting for Trump…in particular educated women moderates.

        Which is why it was enough of a ‘big deal” for Trump and his team to hastily put together a lame apology video and send it out at midnight on a Friday.

        I just hope that “conservatives” keep whistling past the graveyard on this one, as opposed to pushing forward on robust accountability. Noting like watching people in a losing position double-down on the losing strategy that got them into the losing position.

      • tim –

        ==> News flash – men talk about women, not always in the most respectful way. I suspect the reverse is true to at least some degree. We are pretty much hardwired to do so. ==>

        Oh yeah, boys will be boys doncha know.


        In another interview, from September 2004, Stern asks Trump if he can call Ivanka “a piece of ass,” to which Trump responds in the affirmative.
        “My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka,” says Trump.
        “By the way, your daughter,” says Stern.
        “She’s beautiful,” responds Trump.
        “Can I say this? A piece of ass,” Stern responds.
        “Yeah,” says Trump.


        Yup. Boys will be boys. What father doesn’t talk about their daughter like that, and give approval ON THE RADIO for a shock jock to call her a “piece of a$$?”

        All the boys would do that. Why do Hillary and ‘the media” make a long list or Republicans express disgust with what Trump says?

        It’s just all so unfair!!!

        Trump’s a genius for manipulating the media and getting the media to cover what he says for free, but that slimy mean media just manipulates the sheeple Republicans by forcing them to find Trump’s behavior unacceptable for a leader, role model, and president.

      • Danny, you have zero evidence that Trump tried fooling around on Melania. You don’t know the date the incident happened. Trump had been married to her for only 3 months. Nice try though.

      • Danny Thomas

        Oh gosh. Did you just burn me? Did Trump not say he knew he was hitting on a married woman? Good enuf for me. It doesn’t have to be two married folks to still be adulterous so I won’t bother chasing it down further. And Trump did same w/Marla when married to Ivanka. So whateves.

        You can suggest Trump is providing falsehoods if you like. I’ll take him at his word.

        Keep up your defense of his adulterous behavior if you choose. But if you are married ask your wife which one of yours (left one, right one, or both leading to soprano) she’d take if you did it.

      • Danny Thomas

        Even though you’re obviously not offended Melania says she is: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/melania-trump-statement

      • As usual Josh, you can’t help being a dishonest phuck. Nowhere did I say boys will be boys or offer up any excuse or justification for Trump’s comments. I simply pointed out that people shouldn’t act surprised by them and that it is the height of hypocrisy for Hillary to act so shocked or for the media to conveniently forget past history.

  36. Someone needs to crack down on Billary. From the article:

    Leaked emails from Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s personal email account published by WikiLeaks reveal the Clinton campaign’s coordination with George Soros’s Open Society Foundations on the subject of police reform.

    A combination photo shows billionaire financier George Soros (L) addressing the audience during an economic speech in Frankfurt on April 9, 2013 and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R) speaking at a campaign event in Falls Church, Virginia on October 19, 2013 respectively. REUTERS/Ralph Orlowski (L) and Yuri Gripas (R) A combination photo shows billionaire financier George Soros (L) addressing the audience during an economic speech in Frankfurt on April 9, 2013 and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R) speaking at a campaign event in Falls Church, Virginia on October 19, 2013 respectively. REUTERS/Ralph Orlowski (L) and Yuri Gripas (R)
    Soros, who has given almost $10 million to Clinton super PAC Priorities USA, is a major funder of Black Lives Matter. The Washington Times reported in August that Soros has given at least $33 million to the group through the Open Society Foundations (OSF), which he funds and controls.

    Both OSF and Clinton have called to crack down on police officers’ “implicit bias.”


  37. From the article:

    EXCLUSIVE: Two decades after her affair with Bill Clinton, Gennifer Flowers reveals they’d be together now if it wasn’t for Chelsea and how former president confided in her that Hillary was bisexual

    Flowers’s 12-year affair with Bill Clinton was exposed in 1992 during his presidential campaign

    She bitterly regrets rejecting him when he last begged to see her and says he’s the ‘love of her life’

    Launching a career as a sex columnist she says Clinton taught her everything she knows

    Bill told her Hillary was ‘bisexual’ and that he had ‘no problem with that’


  38. From the article:

    Bill Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick is weighing in on Donald Trump’s controversial comments from 2005 that are mysteriously resurfacing just hours before the second debate and weeks before the general election.

    “How many times must it be said,” she tweeted Saturday morning.

    “Actions speak louder than words. (Donald Trump) said bad things! (Hillary Clinton) threatened me after (Bill Clinton) raped me.”

    Juanita Broaddrick @atensnut
    How many times must it be said? Actions speak louder than words. DT said bad things!HRC threatened me after BC raped me.

    Broaddrick’s dose of perspective comes as the mainstream media has been silent and uninterested in the ongoing accusations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s attempts to silence his accusers.

    But in the last 24 hours, they’ve reported ad nauseam about Trump’s 2005 locker room talk caught on a hot mic.


    • Trumps words? ““Actions speak louder than words. (Donald Trump) said bad things! ” Trump SAID he went after married women while married.

      Are you suggesting he provided falsehoods?

      • Trump was a Democrat at the time (2001-2008). He was acting like one too.

      • Danny Thomas

        Uh. Yeah. Let’s go with that Big Dave. After all ‘the Right’ is all about ‘family values’ and would NEVER step out on a spouse. (I really don’t think scandal has a specific letter following the name but here ya go).

        Newt Gingrich
        Rushiepoo Limbaugh
        Larry Craig
        Big Jim Swaggert
        Doc Laura Schlessinger
        Bayou Dave Vitter
        Henry ‘Cut glass’ Hyde
        Jim Bakker
        Mike Duvall
        Bob Livingston
        Mark Foley

        Maybe you’re thinking old school? “All of the elected officials involved have been male. Sex scandals have been slightly more prevalent among Republican lawmakers (22) than Democratic ones (17), although historically speaking this is largely due to the Republicans’ very strong recent showing – three quarters of sex scandals since the year 2000 have involved Republicans.”


  39. From the article:

    A CNN story describes how, in 1994, Donald Trump took Polaroid photos of Playboy Playmates as part of a press event promoting a Playmate search to represent the magazine’s 40th anniversary.
    CNN plays up Trump’s Polaroid frolic while ignoring the sexual escapades and other scandals that peculated from the Bil Clinton White House in the very same time period.

    For the record, Trump was not accused of any wrongdoing. In fact the Playmates and and other Playboy employees described him as a good-humored professional, who responded to Playboy‘s invitations. Trump was a single man at the time.

    Of course, Trump’s real crime is that he is the 2016 Republican nominee for president.


  40. Here is something that actually matters in a Presidential candidate. From the article:

    Hillary Clinton repeatedly touted the H-1B white-collar outsourcing program while meeting behind closed doors with technology companies, Wall Street firms and banks during 2013 and 2014, according to a collection of her comments released by unknown hackers.
    “The only point I would make for the tech community is on the H1B visas, I support them. When I was a Senator from New York I supported them,” she told a meeting hosted by a software company in August 2014, according to a document apparently prepared by her campaign team.

    The 72-page document lists many of the controversial statements she made in 2013 and 2014, presumably to help her staff prepare responses if the speeches are were released. The new comments add to an extensive list of other pro-H-1B statements by Clinton.

    Currently, the federal government is providing multi-year H-1B work visas to roughly 650,000 foreign graduates to work in jobs sought by American graduates.

    The foreign graduates fill 100,000 teaching, research and medical jobs at American colleges, they fill engineering jobs at Caterpillar in Illinois, up to 70 accounting jobs at McDonalds’ headquarters in Ohio, plus many more medical, teaching, management and software jobs in Florida, Connecticut, and California and throughout the United States.

    “So let me just make three quick points,” she said in April 2014, at a summit hosted by a marketing company. “One, I think it’s essential to keep focused on the [H-1B] visa issue, because that’s a discrete problem that even though I’d like to see it be part of an overall, comprehensive reform, you have to keep pushing to open the aperture, you know, get more and more opportunities.”


  41. Trump was in the middle of his Democrat phase (2001 in 2008) when the hot mic pussy grabbing recording was made (2005).


    If you’re going to be a Democrat you have to play the part even in private, right?

    • As with the Bill Clinton affair, it is the Republicans who are most outraged by this. The news cycle is kept going by a constant stream of them withdrawing support or commenting in some way. It doesn’t square with the Party’s moral high ground stance. A complete mismatch of a candidate whose depraved mind they are only now discovering.

    • He’s not a republican. He’s the political equivalent of a Zero Day exploit combined with a Ransomware virus wrapped in a NSA “wizard grade” rootkit and right now he’s embedded in the Medulla Oblogata of the Republican Party.

  42. The Columbian people handed the globalist elite another stunning, surprise defeat last week.

    The globalist elite thrives on criminal acts, and rewarding criminal acts. The Columbian people thought otherwise.

    Colombia referendum: Voters reject Farc peace deal

    The “yes” campaign had the backing not just of President Santos but of a wide array of politicians both in Colombia and abroad, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon….

    Polls conducted ahead of Sunday’s vote suggested a comfortable win for the “yes” campaign.

    But in a surprise result, 50.2% of voters rejected the agreement compared with 49.8% who voted for it.

  43. Cr_0_0_ked Hillary, if her lips are moving and she’s speaking to voters, she’s lyin. From the article:

    During a private 2013 speech to the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton emphasized the importance of holding two positions on political issues — a “public” one and a separate “private” one.


    • “Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton emphasized the importance of holding two positions on political issues — a “public” one and a separate “private” one.”

      Frankly I see nothing wrong with this. We bite out tongue when out bosses make asinine decisions. Sometimes laws conflict with personal beliefs. There are numerous public/private positions. Can’t you find yourself crediting that for least being an honest position?

      • The description of that “position” is known as hypocrisy Danny.

        Except maybe to people like you are balanced, but balanced.

      • Danny Thomas


        B.S. Let me give a simple example. Say for instance a cop in Colorado is personally against marijuana use. Legally, use is acceptable. Is that cop a hypocrite for following the ‘public’ laws. I suggest not.

        Think before you post.

      • “Frankly I see nothing wrong with this.”

        Boy, do I have a few business opportunities for you :)

      • Danny Thomas


        My response to Tim. Let me know what portions you may have issue with as I respect your views: https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/05/week-in-review-politics-edition-12/#comment-816313

      • Danny, abiding by the law even though you don’t agree with the law would be tolerance. There isn’t any difference if the LEO publicly or privately speaks his mind.

        Publicly enforcing the law and privately breaking the law, would be criminal as well as hypocritical.

        Saying you oppose TPP publicly and privately trying to pass TPP would be typical hypocritical politics. If you want to vote for Hillary for any reason, fine, but honesty isn’t her forte. You will get what the political winds dictate. Policy is supposed to be what the campaign is about, not whether the rich and famous tend to have groupies.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Policy is supposed to be what the campaign is about, not whether the rich and famous tend to have groupies.” Yep. I’ve been saying that since day 1. Clinton has a boatload of them allowing for evaluation. Trump has produced a few over the past couple of months many of which existed in a constant state of vacillation. But I’ll credit him for what he’s done. And he plowed thru the primaries with what can kindly be characterized as a sparse level of polices and much of that was thin. That’s on his supporters not on him.

        Here we’ll part ways: ” abiding by the law even though you don’t agree with the law would be tolerance.” Abiding is not choice when one is placed in a position of authority. In the example provided the agent of the state is not provided the ‘choice’. It’s their job. And law enforcers are oath & legally bound. One might object to some portion of the constitution personally, yet be required legally to enforce. That’s the distinction I see in the “Clinton emphasized the importance of holding two positions on political issues — a “public” one and a separate “private” one.” And that statement, as I read it, does not mean they have to differ. I see this statement as honest if lacking transparency.

        “Publicly enforcing the law and privately breaking the law, would be criminal as well as hypocritical.” Can’t argue with that.

      • Danny Thomas

        Further comment in mod.

        ” If you want to vote for Hillary for any reason, fine, but honesty isn’t her forte.” Yep. I give her a D. Trump gets an F. They’re polyticians! Trump’s a quick study.

      • Capt.

        I misinterpreted the public/private context. My impression was from a personal position one could separate personal from my public positions.

        Apparently the context was more along the lines of stating two differing positions, one to the public while another ‘behind the scenes’ while performing the same job.

        I wished to correct this error/misunderstanding of mine.


      • danny my comment went in to random moderation, but I still have some deals for ya :)

      • Danny Thomas


        I’ll look forward to it.

        Anyone who’s personal (private) views line up perfectly at all times with their professional (public) views are lucky. I know there have been conflicts in my world.

      • We can expect this person running for President to lie to us. That’s the bottom line.

      • Your cop analogy is the best you can do Danny?
        Your advice to think before posting is good. Try following it.

        Here is a better example – Hillary’s public position on TPP is that she is against it. (Gotta keep the Bernie supporters in her camp.) Her private position is that she strongly supports it. Please explain in your balanced and fair way how this is not a case of hypocrisy? Assuming she wins the election, how do you think she will proceed on the TPP? Is she more likely to follow her “private” position or her “public” one? And if the former, what do you then say to all of those people who voted for her based on her “public” position?

      • Tim,
        “Your cop analogy is the best you can do Danny?
        Your advice to think before posting is good. Try following it.”

        The cop analogy was based on what I admitted was an inaccurate impression of mine as to what was the public/private positions described. It was in error. It happens. I’m human.

        Now, having the more clear explanation and context. I get it.

        “Please explain in your balanced and fair way how this is not a case of hypocrisy?” Well, framing it towards TPP as you’ve done I can see reason to ‘doubt’. But Clinton states (and neither you nor I know) that she was referencing Abe & the 13th. Having two different positions does not have to be for/against, if you’ll ‘think’ about it.

        One example of a politician in action might be that I’m ‘against’ this piece of legislation. However, if you’ll scratch my back, I could be persuaded to vote for it. Hmmmm. ‘Think’ about that.

        I’ll await your admission that the public/private positioning has merit (if less than palatable). Being of character sufficient to admit mine, might you be capable of same?

      • Danny,

        Compromise is not a dirty word. Particularly in politics. It is how you get things done. But that is different than Hillary’s apparent position of having two different positions. In compromising, one argues how they achieved or supported their public position and is willing to defend their actions against those who wanted more. All part of being a politician.

        Hillary on the other hand provides us with real insight into how she thinks. Her public/private concept allows her to say whatever serves her purpose at that time, yet allows her to believe she is true to her own principles.

        Put in every day terms, how much would you trust someone who believed they could tell you one thing yet believe it was okay to do something completely different?

        This is the part where you need to forget about the “balance” thing and just trust your judgment. If Trump goes against your good sense, that’s fine. One of my brothers whose opinions I value greatly won’t vote for him. I sometimes argue (discuss is probably a better term) with him, but we are all are entitled to our opinions and are free to vote as we choose. My only advice to you is to quit pushing your balance theme and take a stand. Or not. Just don’t criticize those who have. At least not without offering fact based rebuttals. (I realize you do at times, but my impression is you more often adopt the balance thing, which comes across as false.)

      • Tim,

        “quit pushing your balance theme and take a stand. Or not. Just don’t criticize those who have. At least not without offering fact based rebuttals. (I realize you do at times, but my impression is you more often adopt the balance thing, which comes across as false.)”

        Thank you for this entire comment. Decision has been reached. I will most certainly be voting (absentee ballot expected today) against one. That is Trump. I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton. The alternatives would be (sorry Ragnaar) ‘misusing’ my voice. In my state, it won’t matter (deeeeeep red).

        This decision was reached about a week ago.

        I respect many who contribute here (both sides). Balance was real (mostly) and since so many here are smarter than I wondered what I was missing. Those who so vehemently support Trump have not made a case FOR him, (mostly) only against her with the possibility that he’d do okay or just might blow things up. Since we’re better than we were (in toto) from what Bush left us it’s an apple cart vote. But I’m not a straight ticket guy.

        Had the ‘change’ candidate been one with a different history, different demeanor (presidential) and substance in a larger area of policies (thru the primaries Trump had almost zero) I’d be standing right beside them fighting like heck.

        As far as balance, criticize if you must, but some seem to have blinders. Just trying to open eyes, but pulling Don Quixote is not unusual for me. I’ve done lots of homework. Many are just lazy and don’t do any. And it’s laziness (our fault) that we get the candidates we do.

        Either way, we’re strong and will do fine. And if either one screws it up I’ll expect to stand by your side next time to ‘fix it’.

        There it is. I’ll accept the flak. Hopefully we’ll move as Americans.

      • Danny,

        RE your last email in this chain.

        I think this is the first I’ve seen you discuss your choice. The reasoning you provided was well stated. And though I happen to disagree with that choice, it is yours to make. Each of us will either have to choose or abstain. And if the two of us (and probably many others) are choosing based on the evaluation that the other candidate is a worse selection, there is nothing wrong with that. One might wish it were not so, but wishing gets us nothing.

    • Clinton is your typical pathocrat.

      Here’s how Andrew M. Lobaczewski explains the multi-layered ideology that pathological associations use as their infirmity grows more acute. Ponerogenic associations use these layered ideologies in order to mask their true ideology, so as to hide it from the public:

      A certain kind of layering or schizophrenia of ideology takes place during the ponerization process. The outer layer closest to the original content is used for the group’s propaganda purposes, especially regarding the outside world, although it can in part also be used inside with regard to disbelieving lower-echelon members.

      The second layer presents the elite with no problems of comprehension: it is more hermetic, generally composed by slipping a different meaning into the same names. Since identical names signify different contents depending on the layer in question, understanding this “doubletalk” requires simultaneous fluency in both languages.

      Average people succumb to the first layer’s suggestive insinuations for a long time before they learn to understand the second one as well.

      — ANDREW M. LOBACZEWSKI, Political Ponerology

      • In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt gives a specific example of the sort of layered ideology that pathocrats use and that Lobaczewski speaks of — one layer being for public consumption and another layer being for consumption of the insider elite:

        [U]p to the fall of 1938 the fiction was maintained that Jews if they so desired were permitted, but were not forced, to leave the country. Among the reasons German Jews believed in the fiction was the program of the N.S.D.A.P., formulated in 1920, which shared with the Weimar Constitution the curious fate of never being officially abolished; its Twenty-Five Points had even been declared “unalterable” by Hitler. Seen in the light of later events, its anti-Semite provisions were harmless indeed….

        The Party program was never taken seriously by Nazi officials… Even before the Nazis’ rise to power, these Twenty-Five Points had been no more than a concession to the party system and to such prospective voters as were old-fashioned enough to ask what was the program of the party they were going to join.

        Eichmann, as we have seen, was free of such deplorable habits…: “The Party program did not matter, you knew what you were joining.”

        The Jews, on the other hand, were old-fashioned enough to know the Twenty-Five Points by heart and to believe in them; whatever contradicted the legal implementation of the Party program they tended to ascribe to temporary, “revolutionary excesses” of undisciplined members or groups.

      • After reading the AP’s fact check, which gives the context of the quote, I better understand what she meant, and have no problem with it. Danny Thomas provided this link upthread:


      • By the way. Clinton’s response should provide verification that the Wikileaks ‘leak’ (in this case) is real.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t see how what she meant matches with what she does. If you tell one group you are for fracking because it reduces the carbon footprint over coal and another group you are for fracking because it reduces America’s energy dependence then that is perfectly legitimate. If you tell one group you are for fracking and another you are against it then that is lying.

      • I agree Hillary would be lying if she simultaneously told some groups she was for fracking while telling others she was against it. But if her position on fracking evolved from favoring fracking to only conditionally accepting it, which appears to be the case, I wouldn’t consider that lying.
        I think Hillary recognizes fracking isn’t as harmless to the environment as originally thought, and should be better regulated.
        She doesn’t oppose bans on fracking by State and local governments, but I don’t believe she says it should be banned everywhere.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I used fracking because it was easy for me to come up with an Abe comparison. To come up with what Clinton actually does you can look at her email saying she is for open borders and compare to her public pronouncements on immigration.

  44. Dump Trump. The focus then is on Clinton. The RNC should force him out. The courts may approve this. Stick Pence in, like Ford. There will be outrage. Let them try to attack Pence.

    This guy is on the radio right now:
    He said the courts might actually rule for the RNC. If you remove the problem, we get to look at Clinton. The last dying act of the RNC should be to remove him. You fought the good fight. The Trump supporters don’t like the the RNC anyways. You looked into the eye of the storm you establishment bleepers. Here is your chance, your payback. Do it.

  45. Kind of ironic that Billy Bush, who was on the audio with Trump and egging him on, is the cousin of W and Jeb, so finally the Bushes did have a hand in taking him down a notch.

    • Coincidence?

      • I doubt the Bushes are proud of what Billy did for their family name. I’m sure his Aunt Barbara will be getting in touch.

    • As noted by Seth Meyers last night, NBC seem more strict about the moral values of their people than certain Americans are about Trump. Billy Bush has lost his job at NBC because of what happened on that bus, while Trump still is able to pursue the Presidency.

      • The only thing one needs to know about NBC and our media is to count how many times the Kardasians are in the news.

        I’ll bet more people are familiar with Kim’s derriere than they are with Billy Bush’s face.

      • Celebrity Apprentice too, don’t forget. Trump’s road to stardom. He should be thanking NBC.

      • On that you are correct Jim.

        Trump’s campaign might never have gotten off the ground without the level of exposure his tv show gave him.

        Which should have you thinking about things other than Trump.

      • Celebs probably get 10-20% of the vote for free, just for name recognition, and many of those people don’t watch the news anyway. That’s his base.

      • Jim,

        “many of those people don’t watch the news anyway. That’s his base”

        While that story line has been heavily pushed, and is even evidenced in part if you believe the polls divided along income and education, I’d caution against believing it too strongly.

        I’m not some poorly educated, low income, aging white male and at this point Trump has my vote.

        (ok the aging white male part applies)

      • Yes, it is all about the Supreme Court, not his knowledge of anything, or his rapidly evolving (let’s call them) “policies” that you probably can’t keep track of or detail to any extent.

      • I quit paying much attention to proposed policy during elections a long time ago. Our current President had numerous policy positions and promises while running for office. We have yet to see him push through with most of them. He also isn’t the first one to fail on follow through. It’s pretty much intrinsic to politicians.

      • Take Trump’s “policies” away from him, and all you have left is his misdeeds, a steadily growing list, to vote on.

  46. This is what the Obama administration is doing to try to neutralize the information that Wikileaks is releasing on Hillary Clinton. It’s a Russian plot, says the White House.

    U.S. accuses Russia of hacking, election meddling

  47. This is getting me worked up. Dump Trump. This is ‘the moment’ for the establishment. We agree with the left. So we will put up someone else. It could be so epic. Let’s all join together and kick him out. This idea of not voting for him. Sign a petition will you? Kick him out. You got yourself into the establishment. Now do something with that. Nobody who helped you get into the establishment wanted you be so lame at this important time. The whole party establishment couldn’t stand up to him earlier. Now they can. They have no excuses.

  48. The Wikileaks releases have gotten buried under all the hyperventilating over Trump’s sexual conquest remarks. They are, nevertheless, very important. They reveal how Clinton will actually govern, as opposed to how she says she will govern.

    In paid speeches, Hillary Clinton said she “represented” and “had great relations” with Wall Street

    The speeches, for which Clinton was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each, reflect her neoliberal, pro-corporate ideology.

  49. How the Clinton campaign decisions get made.
    The WikiLeaks release of John Podesta’s emails reveals what the inner circle really worries about.


    The emails reveal a meticulously controlled environment at Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters…with an outsized reliance on a tight group of Democratic operatives near the top….

    Those senior officials oversaw the extraordinarily close choreography of the candidate’s most-scrutinized political moments….

    Those poor, underappreciated Too-Big-To-Fail bankers, the weight of the cross they are forced to bear is unbearable at times.

  50. From the article:

    House Speaker Paul Ryan was shouted down by chants of “Trump” at his Fall Fest event Saturday in Wisconsin.
    Ryan, who kicked off the speech talking about the “elephant in the room,” said that Trump’s banter with Billy Bush before taping an Access Hollywood segment in 2005 was “a troubling situation.”

    The chants for “Trump” start at about the 6:40 mark in the video below.

    Ryan was joined onstage by Wisconsites Ron Johnson and Scott Walker after the “Trump” shouts began, at the end of Ryan’s speech. Some also shouted, “God bless Trump,” and “See ya, Paul! Jackass!”


    • What would the establishment do without its highly paid water boys and handmaidens like Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton?

      • It’s the collusion of the liberal media that’s the most galling. And that certainly includes some in the alleged conservative media like Megyn Kelly.

  51. Clinton on the Grand Bargain and planned cuts to Social Security (Morgan Stanley, 2013).

    Intrinsic to Simpson-Bowles has been the perennial justification for Social Security cuts. And if you think Clinton Inc’s hidden agenda on SImpson Bowles has changed, see Robert Rubin today:

    Here’s how America should play its winning hand for long-run economic growth

    A constructive fiscal regime…would require increased revenue, which should be raised progressively, and putting our social insurance and federal health-care programs on sustainable financial footing… The longer we wait to address these challenges, the greater the effects and the harsher the measures that will be required.

    If you buy Simpson-Bowles, you buy Social Security cuts.

    • “If you buy Simpson-Bowles, you buy Social Security cuts.”

      And if you don’t, what do you do about Social Security?

      • Even if Social Security were in the dire straits that folks like Pete Peterson claim it is, there are other ways of fixing it besides cutting benefits.

        VIDEO: Is Social Security Going Broke?
        Your fear is probably overblown.


        Cutting or means testing benefits is highly unpopular, and that’s why Clinton Inc is surreptitious about its Grand Bargain on Social Security.

        • Americans, of all ages and political parties, do not support cutting Social Security and Medicare as part of this deficit debate.

        • Voters strongly oppose cutting Social Security benefits with 71% opposed to means-testing and 67% opposed to raising the retirement age.

        • On Social Security, voters across party lines support lifting the cap on wages above the current level of $110,100. We know from focus groups that voters see this cap as an unfair loophole that they did not even know existed. Sixty-five (65) percent of voters favor gradually lifting this cap for both employees and employers, including 75 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents, and 54 percent of Republicans.


      • When was the last time SS was reformed? How? Why?
        (give away here) and why so long ago?

        Compare and contrast with Trumps ‘plan’ to address it? (It’s not on his site).

        “When asked during the presidential primaries how he would reform Social Security, Donald Trump stated, “I wouldn’t change a thing.” For her part, Hillary Clinton wants to expand the program.” http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/299729-what-trump-and-clinton-arent-telling-you-about-social-security

        It’s easy (very) to show how bad a plan is when one is put forth for consideration. It’s a bit more of a challenge to show how bad or good a plan is when there’s not one.

      • Danny Thomas,

        If you’re gullible enough to believe that Clinton’s published “plan” is how she will actually govern if she occupies the White House, then I have a nice piece of oceanfront property in Arizona for you.

      • Glenn,

        Congress will factor in to anyone’s plan. How will congress factor in to no plan whatsoever? When you walk to the fridge do you have a route or prefer to just bounce off obstacles and maybe (or not) arrive at the destination?

        You have got to be the laziest ‘political analyst’ ever. Care to address the questions or wish to continue the lazy way? Historic evidence implies the answer is already known.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Do you really believe your orgy of ad hominems improves your argument?

        The last time Social Security’s Taxable Maximum was increased was in 2015:


        The last time the Social Security tax rate was increased was in 1990:


        Increasing Social Security’s Taxable Maximum is the solution preferred by the overwhelming majority of poll respondents. Cutting or means testing benefits is the most unpopular.

        Granted, the establishment is undoubtedly beholden to those who make six-figure incomes or more.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Do you really believe your orgy of ad hominems improves your argument?” Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Don’t you feel flattered?

        Thanks for those excerpts by the way. More effort than Trump has put forth.

        A bit of a modification to rates or a bit of a change in limits are not exactly what I’d consider reform but it’s something. But will only kick the can down the road.

        I’m not suggesting Clinton’s plan is the right one. I’m suggesting it’s a fairly major issue and that it’s on her radar is worthy of at least a small kudo. Can you bring yourself to hint that Trump is lacking for having no plan whatsoever. Or is SS a non-issue for you?

  52. Contradicting FBI view, Clinton’s leaked speeches portray her as computer savvy

    Contrary to views collected by the FBI that Hillary Clinton was a technophobe unsophisticated in the use of computers, her paid speeches indicate that she was well aware of the dangers of computer hacking and penetration and that diplomats would be “totally vulnerable” without extreme precautions.

  53. This is why Big OIl, and even some of the Little Oil guys like Scott Sheffield, are backing Clinton.

    Clinton on fracking and pipelines, and how the Russians are funding “phony environmental groups” to inhibit them, in paid speech to tinePublic on 6/18/14:

  54. John Kennedy

  55. came from a ccrriiimmiinnaall family the equivalent of today’s drug smugglers.

  56. Giggle at the teevee. Talking heads on one side largely silent about the 2005. The other side says ‘ancient history’, forgiveness, boyz b’ boyz. Then they turn on the ‘but Clinton’ ‘sex’ song forgetting about ‘ancient history’, ‘forgiveness’, boyz b’ boyz.

    That’s entertainment!

  57. From the article:

    BROADDRICK: Hillary’s actions speak louder than Trump’s words


  58. And then there’s this doozie from Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta. If someone on the Trump campaign were to say something like this, the MSM would crucify them. This is an example the kind of bias and partiality that has completely destroyed the mass media’s credibility, that is with everybody except most Democrats.

  59. Today Christie and Giuliani will need all their respective expertise in train wrecks and disaster recovery to rescue the Trump campaign.

  60. It is unbelievable what is going on ….

    • It is a celebrity slugfest. What’s not to like?

      • In the past when a US presidential nominee spoke the rest of the world stood up and listened, now the world laughs. Whoever is elected it is going to take some time to regain the respect so swiftly squandered.

    • Vuk,

      1) Respect of the world is over rated. The US has been bad mouthed by foreign press and younger generations for some time.

      2) Respect of foreign leaders is currently in the toilet, but that’s reportedly due in large part to our current President.

      3) At the end of the day, the world needs the US more than the US needs the world.

  61. Trump scores resounding victory with polster Frank Luntz’ focus group:

    • Trump’s p***y remarks are bad, but Clinton’s email fiasco Is still worse

    • 21 said Trump won, 9 Clinton

    • Trump’s promise to prosecute Clinton over her email situation was Trump’s highest rated moment in the debate.

    • The group cares more about Hillary’s emails than Trump’s “locker room talk.”

    • They didn’t believe Clinton’s response to the email question.


  62. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans have less than $1,000 in savings

    Breaking the survey data down a bit further, we find that 34% of Americans don’t have a dime in their savings account, while another 35% have less than $1,000. Of the remaining survey-takers, 11% have between $1,000 and $4,999, 4% have between $5,000 and $9,999, and 15% have more than $10,000.

    • Well, don’t blame the government. If a person can’t save money it’s his fault.
      If he doesn’t make enough money to save money, it’s his fault. The government encourages saving by letting people defer taxes in retirement accounts. Perhaps it could come up with additional ways to encourage savings. Any suggestions.

      • “Any suggestions.” Yep. Education. Money is what makes the world go round, yet is largely ignored in schools. Simple time/value examples outta convince kindergartners to save milk money and create security.

      • I agree. Schools should educate kids about money. Convincing children to resist the desire for immediate gratification, however, would not be easy. I can tell you it would have been hard to convince me.

      • One of the few times I agree with you.

        With qualifications. There still are a large number of people who just get by. Saving money is often not an option. SS was supposedly the answer. Our government seems to be screwing that up.

      • Danny,

        I’ve been a JA volunteer for 9 years now. (This year will be 10.) Yes, educating kids about money is a good idea. However there are only so many hours in the school year. What have you done to help educate kids?

        BTW, it is both surprising and impressive how quick kids are to grasp the concept of money, budgets and determining the difference between wants and needs.

      • Tim,
        Re: JA. I cannot tell you how much I respect your contribution to kids and Junior Achievement is an excellent venue.

        In my life: Volunteered at wildlife refuges (over 4000 hours) (Kid’s fish days, been mascot(s) (don’t care about looking foolish), visitor centers (lots of varying activities), coached flag football, and many one on ones and even JA long ago. Note: not much oriented towards money directly, but I support it being part of curriculum. Plus, since everything ‘runs’ on money ‘only so many hours in a school year’ is a cop out. If we taught it, as a society don’t you think we’d be better off?

        Thanks for asking. It’s important to not assume things about folks.

      • Danny,

        You just earned cred for admitting to the mascot thing.

        Only did it once. Birthday party for friends daughter. Was cookie monster. Voice hurt for almost a week doing the voice part.

        Haven’t kept track of time, but 200 hours per year x 30 sounds right, which means you are a true volunteer. I’ll keep that in mind when I respond.

      • Tim,
        Thanks for that. They actually track and award ‘pins’. Wife and I have a nice collection and are proud of being in a position of giving back. For those so inclined (and maybe to save taxpayer dollars—-IE putting money where mouth is: https://www.volunteer.gov/). One letter of rec stated +/- $40k value per year x 2 (people) = $160,000! (just saying since ya brought it up and as food for thought). And this doesn’t take in to account the Wood ducks, Lesser Scaups, Canadian Geese, Manatee, Prairie Chickens, and untold others we’ve been fortunate to assist. (Patting self on back ends here)

        And I truly cannot thank you enough for your JA work. You are to be commended.

      • The putting one’s money (and/or time) was one of the original motivations for my volunteering. One can’t rail against ever expanding federal programs funded by taxpayer dollars and not support an alternative.

        The waterfowl reference – Ducks Unlimited? I was a member when I lived in Minnesota.

      • Did a bunch of this here: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/tennessee/wood_duck_banding.aspx

        DU does some really, really good stuff!

        “One can’t rail against ever expanding federal programs funded by taxpayer dollars and not support an alternative.” You and I on the same page!!!!!

  63. Hannity and his guests were declaring a Trump victory after last night’s debate. I think given the situation, it was a good performance by him. Some of the Republican establishment is acting like climate doom and gloomers. Sheltering in place in their climate change safe spaces. Claims of droughts, floods, extreme weather and alarmist misunderstanding of the rate of sea level rise. They are retreating and perhaps losing control. The old control inputs are failing them. Rescinding support? Not so much effect. They are trying to mitigate Trump. Placing great weight on him when what is probably happening is the things Trump and Sanders capitalized on in this election. Changes in society that the establishment doesn’t know how to handle. They think of Trump as the control variable and since that is what they can try to control, they’ll do that. But there is this natural variability still in play whose response to this control input is unknown. While Sanders did respond to the DNC’s control inputs and lost, Trump so far refuses to do so. Sanders was able to be mitigated away. Everyone was told to calm down, stop drinking so much Kool Aid and they did so. Establishment picks Presidential candidate. Not so with the Republicans.

  64. Which is it? Perfect or not?

    “@Helena_Torry I consider myself too perfect and have no faults.”

    “‘I’ve never said I’m a perfect person'”

    Expecting someone shortly to come along and suggest ‘but Hillary’ and talk about honesty. 3………….2………………..1……………

      • My first thought too!

        Then I wondered:
        I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Sarcasm?
        I know how to ‘fix it’ (insert target). Sarcasm?
        I grab ’em by the (here kitty kitty). Sarcasm? Either he lied to BB or us!
        Clinton (Bill) was victim. Sarcasm?
        ICE endorsed me? (Mispeak?)
        Didn’t say Check out sex tape (Machado). Uh. What? Let’s call that a lie.
        That wasn’t debunked. (Iraq) kinda has been except for Sean Hannity conversation which may or may not have occurred.
        I made NATO open counter terrorism unit?
        I didn’t foster ‘birther’ movement! (or did I?)

        Could go on for about a gazillion more, or I could ask you to just admit Trump’s a ‘polytician’ (he admitted it last eve) and he tells falsehoods like every other polytician just like Clinton!

      • Only Saint Hillary is pefect.

      • Have no idea what ‘pefect’ means. Gotta definition?

        Also, can you red: “he tells falsehoods like every other polytician just like Clinton!”

        Did you become a Hillarymonger?

      • Let’s up the number of comments: “The Washington Post has reported that at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,” he added.” Sarcasm?

        ““The reason they blame Russia is they are trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know about Russia, but not about the inner workings. I have no business there and no loans from Russia. I have a great balance sheet.” — Donald Trump” (Sarcasm?)


        Please come back with more about Hillary (as predicted) or just admit Trump ain’t no better.

      • The Washington Post?

        Oh, my God! No wonder you are so lost.

        You must begin a reading program immediately so that you may understand the crises of our age,

        I recommend Batman especially, for he tends to transcend the abysmal society in which he’s found himself. His morality is rather rigid, also. I rather respect Batman.

      • Yeppers Glenn. Wapo. Oh, and Forture, CNN, Fox “However, Fox News has not lived up to its branding when it comes to its handling of Donald Trump. Several of its on-air personalities have expressed the kind of downright hostility to the Republican presidential nominee that one might expect to witness on leftist cable news bastions such as MSNBC., http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264333/whats-fox-and-trump-joseph-klein
        and a few others sans Brietbart (who whined today that Trump was interrupted more than Clinton while failing to mention that most of the time in an attempt to get Trump to actually answer questions asked).

        If ya don’t care for the wine Glenn, try to destroy the vessel.

        You crack me up.

      • Further question. Is ‘the Art of the deal’ inclusive of destruction of one’s own team?

        I learn every day!

      • Danny,

        You may skip the MSM. That is mostly dangerous propaganda.

        For the contemporary period, you should study some selected comic books.

      • Glenn,

        I may? Thank you ever so much.

        Comics. Brietbart do? I’ll defer to your expertise.

        You still can’t address the content? Arm waving must be tiring. But your muskles must be ‘yuge’!

      • Yes, Trump refused to be manipulated by the moderators. They interrupted Trump whether he was answering their silly question, that is the one they picked to put forward, or not. Trump beat Billary and the two moderators at their own slimy game.

      • Joshua,

        “This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin? (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)”

        This is at least the 2nd instance posted on this very thread of attempts at disinformation by purported Russian hackers. If we cannot all get behind a campaign of damning the use of hacked documents in an attempt to influence the integrity of our presidential elections no matter the candidate one backs, I fear for the future.

        This is an issue about America.

        I wish the Trump campaign would have commented, and possibly there is nothing nefarious just a staffer who’s job it is to find things such as this but where’s the extreme vetting?

        Thanks for the link. It should be read by all.

  65. “Following that date, only zero-emission vehicles will be approved for manufacture, most of which will likely be battery-electric vehicles.”


    • ‘A tale of two ethics. Why many Germans think impractical idealism is immoral [link]

      Those following their convictions wish to preserve their own moral purity, no matter what consequences their policies may have in the real world….

      Weber left no doubt about his sympathies. Ethicists of conviction, he said, were “in nine out of ten cases windbags”.

      The prevailing view today, like Weber’s in 1919, is that “Germany has a surfeit of Gesinnungsethik,” says Wolfgang Nowak, who served as an adviser to Gerhard Schröder when he was chancellor. The postwar yearning of Germans to atone for their nation’s Nazi past through extravagant moral posing exacerbates the tendency.

  66. I noticed when Trump ruffled Billary, she smiled. She was Smilin’ a lot during the debate. Smilin’ Hillary!! From the article:

    In private paid speeches to financial firms and interest groups before she declared her candidacy, the Democratic presidential nominee comes off as a knowing insider, willing to cut backroom deals, embrace open trade and grant Wall Street a central role in crafting financial regulations, according to excerpts obtained last week through hacked campaign emails provided to WikiLeaks.

    Compare that with her public remarks in the presidential race. For voters, Clinton has embraced the rhetoric of a class warrior: Higher taxes on the wealthy. Tougher rules for Wall Street. Empathy for the financial burdens of ordinary Americans.

    The gap between her private and public remarks helps explain the relatively high levels of distrust that voters, including some of her own supporters, have expressed about the former secretary of state, New York senator and presidential spouse. Privately, to audiences at Goldman Sachs and others, Clinton expressed a philosophy that in some ways clashes with the progressive vision she has articulated while campaigning.

    Here’s a breakdown of the differences:


  67. Clinton looked terribly ill last evening wouldn’t ya say? Barely able to walk around or stand up. Almost wheelchair and crutches.

    (Man it’s quiet around here).

  68. Nothing? How about “I wanna make America great” and making Trump products outside America? Is that a public/private ‘making a great deal’ or hypocrisy?

    Just asking. Glenn? Jim2?

  69. I like it! Someone mentioned a ‘tale of two ethics’.

    Let’s look at these: ‘If I become president, I’m gonna have a special prosecutor investigate Clinton’ (says Trump).

    Trump foundation.
    Paying ‘contribution’ to re-election campaign of one investigating him maybe? Pay-to-play Bondi?
    Employment of illegal immigrants?
    Potential self dealing?

    After all, Law & Order is a concern and things which ‘may’ not be be on the up & up should be investigated, correct?

    Hypocrisy is a concern, right? Thoughts?


    • We’re so fortunate we have Obama and Clinton standing guard, keeping America great.

      Just like Claude Robichaux, they are constantly on the lookout for any “communiss” who might infiltrate America.

      Meanwhile, however, Russia is takin’ names and kickin’ a$$:

      Russian Energy Minister Says Sees Turkish Stream Deal This Week

      • Trump is so soft on Russia. He even disagreed with Pence’s hardline anti-Putin message on stage and doesn’t like to even accuse Putin of hacking. This is very telling, because it is one of the few stands he has been consistent with throughout his campaign.

      • Glenn,

        Difficulty with your words?
        Obama = bad
        Clinton = bad
        Putin = better leader than Obama
        Trump = ????

        Cumon. U can say it. Savior or not?

        Thought ya wanted to get more natgas to Europe. No?
        “while the second is to be used to deliver gas to European countries through Turkey, he explained.”

        ” Another important issue was [Turkey’s first ever] Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant. Here we reached an agreement to increase the construction pace even more.”
        Trump wants more nuke capacities out there in the world, right?

        ““Europe has always relied on Russia for energy, particularly oil. In more recent times, natural gas. So, the idea that this represents anything new is really ludicrous. Russia is one of the only long-term energy exporters. Of course [it] has been joined by the UK and Norway in recent decades.”

        What’s not to like? Checks most of the boxes.

      • Jim D,

        That’s right. You gotta be constantly on guard for that “basket of deplorables.” You’ve heard they’re “irredeemable,” haven’t you? They got plenty of communiss in those labor unions that those white, working-class men gravitate to.

        And those sneaky Ruskies, in addition to labor unions, they’re pouring money into “buying our media” and funding “phony environmentalist groups” so that they can “stand against fracking.” Our elections aren’t enough, they want to infiltrate America so they can destroy our domestic energy production too. It don’t get any more communiss than that.

        Be afraid, Jim D. Be very afraid.

      • In Trump’s early business days, he got is legal help from McCarthy’s main lawyer, Roy Cohn. You may spout your version of McCarthyism as a joke, but that is where he comes from, and it explains a lot of his internal xenophobia. But today its not reds under your beds, mainly because he seems to be in bed with them, but Mexicans and Muslims, that are his targets.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Thought ya wanted to get more natgas to Europe. No?


        Feng Dan of the CNPC (China National Petroleum Corporation) Research Institute presented a paper to the 21st World Energy Congress in 2010 that explained what the US’s goal was at that time.

        Analysis on Natural Gas Geo-politics in Central Asia-Russia Region

        As Dan explains, the goal was “to get rid of the high dependence upon energy sources from Russia” so as to break the stranglehold Russia has on Europe’s energy supply. The US also wanted to exert control over the Middle East and Central Asia so it could control the gas flows to China, India, and other Asian countries.

        In all these efforts, Obama has failed. Putin has run circles around him.

      • Glenn,

        Not so sure about that: (hope oilprice.com isn’t considered MSM so you can arm wave it away): “U.S. To Undermine Russia’s Gas Monopoly In Europe”

        “The first U.S. LNG shipment will soon arrive in Europe, marking a new era for energy on the continent.” Correct me if I’m wrong but First does still mean it’s not been done before, right?

        “U.S. LNG will have hard time competing with cheaper natural gas from Russia for the European market.” And it goes on to discuss market conditions but State Run Russia vs. free market U.S. might not exactly be a level playing field.


        And you might (or not, don’t want you to hurt your eyes reading something counter to your narrative) want to read this: ” The Obama administration has shown itself entirely open to idea of exporting LNG, even though it prefers a gradual and deliberate approach rather than the blanket approval favored by the oil and gas industry.”

        This might really hurt (dated Sept. 2014): “Perhaps more importantly, the undeclared front runner in the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton, supports exporting LNG. In a recent speech she gave on energy, she discussed the benefits of exporting natural gas and oil.

        Revealingly, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also headed up a global initiative to sell other countries on hydraulic fracturing within their borders. She met with leaders in several Eastern European countries, pressuring them to allow American companies to drill for shale gas, according to Mother Jones. As the likely standard bearer of the Democratic Party in 2016, her support for natural gas exports and fracking will make it difficult for environmental groups to block the strong momentum in favor of expanding gas development.” Supporting American companies? How dare she!


        I’ve got a good eye doctor if ya need one.

      • Here’s more evidence of just how miserably the Obama administration has failed:


      • Danny Thomas,

        It really isn’t all that complicated.

        European gas consumption got hammered by the Great Financial Crisis, but it is hoped that the European economy will eventually recover from that, and gas consumption along with it:

        Platts recently did an analysis of Russia’s “rival suppliers” for the European market. Here’s what that rival supply currently looks like:

        Then, on top of that, there is the 29 BCM that Russia supplies to the Eastern and Central European natural gas market.

        With EU gas consumption expected to increase by 230 BCM over the next 25 years, do you really believe that LNG imports from the United States can fill that demand, plus replace the 130 BCM that Europe is currently importing from Russia?

        If you do, I have a nice piece of oceanfront property in Arizona that I’m sure will interest you.

      • Glenn,
        (Shaking head while writing).

        When did I suggest any of that? Your premise is that ‘Putin has run rings around the Obama administration’ due to having ramped up pipe lining Natgas thru Turkey to Europe. Russia has provided natgas to Europe for a while (earliest I found was beginning circa 1978……….do you give Obama that much credit?).

        What I showed is the U.S. during the Obama admin has initiated (that means it’s new in case you need help with definitions) exporting to Europe (which means at least some competition which didn’t exist before, let me know if I’m typing too quickly).

        We’re not going to compete fully against Russia pipes vs our ships but it’s more than was there before.

        Read and try again. A few more tries (won’t guess how many) and you’ll get there. I’ll keep working with ya and promise not to give up too easily.

        I always look for your strawman arguments and this is a fine representation of one here. And once you constructed it you did knock it down quite readily. So congrats for your losing victory. It was done almost on a pro level but not quite.

      • In Jim D’s bumpkin world, being able to evaluate events beyond the county line is outside his skill set.

        Right now we are looking at the potential for US and Russian forces to come into conflict in Syria. Both are are flying combat support missions. Both have advisors on the ground directing pro and anti Assad forces. There is currently no effort on either side to ensure deconfliction coordination is taking place. When a shirtless chest bumper and an outgoing President more concerned about his legacy (which in foreign affairs pretty much consists of apologizing and bowing) are in charge, a real opportunity exists for unintended events to escalate into direct conflict.

        Yet all you can comment on is Trump’s supposed infatuation with Putin. Anyone who believes Trump is infatuated with anyone other than himself is someone who can be ignored as not competent enough to take seriously.

  70. Is there any politics more important than the politics of energy?

    Pakistan PM Rushes To End Energy Shortages Ahead Of 2018 Poll

    In Abdul Aziz’s print shop, the daily blackouts that plunge him into darkness and silence his rolling presses are costly and chip away at his faith in Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

    For nearly a decade, power shortages have hobbled the country’s economy and eaten into Aziz’s profits, preventing him from hiring more staff or expanding his family-owned business.

    Sharif swept to power in 2013 vowing to eradicate crippling outages that brought Pakistan’s $250 billion economy to its knees, but he now faces a race against time to stay true to his word before the next general election in 2018.

    “If Nawaz Sharif ends (power shortages) by the election in 2018, we will vote for him again,” said Aziz, 40, who lives in Sharif’s constituency in Lahore, capital of Punjab province.

    “If he doesn’t, we will not.”….

    Chinese companies are arriving in force after Beijing outlined plans in 2014 to invest $46 billion in road, rail and energy infrastructure linking western China with Pakistan’s Arabian Sea coast, with two-thirds of the money earmarked for energy.

    The drive to boost generation above 17,000 megawatts (MW) and plug a 6,000 MW deficit has already yielded some results. Shortages in big cities, which two years ago went without power for 12 hours a day, are down to about six hours.

    Sharif vowed last month that all scheduled outages would end before the next election, likely to be in May, 2018. His office said generation would hit 26,000 MW, a 3,000 MW surplus….

    Halting outages would breathe fresh life into Pakistan’s economy, which needs to expand above 6 percent per year to absorb new entrants into the job market from a fast-growing population of 190 million people….

    Sharif’s opponents, however, say the government is so fixated on boosting power generation that it has ignored reforms, like privatising distribution companies, that would modernise the market and lower the cost of electricity.

    Many Pakistani businesses complain about the price of power. Lahore barber Eijaz Ahmed, forced to down tools for several hours every day, fumes about spending up to 60 percent of his revenues on electricity.

    “I cannot spend money on my children’s education because I have to pay (expensive) electricity bills,” he said, as his staff sat idle, waiting for power to return….

    Government officials concede some key reforms have not been enacted, but say there was simply too much to do in the space of a few years, and beefing up generation took priority. The power market, they say, will be liberalised after the 2018 election.

    “We have to work in phases. The first phase will be availability of power and second will be affordability,” said Mohammad Younus Dagha, the top bureaucrat at the Water and Power Ministry….

    Analysts say if Sharif can roll back electricity shortages it would put him in pole position to win another mandate….

    The opposition has painted Sharif’s infrastructure plans as vanity projects and accuse him of inflating Pakistan’s debt burden to boost his re-election chances….

    “In Lahore, you have these mega projects but don’t have drinking water which is clean,” said Mahmood, the opposition politician. “We need investment in our people.”

  71. Oil Hits One-Year High As Russia Ready To Join Output Caps

    Oil prices jumped as much as 3 percent on Monday, with Brent hitting a one-year high, after Russia said it was ready to join OPEC in curbing crude output and Algeria called for similar commitments from other non-OPEC producers….

    Russian President Vladimir Putin said an output freeze or even a production cut were likely the only right decisions to maintain energy sector stability.

    “Russia is ready to join the joint measures to cap production and is calling for other oil exporters to join,” Putin said, speaking at an energy congress in Istanbul….

  72. Saudi Arabia’s Falih Says OPEC Should Not Crimp Supply Too Tightly

    Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said on Monday that OPEC should not crimp oil supply too tightly and said he was optimistic a global production deal to limit supplies could be reached by November.

    Speaking at the World Energy Congress in Istanbul, Falih said OPEC, which agreed a deal to cut production in Algiers last month, needed to behave in a balanced and responsible manner and that he continued to believe in its important role.

    “OPEC needs to make sure we don’t crimp too tightly and create a shock to the market. We are going to be very responsible,” Falih said….

    “It is time to do something different than we faced in 2014. It is a very gentle hand on the wheel, we are not doing anything dramatic,” Falih said. “The difference is that the market forces have shifted significantly between 2014 and now.”

    He said there was still not total clarity on supply and demand in some areas such as China and North America at the moment and that he hoped the situation would be clearer by the time of OPEC’s November meeting.

    • And speaking of how “there was still not total clarity on supply and demand in some areas such as China and North America,” Art Berman just published an article that says that the US’s “record high” oil inventories may not exist, that they very well could be nothing more than misreporting by the US government.

      As Berman explains,

      That’s a big problem since oil prices move up or down based on the U.S. crude oil storage report. Oil stocks in inventory represent surplus supply. Increasing or decreasing inventory levels generally push prices lower or higher because they indicate trends toward longer term over-supply or under-supply.

      Inventory levels have reached record highs since the oil-price collapse in 2014. This surplus supply is a major factor keeping oil prices low.

      The Billion Barrel Oil Swindle: 80% Of U.S. Oil Reserves Are Unaccounted-For

      • I haven’t looked into it, but:

        Also, producers must state crude oil production in their SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) filings and pay federal income tax on revenues from oil sales. It seems improbable that the SEC and U.S. Treasury would consistently accept under-reported production and associated lower tax payments.

        Perhaps they were using “revenues from oil sales” to drive their figure for production.

        This would leave out storage by producers. Which, being separately reported could be entered as adjustment.

        Just speculation, but I’ve been thinking that smart producers might be investing in storage facilities to buffer price shocks. Stored oil would have to be reported in several places, but if the reporting system pre-dated producers building storage facilities, it would make sense that these numbers would be fed into adjustments till they could update their system.

        Seems to me the Federal Reserve would have an interest in accurate reporting of both stored reserves and storage facilities (which would be securitizable, AFAIK). And the SEC would need reporting if it actually is converted to securities.

      • I’m not sure what to make of this. Inventories are physical and are measured in the tank, e.g. Cushing, and I don’t believe a government weenie makes the measurement. Some inventories are kept on tanker ships and some in salt domes. Again, not sure what to make of it.

        Since 1985 the US has produced about 150 billion barrels. So the divergence noted in the article amounts to a 1% error over the time period.

  73. From the article, my emphasis:

    Moments ago, Wikileaks just released its third data dump from the hacked email account of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chair, John Podesta, which is becoming a true headache for Hillary Clinton and her supporter base.

    There are as many as 1,190 new emails in the latest release, adding to the more than 4,000 emails from Podesta already released by the whistleblowing website, and bringing the total to 5,336. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has claimed he is sitting on as much as 50,000 messages.


  74. How could the editorial board of the New York Sun be so anti-American?

    Soon the Voters

    It looks like this election is going to have to be settled by the voters….

    That has got to be infuriating to the press and the political elites….

    This difficulty arises from the central circumstance of this election. Mrs. Clinton keeps declaring for what she calls the “high road.” In her best moments, she is wonderfully warm and articulate. The ideology of the Democratic Party, however, has given us eight years of economic stagnation and veered us onto the road to socialism. The Democrats’ signature program, Obamacare, is in disarray, as is its foreign policy. Mrs. Clinton shares responsibility for both of these failures.

    Mr. Trump keeps to what Mrs. Clinton calls the “low road,” but he is running on a more substantive – and more humane – platform of law and order, military strength, tax cuts, deregulation, and economic growth. The irony is that growth is better for minorities than the dole and subsidies that Mrs. Clinton promises.

    • Given the choice between oligarchy and Vox populi vox Dei, the Republican estabishment will always opt for the first, even if it means destroying the Republican Party:

      The GOP Meltdown.
      The party’s leaders are at odds with its voters.


      Most notably, four former presidential candidates—Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Mitt Romney—had refused to endorse Trump. Cruz has since announced that he will vote for Trump.

      But on Saturday, as the Post noted, “more than two dozen Republican lawmakers . . . called on Trump to leave the race, often touting vice presidential candidate Mike Pence as an alternative.”….

      The notion that the party could “cut Trump loose,” however, is fantasy, and not only because the ballots are already printed. Politico commissioned a poll by Morning Consult Saturday—immediately after the tape’s release, but before the debate—that found 74% of Republicans wanted the party to stick with Trump; only 13% favored dumping him.

      • Do you ever question anything?

        Is that support for ‘not dumping Trump’ (damning with faint praise?) consideration for party damage or actual support for the candidate?

      • https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9GegJv8WT7Ua2s5cXh6MFA5SWM/view?usp=sharing

        I think this reflects the current situation.
        The GOP finally comes to grip with the monster it has created.

      • jacksmith4tx,

        Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party was definitely not a friendly takeover, and the Republican establishment intends to stop it, even if it means destroying the party.

        And as far as the destruction of the American working, lower-middle and middle-middle classes, the GOP establishment had plenty of help from the Democratic Party establishment in that accomplishment.

      • Trump ‘unshackled’! Boooooommmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        “What appears to be happening is the Breitbart-ization of Trump’s campaign, adopting a strategy of full-on attack against everyone who doesn’t see the world as he does — including Republicans. (That move isn’t totally out of the blue. Breitbart chief Stephen Bannon is a close Trump adviser.) Trump is effectively turning the guns on his own troops, a move that might be personally satisfying to him but that will result in near-certain carnage for lots of Republicans.”


      • Not that I put much stock in poll data, but assuming for the sake of argument that it is in this instance, the first conclusion is you are a putz Danny.

        When MSM is overwhelming negative, and Republican establishment is decrying his candidacy while gnashing their teeth and polls say likely Trump voters still want him atop the ticket, one doesn’t need extreme cleverness to figure out what is happening.

        Your are extremely clever, aren’t you Danny? You sure write like you think you are.

      • Danny,

        Do you preen like a Parrot, cause you sure post like one.

        Though as a bow to that balance thing you tout so much, I will acknowledge that Glenn constantly posts the thoughts and opinions of others. But at least he seems to have a plan when doing so.

    • Danny Thomas,

      You definitely went to the establishment’s school of “logic.”

      • Was given this question as a ‘pop quiz’ at school. In your ‘school’ of logic it’d be:
        MSM’s fault!
        He’s correct about Paul Ryan!
        Every Poll = Brietbart/Drudge!
        Every Poll = sarcasm!
        Every Poll = only the one he saw and his staff took it amongst themselves!

        Is Trump lying here? : Despite winning the second debate in a landslide (every poll), it is hard to do well when Paul Ryan and others give zero support!”
        Every poll! Unequivocal!

        In my school. He’s proffering another falsehood that his supporters choose not to see!

        Your reaction (or more likely lack of) will be telling.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Both Rove (R) and Trippi (D) agree that what Paul Ryan did — the civil war he is provoking within the Republican Party by throwing down the gauntlet — not only risks throwing the presidentila election to Hillary, but the Senate and House majorities to the Democrats as well.


        Nice move, Ryan, what with you “fantasy constituency.”

        You should be estatic with Ryan. He’s definitely your kinda guy.

  75. From the article:

    Half a dozen news outlets skipped posting snap polls after the second 2016 presidential debate on Sunday — most likely because Donald Trump touted his dominance of their polls after the first debate in September.
    The first presidential debate was a tough one for Republican presidential candidate Trump, but he publicly declared victory by citing a slew of unscientific online polls where respondents said he beat his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. The Daily Mail rounded up the results of many of these snap polls, as well, with a headline blaring “Trump won debate by a landslide.”


    • Lying by omission, and not by explicitly telling untruths, is the MSM’s preferred metod of lying.

      • Glenn,
        Thanks for that definition. Please define for us now, Breitbart’s and Trumps preferred versions.

    • stevenreincarnated

      I seemed obvious to me that Clinton won the first debate just as it seemed obvious to me that Trump won the second.

      • My impressions (fwiw). 1st Clinton won handily. I’d have suggested in the 65/35 range. 2nd much closer with about 51/49 (IMO Trump didn’t answer what was asked often). I’ll state willingly that Trump does not detail policy and this is a big bias of mine.

        Are you willing to suggest a range?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Sure, I’ll go with 55/45 with Trump as the winner and a 6 point change in the national polls. I may have gone higher except your bias is clearly blinding you and will obviously blind others and I know my bias doesn’t affect my opinion at all.

      • :) Thanks Steven. Please teach me that anti bias trick! I have much room for improvement. At the very least safety glasses should be provided.

      • Trump’s slide in the polls doesn’t seem to have abated after the second debate.


        The cause of that — whether it was Trump’s lackluster debate performance or the civil war within the Republican Party that Paul Ryan, John McCain and likeminded souls declared, is not known.

      • To Glenn, of the Trump school of logic,

        Just wondering why you’d cite one poll (an MSM one at that) then state ‘polls’. How about actually citing ‘polls’ (unless you have reason for concern if you do so)!

        Signed Danny, of the ‘establishment’ school of logic.

      • stevenreincarnated

        That is a running average poll and reflects the weekend still.

      • Glenn –

        I notice that you refer to the LA Times poll over and over, but not others very much, except an occasional cherry-pick to RCP when it is particularly convenient for your argument.

        Is there a reason for that?

        Did you happen to look at RCP today, by chance?


      • stevereincarnated,

        So maybe we’ll just have to wait a few more days to see what the movement in the polls is post-debate.

        There’s also the question of how good of predictors the polls will be in these turbulent times.

        These are definietely uncommon times, and as we saw in both the Brexit and FARC votes, the polls failed spectacularly in predicting the election outcomes.

      • Glenn,
        What are you saying?

        First you post a MSM (whom you trust not) poll. That poll shows T-man leading. Then you say :”the polls failed spectacularly in predicting the election outcomes.”

        Readers heads must be spinning! Must be some sorta Trumpian school of logik!

      • Danny Thomas said:

        First you post a…poll [that] shows T-man leading.

        So that’s what has you foaming at the mouth.

        Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?

      • That was your (cherry picked) take away? Really?

        Well. Considering Trump won the debate ‘in every poll’ I guess I shouldn’t be surprised! I’m guessing he’s the prof of the Trump school of logic and you’re magna cum!

        Wanna address any one of the numerous other issues I brought up with ya? Your arms must be getting tired no matter how ‘yuge’!

      • Two questions during the debate whose responses to tell you everything you need to know.

        1) Describe your choices in what sort of SC justices you would select.

        2) Can you describe one attribute about your opponent which you admire.

        Hillary went first on both. On the first she went on about how she would look for candidates who had experience outside of the courtroom. No real details,but her initial response was enough. Who thinks that running a day care center, painting houses as a student or starting a business (all my examples, not Hillary’s, as she didn’t give any) are primary considerations for being a SC justice. Trump’s response was easy. He’s already provided a list of actual candidates.

        One the second question, Hillary, in my opinion, basically dodged the question by talking about Trump’s kids and saying they were a positive reflection on Donald. Trump in return responded with what he considered to be an admirable trait of Hillary’s. He called her a fighter, someone who would never quit fighting.

        The first question probably doesn’t matter to people who by into the construct of the Constitution being a “living” document. That’s an argument in support of being able to constantly reinterpret the Constitution to fit ones immediate goals. That is a philosophy which is far greater a threat to our nation than sea level rise, global warming, Russia, China or Islamic extremists.

        The second question provides good insight to the candidates personalities and character. Despite Trump’s comments on putting Hillary in jail, he was able to honestly offer praise for an attribute of Hillary. Out of everything he said that evening, that came across as genuine. Compared to Hillary’s cop out, Donald might have stolen the show.

  76. From the article:

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was the winner of Sunday night’s second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis. However, media commentators denied Trump the outright win, or said it would not matter.
    CNN’s Jake Tapper, for one, said tt the debate was a “wash.” His colleague, Gloria Borger, said: “He may have done enough to stop the bleeding. I’m not sure any minds were changed at this debate tonight. I think so much has occurred over the last 48 hours and this last week that people have to digest all of this, including the debate tonight, to see where they stand.” Co-panelist Mike Smerconish declared Trump the winner “on points”: “I think the night belongs to Donald Trump,” he said. But Smerconish added that Trump had fallen short, regardless: “Did he grow the tent? I can’t see that there was any outreach.”

    Trump beat Clinton despite facing a three-on-one press from his opponent and from the moderators, who were at least as biased as they had been in any of the previous debates. CNN’s Anderson Cooper fired repeated follow-ups at Trump while leaving Clinton largely alone. But he, at least, brought up tough questions for Clinton on occasion. ABC News’ Martha Raddatz actively debated Trump at times, and silenced the audience when it cheered for Trump — though not for Clinton.


  77. Teh Donald, accurate and precise as usual.

    “Despite winning the second debate in a landslide (every poll), it is hard to do well when Paul Ryan and others give zero support,” he also tweeted.

  78. Leaders of Russia, Turkey poised for a reconciliation

    MOSCOW — Amid increasingly tense relations with the United States over Syria, President Vladimir Putin of Russia took advantage Monday of a routine meeting in Istanbul to advance the Kremlin’s reconciliation with Turkey.

    His appearance at an international energy conference was his first visit to Turkey since a crisis in relations between the countries after Turkey’s downing of a Russian fighter jet along the border with Syria in November 2015, in which a Russian pilot was killed.

    President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, nominally an ally of the United States in Syria, patched things up with a letter of apology and a trip to St. Petersburg, Russia, in August….

    They sat next to each other in the front row of the World Energy Congress in Istanbul, laughing together, and later met for bilateral talks.

    Both men have had recent troubles with Washington. The United States broke off cooperation with Moscow over Syria and then accused the Kremlin of war crimes. Erdogan has been criticized by Washington for using the aftermath of a July coup attempt to introduce a sweeping crackdown against a wide array of critics, going well beyond the coup plotters and their backers.

    Turkey and the United States have also been at odds over the Kurds, whom Erdogan considers terrorists and a national security threat. Washington relies on the Syrian Kurds as its main ground force in the fight against the Islamic State militant group.

    Putin has been far more supportive of the Turkish leader’s behavior since the coup attempt. The Russian president has also long sought to exploit any cracks in NATO, of which Turkey is a member….

    Anna V. Glazova, head of the Asia and Middle East Center at the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, noted that Putin could easily have sent a minister to the Istanbul summit.

    “This means that he wanted to discuss regional problems with Erdogan face to face,” Glazova said. “This becomes especially important in the context of Russia’s current tensions with the US.”

  79. Ingraham Angle: Ryan Runs Against Trump
    Pro-globalization wing of the GOP relies on a fantasy constituency


    A memo to the anti-Trump, pro-globalization wing of the GOP:

    The day after a strong debate performance by your party’s nominee, you decided not to celebrate it, but to dismiss and distract from it. You called your friends in the press and told them about “the coming GOP stampede” away from Trump. If you succeed in helping Democrats elect Hillary Clinton, you — not he — will be held responsible for losing the Supreme Court and busting up the Republican Party.

    Regarding your “constituency” within the party, you have an outsized imagination. Consider the facts:

    There were 31,183,841 votes cast in the 2016 GOP nominating process.

    Marco Rubio got 3,515,576 votes, or 11.3 percent.

    John Kasich got 4,290,448 votes, or 13.8 percent.

    Jeb Bush got 286,694 votes, or 0.2 percent.

    So Team Globalization garnered a whopping 26 percent of the vote.

    Ted Cruz alone got 7,822,100 votes, or 25.1 percent.

    Trump got 14,015,993 votes, or 44.9 percent.

    So the GOP voters, when given a chance, overwhelmingly rejected Team Globalization and all its pundits. And those voters are going to remember that Team Globalization (and its pundits) did everything possible to throw this election to Hillary.

  80. Just in case policies are important: “the centrist Tax Policy Center said Tuesday”

    (Yes, Glenn, I know it’s a media source even if I’m not clear if it’s MSM or not but they cite the direct source)


    • Clinton’s plan will “soak the rich”?

      I’ll believe that when I see it.

      It sounds like another one of Clinton’s “public positions” — 180° opposite of her “private positon” which she shares with all her rich friends.

      • Glenn,

        “I’ll believe it when I see it”!

        Okie dokie, it’s been posted since I last looked:

        This paper analyzes presidential candidate Donald Trump’s revised tax proposal, whichwould significantly reduce marginal tax rates, increase standard deduction amounts, repeal personal exemptions,capitemized deductions, and allowbusinesses to elect to expense new investmentand not deduct interest expense. His proposal would cut taxesat all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms,would go to the highest-income households. Federal revenues would fall by $6.2 trillion over the first decade before accounting for added interest costs. Including interest costs, the federal debtwould rise by $7.2trillion over the first decade and by $20.9trillion by 2030.”


        This paper updates an analysis of Hillary Clinton’s taxproposals, which would raisetaxes on high-income taxpayers, increase the child tax credit, modify taxation of multinational corporations,reform capital gains taxes,and increaseestate and gift taxes. Her proposals would increase revenue by $1.4trillion over the next decade. Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the highest-income1 percent; on average, low-and middle-income households would see smallincreases in after-tax income. Marginaltax rates would increasefor high-income filers, reducing incentives to work, save, and invest, and the tax code would become more complex.”

        It’s gonna be entertaining to watch you wiggle outta your concrete statement as quoted above! (Remember. Others are watching)

      • Danny Thomas,

        Empty promises and meaningless campaign rhetoric never counted for much in my book. Past performance — a person’s track record and demonstrated, proven performance — are a far better predictor of future performance.

        But hey, I guess everybody to their own.

      • Glenn,

        An area of perfect agreement! WUWT!

        I too, do not buy, “I can fix it” (Chicago violence), “We’re gonna build a wall” (can’t even get a fence built and can’t help but guess there are fewer ‘friends’ in congress today than maybe even last week). (Even Springer thinks we’re not ever gonna build that wall by the by).

        Wow, Glenn! We’ve made progress!

      • Note to Danny,

        The people who pay attention to detailed policy positions during an election are also likely participants in ponzi schemes.

        I’m curious. How old are you?

      • 13! Why?

      • Tim,

        “The people who pay attention to detailed policy positions during an election are also likely participants in ponzi schemes.” Okay. So what would you suggest is ‘participated in’ by those who pay attention and ‘buy in’ to vacillating biodegradable B.S. such as one particular candidate (Trump) puts forth?

        Tell me Tim, do you ‘buy’ from a mechanic who says they can ‘fix it’ (no detail how) for a problem with your car which has existed for decades? They just ask you ‘trust’ them, and don’t worry about how much or methods including washing/waxing or maybe just wrecking it?

        You suggest I ‘preen’ and maybe I do when communicating with the biggest putz of all, Glenn (Dr. Strawman Cherrypicker Hypocrite, etc.) ’cause it’s fun. How about Trump’s ‘preening’. You down with that?

      • I’m curious. How old are you?

        Danny Thomas | October 12, 2016 at 9:56 am |
        13! Why?


        I think he’s padding that by a few years based on his lack of secondary sexual characteristics.

      • Danny,

        I don’t have political conversations with 13 year olds, unless they have demonstrated a sufficient level of understanding.

      • Tim,

        That’s unfortunate. But apparently you’re quite an expert and should be able to easily state where I’ve not “demonstrated a sufficient level of understanding.”

        My suggestion has all along been that we have two ‘less than desirable’ candidates. You, from what I’ve read, show we only have one. Make us all understand how that’s the case, or alternatively you could agree with my assessment.

      • OK Danny, here is one demonstration.

        “You, from what I’ve read, show we only have one. Make us all understand how that’s the case, or alternatively you could agree with my assessment.”

        You fail on understanding what I’ve been saying. I believe you would be hard pressed to find examples of me singing Trump’s virtues. You can find examples of me saying he makes me extremely nervous, or that voting for Trump is similar to playing Russian Roulette – possibly to the point of playing with more than one round in the chamber. I happen to think that as poor a candidate as Trump is, Hillary is worse. Trump may have an advantage in not having the track record Hillary has. Without that record, Hillary would likely be so far in front they could call the election today. If by agreeing with your assessment you mean that BOTH CANDIDATES SUCK, sure. But then a majority of people know that. You haven’t made any assessment I’ve noticed on which of two sucky candidates do you vote for.

    • Tax Policy Center: Trump Plan Gives Americans of All Income Levels Bigger Tax Cuts Than Hillary

      Left of center group’s own numbers show after-tax income under Trump plan is higher than Clinton’s plan for all income levels

      Donald Trump’s tax plan would increase after tax income more than the Hillary Clinton plan regardless of income, according to data published by the left-of-center Tax Policy Center.

      • Big money to big earners. Chump change to middle class. Then what would seem to be a good follow up question would be to ask about impacts on national debt.

      • Big money to big earners. Chump change to middle class.

        But what do the “big earners” do with their extra money? Mostly they invest it.

        In theory, investment will lead to growth. Meaning more jobs. Problem is, the link between jobs and consumer spending has been broken by outsourcing and inappropriate immigration. (Also by automation, which neither is talking about, although IIRC somebody in Mexico is.)

      • AK,

        The 1%’ers have been ‘investing’ since 2008 crash. And they’ve done well. How have ‘we’ done during the same time?

        We’ve tried both methods. Trickle down, and trickle up. If either were ‘proven’ wouldn’t we ‘know’?

        Reform of Tax is needed badly. I could even support ‘trickle down’ but if ‘investment’ doesn’t occur resulting in ‘jobs’ in a two year window (long enough to move a behemoth) a ‘flip’ would occur, and hard. Punishing even. We’re not real bright at times. Doing same thing over expecting………well you know.

      • The 1%’ers have been ‘investing’ since 2008 crash. And they’ve done well. How have ‘we’ done during the same time?

        Well, as I mentioned, most of the jobs created by their investment(s) have been overseas or to remittance immigrants. As I’ve also mentioned (many times), automation is changing the entire picture, and IMO those jobs (mostly) won’t come home, they’ll be superseded by robots.

        Have you ever bothered to follow any of Glenn Stehle’s many links to stuff about two different types of finance?

        I don’t agree with all of them, but I suspect they’ve got hold of the right stick, even if it’s by the wrong end. There needs to be a way of separating financial speculation from speculative investment.

        The traditional answer (in the US and later Europe) has been separate treatment for capital gains. Reading the history of this football, I see a fundamental divergence of viewpoint:

        •       The “capitalist” POV that (in effect) investment in capitalized enterprise has positive externalities that justify reducing or (eg. in the case of Japan and pre-1965 Europe, see appendex A in above link) eliminating income taxes on capital gains, thus incenting investment over consumption.

        •       The “communist/socialist” POV that refuses to recognize capital gains as different from any other sort of income, since the “means of production belong to society” anyway.

        As I understand that document, actual realizations in the US have typically represented complex negotiated compromises between those two positions.

        While some better instantiation of capital gains benefits might solve (most of) the problem(s) of distinguishing speculative from investment gains, I don’t see how it could be effectively applied to automation. In the end (looming quickly) the assumption that consumers will be able to acquire their spending money through employment will (IMO) become untenable.

        Another issue I see is that the whole idea of marking to market has been incorrectly applied, especially to income taxes. Again, IMO, the stand-off and negotiations between the two views mentioned above have resulted in a system that meets neither standard of desirability.

      • Interesting…

        Since we’re referencing the Tax Policy Center:


        Trump’s latest plan would reduce federal revenues by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with nearly half of the tax cuts going to the highest-income one percent of households. Clinton, by contrast, would boost federal revenue by $1.4 trillion over the next decade, with the bottom 80 percent of households receiving tax cuts and the top one percent paying over 90 percent of the net tax increase.

        These revenue estimates use traditional budget scoring and exclude macroeconomic effects (dynamic scoring) and changes in interest costs. With added interest, the Trump plan would add about $7.2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Because Clinton’s tax plan would reduce interest costs, it would trim the debt by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years (though her spending proposals would likely soak up much of that revenue). TPC will soon release dynamic scores of both plans, which it produces in collaboration with the Penn Wharton Budget Model.


  81. VIDEO — Huckabee: “Bed-Wetting” Republicans Not Afraid Trump Will Lose, “Scared to Death” He Will Win

    Mike Huckabee tells Megyn Kelly Republicans are “not afraid” that Donald Trump will lose, they are “scared to death” that he’ll win.

    “Let me tell you something. Here’s a little secret. A lot of these bed-wetting, hand-wringing Republicans, they’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose. They’re scared to death he’s going to win.

    And if he wins he is going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go,” Huckabee said on the Monday broadcast of the Kelly File on FOX News.

  82. U.S. Intelligence meddles in U.S. Presidential election: backs Hillary Clinton, tries to stop Donald Trump

    The fact and evidence free statement by US intelligence that Russia was behind the DNC leak is an attempt to swing the US Presidential election in Hillary Clinton’s favour and amounts to the direct interference of US intelligence in a democratic US election….

    The intelligence agency in question is not however that of Russia as is being reported. It is that of the United States itself…..

    US intelligence has meddled in elections in other countries on numerous occasions starting with the Italian parliamentary elections of 1948.

    To my knowledge this is however the first occasion that US intelligence has directly and publicly meddled in a US national election, acting to help one candidate defeat another.

    It matters not whether this was done by US intelligence on its own initiative, or whether it was pressured to do so by officials of the Obama administration or of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

    Either way the disturbing truth must now be faced: the practice of US intelligence meddling in and trying to influence national elections has now been imported home to the US.

    • It looks like Stehle is denying Russia could be up to no good, a denial that could raise questions about his motive and his loyalty to the U.S. Hopefully, the motive is no more blind hatred of Hillary, an emotion that has impaired his judgement.

      • Our favorite dufus from OK makes a guest appearance.

        Max, whether or not Russia is trying to “influence” our election is secondary to the fact they (or someone) is releasing emails which belong in the public domain. Or that those which don’t belong are evidence that one candidate violated Federal law and then lied about it.

      • timg56, if you are referring to the DNC e-mails, I didn’t know these were in the public domain. If so, wouldn’t RNC e-mails be in the public domain too?
        Anyway, to keep the playing field even, the RNC should just make its e-mails public.

        I am more concerned than you about Russian interference with our election process, and my concern isn’t over just this upcoming election alone.

      • It might even be Bill, he does not want ‘that woman’, who is still working like a demon, to become the President of US. It would steal his thunder.

      • You are more concerned with Russian hacking than with the corruption of our own political process?

        Has it occurred to you that the Russians would have no potential influence if certain parties were playing above board? It is far less important who is leaking the material than what is in the material being leaked.

      • “It is far less important who is leaking the material than what is in the material being leaked.”

        False choice and so very wrong. Neither is more or less important. They are both serious concerns. But each has narrative oriented propaganda value. Don’t be disingenuous. Content is in need of HONEST evaluation. Supporting of outside influence in our elections is IMO un-American.

      • Danny,

        Can’t say anything else but you are an idi0t. Honest evaluation? If you can read you can evaluate. Now that evaluation will be influenced by ones filters and biases, but still, it is honest. The only possible outside influence is if some context is left out by only releasing what they want. That argument was used for the Climategate emails. It was weak then and it is now.
        Has it not occurred to you that the claim of Russian influence is a play to divert attention from the content of the material being made public?

        PS – being 13, I wouldn’t expect you be aware of such things. I’d only advise you listen more and comment less.

      • Tim,
        “Has it not occurred to you that the claim of Russian influence is a play to divert attention from the content of the material being made public?”
        Yep, and it’s occurred to me that the claim of Russian influence is legit! And, maybe you should comment more and show you’re not a 12 year old idi0t not willing to recognize both possibilities. You’ve demonstrated only one concern which is evidence of: lack of understanding, lack of thinking things thru, AN AGENDA! Which is it? (Setting up others with false choices is entertaining, huh?)

        “The only possible outside influence is if some context is left out by only releasing what they want.” Like having hacked the other side and not releasing, right? Also, feeding one side in advance? Colluding behind the scenes in ways we’re unaware? But only an ‘idi0t’ would think they’re so informed that they’re able to spout ‘the only possibilities’. Dontcha think?

        You see, the above might me an ‘honest’ evaluation and afaik there are many other ‘possibilities’ (Trump is trying to get Clinton elected?) which I’ve not even considered. But I don’t go around stating hubristically that I’m aware of ‘the only’ in anything politics.

        If we’re gonna go conspiracy theory let’s go full on.

        Try again?

      • Danny,

        “Yep, and it’s occurred to me that the claim of Russian influence is legit! ”

        It has occurred to me that the claim MAY be legit. I’m willing to operate on the assumption that it is. And I haven’t said I believe it is nothing to worry about. What I did say is worrying about that ahead of the bigger issue of collusion and trying to game the system, or campaigning on one set of principles and policy positions while telling people in private the opposite is showing a poor level of understanding how our system works.

        “You’ve demonstrated only one concern which is evidence of: lack of understanding, lack of thinking things thru, AN AGENDA! Which is it? (Setting up others with false choices is entertaining, huh?)”

        Honestly don’t know how to respond to this, as it doesn’t make sense. Other than to say it is a misrepresentation of what I’ve said. I haven’t set up any false choices. I haven’t set up any in fact. They are already there. We have the issue of hacking, most likely by the Russians, with the supposed purpose of interfering in our Presidential election. We also have the contents of the leaked emails. Stating my opinion on which is of greater concern is exactly that. In this case it is an informed opinion. I’ve spent too much time studying history and political science not to recognize and evaluate threats to our republic.

        “Like having hacked the other side and not releasing, right? Also, feeding one side in advance? Colluding behind the scenes in ways we’re unaware? But only an ‘idi0t’ would think they’re so informed that they’re able to spout ‘the only possibilities’. Dontcha think?”

        To borrow a line from a past President who was also accused of being unqualified for the job and a cowboy no one in their right mind wanted to be in control of the nuclear football – “There you go again.” You have zero evidence for any of things above. And were you reading rather than “interpreting” my comments, I clearly acknowledged the possibility that the context could be being manipulated by the leakers. Hard to tell when we don’t have all of the emails. Also pretty simple to show by the folks who generated the hacked emails in the first place. So far all we have is Podesta “suggesting” (interesting choice of wording) they may have been altered. You must be standing upwind not to notice what that smells like.

        “If we’re gonna go conspiracy theory let’s go full on.”

        I suggest you try to tell the difference between a tactic and a conspiracy. Just because someone doesn’t trumpet their intent doesn’t mean they are involved in a conspiracy.

    • max10k,

      That goes without saying, doesn’t it, that anyone who doesn’t march in lockstep with Clinton Inc. is an America-hating, Russia-loving communiss.

      • Glenn, I love Hillary, you hate Hillary. You love Trump, I think Trump is amusing. I also think you are amusing.

        On second thought, maybe you don’t love Trump. You spend so much time hating Hillary, I don’t know what you love.

      • max1ok: “Glenn, I love Hillary,”

        Is there a US equivalent of Specsavers?

        If so, I suggest you give them a call.

      • catweazle666, nothing is wrong with my eyesight. You imply Hillary is unattractive physically, and question how I could love her if I can see good.
        You may confuse love with lust. If so, you can look forward to maturity.

      • “you can look forward to maturity.”

        Unfortunately, my mature period ended some time ago Max.

      • And if you love her for her personality, well…

    • Correction: In my previous comment “no more blind hatred of Hillary” should be “no more than blind hatred of Hillary.”

      Anyway, Glenn Stehl is full of hate it up to the ears.

      • Max,

        That brown stuff leaking from your ears clearly indicates what you are full of.

      • Oh no, not another hater. ClimateEtc needs more people who love. I am not afraid to say I love Hillary. Trump lovers shouldn’t be afraid to say they love Trump.

      • No hate Max. Just an astute observation.

        And sorry, but I can’t say I love Trump. I’d be nervous as hell about him as our President, if it wasn’t for the fact I am absolutely sure Hillary would be worse. I don’t hate Hillary. I even think she has admirable traits. As Trump said during the debate, she’s a fighter. Unfortunately for me, she fights for things I do not believe in. I also believe Hillary is a very caring person on the individual level. But Presidents don’t operate on that level when leading our nation.

  83. Blatant Lie: AP “Fact Checks” Directly Contradict AP’s Own Reporting on Syria

    The Associated Press (AP) through a gimmick it calls “AP FACT CHECK,” claimed after a recent US presidential debate that presidential candidate Donald Trump was untruthful about Syrian President Bashar Al Assad fighting the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS)….

    However, despite AP’s claims, AP’s own reporting directly contradicts its “AP FACT CHECK,” as pointed out by Syrian activist and geopolitical commentator Mimi Al Laham in a recent Tweet….

    Caught in a blatant lie contradicting its own reporting should put the world on notice that AP is not a legitimate news service, nor should it be trusted as a journalistic source until those responsible for “AP FACT CHECK” are exposed, condemned, and expelled from AP, and AP provides a proper explanation as to how such blatant lies could cross its pages in the first place….

    AP’s recent “AP FACT CHECK” was meant to portray recent political debates in a certain light, but instead, it has only managed to cast AP itself as illegitimate, deceitful, and untrustworthy.

  84. Russians halt search for intelligent life in Washington

    A Russian research team which claimed to have detected signs of intelligent life in Washington has now discovered the life there not to be quite so intelligent after all.

    A Russian spokesman, who wishes to remain anonymous, told our Moscow science correspondent —who also wishes to remain anonymous— that the Washington atmosphere has been poisoned by huge clouds of putrid hot air belching from the corporate media. He explained that such a hostile environment makes it almost impossible for intelligent life to survive, let alone evolve a sustainable culture.

  85. Congress Passes Americans With No Abilities Act

    WASHINGTON, DC—On Tuesday, Congress approved the Americans With No Abilities Act, sweeping new legislation that provides benefits and protection for more than 135 million talentless Americans….

    “Roughly 50 percent of Americans—through no fault of their own–do not possess the talent necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,” said Clinton, a longtime ANA supporter….

    Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million important-sounding “middle man” positions will be created in the white-collar sector for nonabled persons, providing them with an illusory sense of purpose and ability. Mandatory, non-performance-based raises and promotions will also be offered to create a sense of upward mobility for even the most unremarkable, utterly replaceable employees.

    The legislation also provides corporations with incentives to hire nonabled workers, including tax breaks for those who hire one non-germane worker for every two talented hirees.

    Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act also contains tough new measures to prevent discrimination against the nonabled by banning prospective employers from asking such job-interview questions as, “What can you bring to this organization?” and “Do you have any special skills that would make you an asset to this company?”….

    Said Clinton: “It is our duty, both as lawmakers and as human beings, to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her lack of value to society, some sort of space to take up in this great nation.”

    • Glenn,
      Surely you’re not suggesting “135 million talentless Americans….” are deplorable and irredeemable are ya!

      • No, in this parody that is what Clinton is suggesting:

        “Roughly 50 percent of Americans—through no fault of their own–do not possess the talent necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,” said Clinton, a longtime ANA supporter….

      • Glenn,

        ” in this parody ” Clinton isn’t suggesting anything.

      • Glenn suggests Hillary is suggesting people who are talentless are irredeemable.

        Too much suggesting here for me. But I doubt Hillary is suggesting what Glenn suggests she’ s suggesting.

  86. From the article:

    The email “shows a level of collusion which calls into question the entire investigation into her private server,” Trump spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement on Tuesday.
    “The Department of Justice must release all communications with the Clinton campaign and her allies as soon as possible in order to definitively prove their investigation was completely above board.”

    The email from Fallon was contained in a collection of more than 1,000 messages allegedly stolen from campaign chairman John Podesta and posted to WikiLeaks on Tuesday.

    Trump may be pointing to the message in an effort to redirect attention to the email release, following an increasingly bitter split from top leaders in the Republican Party and intense scrutiny over taped comments that appeared to show the nominee bragging about sexual assault.

    Trump and other critics of the administration have lambasted the Justice Department for its decision not to press charges against Clinton or her allies for mishandling classified information. They were especially incensed by an apparently impromptu June meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport.

    Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus also attacked the apparent connection, suggesting that the GOP senses a vulnerability for Clinton as Trump struggles in the polls.

    “Emails showing the Department of Justice was giving Hillary Clinton’s campaign inside information about an ongoing investigation into her email server is deeply disturbing and raises even more questions about Bill Clinton’s tarmac meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch,” Priebus said in a statement.


  87. stevenreincarnated

    Someone call the Washington Post. The new Wikileaks is sounding pretty bad. Time for another tape of Trump saying dirty words.

  88. Just as well those emails were destroyed, because by now they would have been hacked or leaked by an insider if they hadn’t been. At that time no one knew about them, but now they would have been worth a lot on the market and everyone would be trying to get them. These days the safest place for emails is destroyed.

    • stevenreincarnated

      Jim, the only people that haven’t seen her emails are the American public. It is all old news to the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians.

      • I think that is the last Republican hope, that someone hacked them in time before they were destroyed. It’s what you hope for, right?

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t hope special access intelligence was hacked because of Clinton but when you have someone in that position conducting business on a system with less security than gmail, you just assume everyone that had any interest at all took the 5 minutes to do so.

      • It is possible that small private servers are harder to hack than the big government servers with large numbers of users, some of whom may be up to no good themselves (see the NSA or Manning).

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, Comey said her server didn’t have the most basic of security features that you would find on gmail.

    • In this doesn’t confirm you are clueless, nothing will Jim.

    • I am beginning to think you and Max used to fight for the front seat on the short bus.

      With Josh and Danny egging you on.

  89. There’s a video of Trump saying this to Chris Matthews in 1999.
    “People want me to [run for president] all the time … I don’t like it. Can you imagine how controversial I’d be? You think about [Bill Clinton] and the women. How about me with the women? Can you imagine?”

    Yes, I can imagine. Plus he used to side with Bill Clinton, calling Paula Jones a ‘loser’ and the other accusers ‘unattractive’, ‘terrible’, ‘horrible’, and ‘ugly’. This was all in public, which is a lot worse than they think Hillary did where her quotes were second-hand and not directly to the public. So who did worse to those accusers?

    • That shows me someone who is aware and not afraid to admit he has flaws.

      If you are trying to argue Trump may be one of the most flawed individuals to run for President, you are stating the obvious. What you should be asking is why is he where he is at and why isn’t Hillary running away with the race.

      • I can see what kind of following Trump gets, and he appeals to them. However, now that he is losing the religious right, he is decimating the Republican base, and his own worshippers don’t make up for that in numbers.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Don’t Catholics mostly vote Democratic? They are a little upset over the latest Wikileaks.

      • JimD,

        I doubt you can see anything that is beyond the blinders you wear.

        I doubt I fit any of the categories the media is using to describe potential Trump voters. Which is evidence the media is either clueless or more interested in protecting their turf.

        I’m Catholic and don’t fit as a member of the Religious Right, however you might describe it. However I do not hold that belonging to that “group” , however you define it, means that you can predict how anyone fitting your criteria will actually vote.

        I’d guess that at least some who believe in protecting life at its most vulnerable stage are sophisticated enough to evaluate which candidate is more likely to appoint SC justices who support their position.

        Try giving people credit. It is those who don’t that try to game the system.

      • I have no doubt that some of the religious right and more politically right have made the pact with the devil only because of the Supreme Court vacancy, because they sure don’t like Trump’s moral values.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Ouch, now we have email entitled “needy Latinos”. Wonder how that will go over.

    • Jim D, your comments got me thinking about what Trump’s campaign is trying to do by implying wives are responsible for the behavior of their husbands. I doubt many women feel they are to blame if their husbands or boyfriends misbehave. Trump already lacks support from women. It looks like his campaign is trying to alienate even more women.

      Actually, a wife can be held responsible for some of her husband’s behavior if she signs a joint income tax return, but that’s another matter.

      • Yes, and wives can also be infected by STD’s (sexually transmitted debt) Good to see you and your alter ego from Oklahoma back at CE once more

      • stevenreincarnated

        A woman is responsible for her behavior. If you attack the victims of your husband that is your decision and you are responsible for it. That’s what I have heard her being accused of.

      • Peter, thank you. STD’s (sexually transmitted debts) could be worse than some of the other kinds of STD’s. Schools should caution kids about both. Sex alone can be risky, but marriage can be even riskier.

        stevenreincarated, I think most wives would dislike women who were fooling around with their husbands, and I wouldn’t hold it against the wives for trying to get back at them unless it was through physical violence. Can you explain how Hillary “attacked” women her husband was involved with?

      • stevenreincarnated

        I think most wives would divorce their husbands when they keep getting accused of sexual assault but I guess it takes all types.


      • I think that would depend on whether the wives believed the accusations. If she felt the motivation was financial or political gain, then she might not be so quick to believe the accusers. One said after Bill attacked her, but later she went to a fund raiser for Bill, where she said Hillary thanked her for her support, which she interpreted as thanks for not filing charges against him. Still later she said under oath that he didn’t attack her. Now, she’s saying he did. No wonder people have trouble believing her.

        The other accuser is no more credible. She suspects Hillary stole her pets (see your linked article).

      • stevenreincarnated

        Suspecting someone stole your pets makes you less credible? What if they stole your kids?

      • We are talking about Willey, who Linda Tripp testified was trying to seduce Bill Clinton. I wouldn’t blame Hillary for disliking Willey, but I doubt she would sink to stealing the woman’s cat. Perhaps the cat ran off because it was being mistreated.

      • stevenreincarnated

        My employee didn’t think Cosby was guilty either. I told her maybe one or two but when you get that many women saying you did it then there is some there there.


      • If it is about Hillary, how many of them has she attacked in public like Trump has? Also if Melania was messing about with some younger guy, don’t you think Trump would have some choice words for him all over the press. Didn’t Ivana have any complaints when Donald was messing about with Marla? This is what happens. When it gets personal like that, it is more amazing how little Hillary said in public about the “other women”.

      • ==> I told her maybe one or two but when you get that many women saying you did it then there is some there. ==>

        Methinks that at 10:03 you wouldn’t have written that content that you wrote at 7:03.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I would have said the same thing because that is what I told her. They had the women lined up already during the debate. I knew it when the moderator asked the question in the manner he did. What did they say their reason for speaking up now was?

      • Steve -ri

        ==> I think most wives would divorce their husbands when they keep getting accused of sexual assault but I guess it takes all types. ==>

        I’m going to enjoy watching you walk this one back…

        Two in the NY Times.
        Two beauty pageant participants (not actually sexual assault, but pretty bad anyway)
        One in Miami newspaper
        One in people magazine.

        And that’s tonight only.

        I’m sure that you will contribute to helping pay for Melania’s divorce lawyers.

      • stevenreincarnated

        The lady on the plane isn’t believable. Too old and not very attractive when younger. I don’t think he had his hands all over a stranger in the first class section of a plane. Where were the stewardesses? First class gets a lot of attention. The woman in the lobby says she was kissed on the cheeks and she wasn’t sure if he got her lips by accident or not. The beauty contestant that he wanted to go to his room seems like a real possibility as does the photographer. Most of the women from the teenage pageant didn’t see him in the dressing room and don’t believe it happened because they were well guarded by chaperons. I suppose it is still possible but seems less likely when other contestants seem to feel it wasn’t possible. We can wait for more opinions on that since it was a crowded room and there must be more witnesses. So it sounds like you may have a couple of butt gropes and an offer to go to a room. Of course even the photographer didn’t seem to be all that sure he groped her. Anyway, you still have at least one butt grope accusation.

      • stevenreincarnated, Cosby is being charged, Bill Clinton isn’t. You make think that’s because his accusers are afraid of Hillary or, unlike Cosby’s accusers, just don’t think it’s worth their time. You might also consider the possibility the accusers lack credibility.

      • stevenreincarnated

        One of Bill’s accusers already cost him $800,000.

      • Of course, I’ll say Trump groped me if you pay me enough. (Not really, but u get the point)

      • I have to say I’ve missed you as a contributor Max. But only for the entertainment value. You manage to come up with some of the most unbelievable angles on a topic. One almost wants to believe Oklahoma past a stealth marijuana legalization law.

      • timg56, thank you. I do like to look at things in different ways.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Joshu@, I don’t think too many women are going to divorce their husbands when the bulk of the accusations involve the words I think. That’s some serious groping when they can’t even be sure he did it.

    • “So who did worse to those accusers?”

      Hillary. Thanks for asking!

  90. On polls, how they are rigged to favor Clinton, and how the MSM uses the rigged polls in their narratives to manipulate the public.

    We start with last night’s CBS Evening News.

    SCOTT PELLEY: Turns out Hillary Clinton got some Saint Louis mo. The first poll taken after the Saint Louis debate gives her a nine point lead heading into the final four weeks of the campaign….

    No candidate has ever come back from this far behind this late.


    If we look at the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll Pelley is citing, however, the poll was actually for the period October 8, 9 & 10. So it reflects only one day of post-debate polling out of a total of three days, two of the three days being before the pre-debate.

    But even more odd was that the poll was a continuation of an October 8 & 9 poll which NBC/Wall Street Journal had already announced the results of the previous day. Here’s the history of the poll results over time. Notice the large fall in Clinton’s lead in the poll when the third day is added to the results.

    • The NBC/Wall Street Poll is almost always an outlier. It invariably gives Clinton an unusually large lead, way more than other polls do.

      The Last Refuge blog did a post on the techniques the pollster that NBC and The Wall Street Journal hired to do the poll, Hart Research Associates/Pulbic Opinion Strategies, used to skew the results in Clinton’s favor.

      Media Polling Fully Exposed – About That NBC/WSJ Clinton +11 Point Poll….

      But the most staggering revelation that The Last Refuge post made was that Hart Research Associates/Pulbic Opinion Strategies, besides being on the NBC and The Wall Street Journal payroll, is also on Clinton Inc’s payroll:

      Let’s take a look at the recent financial connection between, Geoff Garin, Hart Research Associates and Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC.

      For that information we turn to FEC filings -HERE-. What do they indicate?

      ♦ $220,500.00 in the month of September alone paid by Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.

      ♦ The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

      ♦ NBC (S Burke) and The WSJ (Murdoch) contact Geoff Garin (Hart Research Associates) for the post-debate poll data they will use on the day following the debate.

      • Josh,

        I personally would not use the word “rigged”. However “gaming the system” might be a better term. Rigged, at least to me, means the outcome is predetermined. Gaming means that you stack the odds in your favor. It is done all the time. Insider trading is illegal. Laws were passed to limit the ability of Washington insiders to immediately trade on their connections. All one really needs is the ability to read to see that gaming the system is in full force. And it is not a conspiracy. It appears to be to be simply people acting in their own best interest. That is to be expected. Which is why the light of day is such a good disinfectant.

    • Please note:

      The polls are rigged.
      The media is rigged.
      The voting process is rigged.
      The Republican Party is rigged.
      The Democratic Party is rigged.
      The FBI is rigged.
      The State Department is rigged.
      The IRS is rigged.
      The EPA is rigged.
      NASA is rigged.
      Our educational institutions are rigged.
      The United Nations is rigged.
      The IMF, WHO, rigged, rigged, the World Bank, the WTO, rigged, rigged.

      It’s all rigged.

      Rigged, rigged, rigged, rigged.

      All rigged against Trump. It’s Breitbart and Trump against the world.

      Trump, on the other hand…well he’s just a working class hero – a truth to power speaking, not afraid of political correctness, boys in locker room joking, anti-elitist, who just happened to be born into wealth and who just happened to rely on millions in “small” loans from his father.

      That’s why it’s all rigged against him.

      • You sure took your time coming to the same conclusion everybody else has. Now go back and read the Climategate emails one more time. Focus poke us.

      • Focus poke us. Great suggestion.

        Some one who ‘gets it’: ““You are the person who put these people in this position,” Borges said he told Trump, describing himself as “pissed off.” “You did that. Not them. These are your words. You need to own that.””


      • Interesting perspectives.

        Some (Glenn) suggest Obama has been ‘out maneuvered’ by Putin. If Trump is correct doesn’t the above list suggest he’s been badly ‘out maneuvered’ (by pretty much everyone) and all before taking office. Based on that, one surely must have concern as to how badly (based on historic evidence) he’ll be ‘out maneuvered’ should he be elected.

        Arts of deals and all.

      • Arch –

        I disagree less with the notion that the power of money has an outsized influence in our societal institutions than I do that (1) Trump and frightwingers are disproportionately the “victim” of the “rigging,” and (2) that Trump and the frightwingers aren’t rigged in themselves.

        My favorite current example is the frightwing’s laughable exploitation of obviously bogus online polling. It’s just absurd that Glenn and Trump and others would, without actual evidence, focus on putative “rigging” in the scientific polling (remember 4 years ago when the frightwing was absolutely convinced about the “skewing” of polls to Obama’s favor when, in the end, Obama outperformed the polls), but ignore the blatantly “rigged” polls being promoted by the frightwing.

        In the end, all this hand-wringing about “rigging” from the frightwing is tribalism and self-victimhood in service of advancing an ideological agenda. It clearly isn’t the product of a serious and even-handed application of criteria to evaluate unfairness or bias.

      • I may be wrong but in my view Vladimir Putin, is poised to respond. He has the EU in check and confused. He will maintain this position until the US election is past. Russia is hoping for a world revolution, time for a change.

      • Is he not a man? There is nothing more original than that will be.

      • Some (mostly himself) suggest he’s savior. Only he can ‘fix it’. Ask him, but don’t expect details.

      • You have to admit though that he would be able to do four years in the White House, standing on his head. He would exhibit pomp without a band. Think of the money he could save us on PR, alone…

      • Assuming that a) you are a US citizen and b) you’re over the age of 18 and c) don’t live in a state where fel0ns can’t vote then have you decided who to vote for yet?

      • If Trump is correct doesn’t the above list suggest he’s been badly ‘out maneuvered’ (by pretty much everyone) and all before taking office.

        Not so much “out maneuvered” as up against the in crowd.

        Of course, Trump has his own connections. I’d visualize it as more of a network, where most of the political types of both parties are more closely interconnected than Trump. He’s an outsider, but not a complete outsider.

        Same goes for Putin. Despite the deceptive MSM junk, I’d judge Trump’s attitude towards Putin is mostly respect for a competent adversary. But remember that since ’91 or so Russia hasn’t been our “commie” enemy, so Russian investors are no worse than Chinese. Or, really British.

      • Joshua:

        The voting process is rigged. For the two parties. Against libertarians, socialists, greens and nationalists.

        “In fact – other Democracies around the world would laugh at us if we claimed that a vote between one of two major parties here was ACTUALLY a legitimate choice.”

        That nationalists supported Trump while the Republican establishment didn’t give them the time of day.

        The existence of the two party system here is suggested to cause part of it to be attacked once in awhile as with Trump and Sanders.

        There was no legitimate path for the nationalists outside of one of the major parties. Same with Sanders. While Sanders stepped aside in the end, he was a nobody and just about brought the Democratic establishment to a new place.

      • Ragnaar –

        ==> Against libertarians, socialists, greens and nationalists.==>

        Where does not perfect, with an outsized influence from the power of money, stop, and “rigged” begin?

        Libertarians, socialists, greens, and nationalists each represent a small sector of the public, and largely cancel each other out. Our system is no doubt imperfect…but claims that it is “rigged” fall far short, IMO. Drama-queening gains us nothing, particularly when it comprises fear-mongering for the purpose of self-advantage, as is the case with Trump.

        While I think there are certainly downsides to a two-party system – primarily whereby the power of libertarians, socialists, greens and nationalists is not commensurate with their share of the population, there are also certainly downsides to a multi-party system as well.

        Anyway, the notion of Trump as a champion against the “rigged” system is a joke.

      • An email to John Podestra from Bill Ivey has been widely taken as having ‘proclaimed nothing short of a Clinton “master plan” for maintaining political control via “an unaware and compliant citizenry.”

        InfoWars summarized his message in particularly damning terms:
        To emphasize, Ivey admits that the left has ‘conspired’ to “produce an unaware and compliant citizenry” but that they’re not as easy to manipulate anymore and that this is a problem. He characterizes “unawareness” amongst the public as a positive thing for the Clinton campaign.


        The email is a shocking insight into the elitist and arrogant mindset that pervades the Clinton campaign, with Americans viewed as dumb sheep who need to be herded in the right direction.

        A more objective reading suggests that Ivey was actually stating the opposite, however — […]

        These quotes from Snopes.com, a left-wing “fact-checker” that engages in horrific truth-twisting.

        For instance, their claim of “stating the opposite” derives from what Ivey actually said when given a chance to rephrase, as if “these three sentences had appeared in a letter or essay, as opposed to a quick e-mail”:

        “And as I’ve mentioned, Washington Republicans, Independents, and Democrats have been quite content to sit quietly as pundits and candidates demean government and elected leaders, quite content to let the study of education fade from our schools, and all-too comfortable as our citizenry then becomes unaware and compliant. Unawareness remains rampant, but as the Sanders and Trump campaigns demonstrate, compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking…”

        OK, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if we give the Clinton/Obama/Bush/etc. crowd the same benefit of the doubt, do we really want to elect somebody who’s been an integral part of being:

        •       “quite content to sit quietly as pundits and candidates demean government and elected leaders”?

        •       “quite content to let the study of education fade from our schools”?

        •       “and all-too comfortable as our citizenry then becomes unaware and compliant”?

      • Clinton will win and govern just left of center.
        “Millennials recently became the largest voting bloc in the United States. And they may be ready to destroy the system.”
        ““It’s hard to overemphasize how completely and utterly Sen. Bernie Sanders dominated the youth vote to this point in the 2016 presidential campaign,” the Washington Post reported in June. “In the 2016 campaign, Sanders won more votes among those under age 30 than the two presumptive major-party presidential nominees combined. And it wasn’t close.””
        Win the election, protect the status of the party, who cares about millennials? The Democrat establishment accomplished the task of giving millennials no one else to vote for. Clinton might as well be a Republican.

        “…as short-term trends arise, two-party systems discourage sudden shifts in political trends which threaten government stability. If voters disagree with candidates on one political issue, they typically understand that he or she represents the bigger issues of the party. As a result, voters are discouraged from giving up support for the party, and elected officials have more opportunities to focus on long-term public policies. Conversely, a multi-party system can encourage government instability. This is due to many parties sharing power, dissolving or changing coalitions quickly, and having varied interests.”

        So the two party system is unequivocally opposed to politic change. And they will mitigate against change not believing we can adapt and thrive under politic change. Now what causes politic change? Is it natural or is it something that needs to be legislated against? Some will deny politic change but it is obvious something must be done about it. Politic change is not normal. We had record amounts of primary voters. I don’t call that natural. Record amount of tweets and Facebook shares. It’s all in the data if you care to look. Don’t deny it. I’d say we have about 5 years to stop it before it’s too late.

        It’s rigged for a reason. Fear of change. What might happen if 3rd parties have influence?

  91. Another one of the BIG LIES told by the MSM, Obama and Clinton is that there exists little or no voter fraud, nor the risk of it.

    Here in Mexico, where stealing elections is an everyday affair, the voter fraud works hand in glove with the biased polls. The polls are used to demonstrate that the preferred candidate is in the lead, and the voter fraud is used to achieve that result in the election. The two work in concert.

    This video of Manhattan Board of Elections Democratic Commissioner Alan Schulkin reveals just how rampant voter fraud in New York is:

    New York City Elections Official Caught On Video: “There Is A Lot Of Voter Fraud,” “They Bus People Around”

  92. Look at the difference in the size of the crowds at these two post-debate rallies.

    Here is a shot of the crowd at a Clinton rally (minute 00:32). As one can see, the crowd numbers in the hundreds:

    Al Gore campaigns for Hillary Clinton

    Now compare that to a shot of the crowd at a Trump rally (minute 00:22). The crowd numbers in the thousands:

    Donald Trump Crowd Shouts “CNN SUCKS” in Wilkes-Barre, PA 10/10/16

  93. Turkey, Russia strike strategic Turkish Stream gas pipeline deal

    The pipeline will deliver Russian natural gas to the Turnkish and European markets and will have a capacity of 62 BCM per year.

    One of the primary goals of the Obama administration announced in 2009 was to build other pipelines linking the gas fields of central Asia and the Middle East to Europe, breaking Russia’s stranglehold on Europe’s natural gas supply.

    With the exception of the Trans Anatolian Pipeline (TANAP), however, the Obama administration has failed in its goal. The Nabucco pipeline, which would have brought gas to Europe from Central Asia, has all but been canceled. Pipelines to bring gas from Iraq and the Gulf States were dependent on successful regime changes in Iraq and Syria. The Obama administration, however, was never able to conclude successful regime changes in either Iraq or Syria.

    TANAP, when fully completed in 2026, will have a capacity of 31 BCM.

  94. US election: Trump presidency ‘dangerous’, says UN rights chief

    Donald Trump’s “deeply unsettling and disturbing” views make him a danger internationally, the UN’s human rights chief has said.

    UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad al-Hussein cited Mr Trump’s comments on the use of torture and his attitude to “vulnerable communities”.

    Considering his own execrable record, as well as that of the country he represents, perhaps Zeid Raad al-Hussein ought to keep his filthy paws out of US politics.

    Even allowing “waterboarding” to fall under the rubric of “torture”, whatever has been proposed for the US would be a drop in the bucket compared to Zeid Raad al-Hussein’s country.

  95. Speaking of Arts of deals:

    Breitbart says: “Donald Trump Has No Alternative but to Run Against Washington — All of It”

    “But it’s this very argument that makes protecting the House and Senate majorities more important than putting Trump in the White House. He won’t get anyone he wants on the court if, thanks to him, Democrats control Congress. In fact, he won’t get much of anything done.”


    If Obama’s relationship with congress and getting SCOTUS nominees even considered is evidence, there’s some short sighted (non)thinking taking place.

  96. Lavrov said: “[T]o say that Russia is interfering in the United States’ domestic matters, is ridiculous.”

    Lavrov was also asked about the furor over a video that emerged last week in which Trump talked about women in lewd terms.

    After pointing out that English was not his first language and that he was unsure if he would sound “decent,” Lavrov said: “There are so many pussies around the presidential campaign on both sides that I prefer not to comment.”


  97. From my daily Texas Montly missive:

    More than a dozen San Antonio police officers who escorted Trump’s motorcade to and from the airport [on Tuesday Oct. 11] apparently also weren’t worried about the candidate’s decade-old remarks. The officers wore red “Make America Great Again” hats to support Trump.

  98. Also from my daily Texas Monthly missive:

    SCOTUS Shooting Case

    The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case about a fifteen-year-old Mexican boy who was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in 2010. According to the El Paso Times, the court will examine whether the boy’s family in Mexico can sue the U.S. federal government and the agent who killed their son. The agent, Jose Mesa Jr., was firing his weapon from the U.S. side of the border near El Paso over to the Mexican side near Juárez, where the boy was struck by the bullet and killed. Border Patrol has maintained that the unarmed teen’s shooting was justified because he was throwing rocks at the agent, but witnesses dispute that claim and say his death was the result of an unnecessary use of lethal force. Before SCOTUS agreed to take their latest appeal, the family’s lawsuit had previously been halted by two lower courts who ruled that that they couldn’t sue because the boy was both a Mexican national and on the Mexican side of the border when he was shot.

    Al Jazeera Fault Lines did a documentary on this shooting and other similar killings.

    Cross Border Killings.
    What happens when US Border Patrol agents shoot across international lines, killing Mexicans in their own country?


    PBS Need to Know has also done documentaries on unjustified killings by U.S. Border Patrol.

    Crossing the line at the border

    Crossing the line at the border: Part II
    b; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuJClimdXp0

  99. Is The Era Of Cheap Natural Gas Over?

    [O]n the demand side of the equation, the trajectory is only on the upswing. Years of low natural gas prices have led to a huge uptake in the electric power sector, hollowing out the coal industry, and leading to the construction of new gas-fired power plants at a frenzied pace. In years past, existing natural gas plants were simply used more, as low spot prices meant gas plants were cheaper to run than coal plants. But now an entirely new generation of power plants is coming online, which will ensure demand continues to rise into the future…..

    In short, the market for gas is seeing rising demand and falling supply, a recipe for a much tighter market…..

    Things could grow tighter still as the same trends that led to the market to tighten are not going away: supply is falling, demand continues to rise (and will spike in the winter for heating needs), and storage levels are converging back towards average levels.

  100. US Shale Oil Output Seen Surging If Crude Reaches $60 a Barrel

    “We may well see, in a short period of time, strong production growth coming from North America and elsewhere,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said Tuesday in a Bloomberg TV interview with Manus Cranny and Anna Edwards. “Prices around $60 would be sufficient.”….

    Some U.S. producers have already stepped up operations. The number of active oil-drilling rigs in the U.S. has climbed from 328 in early May to 428 last week, according to Baker Hughes Inc.

    Bjarne Schieldrop, chief commodities analyst at SEB AB bank in Oslo, said he expects the number of active U.S. rigs to rise by about 10 per week until OPEC holds its next formal meeting on Nov. 30.

    “As soon as OPEC moves into a position of trying to manage the price, it basically takes care of the downside risk,” Schieldrop said by phone. “The consequence is increased U.S. production.” If crude reaches and holds steady at $60, he said he expects U.S. output to rise by at least 500,000 barrels a day by the end of 2017.

    U.S. shale drillers could add from 1 million to 1.5 million barrels a day within the next year and a half, if prices stay at that level, JBC Energy said in an e-mailed note.

  101. Goodness, the US is getting to look more like Mexico every day.

    Welcome to the third world!

    The Wikileaks emails reveal that, in a Clinton townhall debate with Bernie Sanders, a CNN employee sent a tough question that the CNN moderators were going to ask Clinton during the debate to the Clinton campaign the evening before the debate.

    The Clinton campaign also had informants working inside the Department of Justice who kept the campaign informed.

    And after the earthquake in Haiti, FOB (friends of Bill) were given special treatment by the State Department.

    VIDEO — James Rosen: WikiLeaks Reveals Evidence DNC/CNN Collusion

  102. In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots

    But come January…the tactics [Democrats] are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow….

    [T]hey’re so convinced of the righteousness of their cause (electing Clinton/defeating Trump) that they have cast all limits and constraints to the side, believing that any narrative or accusation or smear, no matter how false or conspiratorial, is justified in pursuit of it.

    But while Donald Trump’s candidacy poses grave dangers, so does group-think righteousness, particularly when it engulfs those with the greatest influence. The problem is that none of this is going to vanish after the election. This election-year machine that has been constructed based on elite unity in support of Clinton — casually dismissing inconvenient facts as fraudulent to make them disappear, branding critics and adversaries as tools or agents of an Enemy Power bent on destroying America — is a powerful one. As is seen here, it is capable of implanting any narrative, no matter how false; demonizing any critic, no matter how baseless; and riling up people to believe they’re under attack.

  103. This is for my good friends, David Springer, and Glenn, who link to the LA Times polls over and over, without ever acknowledging that it’s results are an outlier…

    And it’s in particular for David, who laughably and breathlessly links to the LA Times poll as a way of assessing the support for Trump in the African American community.


    Now, really, THAT’S too funny.

  104. More data dumps on Billary’s pointy little Smiley head! It’s already been great. It’s just getting better all the time. For the most part, the ultra-rich and media are colluding with Billary and the Dimowits. At least Trump made his money by building something. Billary and Slick Willy made theirs by selling political favors to anyone, and I mean anyone, with enough money. She’s slimy.
    From the article:

    Wikileaks Releases Another 1,193 Emails From John Podesta In Fourth Data Dump

    And the hits just keep on coming.

    After the third and latest dump of Podesta Emails released yesterday revealed some unexpected interactions between the “independent press” and the Clinton Campaign, as well as potentially hinting of coordination between the DOJ and Hillary’s closest circle, following a similar revelation involving the State Department one day prior, moments ago, Wikileaks just released its lastest, fourth data dump from the hacked email account of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chair, John Podesta, which continues to be a major headache for Hillary Clinton and her supporter base.


  105. The Rule of Law is dead. Let’s share this one, to Hillary’s dearest John Boy:

    For the past several years I have been serving as co-counsel to a large number of plaintiffs in the “9/11 cases” (“In re Terrorist Attack on September 11, 2001”) pending in the Southern District of New York. Included among our clients are more than a third of the families of the victims of the World Trade Center attack.

    Recently, and quite separately, we have been alert to press notice of Saudi donations to the Foundation. This, in turn, has raised the question on our legal team whether you may find it helpful to receive a briefing on the status of our discovery efforts, our responses to KSA’s motion to dismiss and our best assessment of prospects for the litigation and its final resolution.


  106. Slimy Obummer, too. From the article:

    The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.


  107. From the email:

    Fwd: FW: CLIP | WaPo: A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing


  108. From the article (with a video):

    Donald Teump weathers a storm of controversy over randy comments he made to TV celebrity reporter Billy Bush in 2005, new video to emerge from the 2008 presidential campaign shows now-President Obama appearing to behave just as salaciously.
    Aboard a campaign flight, then-Senator Obama is talking on a cellphone as he arises from his seat; nearby a female reporter catches a glance of something that makes her uncomfortable, sending her skirmishing to the back of the plane.
    Obama, rather than downplay the awkward display, instead plays it up, positioning himself so the gathered reporters have little choice but to take in his chauvinistic performance.
    Meanwhile, a female voice can be heard ordering everyone to sit down, ostensibly so they can get a better look. The gathered female reporters laugh at the scene, further encouraging Obama’s bawdy behavior.


    • http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2016/08/24/hillarys-corruption-is-overwhelming-n2208983


      Trump has by and large financed his own campaign. He doesn’t owe favors.

      Hillary is a study in pay for play, her senate campaign path was partially paved with some timely pardons by Bill. The Chinese contributions to the Clintons continue to this day. Bill gave the Chinese MIRV technology through the Loral corporation and the W88 warhead plans were stolen by the Chinese during his administration.

      MSM shielding of Hillary from scrutiny is the only reason she is this campaign. We don’t know how corrupt Trump will be, but voting for certainty (Hillary) in this case is unwise.

      • PA,
        “Trump has by and large financed his own campaign. He doesn’t owe favors.”

        Please tell me we are not fooling ourselves. We do not know that he doesn’t ‘owe favors’. Who supports his campaign? Breitbart. Who financially controls Brietbart? (No better/worse than Soros/Bezos/Murdoch, etc.)

        If I come to you asking you to support me on X naturally you’d ask, ‘what will/can you do for me. It’s politics. Just as Obama has done (and illegal ones have been shot down) Executive orders only go so far.

      • Danny,

        If you don’t know the answer to the question on “who supports Trump”, why do you automatically assume he has a list of financial supports expecting favors?

        Might he? Yes, he might, but you don’t know the answer.

      • Tim,
        I don’t ‘know’ ship. I do know what I’ve seen reported such as who funds Brietbart and their methods (have you looked by the by?). And, I’m aware of how ‘politicks’ works. Ain’t nothin ‘free’ in this world Timbo.

        Guess ya just hafta color me skeptical.

        Oh, and I notice you suggest I don’t know. Please provide a link where you chastise PA for stating so emphatically “He doesn’t owe favors.”

        I can wait.

      • Here you go Danny,


        Look at the numbers for both PAC’s and Individual contributions. Clinton is well ahead of Trump in both. In particular, she has received contributions at the highest level by a ten to one margin over Trump.

      • Tim,

        Thanks for that link. I’ve seen the data elsewhere. In no way do I intend to portray that she isn’t beholding, but just because she is doesn’t indicate he isn’t. And even if he financed all of his campaign, that doesn’t mean he won’t have to ‘horse trade’ with Congress do gain their assistance in implementing whatever it is which he hopes to implement.

        Negotiation, as you’re well aware, is not a one way street. Based on his demonstrated ability to make friends in congress I’m not sure that his luck will be much greater than Obama.

        Her $200 and under contributions in the summary box: $186M vs. $141M in over $2000. Trumps $66M under $200 and $14M over (&$54M of his own skin in the game although he stated in debate 2 it’d be $100M by the end so he’ll presumably be adding heavily). (There are stories of many kinds in those numbers).

      • Danny,

        Not a very convincing argument – “but just because she is doesn’t indicate he isn’t.”

        Nothing but innuendo. The campaign financing numbers do not lend much credence to your supposition. So what are you basing it on? That maybe he is beholden to special interests, because you know…

        Then you follow up with this gem – “And even if he financed all of his campaign, that doesn’t mean he won’t have to ‘horse trade’ with Congress do gain their assistance in implementing whatever it is which he hopes to implement.”

        Horse trading with Congress is called politics Danny. It is what successful Presidents do. Reagan and Clinton both operated with both houses of Congress controlled by the opposite party, yet both achieved significant success. Obama has been unsuccessful in passing legislation exactly because he doesn’t like doing the hard work involved in “horse trading” with elected officials. Instead he has relied on Executive Orders. Conflating negotiations with Congress with owing favors to deep pocket donors shows a very poor understanding of our political system.

      • First a reminder: “Please provide a link where you chastise PA for stating so emphatically “He doesn’t owe favors.”

        I suggest at least equal standing for my comments and his.

        Plus this entertaining reporting: (I’ll emphasize the ‘big money donor’) “Two big-money donors who have given or raised tens of thousands of dollars for Donald Trump are livid at the Republican presidential nominee and are asking for their money back, according to a bundler who raised money for Trump.” http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/major-gop-donors-are-asking-trump-their-money-back-n664661

        Conflate: “combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.” Really. That just because Trump’s (according to PA, a noted Trump insider with self professed deep knowledge that Trump owes no one anything) beholding to no one doesn’t not mean he will not be beholding to congress. Especially if, by chance, Dems control the Senate. Are you suggesting he will not have to ‘negotiate’ by trading horses in order to gain that which he desires?

        Finally, are you convinced Christie/Giuliani aren’t ‘in kind’ donors. Bannon? Mercer? Etc. So such a broad statement as PA’s that ““He doesn’t owe favors.”” Let’s just say I’ll happily betcha a beer on it. It may not be me who “shows a very poor understanding of our political system.”

        “In no way do I intend to portray that she isn’t beholding, but just because she is doesn’t indicate he isn’t.” You not finding this ‘convincing’ doesn’t make it wrong.

      • Hillary raked in $675,000 giving 3 speeches at Goldman Sachs.

        The couple earned $139 million in 7 years.. Much of this could be viewed as bribes for a presidential hopeful.

    • I don’t have to bother following the link – it’s Bill O’Reilly. As far as I’m concerned he’s lead clown at the circus.

  109. In spite of this, Billary wants more Muslim immigrants. There is much more than posted here. From the article (has some links to videos):

    Muslim Immigration and Multicultural Madness have left a trail of misery and mayhem across Germany – with far worse to come because of demographics

    Muslims make up only 9% of Berlin’s population, yet account for 70% of young repeat criminals,

    As he tells it, immigrant children as young as six or seven years old turn to crime and grow up to see honest hard-working people as targets

    The German police admits that large immigrant areas of Berlin, Hamburg, the Ruhr Area, etc. have become police no-go areas

    Check out footage of Berlin’s Wedding district, which has become too dangerous for a single police officer to work in

    Whites are fleeing West Berlin to escape immigrant violence specifically targeting native Germans

    Anti-white racism of the most virulent kind has become a fact of life across Europe,

    43% of gays in Berlin have experienced hate crimes perpetrated by Muslims in particular


  110. Email clips @jim2 | October 12, 2016 at 11:08 pm in moderation.

  111. Breaking: Jill Stein Endorses Donald Trump

  112. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/12/paul-ryan-comes-heel-behind-donald-trump-begins-pushing-trump-campaign-narrative/


    The Clinton campaign’s disdain for the Catholic faith and Christian evangelicals is staggering. Catholicism has been the catalyst for the creation of hospitals, orphanages, and much of the university system across the world. To disparage the Catholic Church as ‘severely backwards’ is an insult to millions of people across the nation. If anything, these statements reveal the Clinton campaign’s hostile attitude toward people of faith in general. This is the United States of America—for centuries, people fled to our shores to find refuge from religious persecution. All Americans of faith should take a long, hard look at this and decide if these are the values we want to be represented in our next president. If Hillary Clinton continues to employ people with biased and bigoted views, it’s clear where her priorities lie

    • David,

      It isn’t just their attitude against people of faith.

      Eric Bonner , a military K9 handler, posted the following on his Facebook page. His comments have gone viral. His military working dog, “Suli,” sniffs for bombs .

      “I’m not voting for Clinton . It has nothing to do with her views. It really doesn’t even matter about all the laws she broke. It’s because she actually talked to me once! Almost a sentence.

      Being a K9 handler in the military, I got to do a few details involving distinguished visitors… mostly Generals, DOD officials and Secretaries of Defense. I was lucky enough to pull two awesome details… Presidents George W. Bush and Obama.

      GWB looked at me and smiled, then he said, “Man, who would piss you off?” Then he high-fived me and continued on. I was climbing down from a catwalk I had stood on for 4 hours with nothing but dust and a radio to keep me company. The radio died early on. It was pretty sweet.

      Barack Obama, as he was walking out to his plane in Turkey, said to me, “What the hell kind of dog is that?” in reference to Suli.

      One of my last details was for Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. She was in Turkey for whatever reason. I helped with bomb sweeps of her DV Quarters and staff vehicles. Her only words to me were, “Get that f—ing dog away from me!” Then she turned to her security detail and berated them up and down about why that dog was in her quarters. For the next 20 minutes while I sat there waiting to be released, she laid into them, slamming the door in their faces when she was done. The security detail lead guy walked over to apologize and released me. I apologized to him for getting him in trouble. His reply was, “Happens every day, brother!”

      One of my brothers was a US Attorney for a period of time and knows several FBI and Secret Service members. They had plenty of stories from the days the Clintons were in the White House. Basically along the lines of how they treated the men and women protecting them like servants or worse like furniture getting in the way. (Keep in mind this is only anecdotal – I have no way to confirm how true the stories are.)

      • tmg,
        While something like this probably happened, as a person of faith I think you know what the Bible says about gossip. A few points, some versions have GWB saying a more reasonable, “Who’d you piss off,” instead of the “Who did you piss off?” that you related. I found it interesting that Eric has all three bigwigs using questionable language, (piss, hell and effing) indicative of story embroidery. He also says “almost a sentence.” Unless I don’t understand how English is constructed, the words he said that she said are a sentence.
        Note also he supplies zero context for why she was upset. But, the greatest tell that this is probably just a bit of pique on Mr. Bonner’s part and reveals little about Mrs. Clinton’s personality, is his claim she berated them up and down for 20 minutes. Twenty minutes? That’s several thousand words if delivered in an angry emotional state. That’s pretty unlikely don’t you think?
        His likely embroidery, exaggeration, and failure to provide context lead me to question the veracity of this anecdote.
        You repeating this questionable story without having knowledge of its truthfulness is a classic example of “Bearing false witness.” Seek forgiveness.

      • JV – I once had a boss that could berate his employees for an hour. He did it regularly. HR intervened.

      • Dang,
        I should proofread. On Snopes they relate GWB saying “Who’d you piss off?” instead of you “Who would piss you off?” Their version seems more likely, as Mr. Bonner is not physically impressive in the photos I’ve seen, but searching for bombs is not a choice plum of a military job. I’d opt for latrine duty before I’d choose that as my job.
        Your last paragraph relating decades old stories from your brother that he supposedly heard from people he said he knows is also nothing more than gossip, as you mentioned. Mentioning that it is anecdotal does not absolve you of your sin, unless my understanding of Christian doctrine is faulty..And we both know it isn’t, don’t we?

      • A correction to my last paragraph. Apparently It was only Hillary, not Bill who treated people in the WH, including Bill, like crap. Was told that it was surreal to watch the complete change in Bill’s mood and attitude when she was away on a trip vs home in the White House.

        (Although in defense of Hillary, I can understand treating Bill that way, considering the circumstances.)


        You do realize we are talking about someone who would tell people the story of how she had to dodge sniper fire in Bosnia? And if you don’t think President’s use profanity, then you are probably living in a bubble.

    • I’m wondering about this attack on Christianity.

      One of the big pro-Clinton polsters and campaigners is the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).

      Here’s what PRRI’s current web page looks like. Is it nothing more than biased opinion polling being used as a propaganda tool?


  113. New York Times punked by Trump.


    The NY Times wanted women to come forward to corroborate GroperGate. So The Donald sent them some then had his lawyers threaten to sue for libel if they don’t retract the baseless story.

    Just my suspicion of course. I have no real evidence that Donald planted any fakers. It’s just that what I’d do if I was scheming enough to think of it.

  114. Still no polls other than LA Times. Hmmmm … I wonder what the polls are showing? Not good for Billary, I’m thinking.

    • The only national post-debate poll that RealClearPolitics is showing this morning shows Trump +2.

      • That was just added apparently. Usually there are a lot more polls.

      • I’m wondering just how much the polls mean in this election cycle. Things are extremely volatile and turbulent.

        I always believed, mistakenly, that opinion polls offered up empirical evidence. But what I’ve learned recently is that they are far from empirical, that there are a great deal of assumptions, theory and mathematical modeling that go into the results. It’s not unlike climate modeling, no?

        When one is speaking of highly complex, dynamic systems (such as social systems, made up of hundreds of millions of individual actors) that become turbulent, I’m reminded of what the mathematician Benoit Mendelbrot said:

        The word turbulence is one which actually is common to physics and to social science.

        Everything which involves turbulence is enormously more complicated, not just a little bit more complicated, not just one more year of schooling, but enormously more complicated….

        The behavior of economic phenomena are far more complicated than the behavior of liquids or gasses….

        Tools have been developed which assume that changes are always very small. If one of them comes, nothing bad happens. But if several of them come together, very bad things can happen. And the theory, it does not take account of that. And the theory doesn’t take into account very large and sudden changes in anything. The theory thinks that things move slowly, gradually, and can be corrected as they change, whereas in fact they may change extremely brutally.

      • Glenn –

        ==> Things are extremely volatile and turbulent. ==>

        Heh. Some people just see what they want to see.

        Here…from notable “skeptic” and election prognosticator with a very good track record.


        Clinton between 52% and 54% the entire period since March.
        Trump between 48% and 46% the entire period since March.

        Close election, with Clinton ahead the entire time. RCP has a somewhat wider swing, but a very similar pattern: A close election with Clinton ahead pretty much the entire period.

        Due tell, which presidential election do you see as being significantly less “volatile and turbulent?”

      • Heh. Some people just see what they want to see.

        Russia to take US elections under control

        Which links to US president to be elected by hackers

        Interviewee is David Kerans of the “Strategic Culture Foundation in Moscow”. According to his page at the Strategic Culture Foundation (linked above):

        Historian of Russia and financial analyst. He has held appointments at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale Universities, as well as Wall St. investment houses

        The Strategic Culture Foundation has no Wikipedia page, but the Wikispooks page for it is linked at the beginning of this sentence..

        Interestingly, neither the Strategic Culture Foundation nor Wikispooks has a Wikipedia page, and the latter isn’t even to be found anywhere in Wikipedia.

      • I wouldn’t put too much stock in just one poll.

        I would say that if Clinton’s average spread by next week has not increased beyond 4%, her campaign should be worried. If she can’t put distance between her and Trump after all of the negatives being directed (many self – inflicted) against him, she is in trouble.

      • Josh ua said:

        Heh. Some people just see what they want to see.

        You can say that again. All the wild gyrations in the RCP poll average — of as much as 11% over short periods of time — are completely invisible to your “skeptic” poll “expert” with his “scientific” analysis.

      • Glenn –

        Even with RCP, the total range of change for Clinton over the past 6 months or so has been about 6 points. And most of the time she has ranged between about 44% and 47%. She has dropped out of the lead twice, for very brief periods, by very small amounts.

        Trump has been within a total range of about 7 points, and the majority of the time between 40% and 44%.

        There has been far more variability in past elections.

        As hard as it might be to believe about someone who reads a climate blog, i get the impression that you don’t have a very clear understanding of the difference between signal and noise.

      • Josh ua,

        So all those precipitous ups and downs in Clinton’s and Trump’s polling numbers are just “noise,” whereas what you choose to focus on is “signal.”

        Well, it all sounds very “scientific.”

      • Josh ua said:

        There has been far more variability in past elections.

        Which ones? There certainly hasn’t been “far more variability” in the last two presidential elections. Not even close.



      • Glenn –

        ==> Which ones? ==>

        Lol! How about when Dukakis lead Bush by 17 points?

    • jim –

      Just curious. Is your theory that they are conducting the polls and in a big conspiracy all holding back on publishing results because they’re so bad for Clinton? Or is your theory that in a big conspiracy they just stopped conducting polls because they are afraid of what the results will be?

      Why wouldn’t they just conduct the polls and then “skew” the results? Isn’t that what they usually do? Why the change in their strategy to “rig” the election?

      • Not a big poll guy (other than trends generally) but ya’ll got me curious. Went to this link and find quite a few which could hardly be described as MSM polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

        And not sure why ya’ll would want them (MSM) anyhow. If they were towards Clinton it’d be ‘but MSM’. If towards Trump the phrasing wouldn’t change from where it is now.

        I see (in the link) over 30 since Monday (33 if counted accurately). 4 lean Trump, 2 are ties rest are Clinton.

      • Danny Thomas,

        And just how many of those 33 polls were national polls conducted post-debate?

      • Glenn,
        Dunno. Don’t care. As I stated I only use them for general trends. I don’t put a lot of stock in them. They are samples after all.

        But if outta 33 non national (one was NBC iirc, but didn’t bother to re-check) say 80% showed Clinton in lead that’d lead me to think she’s ‘more likely than not’ to actually be in the lead. But I wouldn’t bet on it or against it.

        If polls were that solid we wouldn’t need the actual elections.

        If you’re that concerned others may be interested in the answer to your question so do the work and show the results. But to me, they’re still just polls. Meh.

      • From the article:

        Half a dozen news outlets skipped posting snap polls after the second 2016 presidential debate on Sunday — most likely because Donald Trump touted his dominance of their polls after the first debate in September.


  115. From the article:

    he full results from Sunday night’s debate are in, and Donald Trump has come from behind to take the lead over Hillary Clinton in our latest White House Watch survey.

    Most Republican voters still think top GOP leaders are hurting the party with their continuing criticism of Trump and are only slightly more convinced that those leaders want Trump to be president.


  116. From the article (BIG :) ) …

    Wikileaks Releases Another 2,000 Podesta Emails In Part 6 Of Data Dump

    Just hours after wikileaks released the 5th part of the Podesta emails dump which in turn came shortly after part 4 which together amounted to some 1,866 new email, Wikileaks has unveiled the latest, 6th part in what now is a daily event, which released another 2,000 emails, bringing the total number of emails released to over 9,000


  117. From the article (Communist News By Communists):

    Quick’s pledge came in response to an e-mail that appears to have been sent by Erskine Bowles, the former president of the University of North Carolina and the former chairperson of President Barack Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

    In the April 11, 2014, e-mail, Bowles wrote to Quick to praise Burwell in the wake of the negative news coverage surrounding the appointment. “I listen to some of the talk today about Sylvia’s move to HHS,” wrote Bowles. “As you may recall, I picked Sylvia and John Podesta to be my two Deputy Chiefs of Staff. I picked Sylvia not only because she is brilliant (Rhodes), really Becky Quick like nice, informed and smart, but most importantly to me she knows how to run a large organization and run it effectively. … Regardless of your politics, any American should be glad that the President picked someone so competent to head such a critically important agency.”


  118. From the article:

    Remember back in 2012 when the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the Obamacare mandate with a 5-4 decision but only after Judge Roberts, a Bush appointee, seemingly parted with his conservative counterparts on the bench to effectively, single-handedly preserve perhaps the most destructive piece of legislation in American history (if not, we wrote about it here)? Many people were shocked by Judge Roberts’ decision and subsequently alleged that it was driven more by politics than his interpretation of the Constitution.

    Turns out those people were proven right today as a new Podesta email confirms that the Obama administration applied political pressure on Roberts to sway his decision: “it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court…that was vital to scaring Roberts off.”

    While it’s fairly disturbing that the Clinton team would flippantly admit such things, what’s even worse is that they plotted to use Obama’s same strategy of applying political pressure on the Supreme Court in 2015 to overturn “King v Burwell” which also threatened Obamacare’s future.

    The email below from Neera Tanden, clearly shows Clinton staffers colluding with the President of the Center for American Progress on a scheme to apply political pressure on the Supreme Court to overturn the challenge.


    • Interesting. From the conclusion: “In hindsight, aren’t we all so lucky that Justice Roberts sold his soul to uphold such an amazing piece of legislation.”

      So what’s the point of your choosing to post that? Are you suggestion Roberts is a questionable sort?

      By the way, who’s the author of the ZH article?

      • The blog’s owner wrote the piece. A hacker or insider supplied the email with the info.

        The entire closing para:
        “In hindsight, aren’t we all so lucky that Justice Roberts sold his soul to uphold such an amazing piece of legislation? For his efforts, we’ve all received the benefits of worse healthcare coverage for twice the price.”

      • Blog’s owner? Are you certain? Says Tyler Durden.

        What was the purpose of the post?

        Do you think Roberts is a questionable sort willing to ‘sell his soul’?

      • jim2, I’m not sure why you posted this. What’s unusual about politicians making statements about the Supreme Court? If that’s what’s meant by pressuring the court, politicians do it all the time.

        I don’t understand what is meant by “Justice Roberts sold his soul.” But my guess is it means no more than Roberts didn’t vote the way the writer wanted.

      • I think the purpose of the post is communication. I think that Soros NGO might be wasting its money on you, Danny.

      • Communication: the imparting or exchanging of information or news.

        Okay. Would you consider when one is asked a question, let’s just use an example of say………..Do you think Robert’s is a questionable sort?…………and that question remains unaddressed……………does that fit the definition of communication?

      • Max. Roberts was supposed to be a conservative. Conservatives felt betrayed by the apparently out-of-character vote. But who knows, he might be a Dimowit in Redimowit clothing.

      • Oh I know Roberts was supposed to be conservative. But he’s also supposed to do what he thinks is right, and that may not always be what conservatives want.

      • “”I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

        Some care more about oaths and vows than others.

      • Let’s see. The Dimowits short circuited the legislative process to get Obummercare passed. Then the President issued some further mandates.

        One of the main functions of the Supreme Court is to negate wayward activity of the other two branches. Roberts abdicated that duty. I have zero respect for him.

  119. Rebellion. No wonder the Dimowits want control of internet use. Sweet. From the article:

    For the past several days, WikiLeaks has been publishing thousands of emails belonging to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta — and the leaks are starting to cause some serious damage. Gizmodo reports: “Many of the leaked emails contained contact info, cell phone numbers, and account data, none of which was redacted by Wikileaks before being posted. With this information accessible to anyone with the time and energy to read through it all, users on 4chan’s /pol/ (politically incorrect) board were able to gain access to Podesta’s Twitter account, tweeting a message in support of Trump. Imageboard posters also stumbled on an email containing Podesta’s Apple ID — and appear to have exploited it. ‘iPad/iPhone info and data wiped out,’ a post on Endchan claimed, show screenshots of what seems to be the hacker gaining access to Find My iPhone using Podesta’s credentials.


    • More from that!!

      And sure enough, Redditor’s on r/The_Donald claim Podesta’s iCloud data was downloaded. A hacker known as CyberZeist also appears to have uncovered the passwords to dozens of senators’ email addresses, as well as social security numbers and credit card info for many Democrats including Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and acting Chair of the DNC Donna Brazile. The information was posted to pastebin.

  120. Dimowits abhor free speech. They are salivating to control the information available to us, like when there were three TV networks and newspapers. From the article:

    Pittsburgh (AFP) – President Barack Obama on Thursday decried America’s “wild, wild west” media environment for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.

    Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted, Obama said democracy require citizens to be able to sift through lies and distortions.

    “We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

    “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.


    • “when there were three TV networks and newspapers”

      Those were the good old days. Only 3 sources of lies, and some accountability. Now with the internet, countless sources of lies and little accountability. An online liar can reach millions of listeners with his BS.

    • The advent of the internet is like the advent of the printing press. There has never been a revolution in communications technology that has not provoked an equivalent revolution in politics and culture as well. And for defenders of status quo economic and political arrangements — like Obama and Clinton — this is very threatening.

      From the 16th century there’s the story of William Tyndale and his famous — infamous in the Vatican — English translation of the New Testament:

      William Tyndale had conceived his translation while reading ancient languages at Oxford and Cambridge….

      [I]n 1525, Peter Schoffer published an octavo edition of his work….

      It was actually dangerous, the Church didn’t want — didn’t permit — wide readership of the New Testament. Studying it was a privilege they had reserved for the hierarchy, which could then interpret passages to support the sophistry, and often the secular politics, of the Holy See….

      At Henry’s insistance Tyndale was imprisoned for sixteen months in the castle of Vilvorde, near Brussels, tried for heresy, and, after his conviction, publicly garrotted. His corpse was burned at the stake, an admonition for any who might have been tempted by his folly.

      The royal warning was unheeded. You can’t kill a good book, including the Good Book, and Tyndale’s translation was excellent, later it became the basis for the King James version.

      — WILLIAM MANCHESTER, A World Lit Only By Fire

  121. From the article:

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta’s membership on the executive board of an energy company, Joule Unlimited, which received millions from a Putin-connected Russian government fund, also included “75,000 common shares,” according to an email exchange uncovered by the Wikileaks hacks.
    In the newly-uncovered email exchanged under the subject “Podesta Outstanding Docs for Joule,” Eryn Sepp, who was an assistant to Podesta at the Center for American Progress, forwarded a message to Podesta from Mark C. Solakian, who was Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Joule Unlimited Technologies, Inc.


    • “which received millions from a Putin-connected Russian government fund”

      Now it’s really confusing. Putin’s purportedly manipulating the election in favor of Trump while ferrying money thru Joule to Podesta’s pockets?

      Wait. I get it. Did Podesta make it ‘easy’ for Russia to hack his accounts and write e-mails in a specific way?

      Oh wait, Brietbart article. Never mind.

      • No proof has been offered that it was Russia. The admin is pissed at Russia for thwarting its effort to create another Islamic state in Syria, so Obumbles is in an all-out propaganda war with Putin. I don’t believe Obumbles when his admin says it was Russia.

      • Jim2,
        “I don’t believe Obumbles when his admin says it was Russia.” Reasonable to express doubts.

        However. Some purportedly stated support for law and order. Hacks are illegal. Content is ‘of concern’ but not exactly earth shattering (see Monfort, campaign continued after players changed). Analogy. I recognize gaining those weapons/drugs/illegal aliens is not copacetic, but since we have them it’s okay to use ’em? Have to question that.

      • We’ll see what’s “of concern” after 50,000 emails are examined.

      • Jim2,

        Why is this being ‘trickled’ out? Why not a comprehensive dump?

        If there’s truly a ‘smoking bomb’, Wiki will milk for their own benefit (and further damage to our electoral process which must be condemed………don’t forget why Assange is in exile………says something)…………………and that bomb won’t be made available until the last minute.

        Relax between now and then.

      • Assange isn’t exactly making out like a Clinton. “Making out” – double entendre and all that.

      • Jim2,
        2010 shows $86M for your hero. If that’s accurate, speculation based on a bit higher profile (presuming we’d agree that’s the case) one might expect that figure to be just a bit higher.

        And who knows how much Putin and Trump might be paying him?


  122. Why Pay Attention to the L.A. Times Poll?

    I can say with confidence that no pollster has engendered as much controversy, or at times outright anger, as the Los Angeles Times’ operation, which has tended to show Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton. This has happened even as other polls show Clinton in the lead, at times by dramatic margins….

    It doesn’t help that the traditional trackers have basically pulled out of the tracking business. This means that the Times poll always has fresh data, and always has the first data available after every event – sometimes the only data available. It also doesn’t help that it is the only poll showing Trump ahead, which inflames liberals and #NeverTrump conservatives….

    Regardless, you can read a defense of the poll’s methodology here. You should also read this New York Times piece (published as this article was in production), which is a bit overstated in the title, but it does a nice job illustrating how the sometimes-arbitrary decisions of pollsters can have substantial effects on their findings. While you are at it, check out this piece, which makes a similar point.

    My point here is not to debate methodology, it is to answer this question: “If their methodology is so different, why do you pay any attention to them?” The answer is twofold. First, truth is not decided by committee. That is to say, the fact that the L.A. Times pollsters weight their poll in a different manner than other pollsters do doesn’t make them wrong. As noted in the above Upshot article, all pollsters have their proprietary ways of weighting data, and the fact that they do so in roughly the same way can at times be a bug rather than a feature….

    Finally, in 2012, much like 2016, the results looked like a pretty significant outlier:

    This chart shows three things. The top line, in blue, shows the results for the RAND poll from 52 days before the election through Election Day. The purple line shows the RCP poll average over the same time period, while the horizontal line shows the eventual result. As you can see, the RAND poll showed some pretty freakish results, popping out results as many as six points at variance to the RCP Average.

    In the end, though, the RAND poll basically got it right….

    [W]e should recall that almost all of the objections lodged against the poll could have been lodged against it in 2012. Many were. The poll may well be flat-out wrong in 2016, but its history cautions heavily against dismissing it outright.

  123. From the article:

    Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s The Proof
    Data suggests millions of voter registrations are fraudulent or invalid. That’s enough to tip an election, easily.
    John Gibbs By John Gibbs
    OCTOBER 13, 2016
    This week, liberals have been repeating their frequent claim that voter fraud doesn’t exist. A recent Salon article argues that “voter fraud just isn’t a problem in Pennsylvania,” despite evidence to the contrary. Another article argues that voter fraud is entirely in the imagination of those who use voter ID laws to deny minorities the right to vote.

    Yet as the election approaches, more and more cases of voter fraud are beginning to surface. In Colorado, multiple instances were found of dead people attempting to vote. Stunningly, “a woman named Sara Sosa who died in 2009 cast ballots in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.” In Virginia, it was found that nearly 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.

    In Texas, authorities are investigating criminals who are using the technique of “vote harvesting” to illegally procure votes for their candidates. “Harvesting” is the practice of illegally obtaining the signatures of valid voters in order to vote in their name without their consent for the candidate(s) the criminal supports.

    These are just some instances of voter fraud we know about. It would be silly to assume cases that have been discovered are the only cases of fraud. Indeed according to a Pew Research report from February 2012, one in eight voter registrations are “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.” Since there are 146 million Americans registered to vote, this translates to a stunning 18 million invalid voter registrations on the books. Further, “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.” Numbers of this scale obviously provide ripe opportunity for fraud.

    Don’t Let Data Contradict My Narrative
    Yet in spite of all this, a report by the Brennan Center at New York Univeristy claims voter fraud is a myth. It argues that North Carolina, which passed comprehensive measures to prevent voter fraud, “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.” However, this faulty reasoning does not point to the lack of in-person voter fraud, but rather to lack of enforcement mechanisms to identify and prosecute in-person voter fraud.


    • Sigh.
      “However, this faulty reasoning does not point to”…………….”voter registrations”……………which are not voter fraud!

      No idea why this is so hard. Part of the reason for ‘voter registration’ is to weed out ‘voter fraud’.

      If you’re going to look at ‘voter fraud’ issues consider:
      absentee ballots
      vote buying
      official misconduct.

      Requiring an ID is a reasonable approach as long as it does not equate to a poll tax.

      “In Colorado, multiple instances were found of dead people attempting to vote.” is easily (and I mean easily) addressed. (see official misconduct)

      “In Virginia, it was found that nearly 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.” Applications for registration are NOT voter fraud. Quite obviously, someone is ignorantly suggesting that the ‘vetting’ effect of the registration process functioned as intended. Duh.

      Texas vote harvesting: “This research has uncovered major flaws in the election code and its enforcement.” See official misconduct. Texas has a slightly reduced yet reasonably strict ID law which does not address this issue.

      “During an exchange with the Tarrant County Elections Committee, Phillips suggested the AG investigation was related to suspicious activity surrounding mail-in ballots. At the time, the magnitude of the investigation was unknown.

      But sources in Tarrant County have told Texas Scorecard they believe individuals who allegedly abused the mail-in ballot process may have affected the results of multiple races over several election cycles.” The absolute takeaway money shot: “But Texans must also take a serious look at whether we should continue to allow voting via unsecured mail-in ballots at all.”
      ID laws don’t address this: http://www.empowertexans.com/around-texas/largest-voter-fraud-investigation-in-texas-history-underway-in-tarrant-county/

      “Don’t Let Data Contradict My Narrative” Agree. The stupid narrative that ID laws will correct the purported ‘data’ in the article. Bad reporter. NO COOKIE! Worse article. Asinine ‘Redimowit’s’ approach to make ID’s a fix for a problem which it cannot address but those same ID laws do (purposefully) disenfranchise.

    • Jim2,

      Since we’re in such agreement that ACTUAL voter fraud needs to be addressed, can I count on your tirade against voter intimidation? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trump-election-intimidation-minority-voters/504014/

  124. As long as the rich are making money, screw the rest of us! From the article:

    According to the latest report from the Danish Economic Council, a fiscal policy watchdog made up of academics commonly known as the “wise men,” years of ultra low rates have benefited the rich more than the poor.

    As the chart shows, lower interest costs have coincided with a significant rise in capital income. The wise men point out that “lower rate expenses” are one of the reasons why equity income has risen more than disposable income, thus adding to increased inequality.
    In other words, Denmark’s poorest have missed out on the gains in asset prices fueled by years of cheap money. The return on Denmark’s benchmark equity index has exceeded 120 percent since rates first went negative in mid-2012.

    The argument that monetary easing exacerbates inequality is not new and is far from settled. A June 2015 study by economists at Brugel, a Brussels-based think tank, noted that “low interest rates, asset purchases and other accommodative monetary policy measures tend to increase asset prices and thereby benefit the wealthier segments of society, at least in the short-term.”


  125. For those who’ve paid ‘close’ attention and recognize we’re all ‘useful idi0ts’ this is a pretty good read:

    “I think what you’re gonna see is Steve Bannon monetizing 30 percent of the electorate into a UKIP-style movement and a billion-dollar media business.”

    “The Trump campaign is over — Hillary Clinton is going to be elected president. The question that remains here, the open question, is the degree of the collateral damage, right? The Republicans are going to lose the US Senate. The question is how many seats can they lose in the House. It is possible but not probable yet that they lose the House majority. So the question is, how far below 40 percent is Trump in the popular vote?”

    “Then there’s a long-term implication for the civic life of the country, the vandalism being done, which will culminate for the first time in American history with his refusal to make an ordinary concession where he grants to the winner legitimacy by recognizing the legitimacy of the election. I think it’s very clear he’s going to go out saying it’s a rigged system.”

    and more: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/14/13272322/republicans-after-trump-alt-right

  126. New politics thread coming later today

      • Tony. I know this election looks horrible to you.

        But in the past, the Redimowits have run gentlemanly, reserved career politicians. These nominees would not get down in the mud and attach Obummer even though they were attacked. They both lost to Obummer.

        Trump is doing the right thing to win by fighting back. It just makes for an ugly process.

        It does no good to be reserved if it guarantees a loss. If you lose, you can do no good.

      • Jim

        My Son happened to be studying at Yale during the last presidential election. He brought me back a mug with Mitt Romneys face on it.

        Romney now, incredibly, seems the epitome of common sense and gentility. I do wonder if he had been selected this time round, whether he would have been well ahead of Clinton as people obviously dislike her.

        Perhaps though he would be seen to be part of the ruling elite that so many of us over here were so contemptuous of with the Brexit vote.


      • Tony. If Romney, for example, ran against Billary, the Dimowits would slime him just enough to win. He wouldn’t put up a significant fight, being reserved and all, so the rhetoric wouldn’t get as bad as now, but he would still lose.

        I would rather have a fighter like Trump who doesn’t lay down for the Dimowits as they attempt to run him over. It’s ugly, yes, but maybe it will give him a chance to win.

  127. I find it informative that the Clinton campaign is almost entirely resting on unfounded allegations of Trump being some kind of misogynist racist sexual predator spun out of control by major press outlets in collusion with the campaign (hard evidence found in Wikileaks).

    When I run in an election I run on my record. That’s what good decent people who ask to be elected to office do. Trump is running on his business record and a platform shaped purely by feedback from his frequent yuge rallies and some 25 million followers on social networks. Or at least he’s trying to do that. Clinton’s campaign using identity politics to create hate and division and allegations of sexual crime not in evidence makes it difficult for a counter-puncher like Trump to ignore and stay on a positive message of problem solving.

    • Trump said he gropes women. Some women said he groped ’em. Trump said he didn’t grope ’em.

      OK, it’s possible that Trump isn’t lying, but the women are lying, because he didn’t grope them, but groped some other women.
      The other possibility is Trump lied to begin with when he said he groped women. So Trump is either (a) a liar, or (b) a groper an a liar. I see no other possibilities.

      • Yes but it’s only women who “let you do it”. The plain meaning is that, because he’s a celebrity, many women allow him to cop a feel. I don’t find that surprising. I’d let any number of female celebrities give my johnson rub upon our introduction. I’d feel flattered given it’s a celebrity.

      • Looking at the overall pattern of “news” releases, we first have the video and audio of Trump’s locker room talk. Then, in quick succession, women come out just about every day accusing Trump, without evidence, of doing what he said in the “locker room talk” video.

        It’s obviously a setup by the Dimowits, trying to win the election by trashing Trump. If it doesn’t work, they will really get desperate. I mean, why isn’t billary running away with this thing?

      • Yes but it’s only women who “let you do it”.

        Sure, and now that Trump is even more famous, millions of women are eager for Trump to grope ’em.

        The RNC could distribute T-shirts that say TRUMP GROPED ME .

      • Springer would buy one for every day of the week, and probably ask for an autograph!

    • “Trump is running on his business record”. When did HE tell us about his $915 loss. What has been his ‘business record’ since up to and including 2015 including business and personal?

      I’ll buy in on the evaluation of the Clinton campaign to a point, but your above is unsubstantiated. It would take tax returns to do so and that ain’t happened. (Expecting wiggling having to do with ‘business record’ to follow from ya).

  128. From the article:

    The FBI in open revolt against a deceitful director.
    James Comey presides over an FBI in revolt over his leadership, a former U.S. attorney tells The American Spectator, and pursues “paranoid, delusional, and vindictive” measures to prevent negative information leaking out to the public.

    “I know that inside the FBI there is a revolt,” Joseph diGenova tells The American Spectator. “There is a revolt against the director. The people inside the bureau believe the director is a dirty cop. They believe that he threw the [Hillary Clinton email] case. They do not know what he was promised in return. But the people inside the bureau who were involved in the case and who knew about the case are talking to former FBI people expressing their disgust at the conduct of the director.”

    The loss of faith in the bureau chief stems in part from a dishonest rendering of the decision not to indict Mrs. Clinton as unanimous rather than unilateral and in part from the bureau’s decision to destroy evidence in the case and grant blanket immunity to Clinton underlings for no possible prosecutorial purpose.

    “There is a consensus among the employees that the director has lost all credibility and that he cannot lead the bureau,” diGenova explains. “They are comparing him to L. Patrick Gray, the disgraced former FBI director who threw Watergate papers into the Potomac River. The resistance to the director has made the agency incapable of action. It has been described to me as a depression within the agency unlike anything that anyone has ever seen within the bureau. The director’s public explanation for the unorthodox investigation are viewed by people in the bureau as sophomoric and embarrassing.”


    • “I know that inside the FBI there is a revolt,” Joseph diGenova tells The American Spectator.

      Well, we haven’t heard from a bunch of FBI revolters yet. I suppose this could mean the revolters are afraid of losing their jobs, so they only complain to diGenova. The other possibility is diGenova is full of sh*t.

      • At least two sources, good enuf for journalism, and this one was easy and fast to find. There are probably more …

        The New York Post also recently reported that FBI agents were “ready to revolt” over the Clinton email investigation:

        But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

        “In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit.


        Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

        The immunity agreements came with outrageous side deals, including preventing agents from searching for any documents on a Dell laptop owned by former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills generated after Jan. 31, 2015, when she communicated with the server administrator who destroyed subpoenaed emails.


      • jim2, I’m not surprised one or two disgruntled Hillary haters in the FBI are disappointed over the FBI’s determination.
        If this is what is meant by a revolt in the FBI’s ranks, I would characterize it as a politically motivated mini-revolt.

  129. Survey lists Top 10 American Fears – government corruption is #1, global warming doesn’t make the cut



    And that folks is why Donald Trump is going to be the next President of the United States of America.

  130. Trump has as much evidence as the accuser in this instance. From the article:

    Donald Trump’s campaign says a British man is countering claims that the GOP presidential nominee groped a woman on a cross-country flight more than three decades ago.

    The man says he was sitting across from the accuser and contacted the Trump campaign because he was incensed by her account — which is at odds with what he witnessed.

    “I have only met this accuser once and frankly cannot imagine why she is seeking to make out that Trump made sexual advances on her. Not only did he not do so (and I was present at all times) but it was she that was the one being flirtatious,” Anthony Gilberthorpe said in a note provided to The Post by the Trump campaign.


    • If Anthony was standing above Trump and constantly watching his hands, I could believe Anthony. But from across the aisle where Anthony was sitting, I doubt he could always see what was going on. He seems to be saying the woman was asking for it (flirting) and Trump was showing restraint. If she was flirting, it’s hard for me to imagine Trump not taking advantage.

  131. Wall Street Journal (FINALLY!)

    If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

    But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

    It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.


    • ==> lewd remarks ==>

      Right. “Lewd remarks.”

      How about “bragged about sexually assaulting women,” and “trying to F a married woman?”

      It’s hilarious to watch the frightwing try to pass off the problem as just being a crudeness or a few “dirty” words.

      Won’t work, though.

  132. From the article:

    The Wall Street Journal’s Potomac Watch columnist Kimberley Strassel details the “devastating case against a Clinton presidency” that can be made by reviewing the WikiLeaks documents combined with what is already known in the public record. Strassel notes that although “the nation now has proof of pretty much everything [Hillary Clinton] has been accused of,” the media “has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages” to the story that Donald Trump “made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.”


  133. ““Feminists have, all along, muffled, disguised, excused and denied the worst aspects of the president’s behavior with women,” said a lengthy Vanity Fair article from 1998.”

    ““Feminism sort of died in that period,” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd told Yahoo recently. “Because the feminists had to come along with Bill Clinton’s retrogressive behavior with women in order to protect the progressive policies for women that Bill Clinton had as president.””

    Seems like a double standard. If I have policies you like, I can still have bad behavior. This thing, this goal about all woman, doesn’t really apply to a few of them as we’ll sacrifice them for the cause.

    President Clinton about killed feminism? We couldn’t just have feminism, we have conflicted feminism that was contaminated President Clinton. It’s like President Lincoln owing slaves during the Cival War. Hey, we won right?

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