Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

Some new batch of hacked emails is saying Trump groped Bob Dylan according to Putin. – David Phinney

Wall Street Journal blasts press for consistently burying Hillary Clinton’s sins [link]

Trump and the Media [link]

The Presidential character [link]

How we look to Putin:  America’s decadent leadership class [link]

Donald Trump and the women [link]

Michelle Obama on Donald Trump and the women [link]  …

Robert Stavins: This is Not a Time for Political Neutrality [link]

Trump would probably be a better president than Rubio or Cruz. Conceivably, even a good one. [link] …

Why Donald Trump needs to win [link]


699 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. “Some new batch of hacked emails is saying Trump groped Bob Dylan according to Putin. – David Phinney”

    So now the sexual assault of women is supposed to be funny?

    • So now the sexual assault of women is supposed to be funny?

      Indeed, it’s not. Bubba and Hitlery – and the assault, intimidation, character assassination, and blackmail of women they’ve repeatedly perpetrated over the decades – they embody nothing any of us are supposed to be received as “funny.”

      America must control the Internet for the good of the entire world. Free speech is the essential component of freedom, and both in this country and around the world people must be able to speak out, learn, and participate in Internet culture.

      We must be able to do so without the control of Russia, China, and the Muslim world. We should be fighting those nations for control of the internet, not giving in.

      Thanks to the Obama administration, we must now add the Internet to the list of things that Donald Trump must save for America. I don’t put much hope in congress stopping ICANN. After all, the Republican caucus still includes Paul Ryan.

      It’s up to daddy, and to all of us, to fix this. Vote for Trump, spread the word, and educate your fellow students so they don’t wake up one day to find that their favorite porn sites and the Milo homepage, which should be the same thing, are banned from the Internet.

      — Milo Yiannopoulos (2016)

      • Trump is an alpha male who groped a few women (maybe), so that not only exculpates all of Clinton Inc’s past sins (including lowering the bar on sexual transgressions into the dirt), but justifies nucelar war with Russia as well.

        Go figure.

        JILL STEIN: Even Donald Trump and the right-wing extremism grows out of the policies of the Clintons….

        It’s now Hillary Clinton who wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by declaring a no-fly zone….

        Mikhail Gorbachev…is saying we are closer to a nucelar war than we have ever been. Under Hillary Clinton we could slide into nucelar war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria. So I won’t sleep well at night if Donald Trum is elected, but I sure won’t sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton is elected….

        On the issue of war and nuclear weapons and the potential for nuclear war, it’s actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump’s who does not want to go to war with Russia. He wants to seek modes of working together which is the route that we need to follow.

        Jill Stein: Trump Is Less Dangerous Than Clinton; She Will Start Nuclear War With Russia

      • Just luv the ‘Clinton did it so Trump get’s a pass’ defense.

      • Danny –

        ==> Just luv the ‘Clinton did it so Trump get’s a pass’ defense. ==>

        Check out this clip that was linked elsewhere in this thread. The Trump “surrogate” takes the “they do it worse” argument to a new level. Accountability is clearly not on the agenda. That was made obvious, initiated with Trump’s lame “It\’s just locker room banter” defense.

        I think it’s pretty clear that the Trump campaign has explicitly determined that this is their best campaign strategy.


      • Danny, It’s not the ‘Clinton did it so Trump get’s a pass defense. It’s the “Hillary defended as bad or worse behavior and smeared the women accuser’s” defense. If that is legitimate or not is debatable, but by misstating the argument…weather purposely or not…you use a strawman.

      • Chuck,

        That’s a fair response. My comment was regarding the overall tactics and responses in the campaign(s). But my written comment was in response to Glenn. Poorly and unclearly done on my part. I apologize for the framing, but stand by the intent.

        (Trump) “If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse. Mine are words, and his was action. His was what he’s done to women. There’s never been anybody in the history politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women. So you can say any way you want to say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women.”

      • It is very easy to find Trump saying bad things about the Clinton accusers at the time in the late 90’s, ‘loser’, unattractive’, ‘terrible’, etc., and unlike Hillary, he was saying these things in public. He changed his tune on those women only very recently.

      • Could the reason be that Trump was a Democrat then?

      • Charlie,
        “Could the reason be that Trump was a Democrat then?” Fair question.

        Oh. What is he now?

      • According to many Republican Party leaders, he is not a Republican! They did their best to derail him, and now disavow his candidacy.

      • Charlie,
        Kinda doesn’t answer the question.

        If he’s not a republican does that self labeling equate to a ‘misrepresentation’? If he is? It’s a very interesting question, IMO.

        What is he?

      • He’s The Donald!, doncha know?

        Seriously, though, I have been trying to distance myself emotionally from the spectacle, Danny. As bad as both Hillary and Donald would be for our country, that train has left and nothing will bring it back.

        I will vote against Hillary because she is truly evil and grasping. If one is not aware of that, one has not paid attention over the last 20-plus years.

      • When did he become a Republican?

      • Danny,
        . The issue is Hillary’s conduct not Bill’s. It’s a legitimate criticism in my opinion. It’s frustrating when even the purveyors of the argument get lost and off topic.

      • Chuck,

        “The issue is Hillary’s conduct not Bill’s”. If only.

        “It’s frustrating when even the purveyors of the argument get lost and off topic.” Yes. I do it. Trump does it. Maybe we’re seeking……..look ………squirrel! :)

        Your admonishment acknowledged and appreciated.

      • Danny once again you make sure all your filters are in place so you can see things the way you expect them to be.

        Here is another possible take. Why are the people who gave (and continue to give) the Clintons a pass on this issue – and have admitted as much – showing so much outage now? Engaging in behavior the disrespects and demeans women is not the only issue at play here. Though some very much want us to believe so. Because there is a bigger picture and if people are only focused on one small aspect of it, the odds of them not seeing that picture in its entirety go up. And that is exactly what the people protesting the loudest are hoping for.

      • Tim,
        “Why are the people who gave (and continue to give) the Clintons a pass on this issue – and have admitted as much – showing so much outage now? ”
        Dirty politics.

        Why did Trump belittle Bill Clinton’s victims at one point and use them as a political foil now?
        Dirty Politics.

        But just to be clear ‘the Clinton’s’ are two different people. So maybe your filter should be adjusted also? Whaddya think Tim. Or am I the only fallible one?

      • Hillary was Bill’s Enabler In Chief and Head Bimbo Eruption Attack Dog. Don’t get all weepy over dirty politics.

      • “Weepy”. Ha. You read me wrong. I’m anything but. This is entertainment.

        If anything, I’m ‘weepy’ we have these two to deal with.

      • Sorry, the “weepy” was not directed at you, Danny. Introspection is not a weeper’s trait.

      • Danny: I love that the MSM, Feminists, and Democrats who voted for Bill Clinton’s second term can feign moral outrage over Trump’s alleged behavior, real or not.

      • Didn’t claim you were fallible Danny. Quit being so defensive. And yes I, like everyone else, have my own set of filters.

        Your somewhat flippant response of “dirty politics” is avoiding the point. And the “he did it too” reply does as well. The point is not what actions Bill Donald or Hillary took. It isn’t about them at all. It is about how all of this is playing out. Of course this is my filters at work. They allow me to look past the behavior aspect of the Clintons and Trump and inside worry about how the system is being games. Professional news organizations should be above this sort of thing, yet they clearly are not. You trying to punk people by lampooning their arguments contributes zero.

      • “Didn’t claim you were fallible Danny.” I did and I do. Did you answer the question, or were you in ‘defensive’ mode deflecting from it?

        “Quit being so defensive.” Please replace ‘defensive’ with honest. ‘

        “how the system is being games”(sic). Search my name and the phrase “we’re all useful idiots”.

        “Professional news organizations should be above this sort of thing, yet they clearly are not.” Yep. Alphabetically from the Atlantic to Wikileaks (if you wanna consider them ‘professional’) and to be clear that includes Breitbart and Fox as well as LA/NY Times and WAPO. (Any ‘useful idiots to be found there?).

        But the difference, Tim, is I’m willing to name them all. You object to that ‘balance’ yet when your biased filters kick in you’ll only use them on those you associate to one side of this discussion. As I stated with your Tucci rant. Point the other way and you might gain credibility for being objective. As you’re approaching things now you’re just more noise from one side. Again, you chastise me because YOU don’t care for my ‘Dirty Politics’ response. If YOU have something to say, then just say it and stop ‘punking’ by ‘lampooning’ arguments.

      • Just luv the ‘Clinton did it so Trump get’s a pass’ defense.

        You object to the best, most effective and commonly used defense in the last 5000-years of politics? Quaint.

        (Also, it’s totally fair game, seeing as how it’s an either-or choice.)

      • Trump is a Republican. So is everyone else registered with the party. Period end.

    • David, you need to go buy a sense of humor. Throw in a pound of satire leavened with irony while you are at it.

      Being triggered by life’s vicissitudes is a sign of immaturity. Or maybe just a nasty PC desire to punish others for being human.

    • Depends what sexual assault is.

    • Grow up Appell. Drama queen fake outage might be understandable in elementary school, but you are no longer 8 years old.

      • Sadly, Tim, such behavior is now de rigueur through grad school. Where’s my safe space!?! I’ve been triggered!

        I assume it carries on in later life with the Appells of this world.

      • Charlie,

        I’m looking forward to going back to school when I retire. Partly because adding a fourth degree sounds appealing and partly to see first hand if things are as bad as I keep hearing about in regards to PC run wild. (I suspect it is a bit over blown, but I want to find out first hand.).

        But mostly because I enjoy school. It is so much more enjoyable (and easier) than work.

      • As I always tell college students looking forward to graduation: “You’ll be sooo-reeee!” Same thing I said to the Cherrys rotating into Vietnam.

    • One of the few things Hillary and Donald have in common is love of pussy.


    • My first reaction to your comment was something like this:
      “In addition to suggesting a cause of humor, the benign-violation theory also goes a long way toward explaining one of its common effects — namely, that jokes help people cope with the hard times in life. An ability to laugh at rough moments can reduce the negative emotions surrounding a stressful event and also create the positive feelings associated with amusement in general. Put together, those two affective swings can enhance a person’s coping powers.”
      This qualifies as a rough moment.

    • No, now tasteless jokes are supposed to be funny. And you know what, sometimes they are and that’s just the way it is. Some seem to try to limit speech they disagree with by shaming others with comments like “So not the sexual assault of women is supposed to be funny?”

      My response: “so now making a tasteless joke should be grounds for trying to shame the person publicly?”

  2. When it comes to the most urgently needed policy overhauls, a victory for Donald Trump next month would be a course correction for our entire union.

    — Mike Kelly (R, 3rd District, Pennsylvania)

    Correct. Thanks, Dr. Curry.

    Everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. No one can stand aside with unconcern: the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.

    — Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (1949)

    • von Mises, like Ayn Rand, is a cult that gives no regard to the weak, the disabled, the genetically troubled, the young or the disadvantaged. It is a heartless philosophy.

      Yep. You and your fellow progtard pearl-clutching cucks get knotted.

      The objectivist answer to poverty and other social problems is: 1) create a society in which people have clear reasons to be responsible and work for their own benefit; 2) If these problems bother you, YOU try to find solutions through creative charity and investment in cultural change and human capital (i.e., education).

      Need I point out that despite all the rhetoric, the government social programs of today have not resolved our social problems and indeed often exacerbate them? The effects of the recent welfare reform show how much this country had created a culture of poverty and a class of people habitually dependent on government aid. The morality of government social programs is that of a thug; when a politician takes credit for a new program, remember that the money for it was taken at the point of a gun from people who never approved of the program and who will never see any benefit from it. I mean, the taxpayers.

      William R. Thomas

    • Same comment — you are a member of a cult. Like the Ayn Rand cult, you give no regard to the weak, the disabled, the genetically disadvantaged, the young or the socially disadvantaged.

      Your’s is a heartless philosophy.

      • A heartless philosophy:
        Find someone anywhere in the world worse off than you. You are now obliged to serve them. Failure to make them your equal financially and in terms of safety is your defining feature. If you succeed in one case, you still have probably billions of other people worse off than you. This is your reason to exist. But I think you will fail. I do not accept arguments that you helped a million people. You stopped at some point and said you’ve done enough while the problem materially remains unsolved. You follow your philosophy part time and are as bad a Rand the rest of the time.

      • Third World socialism and economics helps nobody; ask Venezuelans and Cubans. Without a respect for private property and an understanding of how capital is accumulated, we get socialist “utopias.”

        Charity towards the less fortunate is worlds removed from the economic suicide proposed by wealth redistributionist proponents.

      • Also, compare the old East and West Germany’s social and economic structures.

    • “remember that the money for it was taken at the point of a gun from people who never approved of the program…”

      The government can’t please everyone. Take me, for example. I was against invading Iraq. But it’s a good thing I paid taxes to support the invasion. Otherwise, the government would have come after me with a gun. Not

    • “von Mises, like Ayn Rand, is a cult that gives no regard to the weak, the disabled, the genetically troubled, the young or the disadvantaged. It is a heartless philosophy.”

      If the only thing you’ve ever done for the weak the disabled, the genetically troubled, the young or disadvantaged is to pay your taxes, then you’ve done nothing for them at all.

    • David, I misunderstood. It is all of the world’s downtrodden that need your protection, not just frail women.

    • David Appell,

      So instead of attacking the message (the content of the quote that Tucci78 cited), you attack the messenger?

      Why am I not surprised?

    • Glenn, Judith choose to post this insult to women.

      So I assume she thinks jokes about sexual assault are OK.

      I wonder what the Dean of her college will think when he reads about this….

    • Tucci: Objectivism is a cult. Most boys outgrow it by their late teens.

    • Speaking of the balance between rugged individualism and an ubiquitous, all-powerful, centralized nanny state, here’s an essay (pp. 277-302) which explains the complex competition which exists between selfish material interests and cultural norms (morals, values, customs, traditions, etc.), and between competing norms themselves, in human society:

      Like Petr Kropotkin (1989[1903]) a century ago, we find compelling evidence for the force of human behavioral predispositions to act both generously and reciprocally rather than self-interestedly in many social situations.

      While many economists have failed to appreciate the practical importance of these predispositions in policy matters, their salience was not missed by Frederick Hayek (1978, 18, 20):

      [The] demand for a just distribution . . . is . . . an atavism, based on primordial emotions. And it is these widely prevalent feelings to which prophets (and) moral philosophers . . . appeal by their plans for the deliberate creation of a new type of society.

      If we are right, economists have misunderstood both the support for the welfare state and the revolt against welfare (where it has occurred), attributing the latter to selfishness by the electorate rather than the failure of many programs to tap powerful commitments to fairness and generosity and the fact that some programs appear to violate deeply held reciprocity norms.

      — CHRISTINA M. FONG, SAMUEL BOWLES, AND HERBERT GINTINS, Reciprocity and the Welfare State


    • The article by Elinor Ostrom from the same book (pp. 253 – 275) also argues against the ubiquitous, all-powerful, centralized, technocratic, nanny state:

      The policy of assigning all authority to a central agency to design rules is based on a false conception that there are only a few rules that need to be considered and that only experts know these options and can design optimal policies.

      Our empirical research strongly challenges this assumption. There are thousands of individual rules that can be used to manage resources. No one, including a scientifically trained professional staff, can do a complete analysis of any particular situation.

      — ELINOR OSTROM, Policies That Crowd out Reciprocity and Collective

    • David Appell said:

      Glenn, Judith choose to post this insult to women.

      So I assume she thinks jokes about sexual assault are OK.

      I wonder what the Dean of her college will think when he reads about this….

      So now David Appell wants to sick the PC Sensitivity Gestapo on Dr. Curry.

      Again, why am I not surprised?

  3. The investigative reporter, Jon Rappoport, was one of the first to recognize the technological matrix of deceit that now engulfs society today.


    I agree we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines this time.

  4. In general agreement with Tucci78 above, but from the CNN article (the final link): “And when it comes to what actually matters — policy — he will use his energy to empower those outside of Washington, not in it. Only a Trump presidency can undo the current damage caused by explosive government growth and chart a new direction.” Sentence two is incorrect.

    Trump can still effect change. He can prove the objections (and objectors such as I) incorrect, and he can do so from the outside.

    He (says he) doesn’t need more money. He (reportedly) owes no favors, but maybe is owed some? He still has a free expansive ‘bully pulpit’ in ‘the media’. He can put forth policy recommendation. He can offer to ‘fix it’ as a good American outside the office of the presidency (and verify he wasn’t b.s.ing us). He can become the ‘change agent’ he professes he wishes to be (maybe even leading to 2020).

    Had Trump been the ‘right’ change agent he could have won against a (let’s just say) less than stellar opponent. How he comports himself in the short few days left can leave ‘scorched earth’ or can build towards the future. Hope he chooses the high road, but have strong doubts his ego will allow.

    What could have been? No. What could still be.

    • Danny Thomas wrote:
      “Only a Trump presidency can undo the current damage caused by explosive government growth and chart a new direction.”

      What “explosive growth?”

    • Clarification as to which was ‘generally agreed’ (threading changed): https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/14/week-in-review-politics-edition-13/#comment-817398

      More directly: “Everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. No one can stand aside with unconcern: the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.”

      It’s our behavior which has rewarded us with these two main candidates. It will take our involvement to reward us with better.

    • Tucci: Your link to a crazy page raises the same question: what “explosive growth?”

      Want to compare fed govt spending under Obama to that under Bush Jr?

      • David Appel,

        Yours is a blinkered and incomplete analysis. (Again, why am I not surprised?)

        The rub is this: “fed govt spending” is only part of the equation.

        The other part is the vast sums of money that government regulation requires the private sector to spend on unproductive endeavors.

        Nowhere is this more evident than in the environmental regulations Obama has mandated, all by decree of his imperial presidency.

    • Danny Thomas: In fact, government expenditures under Obama ARE THE OPPOSITE OF “EXPLOSIVE GROWTH”:


    • David L. Hagen

      Restore productivity
      We are experiencing slow death by Obama’s good intentions:

      “New federal regulations, which reached a record high under President Obama (more than 20,000 new rules and an increase in total annual costs of $100 billion since 2009), will undoubtedly keep suffocating our economy under a Clinton administration; a Trump administration would be far more likely to stop the bleeding and let small businesses breathe again.”

      Mike Kelly Why Donald Trump Needs to Win
      Vote wisely.

    • David,

      Ask the guy who wrote it.

    • Flip that Danny and ask why such an experienced and prepared candidate like Hillary is not blowing the doors off of Trump’s run for the Presidency? So far the best response her supporters can come up with is “low information voters”.

      • Flip what Tim? Threading? Your comment is unclear.

      • That’s really one of the better questions, Tim. With only 2 polls on RCP taken wholly from this week, in the 4-way Clinton is only 2.5 points ahead of Trump, probably within the margin of error. She’s outspent him by billions, has all the liberal press hiding her flaws and attacking Trump, and even some turncoat Redimowits fighting him. He should be way behind, but he isn’t.

      • ==> He should be way behind, but he isn’t. ==>

        If you’re going to use the polls as a measure of judging, you should be considering the state polls in your assessment as well, not just the national polls.

        He isn’t further behind because the country is VERY evenly split, and the tribalism and partisanship is VERY strong. She is running, to some degree, as an incumbent when the economy is pretty mediocre (as to where you find blame or credit for that, is another issue, but the precedent for elections with an economy like ours suggests a strong pattern of changing the party of the executive office).

        Any even-minded prognosticator would have predicted this to be a close election, regardless of whether or not both candidates are heavily flawed. Loyalists on each side will just rationalize the flaws of their candidate and it boils down to the evenly divided electorate sticking to their guns.

      • It’s in regard to your 10:30 pm comment near the top of this thread.

      • Any even-minded prognosticator would have predicted this to be a close election, regardless of whether or not both candidates are heavily flawed. Loyalists on each side will just rationalize the flaws of their candidate and it boils down to the evenly divided electorate sticking to their guns.

        Even the loyalists are having a hard time with Hillary.

        Trump is a different kind of bird. Not really a Republican. Not really a conservative. Maybe he taps into some of the loyalists, but the conservatives have their #nevertrump movement, and the Republican party has been anything but loyal to Trump. I hope he wins if only to remind the Republican party they report to the voters, not whatever it is they are dancing to at the moment.

      • Ed,
        ” I hope he wins if only to remind the Republican party they report to the voters, not whatever it is they are dancing to at the moment.”

        Suggest he’s already done so, and for that I’m appreciative. And frankly, the Dems had better be paying attention also.

  5. “Some new batch of hacked emails is saying Trump groped Bob Dylan according to Putin.”

    Well if ‘some people say’ then it can only be suggested to ‘believe me’.

    (Unless it’s sarcasm?)

    • Jokes about sexual abuse aren’t “satire.”

      It is to Judith’s shame that she even allowed such writing on her blog.

      • Poor little David: So many assaults on his delicate sensibilities and so little time to stamp his feet and pout. It’s a real shame that there are billions of people out there doing things he doesn’t like.

      • You know, David, pretending to be offended by that joke was pretty lame the first time you did it. By the forth or fifth time you’ve run it into the ground.

        I might have believed your outrage a little more if the joke was actually the least bit offensive, but frankly I’ve seen worse during the Tonight Show monolog.

    • Satire does not need your approval, David. On the contrary, good satire riles up the sanctimonious.

    • What kind of sick person finds humor in sexual assault?

      Judith, do you?

      • Trump doesn’t assault women. They LET him. That was his exact words. When you’re a celebrity they LET you do it.

        You have turned his explicit statement of consent and turned it it into non-consent.

        Maybe you don’t believe rich virile alpha male celebrities have a lot of women throwing themselves at them but they most certainly do. Musicians, actors, pro ball players… all notorious for it. Sometimes they’re called groupies and sometimes gold diggers but the result is the same. Trump doesn’t need to force himself on anyone. He has to push them away. If anyone gets sexually assaulted its the groupies and gold diggers assaulting him not the other way around. As far as I’ve seen the common thread among all these women claiming to be assaulted were gold diggers and it’s well documented in some cases where the dug in writing after digging in person.

    • Hannah Arendt, writing in Denktagebuch in the years immediately following WWII, describes the type of thinking employed by moral absolutists like David Appell:

      In the moment of action, annoyingly enough, it turns out, first, that the “absolute,” that which is “above” the senses — the true, good, beautiful — is not graspable, because no one knows concretely what it is. To be sure, everyone has a conception of it, but each concretely imagines it as something entirely different….

      [T]hat by applying the absolute — justice, for example, or the “ideal” in general (as in Nietzsche) — to an end, one first makes unjust, bestial actions possible, because the “ideal,” justice itself, no longer exists as a yardstick, but has become an achievable, producible end within the world….

      [A]nything will do as the absolute — race, for instance, or a classless society, and so forth.

  6. From the article:

    The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released its national survey Thursday, reporting that 72 percent of Muslim voters surveyed say they will cast their vote for Clinton on November 8, with 4 percent intending to vote for Trump and 12 percent undecided.

    Although CAIR claims that its mission is to “enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding,” it has come under increasing fire for its unwillingness to condemn Islamist violence and its ties to international terrorist groups such as Hamas.

    Despite its pretensions of being the voice for Muslim Americans, CAIR was designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, and has been criticized by leading political figures in the U.S. from both sides of the aisle.


  7. Former Nuclear Launch Officers Pen Letter Against Donald Trump

    “A group of officials who once controlled access to firing the nation’s nuclear weapons have penned an open letter saying that Donald Trump “should not have his finger” on the launch button.”

    “The pressures the system places on that one person are staggering and require enormous composure, judgment, restraint and diplomatic skill. Donald Trump does not have these leadership qualities,” wrote the group of former Air Force officers.

    The group said that the Republican nominee’s behavior on the campaign trail has proved him to be unfit to possess the nation’s nuclear codes. “On the contrary, he has shown himself time and again to be easily baited and quick to lash out, dismissive of expert consultation and ill–informed of even basic military and international affairs – including, most especially, nuclear weapons,” the letter reads.

    The letter is the latest example of security experts and military leaders warning of the danger of placing Trump in power. Earlier this month, a Hillary Clinton campaign ad featured a former nuclear launch officer saying he’s afraid of a Trump presidency.
    As quoted from Time online.


    I worry about an impulsive Donald Trump fingering the nuke trigger. I see I am not alone.

    • By all means instead support the deep thinking libs enabling the nuke program of the Iranian mullahs.

    • You forgot how the Saudis requested a five minute meeting the Bill Clinton just before a big meeting with Hilary Clinton just because they wanted to give Bill a one million dollar birthday present cheque.

    • Max,

      You really think the President can turn to the officer carrying the “football” , open it up and push “the button”?

      Those Air Force officers are bring a bit ingenious.

      Maybe they are jealous of the fact the Navy is entrusted with the ability to launch without the restrictions they are under.

      • You know, it isn’t the hight of the cold war anymore. Do we even still have nukes ready to launch at the push of a button by the President? And who would they even be aimed at? The Russians? The Chinese? Iran?

        Hillary has really been riding this nuke thing. Someone needs to tell her that the Big Red Button that was on the Oval Office desk, that Bill said never to push because it launched the nukes, was just to summon an intern for a lap-dance.

      • Short answer schitz is yes, the US nuclear arsenal is still in place and ready to respond.

        It is aging, but still the most potent force in the world.

        Can’t say about targeting. I recall reading some time ago that we agreed to “untarget” our Minuteman force. Perhaps because the amount of time to input targeting data is nominal. Don’t really know. My experience was with tactical nukes.

      • schitzree,
        timg56 is right, we have thousands of hot nukes ready to launch in a moments notice. If the military functions as designed it will attack anything the President tells it to, immediately.
        We are spending $35 billion/yr on our nuclear weapons systems.
        We are also spending $65 billion/yr on our pets.
        Got to keep our priorities straight.

    • Green candidate Jill Stein is more worried about Clinton starting a nuclear war…

      Jill Stein: Hillary Clinton Wants To Start An Air War With Nuclear-Armed Russia Over Syria

      What’s up with that?

  8. Here is a rundown of some of the biggest bombshells dropped by WikiLeaks’ disclosure of Hillary Clinton’s speeches and emails, and why each is so important.
    1. Clinton dreams of a world with “open trade and open borders”: Every American should understand that Democrats, and plenty of Republicans, are fighting an all-out war against national sovereignty.

    2. Clinton courted business elites to support liberal agenda to beat back populism: Clinton’s speeches include numerous examples of something that’s hardly new, or unique to her, but a very important harbinger of things to come if she gets into the White House.

    3. Clinton campaign coordinated with Super PAC: No one familiar with the WikiLeaks disclosures should be able to restrain their laughter when Hillary Clinton talks about getting “big money” and “dark money” out of politics.

    4. Clinton admitted she has different “public and private positions” on Wall Street reform: Again, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it’s always useful to catch a politician actually admitting she isn’t honest with the public on issues – especially an issue of keen interest to the Democrats who opposed her in the primary.

    5. Clinton campaign asked about using White House executive privilege to hide emails from Congress: “Think we should hold emails to and from POTUS? That’s the heart of his exec privilege.

    6. Clinton campaign looked for political support from “needy Latinos”: This is the perfect example of an email chain that would set the media on fire, if it came from a Republican political campaign.

    7. Collusion with State Department on managing Clinton’s email scandal: It’s pretty clear from these emails that Clinton’s team knew she broke the law, but they were (justifiably) confident they could trump the rule of law with politics… and plenty of help from their good friends in the Obama Administration.

    8. “Journalists” secretly working as enthusiastic volunteers for Clinton/Kaine 2016: Another one to file under “no big surprise, but still nice to see it on paper.”

    9. Planting the “seeds of revolution” in the “Middle Ages dictatorship” of the Catholic Church: Democrats view Christians in almost exactly the terms they adamantly refuse to apply to Islamic supremacists.

    10. Clinton Cash panicked the campaign: They knew how bad this stuff was, and they wasted no time devising strategies to spin it away.

    11. Flip-flopping on TPP: It’s amazing than a single Sanders voter ever believed Clinton was honest about opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but evidently most of them did, or else they never really cared about the issue as much as they claimed to.

    12. Gun control: cherry-picked data and executive orders: Democrats are going to lose patience with voter opposition to their gun control agenda and begin imposing it, as soon as they no longer have to worry about losing a tough election in the near future.

    13. Special favors for “Friends of Bill” in Haiti: The Clintons’ use of Haiti as a cash machine was disgusting.

    14. Iran nuclear deal was “greatest appeasement since Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hit ler”: This email chain quotes Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois saying Obama’s nuclear deal “condemns the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf,” and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta responding, “Yup.” While the Democrats figure out how to spin that away, the rest of us can reflect that Clinton, Podesta, and other old hands in her inner circle probably have significant differences of opinion with Barack Obama and his teenage-punk approach to foreign policy.

    15. Clinton wanted to run against Donald Trump in 2016: The three Republican candidates Clinton’s campaign thought they had the best chance of beating were Trump, Ben Carson, and Senator Ted Cruz.

    16. Clinton knew Libya was a disaster: Her hindsight about the bloody, world-destabilizing fallout from the overthrow of Qaddafi, and the inability of the new Libyan government to provide security for Americans, was 20/20… but what good does that do anyone, especially the Americans who died in Benghazi?

    17. “Foreign govt donors: all the money is in”: The Clinton team is much more relaxed about discussing big bucks from overseas among themselves.

    18. Clinton Foundation audit reveals it may have misled the IRS: One of the perks of Clintonhood is that you can file taxes incorrectly, suffer no penalties whatsoever, and refile the paperwork years later.


    • Someone who buys Brietbart. Hook, line and sinker.

      We desperately need Americans who can think for themselves.

      • Yep, it’s tough to confirm what you read. You only have the entire internet at your disposal.

      • David, I think jim2 finds Pro-Trump propaganda entertaining and wants to share. I think he does a good job of finding it and rarely leaves anything out.

      • Here, Appell, I’ll help you and Max search.


      • jim2, thanks but I fall asleep reading those emails. There are too many and they are too long. Please read all of them, and point out those that are juicy and authentic.

      • Jim2: Because you spew out a bunch of words, with no proof behind any of them, does not mean I’m supposed to chase after them.

        Where is your proof any of this junk is true?

      • max1ok said:

        jim2, thanks but I fall asleep reading those emails. There are too many and they are too long.

        I can see you have your priorities right.

        Soundbites and controversy — and especially if they are salacious and sensational — always take priority over policy, at least on Planet Clinton.

      • I think that counts you out David.

      • Max,

        He just did. You admit you are too lazy to do it yourself and then criticize someone for providing exactly what you asked for.

      • Appell you really are a jacka$$.

        The emails are there to be read by anyone. They could be open to interpretation and jim’s interpretation could be wrong. If so, you read them and then provide us with the reasons or evidence from said emails that show Jim to be wrong. Instead, you close your eyes, plug your ears and sing la, la, la, la.

    • timg56 said on October 15, 2016 at 2:17 pm |

      He just did. You admit you are too lazy to do it yourself and then criticize someone for providing exactly what you asked for”

      Sorry, but I asked for juicy and authentic. So far, what jim2 pointed out is not juicy. I don’t know if it’s authentic.

      • jim2, you are not doing your job as an Anti-Hillary propagandist if expect the public to do your job for you. It’s not the public’s job to try to find dirt on hillary. It’s your job. Stop trying to pass it off onto others.

  9. I worry about an impulsive Donald Trump fingering the nuke trigger. I see I am not alone.

    Yeah? Well, I’m a physician, and the idea of Hitlery – in Stage 3 Parkinson’s disease with longstanding symptoms of central neurodegenerative pathology and worsening dementia — “fingering the nuke trigger” is more terrifying by way of objective support than ANYTHING you’ve puked out.

    She’s dying, you bloody ignoramus. She’s trying to run out the clock in the election before she can be caught by a strobe light in public without an injection of apomorphine to “un-freeze” her.

    Got that, max? She’s medically unfit, and you’re pushing a (barely-alive) LIE.

    • Tucci78,
      Are you aware of the ACP code of ethics?

      If nothing else, you’ve certainly just dented the confidentiality section:
      “Confidentiality is a fundamental tenet of medical care. It is increasingly difficult to maintain in this era of electronic health records and electronic data processing, e-mail, faxing of patient information, third-party payment for medical services, and sharing of patient care among numerous health professionals and institutions. Physicians must follow appropriate security protocols for storage and transfer of patient information to maintain confidentiality, adhering to best practices for electronic communication and use of decision-making tools. Confidentiality is a matter of respecting the privacy of patients, encouraging them to seek medical care and discuss their problems candidly, and preventing discrimination on the basis of their medical conditions. The physician should not release a patient’s personal medical information (often termed a “privileged communication”) without that patient’s consent.

      However, confidentiality, like other ethical duties, is not absolute. It may have to be overridden to protect individuals or the public or to disclose or report information when the law requires it. The physician should make every effort to discuss the issues with the patient. If breaching confidentiality is necessary, it should be done in a way that minimizes harm to the patient and heeds applicable federal and state law.”

      “The physician should always act in the best interests of the patient.”


      AMA might cover confidentiality also: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics.page

      Yet another: http://www.abpsus.org/code-of-ethics
      (I’ll end here due to more than 3 links sending to mod)

      Care to tell us about all your other patients, their conditions and ‘fitness’?

      • Are you aware of the ACP code of ethics?

        Yep. The ability to observe objective phenomena “in the public domain” does not impinge upon individual confidential health information.

        See yet another analysis uttered by physician Ted Noel who continues to look at the public record pertinent to Hitlery’s signs of Parkinson’s disease (or other central neurodegenerative dysfunctions; I’m also entertaining consideration of progressive subcortical vascular dementia since her cerebral concussion in December 2012).

        Further analysis is provided here, including consideration of the mendacious “report” uttered by Hitlery’s personal physician shortly before she’d been collapsed like a poleaxed cow on a streetcorner in Manhattan on 9/11, the effect of a pathognomonic Parkinson’s disease “freeze” episode.

        How the hell does a septuagenarian – allegedly suffering acute pneumonia – could be manifesting a99% blood oxygen saturation in room air?

        Unlike you, I AM a physician.

      • Dearest Tucci,

        Most physicians I know are capable of reading. No where did I say you weren’t one. Only pointed out that ethical physicians hold patient confidentiality and themselves to the highest standards. That you are using your highly educated brain to choose to divulge confidential information in a public format says much. And that you rationalize that because ‘Teddy’ did it I can too is childish and immature.

        Physician, based on the above ‘evidence’ diagnose yourself and I’d suggest a second opinion before prescribing a cure. First do no harm and all.

        Link all you wish. I’m NOT a physician and were I, I’d be ethically bound to confidentiality. And being ethical, I’d hold myself to that standard.

      • Tucci is not a doctor. If he were, he’d know it’s unethical to diagnose a patient without personally examining them.

        Tucci is a big bundle of ethical failures.

      • Tucci – you’re clearly no physician. Because you don’t act like one. You don’t have the wisdom of one — you’re too thoughtless and capricious.

        In short, you simply aren’t convincing. Time to give up the ghost.

      • And, Tucci, if you weren’t so ashamed of yourself as to comment under your real name, I would report you to the AMA.

      • Tucci78 said:

        The ability to observe objective phenomena “in the public domain”….

        With that one, I think you’ve already transcended the comprehension abilities of Danny Thomas and David Appell.

      • Why hello there Glenn.
        Outstanding play. An ad hom disguised as intellectual while rationalization of the unethical.

        Utilizing the ‘it’s public’ so it’s fair game gambit opens things up just a bit dontcha think (oops, too much credit for thinking again). Bring on the ‘sex’ games! Previously I didn’t give much merit but since you’ve said so……….

      • David Appell said:

        And, Tucci, if you weren’t so ashamed of yourself as to comment under your real name, I would report you to the AMA.

        So besides Dr. Curry, you want to sick the PC Sensitivity Gestapo on Tucci as well?

        Again, why am I not surprised?

      • Danny,

        Seriously? Unless Tucci is Hillary’ s physician, all that you referenced is not applicable.

        I would suggest that Tucci consider being a bit less (for lack of a better term) determinate, but there is nothing unethical in offering an opinion based on visual evidence. I would qualify and opinion by saying that it is all that it is and that an examination of the patient is needed to actually confirm or deny.

      • Tim,
        Seriously? You’re going to defend a diagnosis from a licensed professional who has either not evaluated the ‘patient’ or has evaluated the patient (did he say if he had or not or are you making an assumption?) and crossed ethical lines?

        Tucci is the one touting his professional credentials (“I AM a physician”) and did not disclaim that his comment was only an ‘opinion’ not based on an examination of any kind. He was quite emphatic about his diagnosis, and yet you chose to chastise me for challenging?

        Your bias is showing in that you pointed my way. Point your final sentence towards him. I gave him every opportunity to suggest what you have and he elected against.

      • Clinton is not Tucci’s patient you dumbasses.

      • “Clinton is not Tucci’s patient you dumbasses.”

        Evidence at hand. Tucci states Tucci is a physician. Tucci states a specific diagnosis.

        Assumptions (by peanut gallery): Clinton is Tucci’s patient. Clinton is not Tucci’s patient.

        Tucci DID NOT state if Clinton was patient or not.

      • Danny, I didn’t say I accept Tucci’s diagnosis. The fact is I choose to ignore it, because, you know, he’s not her Doctor. The most I give it is that he probably is better capable than I at recognizing symptoms.

        My point was that you went overboard on the ethics thing. Want evidence for that assessment? You are aligned with our very own Mr Appell.

      • Tim,
        “My point was that you went overboard on the ethics thing. Want evidence for that assessment? You are aligned with our very own Mr Appell.”

        It was not I who professed to be ‘a physician’ while presenting a non-disclaimed diagnosis. Take it up with Tucci. Had Tucci said, ‘my opinion’ and “based on no examination” I’d agree with you. He presented himself as a physician and did not disclaim in his comments. Quit letting one who is a member of a profession off the hook.

        I don’t care if I’m aligned with Appell on this topic or not. IMO Tucci was wrong in his approach. Going to ethics, even if I oversold it, was intended to assist him in recognizing the line was crossed. He used his profession to influence if only in a blog. And it’s okay. Docs are people to and fallible. It might be to his benefit to be reminded of same.

        Why do you relish so insuring that I conform to some standard of yours yet challenge when I hold a so called professional to a high standard? What is it with you in that regard?

      • Tim,

        You might also find this interesting. Focus especially on the final two sentences: “The cardinal symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are resting tremor, slowness of movement (bradykinesia) and rigidity. Many people also experience balance problems (postural instability). These symptoms, which often appear gradually and with increasing severity over time, are usually what first bring patients to a neurologist for help. Typically, symptoms begin on one side of the body and migrate over time to the other side.
        There is no objective test (such as a blood test, brain scan or EEG) to make a definitive diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. Instead, a doctor takes a careful medical history and performs a thorough neurological examination, looking in particular for two or more of the cardinal signs to be present. Frequently, the doctor will also look for responsiveness to Parkinson’s disease medications as further evidence that Parkinson’s is the correct diagnosis. (However, starting on medication right away can limit your ability to participate in clinical trials that urgently need newly-diagnosed Parkinson’s patients.)
        In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a specialized imaging technique called DaTscan that allows doctors to capture detailed pictures of the dopamine system in your brain. It is the first FDA-approved diagnostic imaging technique for the assessment of movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease. DaTscan alone can’t diagnose Parkinson’s disease by itself, but it can help confirm a physician’s clinical diagnosis — something that has never been possible before.
        Unfortunately, because there is no definitive test for Parkinson’s disease, and because Parkinson’s disease symptoms are similar to those of other neurological conditions, the misdiagnosis rate remains significant. It is worthwhile to consider a second opinion, and to reach out to a neurologist with specific expertise in movement disorders.”


        What Tucci stated verbatim: “Yeah? Well, I’m a physician, and the idea of Hitlery – in Stage 3 Parkinson’s disease with longstanding symptoms of central neurodegenerative pathology and worsening dementia — “fingering the nuke trigger” is more terrifying by way of objective support than ANYTHING you’ve puked out.”

        Parkinsons often ‘significantly’ misdiagnosed. Tucci placed it at stage 3. Dementia diagnosis usually requires MRI to rule out other damage (tumor?) and memory tests.

      • What Tucci stated verbatim: “Yeah? Well, I’m a physician, and the idea of Hitlery – in Stage 3 Parkinson’s disease with longstanding symptoms of central neurodegenerative pathology and worsening dementia — ‘fingering the nuke trigger’ is more terrifying by way of objective support than ANYTHING you’ve puked out.”

        Parkinson’s [is] often ‘significantly’ misdiagnosed. Tucci placed it at stage 3. Dementia diagnosis usually requires MRI to rule out other damage (tumor?) and memory tests.

        Yep. With it understood that Hitlery has spent decades of expensive diagnostic testing and sophisticated medical care in light of her remarkable personal medical history (see again Dr. Noel’s analyses), she has evaded disclosure of the results of the many diagnostic cranial imaging studies she must have undergone particularly in wake of a cerebral concussion in a fall (possibly unwitnessed) at home. This had been reported in The Washington Post on Thursday, 15 December 2012. Hitlery’s recovery took at least six months, which was documented and remarked several times by Bubba and her other handlers, meaning that the sequelae of her cranial trauma were sustained and the injuries she’d suffered had not been trivial.

        Again, as what Hitlery had demonstrated in that “poleaxed cow” collapse displayed on 9/11/2016 – a classic Parkinson’s disease “freeze” episode – she’d probably sustained a similar paroxysmal P.D. motor dysfunction in home in December 2012, without anyone close in hand to help her, and she’d probably dropped like a corpse. At that time, it simply beggars belief that Hitlery’s medical doctors could have evaded standard-of-care evaluation – including at least an immediate nuclear magnetic resonance imaging study accessing her head and neck trauma – following the way she’d obviously faceplanted herself at home that day.

        Because Hitlery’s medical records do NOT disclose the reports of such diagnostic studies despite that fact that her complex clinical presentation – witnessed “in the public domain,” as remarked by Dr. Noel and other physicians – preponderantly supports the presumptive diagnosis of late-stage Parkinson’s disease, the picture she presents simply stinks on ice.
        Or pathologies less common but MUCH more severe, including post-traumatic subcortical vascular dementia due to her cerebral concussion in December 2012.

        “I think her dystonic movements, “freeze” falls, wooden movements (evident in the video of Ground Zero when her team was trying to get her into the car), as well as her lack of usual protective reflexes in multiple falls over several years, her abnormal eye movements, vocalizations, difficulty swallowing/coughing spasms – all strongly suggest a neurodegenerative movement disorder.”

        — Dr.Elizabeth Lee Vliet (15 September 2016)

      • Tucci,
        You are obviously reasonably intelligent. Your diagnosis. Stage 3 dementia.

        “Stage 3: Mild Cognitive Impairment
        Clear cognitive problems begin to manifest in stage 3. A few signs of stage 3 dementia include:
        Getting lost easily
        Noticeably poor performance at work
        Forgetting the names of family members and close friends
        Difficulty retaining information read in a book or passage
        Losing or misplacing important objects
        Difficulty concentrating
        Patients often start to experience mild to moderate anxiety as these symptoms increasingly interfere with day to day life. Patients who may be in this stage of dementia are encouraged to have a clinical interview with a clinician for proper diagnosis.” https://www.dementia.org/stages-of-dementia

        If you observed the recent debates do you still suggest she meets the above criteria?
        Are you her physician?
        Are you only offering an opinion? If so, is that opinion based on not having performed an in person examination?
        Were you diagnosed yourself under the conditions of which you are offering your evaluation would you accept that diagnosis and begin treatment on same immediately, or would you seek in person evaluation because that diagnosis might likely in fact be incorrect?

      • If you observed the recent debates do you still suggest she meets the above criteria?

        Yep. But not only because of my own observations of either the debates or the other manifestations of Hitlery’s public persona. There have been other physicians who have contributed analyses of her clinical presentation.

        Practicing (rather than retired) physicians who are speaking only anonymously in this wise seek to avoid the administrative attention of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in much the same way most other private persons in our republic strive to escape the attentions of the Internal Revenue Service.


        (1) It is clear from video evidence that Hillary Clinton individual suffers from a PROGRESSIVE NEURODEGENERATIVE ILLNESS.

        (2) This illness is being hidden from the public.

        (3) This individual is receiving around-the-clock management and amelioration of symptoms, and thus maximum medical attention and benefit.

        (4) To allow this individual to pursue elected office with knowledge of this illness is a breach of the Hippocratic Oath.

        (5) To hide this illness endangers the patient and millions worldwide.

        Differential Diagnosis of Hillary Clinton’s Neurological Disorder

        Note: This document was created with the assistance of a neuropsychiatrist who must remain anonymous for protection of his person and career. He specializes in movement disorders and dementia.

      • Tucci,

        “There have been other physicians who have contributed analyses of her clinical presentation.”
        They are not here. You are. The discussion is about your diagnosis not the parroting of others. After all you ARE a physician, correct?

        Will you answer the questions, or not? If your choice is to not, it’s understandable. They may be uncomfortable for you to address.

      • They are not here. You are. The discussion is about your diagnosis not the parroting of others. After all you ARE a physician, correct?

        Yep, I’m a physician.

        The discussion is not about my qualification as a personal physician with a proximal duty to Hitlery as a living patient, but rather my ability to observe and interpret elements of physical reality manifested “in the public domain,” which you’re evading, you stinking cur.

        Y’know, I’d just like to see The Donald reach into his pants pocket and pull out one of those a “tactical” strobe flashlights perhaps 75 minutes into the third debate against Hitlery to try precipitating the same kind of gaudy oculogyric crisis she’d suffered during the “balloon drop” episode at the D.N.C. on 28 July.

        She’s already demonstrated her chronic susceptibility to this unavoidable adverse effect of a decade’s worth of L-DOPA therapy – it’s called Parkison’s disease-levodopa-induced dyskinesia (PD-LID) – and we know she’s going to be doped to the gills with Sinemet when she shows on the stage at UNLV on 19 October.

        APOKYN pen handy, progtard?

      • Tucci,

        “Yep, I’m a physician.” Thank you. Never doubted.

        Now I’ll follow up re-requesting responses to the other questions I posed “which you’re evading” (ad hom snipped). They were reasonable, if uncomfortable to answer.

        There is no issue with anyone, physician or not, having and providing an opinion as long as that opinion is couched as one.

      • =>> Yep. But not only because of my own observations of either the debates or the other manifestations of Hitlery’s public persona. =>>

        My guess is that there is some connection between tucci calling Clinton “hitlery” and his remarkable diagnostic skills

      • My guess is that there is some connection between tucci calling Clinton “hitlery” and his remarkable diagnostic skills.

        There is no feat of diagnostic insight in discerning Hitlery’s probable Parkinson’s disease. She’s obviously suffering grave and refractory chronic neurodegenerative disease, and on the principle of Sutton’s law P.D. is pushed right up to the top of the list (which includes progressive supranuclear palsy [PSP], multiple sclerosis, Lewy Body dementia, Creutzfeld-Jakob disease. Shy-Drager syndrome, corticobasal degeneration, Pick’s disease and some other “zebra” diagnoses).

        Actually, I first entertained tertiary syphilis in her case despite the reliability of serologic disproof of infection (no lab study is absolutely infallible). To my defense, I’ll have to admit that I’m both ethnically Sicilian and I really, REALLY hate Hitlery and her diseased dog of a consort.

        Anent economist Murray Rothbard: “When asked what was the source of his prodigious scholarly and popular output, he would reply: ‘Hatred is my muse.’ He would read something, say by a Marxist, Keynesian, or Chicagoite, become infused with disgust, and swear a mighty oath that this particular bit of idiocy would no longer stand, at least without a reaction from him.”

        Walter Block

      • Noted: “probable Parkinson’s disease.” definitively far removed from Stage 3 specificity.

        “To my defense, I’ll have to admit that I’m both ethnically Sicilian and I really, REALLY hate Hitlery and her diseased dog of a consort.” Can be reasonably described as an honest opinion.

        Okay then. That being settled. Tucci admits to human emotion and human error. Reliance upon “I AM a physician” discarded. Personal political motive imposed, applied, and recognized. It takes a big person to state their failings.

        Note: personal experience that in order to get across the street in Sicily, just follow Grandma. No one messes with Grandma. Grandma would likely be proud of your capitulation Tucci. Thanks for doing so.


      • I had watched the Dr. Noel video and some others of Hillary’s past “short circuiting” moments. I encourage others to study Youtube videos showing these weird uncontrolled facial lapses and her trouble walking and climbing steps. The video I linked to shows her 2012 collapse, (which I had never seen before published,) where she got her concussion and brain clot that took six months to treat, (according to Bill, or two months according to her doctor). This explains why she has people persons ready to spring over to catch her now, as can be seen in the clip of her in the aqua suit. When she freezes and her face goes blank a staff member rushes over to support her and tells her to keep on talking. Moments later a staff member approaches her while reaching into his suit pocket for what could be and injector, but he is turned away by the large black man who first got there.

        The health issue is supported by the Colin Powell hacked email where his friend writes: “Sheldon Whitehouse, who is a huge Clinton supporter, said they were both giving speeches at the same event a few months back and she could barely climb the podium steps.”

        Among the private server emails that have been released was one where the Clinton staffer Jake Sullivan was researching provigil, a drug to treat neurological disorder caused fatigue, including PD.

        Put it all together that one can form a hypothesis without over reaching. Can all agree that there should be an examination by and independent physician? Shouldn’t Hillary be asked point blank if she can put the speculation of her having a neurological disorder to rest by an unequivocal declaration?

      • Ron,
        “Put it all together that one can form a hypothesis without over reaching.”
        Certainly, as long is it’s not passed off as fact and substantiated by one’s professional designations w/o appropriate disclaimers.

        “Can all agree that there should be an examination by and independent physician?” That’s a bit tougher. It’s never been done that I’m aware. But can’t see why a candidate (Trump) could not offer to put himself out for one (how to verify independent w/o conspiracy theories?) and pressure her to do so, but then one could say something about taxes and there we are.

        “Shouldn’t Hillary be asked point blank if she can put the speculation of her having a neurological disorder to rest by an unequivocal declaration?” Sure. But if a candidate’s mouth is moving (Trump included) what’s the likelyhood we’d get the truth?

      • Danny, you’re being ridiculous. Did you leave your common sense in the closet? Tucci is offering his opinion. He happens to be a doctor, but his view comports with many other medical professionals. When you go down these rabbit holes along with some of your compatriots of indeterminate cognitive abilities, it detracts from the occasional, and diminishingly so, cogent comments you make elsewhere.

        Lighten up , only a counter-factualist (including the MSM) would have a hard time with what is self-evident. Houston, we have a problem.

      • Ceresco,

        You and I agree. I was over the top. But (always that) the reason for doing so is to show how over the top Tucci’s comment was. Tim sorta suggested the definitive nature of the diagnosis should have been disclaimed for which I give credit. But someone, the way it was presented, could take ‘I AM a doctor’ as substantiation. That his view comports with others matters not when they also have not examined ‘the patient’ and one has (Bardack) and she put out in writing a summarized evaluation. There are others who suggest that the one doctor (Bardack) has presented what they consider a reasonable statement.

        Out of fairness and respect for Tucci, I asked HIM directly a valid and reasonable set of questions. It’s quite easy for him to clear it all up.

        I posted the stage 3 dementia standards. Since the 9/11 episode (very concerning) we’ve seen her debate twice and make numerous public appearances and from this non physicians evaluation she doesn’t fit the criteria any more than Trump.

        On other threads (topics) skeptics are skeptics. On these politics threads, skepticism is only a tool of convenience.

        Your criticisms are always taken to heart.

      • A good first step for Billary would be to release her medical records like John McCain did. From the article:

        John McCain, seeking to become the oldest elected first-term president, gets an in-depth skin cancer check every few months because of a medical history his own dermatologist calls “remarkable” for its number of dangerous melanomas.

        He now appears cancer-free, has a strong heart and is in generally good health, according to eight years of medical records McCain’s presidential campaign made available Friday as it sought to prove that, at 71, he is healthy enough – and not too old – to serve as president.

        “It was pretty remarkable to get that level of detail about a candidate,” noted CBS News contributor Sanjay Gupta — though, he added, there was “hardly any mention of his mental health” in the records.


      • Jim2,
        “A good first step for Billary would be to release her medical records like John McCain did.”

        You bet. And this can be applied to taxes alternatively. Now if one wonders why she doesn’t shouldn’t equal concern exist for why he doesn’t?

        A good umpire calls the game fairly!

      • Here is an article about the late August Wiki-leak of HRC top aide Jake Sullivan writing HRC about Provigil in 2011.

        Sullivan also noted that Provigil is often prescribed to treat “excessive sleepiness in patients with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis.”

        HRC’s collapses obviously are not made public knowledge when they happen out of public view or there is no serious resulting visible injury. But here first public collapse for “dehydration” was back in 2005.

        Her Secret Service agents quickly surrounded the former first lady, and four people broke her fall, he said.
        “They took her down gracefully; let’s put it that way,” said Lenihan.
        Among the attendees was Dr. Stephanie Pincus, a leading doctor in New York and professor at the University of Buffalo.
        “She has had a GI virus — an acute gastrointestinal illness — and she has been sick for at least a day and she needed some fluids; she needed to sit down and relax,” Pincus told a reporter for television station WIVB.

        HRC fell from dehydration in 2009. It got reported since she broke her arm. The same in the 2012 case with the severe concussion and brain clot where she had a double-vision canceling lens on her glasses.

        One hour following the collapse on stage in 2005 HRC was speaking at another fundraiser. On 9/11/16 her doctor, who held her hand at her side the entire morning did not allow the driver to take her to a hospital but instead to Chelsea’s apartment. Even if HRC is fully conscious that is a strange call for her doctor to make unless the underlying diagnosis is already 100% certain. The question remains as to why all the people around her know to dash to her aid the second a freeze face occurs? Is this consistent with someone who chronically will not drink water or something else?

        Of course HRC could laugh off a question about this, but she might also have prepared to share another story, perhaps even candidly, if asked. OK. I am reaching on that — but not on the facts.

      • Ron,

        Not being a physician, and especially not being one who has actually examined Clinton, I’m willing to say it is possible that based on evidence in the public arena that she indeed ‘might’ be a sufferer of some sort of neurological disorder. I’m also willing to say exactly the opposite.

        Looked at the medication, provigil, and find an alternative use which makes sense for a Sec. of State who travels extensively crossing many time zones: http://www.provigil.com/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shift_work_sleep_disorder.

        But this is speculative. So I thought about another resource and found this: “”These rumors demonstrate the lack of awareness of Parkinson’s even among many physicians,” said Peter Schmidt, PhD, the foundation’s Senior Vice President of Research Programs and Chief Mission Officer. “While Secretary Clinton does not show signs of Parkinson’s in the opinions of senior neurologists, even if she did, a diagnosis of Parkinson’s should not be seen as a disqualifying condition for high office — and, in fact, in recent times it has not been. We have many people with Parkinson’s who have succeeded in very challenging jobs, including Senators, Congressmen, an Attorney General of the United States, and an astronaut who performed admirably in challenging jobs while living with Parkinson’s. People with Parkinson’s make amazing contributions in our society every day.”” http://www.parkinson.org/our-impact/press-room/press-releases/refuting-claims-presidential-nominee-hillary-clinton-parkinsons-disease

        Anything more is above my pay grade.

      • Danny, I agree that PD does not always mean rapid dementia. But any doctor who does not admit it would be a handicap I would say is in the tank for her. Regardless of how partisan medical opinions I don’t think any would gambit to say the masses are too unwashed to be trusted with the truth if she has it. In the case for FDR being crippled is not a mental health or even necessarily a physical health issue but PD is.

      • Obviously you do.

        The choices were:
        Ignore. (Tucci’s approach, but no fun in that.)
        Ad hom (Tucci’s approach, not my preferred go to)
        Ask questions allowing clarification ‘giving’ him the opportunity to use his own words. (The approach I chose).

        Apparently you would have gone with the ignore, but that follows since it fits your narrative. But since I addressed at least you showed some level of character by objection to ‘the definintiveness’ of how he presented it. So if ‘no one cares what I give’ what makes you think anyone cares about your objection?

        Maybe you don’t speak for ‘anyone’.

      • Parkinson’s disease is heavily overdiagnosed by general neurologists, whereas parkinsonism plus syndromes are underdiagnosed. Despite improvements in the diagnostic methods during recent decades and the development of diagnostic clinical criteria for parkinsonian syndromes, the diagnostic accuracy of Parkinson’s disease remains relatively low, and 1/4 of diagnoses are incorrect.

        Obviously physicians who hate Hillary do better using armchairs and youtube.

      • From the paper: “Movement disorder specialists can achieve a high level of accuracy when clinically diagnosing parkinsonism syndromes. However, data about the diagnostic accuracy among general neurologists is limited”

        Seeking definitions: “Clinical diagnosis. A diagnosis made on the basis of medical signs and patient-reported symptoms, rather than diagnostic tests. Laboratory diagnosis. A diagnosis based significantly on laboratory reports or test results, rather than the physical examination of the patient.”

        Made me wonder. If 25% of clinical are incorrect, how many of non-patient contact, remote, politically and self proclaimed hate biased might be?

      • “Parkinson’s disease is heavily overdiagnosed by general neurologists, whereas are underdiagnosed.”

        Whether it’s Parkinson’s Disease or parkinsonism plus syndromes or epilepsy, or mini-strokes matters why?

      • I kinda doubt that having no in person contact, no labs, no imaging, no patient feedback, etc. will improve the diagnosis of those by much either.

        Would you start treatment for a health concern under those circumstances?

        This seems like such a silly argument.

      • The constitution already handles this. 35 years or older… preferably alive.

      • My only treatment, not being her doctor, would be to give her restricted duties that don’t require heavy responsibility, long hours or high stress.

      • Ron,

        That’s clever. Thanks.

        The point was that if one won’t accept the diagnosis based on the criteria as stated for themselves then application of a diagnosis to another (unless there’s another motive!!!!) should be treated in the same manner.

        If you have sufficient reason not to vote for her, fine. But using this is just fodder as has been so much in this campaign. And when it comes out the other end can be more aptly described.

      • Danny Thomas: “If you have sufficient reason not to vote for her, fine.”

        Like she is hell-bent on starting a nuclear war with Russia, all the while totally ignoring – exacerbating even – the problem with resurgent extreme Islamism?

      • Cat,

        If that’s how you see it, but I don’t. Being ‘hell bent’ to start nuclear war with anyone would be the sign of a mad person. The candidate who IMO has shown the actual behavior (can you say scorched earth, damn the democracy………full speed ahead) more likely to be ‘hell bent’ on doing actual damage based on ‘feeling they’ve been picked on’ is not Clinton.

        So if you’ve not compared and contrasted with the alternative candidate(s), it’s just noise.

        But I daresay you have a penchant for the dramatic!

    • > I’m a physician

      I thought kidneys were more your thing than brains, Rich.

      • I thought kidneys were more your thing than brains, Rich.

        No more than Ted Noel had been a specialist in nephrology. I’m a primary care physician with decades in emergency medicine and public health; Noel had trained and experienced in anesthesiology and critical care. But any physician has to be educated in diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson’s disease and the other chronic neurodegenerative disorders.

        Hell, every first-year medical school gets introduced to P.D. in physical diagnosis. It’s one of the most common central neurological motor dysfunctions.

        Maybe a pediatrician might miss the signs and symptoms of early-onset P.D.. but I’d doubt it.

      • Tucci isn’t a doctor of any sort. If he was, he’d have some respect for the ethics of the field. He does not.

      • Rich is delusional.

        That video is beyond the valley of the stupid.

    • Parkonson’s, dementia, vascular dementia……have another guess.

      So Trump got whipped by someone with dementia…..guess I could believe that.

      • So Trump got whipped by someone with dementia…..

        Hitlery’s has “whipped” The Donald, eh?

        Not yet. Her criminal correspondents voting the dead, the illegal, the imaginary, and the F.S.A. membership notwithstanding.

        Are Soros’ checks clearing for you?

      • No shame in it… people with dementia are tough little chits.

    • Tucci78 wrote:
      “Yeah? Well, I’m a physician, and the idea of Hitlery – in Stage 3 Parkinson’s disease with longstanding symptoms of central neurodegenerative pathology and worsening dementia — “fingering the nuke trigger” is more terrifying by way of objective support than ANYTHING you’ve puked out.”

      You’re clearly not a physician.

      Physicians do not — on ethical grounds — try to diagnose people without a personal physical examination.

      You should be ashamed of yourself, spreading around crap like you are.

    • “Yeah? Well, I’m a physician…”

      Heal yourself.

    • Hillary looked ok to me during the debates.
      It’s funny that Republicans are so concerned about her health. A recent President suffered from Alzheimer’s and they did’t seem worried about that.

  10. Trish says she doesn’t look at 10-year old boys with the thought of someday dating ’em.

  11. “Blacks riot, Muslims set bombs, gays spread AIDS, Mexican cartels behead children, atheists tear down Christmas trees. Meanwhile, those liberal Lena Dunhams in their $5,000-a-month apartments sip wine and say, “But those white Christians are the real problem!” Terror victims scream in the street next to their own severed limbs, and the response from the elites is to cry about how men should be allowed to use women’s restrooms and how it’s cruel to keep chickens in cages.”


  12. Good to see that the denizens bring their climate crazy with them into politics too.

    I guess it’s no surprise that irrational conspriacy theorists would gravitate to the Trump circus.

  13. Michael –

    ==> I guess it’s no surprise that irrational conspriacy theorists would gravitate to the Trump circus. ==>

    Check this sub-thread out.


    Lewinski is def taking notes. Over at Lucia’s too…check out the thread on Clinton’s health over there…

  14. They just keep coming. Summer Zervos, a contestant from the Apprentice, is one of the latest to accuse Trump.

    • Only depolorables buy those newspapers.

    • From the article:

      In the statement released by the Trump campaign, Barry alleges that Zervos “had nothing but glowing things to say about Mr. Trump” ever since she was on the Apprentice. For almost a decade, my cousin would talk about how much she looked up to Mr. Trump and viewed him as an inspiration – a success story she wanted to copy.”

      You can read Barry’s full statement above.

      He added that “Summer would also talk about how kind and caring Mr. Trump was on the show, and how he would even visit children in hospitals without telling the press. She has praised the good things he’s done for her life, and in fact she converted her friends and our family to become Trump supporters even though we’ve never been active in politics before.”


      • A witness for Zervos has come foreward, a friend who she confided in after Trump sexually assaulted her. The friend explained how Zeros was offended by Trump’s behavior but thought it could have happened in a moment of weakness and did not mean he did that kind of thing all the time. Her opinion of him suffered, but she gave him the benefit of doubt, and still admired him for his accomplishments. After several women reported similar assaults by Trump, however, Zeros’ saw that he felt entitled to take advantage women, and that’s why she spoke out.


    • The Guardian reports on yet another woman who accuses Trump of assaulting her. Cathy Heller makes nine.

      “Donald Trump ‘grabbed me and went for the lips’, says new accuser

      Cathy Heller joins eight other women in coming forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Republican, with story similar to his taped remarks.”


  15. –snip–

    “If you have a guys’ place you have a guys’ place,” Trump Jr., the candidate’s eldest son and executive vice president at the Trump Organization, said, describing himself as a “guy’s guy.”
    A host interjected that women “complain, ‘it’s harassment’ — that’s why we hate having them around. They stop us from doing what we want to do.”
    “I’m of that mindset — and I’ll get into trouble, I’m sure I’ll get myself in trouble one of these days,” Trump began. “If you can’t handle some of the basic stuff that’s become a problem in the workforce today, then you don’t belong in the workforce. Like, you should go maybe teach kindergarten. I think it’s a respectable position.
    “You can’t be negotiating billion-dollar deals if you can’t handle, like, you know,” Trump said, without elaborating. “But listen — there’s a place where you have to draw the line — but today the stuff you get in trouble for…”


  16. Don’t worry people! Since the UN now controls the internet, aberrant viewpoints (everything I’ve read here) will soon be banned. Another benefit, you all will get to go back to your imaginations, or old Playboy pictures. Gotta love community (international, now) standards.

  17. I wonder what would happen to Facebook and Twitter stock if they failed to get Hillary elected. Buzzfeed, upworthy, etc?

    Their market cap is way beyond what advertising market has room for..

    • aaron wrote:
      “I wonder what would happen to Facebook and Twitter stock if they failed to get Hillary elected. Buzzfeed, upworthy, etc.

      Is Buzzfeed public? Upworthy?

      In any case, explain what would happen to FB and Twitter stock prices if Trump was elected, and explain why.

    • The globalist ruling class doesn’t invest in media outlets like The NY Times (Carlos Slim) and The Washington Post (Jeff Bezos) for proximate economic benefits. They invest in them because they allow them to exert influence over the political process. It’s not about money in the immediate sense. It’s about power, which, undoubtedly, can ultimately be converted to money through government intervention into business and the markets.

      Jeff Bezos at the helm of The Washington Post is one thing, but Carlos Slim at the helm of the Grey Lady is an entirely different thing. Carlos Slim’s (Mexican) ownership of our national newspaper of record brings up the question of just how much influence we are going to allow foreigners to have over our political process through ownership of the Fourth Estate:

      Donald Trump will broaden his attack against the media to hit globalism and the Clinton Foundation by charging that Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim is part of a biased coalition working in collusion with the Clinton campaign and its supporters to generate news reports of decades-old allegations from several women.

      — THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Donald Trump Prepares New Attack on Media, Clinton

  18. If I were Donald Trump I would not choose Anthony Gilberthorpe as a character witness.

    According to the New York Post, ‘Gilberthorpe made headlines in 2014, when he went public with a claim that as a 17-year-old he procured boys (some who “could have been” underage”) for sex parties with high-ranking British politicians.’


    Trump doesn’t need someone who was involved in a sex scandal trying to help him with his sex scandal.

  19. Trump suggests accuser not attractive enough to be assaulted.

  20. Alan Longhurst

    The depth of bitterness,tension and rancour in this discussion leaves me astonished, and fearful for the future.

  21. Sent this to the chair of Judith’s department, cc’ing the two associate chairs. Will send to her Dean, and University president, if necessary.
    Dr. Huey,

    As Chair of Georgia Tech’s Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, are you aware that one of your faculty members, Judith Curry, has made an amusement of sexual assault?

    Atop her blog of 10/14/15, she included this quotation:

    “Some new batch of hacked emails is saying Trump groped Bob Dylan according to Putin.” – David Phinney


    As you are aware, Donald Trump has recently admitted to sexually assaulting women. I fail to see the humor in his actions or in this quotation, which minimizes the severity of sexual assault, and I am dumbfounded as to why Judith Curry would include this quotation on her blog.

    Judith Curry clearly thinks sexual assault is a joke.

    Do you?


    David Appell
    e: david.appell@gmail.com
    p: 503-XXX-XXXX
    m: Salem, Oregon, USA

    • Careful, Appell. They may have a sense of humor.

    • Appell is proof of my hypothesis that lefties abhor free speech. Oh, you’ve insulted my Prophet. You must be punished!

      • I am all in favor of free speech, including mine. So explain to me why Judith decided to post a repugnqnt joke on her blog, and why I don’t have the right to complain about it to her superiors.

      • I don’t find it repugnant, David. It’s funny. Sometimes exercising a right just because you have it is unwise.

        But, hey, complain away.

      • David, that’s the wrong kind of free speech.

        You have to understand the conservative thin-skinned mind-set;
        They can say what they want, but if anyone calls them on their bigotry/stupidity, that’s somehow attacking free speech, and they’re oppressed.

      • Unsurprisingly I disagree.

        Blog and university are separate. Some might ‘object’ to that which Appell choses to post. Being so concerned about ‘transparency’ (blogging under anonymity) Appell must provide a list of his sources of employment allowing those who disagree with his words to express outrage to them.

        An alternative choice for David might have been to allow Dr. Curry to respond to his inquiry as to why she chose to post the Phinney quote.

      • Danny, David’s attempt to harm Dr. Curry’s career, very livelihood, is a time-honored tradition of Democrats. See Rep. Grijalva’s (D-AZ) witch hunt on her, Christy, Pielke Jr., et al.

      • Charlie,
        I find Appell’s response frankly ‘deplorable’ but I’m not ‘the judge’. He has to live with that and in hindsight I hope he recognizes he should have considered her reasoning and allowed her to respond to an inquiry.

        That kind of knee jerk response is not affiliated with a political leaning IMO. Representations can be found not matter one’s party.

        Were I the judge, I might take this opportunity to suggest your choice of framing it as ‘only’ a response one might see from a ‘democrat’ to have roots in a bias of ones own. But it’s up to you to decide if that’s accurate. We all have failings. I’m sure you might find one or two examples from me.

      • Danny, you are correct in your view that my comment reflected my political leanings. I do not, however, deny individual failings, no matter the politics. My observation is that CAGWers seem to go for the jugular instead of engaging in scientific discourse.

        I will always reserve the right to be ‘the judge’ when it comes to vicious PC bullying such as David Appell’s.

      • LOL at going after JC by going to her employer, the MO of lefties who are losing an argument. Hopefully DA also cut and pasted examples from the thousands of times he’s posted bad science in here and left without his head.

      • From a Trump Campaign page:

        A political progenitor of Trump can be found in biblical Joseph, the 11th of 12 sons of the Patriarch Isaac. Joseph was […] sold […] into Egyptian slavery by the slave trading Ismaelites (paradoxically, the progenitors of the Bedouin Arabs who gave the world Muhammad and devout Islam). […] to add injury to injury while he was in Egypt serving as slave to Potiphar, one of the Pharaoh’s chief military officers, his duplicitous master’s wife tried to rape Joseph and when he refused on moral grounds, in revenge she lied on him telling her husband, Potiphar, that Joseph tried to rape her. Joseph was unjustly punished by Potiphar.


        Likewise, Trump has this same God-ordained protection as Joseph had – that no matter how his detractors try to tear him down, he only rises in the polls and the people (including many Democrats, Blacks, Hispanics and first-time new voters) only love him yet the more.

        Sexual assault assuredly isn’t funny, but accusations by women that, long ago, a famous billionaire “assaulted” them are a different matter.

        If these harpies want anybody beyond clueless and malicious SJW’s to take them seriously, perhaps they should prove that, at the time, even a random construction worker would have found them worth groping, much less a famous billionaire who had a wide choice of ready starlets, models, and other high-voltage women.

        When a woman makes accusations against a rich, powerful, and famous man, we always have to ask:

        •       If it happened at all?

        •       If he groped her or she groped him?

        •       If she was willing, and only decided later that she hadn’t been, because it didn’t proceed the way she wanted?

        We mustn’t forget that women would have many incentives to claim, even to believe, that a rich and famous man had found them worth moving on. Especially if they weren’t.

    • Salem, Oregon, USA?

      Well, the Salem part certainly fits.

    • David

      It is clearly a satirical comment and should be seen as encompassing three of the currently most talked about people in the news. No one is condoning the alleged sexual assaults, which as far as I unaware remain alleged. That is to say not proven or even acknowledged. You are aware that Dylan got the Nobel prize a few days ago?

      Trump completely bemuses me, we have no one remotely like him in British politics but I think your actions betray a lack of perspective.


      • Mildly stated.

      • Tony. Re “we have no one remotely like him in British politics.” Perhaps you should. Why not is the interesting question? Is America about to do something new? Imagine that.

      • David

        The nearest we had was Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster raving loony party. Nigel Farage appears positively statesmanlike besides Trump. However, as a Brexiteer I do ‘get’ Trump. People in many of the major democracies are railing against the out of touch elite and this is your Brexit moment.

        Its a shame that no one more credible than Trump has appeared to lead the angry and disenfranchised as Hillary is so thoroughly disliked..


    • The offending images have been taken down. Multiple people have landed in moderation over this.

      For the record, I find sexual assault to be deeply troubling, wrong, immoral, illegal, etc.

      My selection of the opening quote for this thread was done to reflect the absurdity and even insanity of the events this past week, in context of the U.S. Presidential election. Unfortunately, few seem to appreciate satire any more.

    • That joke is part of the political news of the week. Should it just be ignored?

    • You are pathetic Appell. It’s one thing to cry like the drama queen you are on a blog. Threatening someone’s job because you want to show your PC creds is proof you are a sad sack piece of garbage. And you went on and on about Tucci. Add hypocrite to the list.

    • No. What Trump admitted is that women let celebrities kiss them and grab them by the pussy. “Let” means they consent to it. Try again you ignorant phuck.

      • Consent? I can’t imagine being introduced to a woman and saying “may I grab your pussy.” The word “grab” implies without consent.

    • So let’s see. Someone posts a tasteless joke with which you take offense. In response you report said person to their boss with the hope that the boss will take some form of action. Then you hide behind “free speech” as justification for your fascist actions.

      Yeah, you’re a real mensch.

  22. “Donald Trump has recently admitted to sexually assaulting women.”

    Reference? AFAIK no he has not. He is a narcissistic buffoon, but he has not admitted to sexual assault.

    • ==> but he has not admitted to sexual assault. ==>

      He bragged about touching women in a sexual manner, without “waiting.”

      It’s entirely possible that he bragged about actions that he never took, but the fact that he considers them actions worthy of bragging about speaks loudly about his character.

      The justification of it as “locker room talk” displays his notion of accountability. While, in my experience, bragging about exploits and using slang terms is not remotely unusual – it is highly unusual for ‘boys will be boys” behavior to include bragging about grabbing women sexually without “waiting.”

      By any realistic (non-splitting hairs) definition, while he didn’t admit to sexual assault, he explicitly bragged about sexual assault. If it serves your interest to split that hair, have at it.

      • Waiting for what?

      • Her to change her mind after she made clear he wasn’t welcomed?

      • Damn. I wish I didn’t post that comments.

      • I have know idea what Trump is accused of or what he has admitted to, that might be far more aggressive than what I think could be appropriate.

      • He did not brag about sexual assault, and the difference between criminal behavior and non-criminal is not “splitting hairs”.

      • So bragging about “grabbing” women by their genitals, “without waiting,” because as a star he can do “whatever [he] wants, ” isn’t bragging about sexual assault?

        Seriously? Well, alls I can say is that it’s a good thing that men who define sexual assault in the manner as you do you are a dying breed.

      • dougbadgero —

        ==> He did not brag about sexual assault, ==>

        So bragging about “grabbing” women by their genitals, “without waiting,” because as a star he can do “whatever [he] wants, ” isn’t bragging about sexual assault?

        Seriously? Well, alls I can say is that it’s a good thing that men who define sexual assault in the manner as you do you are a dying breed.

        ==> the difference between criminal behavior and non-criminal is not “splitting hairs”. ==>

        The difference between bragging about “doing whatever [he] wants” to women, and “not waiting” before grabbing them by their genitals, and sexual assault, is splitting hairs.

        If he goes up to a woman, “doesn’t wait,” and grabs them by their genitals, with the explanation that he can do whatever he wants, and the woman can prove that’s what he did, she can certainly press criminal charges. In other words, if he does as he describes, and a woman can prove it and presses charges, he goes to jail. Criminal behavior.

      • Once again, what we don’t know for certain that he did what he bragged about doing. He can’t be charged criminally for bragging about committing sexual assault. However, (1) there is some reason to believe that he has done just as he described and, (2) his bragging about committing that form of sexual assault could be used as evidence against him in court.

        But whether or not he actually did as charged, it takes a particular breed of man to brag about committing sexual assault, and an even lower breed of man to then display a lack of accountability by trying to explain away bragging about sexual assault by calling it “locker room talk.”

        Win or lose, it’s certainly a good thing that Trump has pulled back the rocks on the sorts of rationalizations that people offer for Trump’s behavior.

        Although there can certainly be overreach in the other direction, I consider this to be a continuation of the larger positive societal trend in the direction of men finding out that certain forms of behavior are no longer socially acceptable.

        For some, however, the lesson is difficult to learn. Sometimes you just have wait for the generational shift.

      • Your rhetoric is childish. You seem to believe that that there are no women who use their sexuality to get near rich and powerful men, or professional athletes, or musicians.

        I did not need to hear the most recent idiocy to know that Trump is a Buffon and unfit to be president. That does not change the fact that you seem incapable of having an intelligent discussion about human sexual behavior. The left’s hypocrisy on this issue is a big part of why the political rhetoric is where it is at today. I agree with Maureen Dowd, feminists entered a Faustian bargain with the Clintons two decades ago.

      • It’s more than a little disturbing to see how Doug so easily conflates “women using their sexuality” and the possibility of Trump being a serial predator. Hint – one is OK, the other isn’t.

        Doug should try turning that argument around and see how it looks.

        And recent history has told us something relevant to this – think Cosby, or Jimmy Saville – powerful/rich/famous men using that status to silence their many victims, even over many decades.

      • I’m not defending any of the commenters on this Thread. But this “he is worse to women than him” is getting tiresome. The only real facts we have are:

        1. Bill Clinton was Impeached and disbarred for, among other things, perjury. He was forced to pay a settlement to Ms. Jones for his transgressions against her. It took Bill’s semen on a blue dress to prove he lied to the American people and had, in fact, diddled a young Intern in the Oval Office. All of his forcings of himself on women have a historical record.

        2. Donald Trump has a loose and boastful mouth. A number of women have come forth claiming he touched them inappropriately.

        Charlie Skeptic

      • Conjecture about possibilities….The same childish rhetoric for the same political purposes.

      • Fwd: Doug –

        ==> You seem to believe that that there are no women who use their sexuality to get near rich and powerful men, or professional athletes, or musicians. ==>

        You are entitled to think what you want about what I “seem” to think. It matters not to me. But that isn’t germane. Whether or not women use their sexuality to get close to men is, likewise, irrelevant. Theyou have the right to act in such a way I’d they choose. That neither constitutes an excuse for sexual assault, nor a justification for bragging about sexual assault.

        Trump said what he said. He bragged about committing sexual assault. Defend it as you wish. As I said, it’s a good thing that such a mentality is in its last throes.

      • Trump said what he said. He bragged about committing sexual assault.


        He bragged about things women were willing for him to do. Even if his (probably exaggerated) claims were true, that’s not assault.

  23. From the article:


    28% are satisfied with the direction of the U.S.
    8% of Republicans and 49% of Democrats are satisfied
    Satisfaction similar to level seen before 2012 election
    WASHINGTON, D.C. — With the presidential election less than a month away, 28% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. This continues the low satisfaction levels that started near the end of the George W. Bush administration and have persisted under President Barack Obama. Satisfaction remains significantly below the historical average of 37% since Gallup began measuring it in 1979.


    • Jim2,
      Personal theory is that folks comparing our current candidates is in part the cause of Obama’s steadily improving numbers . The fear is in the near term we’ll be looking back at 2008-2016 as the good old dayz.

      • Not bloody likely!!!

      • According to IPCC “likely” > 66%. Leaving 34% probability? Not sure in what the modifier ‘bloody’ would result.

      • We probably will with Hillary in the White House.

      • Tim,

        Maybe. And maybe with Trump. One has to wonder why you didn’t mentioned that as a possibility.

      • Because Danny of one I’m certain. The other is only a possibility. I was commenting on the one I consider certain.

        You get tedious at times with this quest for balance, to the point of bringing out your scale for things that require no weighing.

      • Tim,
        I don’t know what you want me to say. My pollyanna tilting at windmills is in it’s essence a recognition that the extreme divisiveness is not working. So my approach is different. What I find tedious is a continuation of our side vs. their side. WE, by evaluating and criticizing BOTH sides might find a refreshing change as a result. As one once suggested: “What the heck have you got to lose”?

        Think about that and get back to me if you choose.

      • This may or may not be in agreement with Danny, but “a pox on both your houses” is my attitude.

      • Charlie,
        “This may or may not be in agreement with Danny, but “a pox on both your houses” is my attitude.”

        Pretty close. Maybe not a pox, but a very, very bright light!

        But thanks, I’ll take what I can get.

  24. What with all the talk about the specter of Billary’s finger on the nuclear button, we should be worrying more about the id e ot we have now, Obuffoon. He (and Billary) have done such a great job with foreign policy, we are on the brink of war with Russia. Well done, Oboner. From the article:

    With tensions between Russia and the United States at their highest since the Cold War, there have been alarming signs coming out of Moscow that suggest the country is ready for war.

    Almost no one believes the Kremlin is actually preparing for a military conflict with the United States. Most analysts instead see it as a show, intended to boost support at home and to deter Western countries from intervening militarily in Syria.


  25. According to the LA Times poll Trump’s falling poll numbers have stabilized for now.


    • There is still a dearth of polls from the past week. If you look at the Presidential polls listed at RCP, we had been getting polling much more frequently. All of a sudden, after the last debate, the polls dried up. I wonder why?

    • jim –

      ==> I wonder why? ==>

      We already know the basic answer: the system is “rigged” to help Clinton. They’re all in it together. The only question is why they changed their strategy – why not just continue with their previous strategy of performing the polls and “skewing” the results to make Clinton’s numbers look better than they are?

      The only remaining question is whether they’ve conspired to stop conducting the polls during this period because they know in advance that the results will help Trump, or whether they have performed the polls but have conspired to not release the results because they help Trump.

      Which of those do you think is more likely?

    • He’s a bit ahead in the LA Times poll this morning but yes, there’s no trend in it for a few days. This roughly coincides with the most recent Rasmussen surveys which have Trump +2 on Thursday and Friday. Unlike LAT poll Rasmussen had Trump -7 on Monday but that the debate was a huge success for him bringing him up 9 points in 3 days.

      The LAT poll was far more accurate in the 2012 election than the RCP average. It was an outlier then too. As most climate skeptics know you don’t a superior product by averaging models that share the same systemic flaws.

      Rasmussen’s findings agree with the Luntz’ focus group on the 2nd debate which started out at audience members Clinton 8, Trump 9 and ended with Clinton 4, Trump 18. Luntz’ said he’d never seen a debate have such a dramatic effect on a focus group and Luntz has conducted a large number of focus groups. Luntz is not a Trump fanboy either.

      At any rate the only poll that counts is conducted on November 8th.

  26. From the article:

    The scorched-earth playbook employed by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is stirring alarm among allies of Hillary Clinton, with some fearing the negativity will depress turnout on Election Day.

    Some Clinton supporters say they’re concerned that voters are nearly fed up with the constant accusations and name-calling that has defined the campaign.

    “Of course there’s reason to worry, both about the ‘turn off’ effect or the impact if polling continues to show her leading by a wide margin,” one longtime Clinton adviser acknowledged on Thursday. “That, too, could lead some to stay home.”
    The hostile atmosphere in the race has been worsening by the day.

    In the past 48 hours, several women have come forward to accuse Trump of sexual misconduct following reports of a tape in which the Republican nominee talks about grabbing women by the genitals. Protestors have been interrupting Clinton to accuse her husband of rape, after Trump brought women who have accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct to the second debate.

    Trump is increasingly warning of a “conspiracy” that he says is being waged against him by the Republican Party, corporate interests and the mainstream media. And amid the chaos, there’s been a slow drip of emails from WikiLeaks that appear to detail the inner workings of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    Another former Clinton aide added that while Trump’s comments have been “desperate,” there’s some cause for concern.

    “In the final days of a presidential campaign, it’s something you have to worry about,” the source said.

    Grant Reeher, the director of the Campbell Public Affairs Institute at Syracuse University, agreed, saying turnout fears are running high for candidates up and down ballot.


  27. Rasmussen’s polls are showing Trump gaining in the polls, closing the week with a 2% lead over Clinton:

    White House Watch,
    White House Watch: No Sign of Allegations Fallout Yet

    At the close of a week that began with him trailing by seven points, Donald Trump still holds a slight lead over Hillary Clinton in today’s White House Watch survey despite a flurry of news reports alleging a history of sexual harassment on his part.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Trump with 43% support to Clinton’s 41%. That’s unchanged from yesterday….

    Clinton held a seven-point lead on Monday – 45% to 38% – following the airing of an 11-year-old video showing Trump making graphic sexual remarks about women. But as voters began responding to Sunday night’s debate, her lead dropped to five points on Tuesday and four points on Wednesday. Trump edged ahead yesterday.

    Rasmussen Reports updates its White House Watch survey daily Monday through Friday at 8:30 am Eastern based on a three-day rolling average of 1,500 Likely U.S. Voters. The latest survey is the first to include results following the release by the New York Times of new allegations of sexual harassment against Trump.

  28. From the article:

    Private equity investor and former Bill Clinton advisor Glenn Hutchins conspired with Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden to ambush GOP nominee Donald Trump during a live television interview, leaked emails reveal.
    “I am going on CNBC between 8 and 9 AM on Monday morning and expect, among other topics, to be asked about HRC. My plan is to contrast the Rs whining after the CNBC debate with her masterful performance before the Benghazi panel and pose the question of who looks presidential,” Hutchins wrote to Tanden and Podesta. “As I prepare, any input from you two would be welcome.”

    “I think you may get asked about the debate and Paris. I will send you ideas post debate,” Tanden said.

    “Turns out now that Trump is calling in between 8 and 8:10. So I am going on at 7:45 in order to be in place for to call,” Hutchins replied. “I am trying to craft one question to ask him in case I get a chance. Any thoughts?”

    Podesta suggested ambushing Trump with a question about minimum wage.

    “Maybe given his wages are too high which he has walked back to only being about the minimum wage: ask him [s]ince so much low wage work is concentrated in the service sector from fast food workers to housekeepers, why would raising the minimum wage affect US competitiveness?” Podesta wrote.


  29. Another Oboner success story:

    A growing number of people in Obamacare are finding out their health insurance plans will disappear from the program next year, forcing them to find new coverage even as options shrink and prices rise.

    At least 1.4 million people in 32 states will lose the Obamacare plan they have now, according to state officials contacted by Bloomberg. That’s largely caused by Aetna Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and some state or regional insurers quitting the law’s markets for individual coverage.


      • David, you are in moderation for these reasons:
        1) you frequently carpet bomb threads with too many comments (you have been in moderation multiple times for this)
        2) you frequently insult other commenters

        Further, you go out of your way to try to make me look bad by pulling comments out of context and tweeting them, and now sending emails to my chair at Georgia Tech.

        If you find something offensive on the blog that I miss, the constructive and cooperative thing to do is send me an email informing me of what you find objectionable, so that I can deal with it.

        In moderation, your comments will need to be approved individually by me. As with all individuals in moderation, I let through substantive contributions with useful links or actual arguments with reasoning and/or evidence.

        Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

      • Dr. Curry, I’ve been mulling over your moderate response to David Appell.

        Had he so carelessly attacked my job and career, the very livelihood of my family, he would be banned permanently. I’d likely find other ways to screw with him. PC bullies deserve no mercy.

      • David

        You make some thoughtful and interesting comments at times but telling tales because of some satire that most would find topical rather than offensive is over the top.

        If you have a problem, as Judith suggests, why don’t you email her direct?

        Look forward to your substantive -but restrained -comments on the next topics.

        I am counting the days until the election is over and normal service can be resumed. How a nation of 320 million can produce two candidates of this stature AND spin out the process so long is beyond me.


      • Curious George

        Tony, the Constitution dates back to 1788. I am actually surprised that it can still be relied upon today – as an example, when I became a citizen I pledged allegiance to the Constitution; can you imagine anybody pledging allegiance to Lisbon Treaty?

        On the other hand, the legal system is showing its age. I can not imagine anything more conservative than a legal system relying on precedents. In a lawsuit there are sufficiently many process rules to guarantee that a “better” lawyer wins; the idea of finding the truth is of a second order of importance, if any.

        So are political party rules. I remember that in 1980s the Great Wizard of Ku Klux Klan ran for a governor of Louisiana(?) as a Republican. He did win the Republican primary – and all the party could do was to recommend the Republicans to vote for a Democratic candidate. Why the national Party did not change rules then is beyond me.

        I am trying to say that some adjustments may be needed. The system is bad. We should replace it with something a little better – not with something much worse.

    • However, Aetna are keeping their Medicaid partnership with the government because that is where the money is for them. This should be a clue that the public option would be good to have, whether by extending Medicaid or Medicare. Company plans also work well and are very affordable due to having a pool of healthy people contributing, which is another lesson that higher mandatory payments would have brought more healthy people in rather having them gaming the system by getting insurance only when they get sick.

  30. I realize that things are getting heated regarding the forthcoming election, and these threads provide a useful purpose (to me anyways) in context of deflecting political discussion from the main science threads.

    But unless people can avoid posting offensive images, avoid profanity, and avoid unacceptable terminology in insulting each other, I will have to reconsider a whole host of blog policies.

    And I really have better things to do with my time than policing the comments and deleting objectionable ones.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

  31. ********** BREAKING ******************

    Fox News has an article about a witness that exposes the rigged plot to accuse Trump of sexual assault. Just further proof of how much of a victim Trump is.


    It’s curious, though, that in the article they fail to mention anything about the witness’s background.

    Wonder why that might be….

    • Josh, I heard the latest woman “abused” by Trump tell her story. According to her, she had plenty of opportunities to leave Trump’s presence during, according to her, the first meeting with Trump. She even met up with him the very next day after the “offensive” behavior of Trump.

      This is very illogical. It sounds more like, if a sexual offer was made, that she was considering it. Just like the woman who claimed to be abused by Trump in first class said she was OK with second base, but got offended when he went for third. This does not compute.

      • jim2 suggests it’s not Trumps fault when he sexually assaults a woman. It’s her fault for being there. I doubt many women would agree.

      • I’m suggesting she’s lying or at least distorting the truth. Kind of like you did just now.

      • jim –

        In no way do I consider myself in a situation to make any reasonable speculation such as that which you have made. No way I have anywhere near enough information.

        Just like I don’t consider myself to be in a position to judge the “logic” of how a woman might react to sexual assault. I have no idea what it would be like to be in that situation.

        Further, I would be reluctant to do so even if I had anything close to comprehensive knowledge about the circumstances. Given that I know nothing from independent sources, I try to avoid any kind of conjecture about how people should have reacted, how logical their reactions might have been etc.

        I think it’s amusing that people who spend heaps of time talking and evaluating scientific analyses would spend so much time offering useless speculations on these issues, often with great certainty. Go over to Lucia’s and read the extensive comments in the recent threads, where people pontificate on these issues, without any real knowledge of the circumstances. It’s really quite interesting, IMO.

        I have no particular reason to believe any one individual, be that a particular woman or Trump. I don’t think that I can judge from a paucity of information about context, superficial factors such as someone’s manner when they tell the story, etc.

        What I do know is that Trump bragged about something very much similar to sexual assault, if not outright sexual assault. If you brag about not “waiting” before “grabbing” a woman sexually, then you are certainly bragging about acting in a way that some women would clearly consider assault.

        That’s bad…it is a poor reflection on his character…but is total lack of accountability for that behavior – by virtue of dismissing it as “locker room talk.” Then moving on to exploiting fear about ISIS as a way to lay cover for his total lack of accountability, only makes it that much worse.

        It’s a sad state that so many people seek to justify their tribalism by defending Trump on this issue in any way, shape, or form.

      • Sorry, Josh, I’m not speculating. She described the incident in detail. She says she was “offended” multiple times. She could have walked at any time. She didn’t, according to her.

        What Trump said in his “locker room talk” has nothing to do with what this woman claims.

      • Josh, here’s some more to chew on re the last “victim” of Trump. From the article:

        Summer Zervos, the former Apprentice star who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump, sent an email to Trump’s assistant in April praising the GOP nominee.

        The email and a statement by Zervos’ cousin were released by the Trump campaign Friday afternoon. (RELATED: There’s A New Sexual Assault Allegation Against Donald Trump)

        “I am completely shocked and bewildered by my cousin, Summer Zervos, and her press conference today. Ever since she was on The Apprentice she has had nothing but glowing things to say about Mr. Trump,” John Barry, Zervos’ first cousin, said in the statement. He went on to say, “That was until Summer invited Mr. Trump to her restaurant during the primary and he said no. I think Summer wishes she could still be on reality TV, and in an effort to get that back she’s saying all of these negative things about Mr. Trump.”


      • jim2 said “I’m suggesting she’s lying or at least distorting the truth. Kind of like you did just now.”

        jim2, I’m not lying when I said you suggested it’s her fault for being there. That’s what I believe you suggested. I believe your remarks about this woman also suggest you have flexible standards when comparing Bill Clinton’s accusers with Trump’s accusers.

      • Max. One of Clinton’s victims said she was raped by Bill Clinton. So, I’m not sure where you get this “flexible” idea. Many of the other said they were and are afraid of the Clinton’s and that Hillary is culpable in trying to intimidate them.

        For Trump we have some locker room talk and unsubstantiated allegations.

        Not apples and apples here.

      • jim2 | October 15, 2016 at 7:30 pm |
        jim2 said “Max. One of Clinton’s victims said she was raped by Bill Clinton. So, I’m not sure where you get this “flexible” idea.

        Your willingness to accept Broderick’s rape accusation even though she attended a fund raising dinner for Bill Clinton after initially accussing him, then later testified under oath he didn’t rape her, then still later testified he did (with perjury immunity). You didn’t say you thought Broderick could be lying or distorting, but you said Trump’s accuser could be lying or distorting. I don’t understand how you can in fairness doubt one without doubting the other.

    • Josh asks about Fox News report on Trump’s character witness:

      “It’s curious, though, that in the article they fail to mention anything about the witness’s background.

      Wonder why that might be…. ‘

      Yes, I wondered that too. Why wouldn’t Fox think it relevant that Trump’s defender has admitted to procuring underage rent boys and is on record for making up fantastic stories? I suspect Fox is part of a right-wing media anti-Hillary conspiracy.

  32. Report from New York State — Here in the Central Hudson Valley of New York State my wife and I have done a survey of presidential campaign lawn signs while driving around looking for real estate. New York is considered a Blue State — strongly favoring the democratic party.

    The results?

    Nine Trump signs for every one Clinton sign.

    I have no idea what this portends for the election.

    • Kip –

      ==> I have no idea what this portends for the election. ==>

      Well, you acknowledge that you have no idea what to conclude from your entirely unscientific sampling, but why the, do you report on the results of your sampling which is, essentially, meaningless?

      I live in the lower Hudson Valley (pretty much, although it might be considered mid…)…and I don’t think that around here the proportions are the same, but obviously….

      Perhaps you were driving in areas that are particularly conservative…perhaps your sampling suggests that Trump supporters are more enthusiastic even if they are smaller in number..

      I was commenting the other day to someone that I see relatively few national election lawn signs compared to local election lawn signs…he said, as someone who has been around here his whole live as compared to me who has been here only 3.5 years, that he doesn’t think that the number of lawn signs this year is unusual in any way.

      It is certainly human nature to look for patterns in order to understand reality, but it’s important to always consider as many factors as possible that might affect your observations.

      ==> New York is considered a Blue State — strongly favoring the democratic party. ==>

      Really? Given the population density in a place like NYC as compared to the mid-Hudson Valley, you want to consider the # of lawn signs you have seen in your drives to think about the outcomes of this election?

      You know, I can’t really evaluate the science in your posts, but the logic of this comment does not suggest to me that I would find your posts persuasive if I could.

      • Joshua ==> Mine is simply an observation — a fact that I found rather odd. Usually the ratio in a national election are pretty close — like 60/40 — one candidate having a slight edge. So such a wide difference was surprising to me — particularly in Trump’s direction here in New York.

        That NY is a blue state is not my opinion (I had to look it up to be sure).

        PS: I am almost entirely non-political — my strongest opinion being that the Two-Party System is what is wrong with America’s democracy.

      • “…the Two-Party System is what is wrong with America’s democracy.”

        If you are not happy with your parties positions you can work within the party or leave it for the other party or leave both parties. The last option leaves you with little chance of have elected representation. What is actually represented is the two parties in the U.S. and to a lesser extent, us. Trump was able to break the Republican Party proving it wasn’t about the party. Doing it over months as many said it wasn’t going to happen. Sanders did not break the Democrat Party. I think we saw in both cases the party establishments trying to protect their parties. When they saw change that was unacceptable to them, they acted in a defensive matter. I had urged the Republicans to adapt. Many took the choice they offer others. My way or drop out. I think in both cases the parties have done a poor job of representing their voters. Arguing what we have is better than some unknown. The unknowns are dangerous and scary. For instance, libertarians are scary with their stances on drugs, gay marriage and immigration. So in effect they will have none or almost no representation in Congress. Paul was under a party banner. If the Republicans would allow libertarians to be represented rather than losing voters, they could form coalitions with them. Winner take all would seem to be something the Democrats would find objectionable. I won, I want all my money. If it’s being in control, we can accept winner take all.

      • Kip, don’t waste time on the putz. Josh clearly understands the difference between an observation and conclusions resulting from scientific research. Which means he is only interested in showing us how clever he is.

        Which is not very, as most people are put off by dishonesty.

  33. Curious George

    From server idnes.cz:
    The only winner of the presidential debate is the spacecraft Voyager, departing the Earth at 17 km/s.

  34. Glenn

    I have a very broad sense of humour but there is a time and a place for everything. Judith has enough to do without having to police the blog.

    as regards the picture above, personally I am a great fan of Turner and think that the annual competition is a travesty. Fair enough if they want to have some prize or other, but to name it after Turner-arguably our greatest artist- is a great shame.

    I am a big fan of ‘family guy’ and think they would have great fun with the image you post. Apparently people have been captured on cctv doing unspeakable things to it….


    • CNN had a very interesting Video on the art and fashion scene in London yesterday:

      From drag raves to club kid couture: Is London still the counterculture capital?

      I find it difficult to believe that London was ever the “counterculture capital,” given some the images by Robert Maplethorpe and Andres Serrano that were shown in major U.S. museums during the 90s.

      The counterculture, nevertheless, operates with some pretty outrageous double standards. The cultural icons of traditional relgion and morality are fair game, but the icons of the New Left are sacrosanct.

      Iconoclasts like the British journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, however, are trying to change that, and are taking aim at the new sanctimoniousness.

  35. Over the years, children have given me an assortment of ties, believing rightly, that I would wear them, as I have.

    On those occasions where wearing a tie may conceivably be regarded as appropriate, I select a tie reflecting my mood or some issue that I have been thinking about.

    After last Sunday’s Presidential Debate, I selected and wore a Looney Tunes tie.

    • RiH008

      We have a political party called the loony party. It used to be called the Monster Raving loony party at whose head was Screaming lord Sutch


      I think they would make admirable stand ins for the two alleged presidential candidates at the next debate


      • I’m in. I wanna join the ‘Co-ALE-ition’ after our never ending debacle.

      • Danny

        Was that a Freudian slip or did you mean ‘debacle’ and not ‘debate?’


      • Tony,

        I’m embarrassed about our debacle and apologize to you and the rest of the planet for our display.

        I think it says something when the APA ‘feels’ it must come out with this:
        “Whatever happens on Nov. 8, life will go on. Our political system and the three branches of government mean that we can expect a significant degree of stability immediately after a major transition of government. Avoid catastrophizing, and maintain a balanced perspective.

        Vote. In a democracy, a citizen’s voice does matter. By voting, you will hopefully feel you are taking a proactive step and participating in what for many has been a stressful election cycle. Find balanced information to learn about all the candidates and issues on your ballot (not just the presidential race), make informed decisions and wear your “I voted” sticker with pride. “http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/10/presidential-election-stress.aspx

        Sure wish we’d get back to a debate and talk about policy.

      • Danny

        I try to vote in all our electios. If I were an American though I just don’t think I could bring myself to endorse either candidate. As I have said before, I ‘get’ the appeal of Trump, as unlikely as it may seem he is your anti elite candidate enabling you to voice your disapproval in the same way we did for Brexit. But vote for him? I don’t know


      • Tony,
        I propose this is not an election about voting ‘for’ anyone. My totally offhanded and completely lacking in scientific evaluation is 50% of us will vote against one or the other. 25% will vote party lines. 25% will vote ‘for’ (this portion may be off somewhat).

  36. Pingback: Roundup 16 Oct | Catallaxy Files

  37. From the article:

    HERE IT IS=> List of Debunked Groper Allegations by Corrupt Media Against Donald Trump

    Jim Hoft Oct 15th, 2016 9:41 am 118 Comments

    The Democrat-media complex carpet bombed Donald Trump with several alleged groping stories this week from several women.

    The media clearly did not fact check these stories. They ran the stories no matter how farfetched they were. It is clear from the number of stories dropped in the last week that this was a coordinated effort, probably from inside the Hillary Clinton campaign. The goal was not to present facts to the public. Their goal was to destroy Donald Trump.

    In 2008 the Democrat media hit Republican John McCain with similar allegations. Vicki Iseman, the woman named in the hit piece, settled with The New York Times after the election.

    So, it is clear that this is a commonly used tactic by Democrats – use the media to slander and destroy their opposition before the election.

    Thankfully, today the conservative media is much stronger than it was eight years ago.


  38. This is an interesting turn of events. From the article:

    While many analysts dismiss Donald Trump’s chances of winning over black voters, the Republican nominee has an unlikely ally making his case — the founder of a group that once rallied black voters for Bernie Sanders.

    Bruce Carter, who led “Black Men for Bernie,” told FoxNews.com he had a change of heart after he traveled to urban communities and saw the levels of poverty in Democrat-controlled areas of the country.

    “Once I got involved, I realized that the Democratic Party was operating as if they own the country, and that was a major turn off for me,” Carter said. “I didn’t want to represent a party that saw its people in that way.”

    Carter, from Texas, has since formed “Trump for Urban Communities” – a grassroots organization he says is reaching out to black voters in big cities from Jacksonville, Fla., to Philadelphia, to Charlotte, N.C., seeking to convince first-time voters, working families and others to vote Republican in November.


    • “He says much of it depends on Republican willingness to engage directly in those communtiies.

      “To use Donald Trump’s language — What do the Republicans have to lose by investing in urban communities?””

      Outstanding! And a recognition as to how it should be done. If Clinton loses she should use all her ‘goodwill’ to assist in exactly this type of response. And if Trump should lose he should do the same.
      Which do you think is more likely Jim?

      • It will take a sea change of lifestyle in the poorest, most violent communities. Just paying attention to those isn’t going to do the trick.

      • Aha! An opening to a policy discussion!

        Okay. Trump has used Chicago as a specific area of concern. He has stated clearly he can ‘fix it’. What evidence is there that he has done so?

        Predicting a ‘wait and see once he has the power of the presidency’ response, would you question the morals of one who ‘knows how to fix it’ and uses that a leverage while lives are lost? Alternatively, would you be more impressed would he actually ‘fix it’ leading to a likely positive response from the community involved (and votes)? Or are you skeptical he’s telling the truth? Or any other possibility of your choosing as I don’t wish to box you in.

      • He would have to be President before he could attempt a fix. He isn’t.

        I don’t know if we will get precinct by precinct counts from Chicago, but November 8 isn’t here yet in any case.

        You seem to have confused the present with the future multiple times.

      • “He would have to be President before he could attempt a fix.” (As predicted).
        Why? Does ‘the fix’ require something special & inherent to that office? If so, I’m sure your specific evaluation will follow in detail. For now, I think you’re cheerleading.

        He already knows how (or said he does) how. Hell. If he did I’d reconsider voting for him. How many others might do the same?

        If I knew how to fix it I would. No money requested, no power, a freebee. Maybe my morals and his are different.

      • How about neither.

        Trump has a day job to return to. Hillary’s had the opportunity to do this since her husband became President and hasn’t.

      • Tim,

        Trump says he’s gonna make America Great again. I don’t recall him saying that was contingent on his being elected. Wanna use the term ‘conflate’ on me again?

      • Trump says he is going to make America great again, if elected President.

        See the connection?

        Maybe you think a real estate developer has as much influence and resources available as the President.

        I get your point – nothing prevents Trump from trying to address at least some of the issues he talks about. What detracts from it you overplaying it. It’s almost like you making a really nice shot in putt putt golf and then thinking you are qualified for the PGA tour. I’ll bet the guy in the gallery who sank that putt at the Ryder Cup doesn’t think that.

      • Tim,
        “Maybe you think a real estate developer has as much influence and resources available as the President.”

        Or maybe if you bothered to ask I’d tell you that I think that a real estate developer THINKS he has a much influence and resources as ‘the president’. What has he said? “I ALONE can ‘fix it’.” “I know more than the generals do”. “Only I can take out ISIS”. I made him prove his citizenship. I made NATO create a position to take on terrorism. I get all the free publicity I need…………and so on (some of above misquoted/paraphrased as I didn’t bother to look them up wasting energy expecting you’ll just tell me how wrong I am and other defense of his carp). So who’s ‘overplaying’?

        And maybe I’m not too bashful to call him on his B.S. He has no friggin idea how to fix Chicago. If you think he does, then back it up with proof.

        He is one half of something creating further divide and in fact is not make us great again. And I resent it just a bit.

      • Trump has already helped 10’s of thousands of people get a job. Many participants in his TV shows heap praise upon him.

        How many jobs has Billary created?

      • Jim2,
        And good on Trump. Personally I think, capitalism is a good thing. But it’s not everything. Please take a look at other parts of values in life of which you may not be familiar: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about, https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-development-initiative,https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/by-topic/economic-development

        But I caution you, you might find some worth and value.

      • Why would I backup a statement I never made?

        Instead of playing cute, how about stating your opinions directly? Instead of asking a dumb rhetorical question, simply say that you believe Trump is full of manure when he says he will fix Chicago.

        And if you are sincere about your balance thingy, you might add that whatever he’d do, it couldn’t be worse than what people in charge now are doing.

    • Curious George

      The poverty in Democrat-controlled areas of the country may be a leftover from the times when Donald J Trump was a Democrat.

  39. I liked this article:

    “The third reason to prefer a Trump nomination: If he does win, a Trump presidency would probably wind up doing less harm to the country than a [Clinton,] Marco Rubio or a Cruz presidency. It might even, possibly, do some good.”

  40. A number of women claimed to have been inappropriately touched by Trump. Not a single one of them has a witness or any shred of evidence. All hearsay. However, the Trump campaign has found actual evidence in over half the cases that the accusers are lying. What struck me as unlikely about these women is they didn’t walk away at the first inappropriate behavior. They stuck around for some reason giving him the opportunity to continue. That’s a tell for a woman who is flirting with a billionaire in the hope it will lead to personal gain.


    • Put new meaning to the phrase “Follow the money!” Heh!

    • Impeach said “A number of women claimed to have been inappropriately touched by Trump. Not a single one of them has a witness or any shred of evidence.”

      I find this comment insulting to Donald Trump. It suggests Trump is so lacking in common sense that he announces his intentions to grope women so witnesses will be present.

      Trump is smarter than Whoever wrote this isn’t as smart as Trump.

      • stevenreincarnated

        It is a logical comment because so many of the accusations were supposed to have occurred in public places. For example, someone managed to dig up this groping video

      • Well, Trump does get careless at times. The latest accuser has a witness.

  41. Trump is much criticized for his “it’s rigged” comments.

    Wikileaks has proven that the DNC rigged the primary for Mrs. Clinton.
    This resulted in the resignation of chair and many high ranking subordinates.

    Are we to assume that the DNC will not cheat in the general election?

  42. From the article. I hope there’s an email fatal to Billary’s run :)

    WikiLeaks has uploaded a new batch of 1,000 emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta.

    The latest, eighth, release of emails brings the total number of files released to over 11,000.

    These emails shed more light on the Clinton campaign’s efforts to control and shape media coverage of Hillary, their monitoring of Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and discussions on assault allegations made against Bill Clinton.

    • Of course campaigns try to influence media. Anyone not aware of this is a moron. What’s interesting is how campaigns try to influence media. Now that we know how the DNC tries to influence media, the RNC should make all its e-mails public so we can see how it tries to influence media.

    • ““I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says, ‘I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion,’” Podesta wrote to Clinton’s Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri in April 2015.”

      I want to be President and I hate everyday Americans. They are not too bright. And they aren’t like sheep that I can have do as I wish. Why don’t they understand globalism is good? Most of them don’t understand global warming as I do. And why didn’t they vote for me 8 years ago? I had the organizations in place then, did the work, and some upstart convinces everyday Americans he should be President. Those bleepers denied me 8 years ago.

      • Yep, right-wing spin. Check out the real context, or do I have to tell you. It is better if you find it for yourself, I think, and please report back with your findings.

  43. ‘The media’ conspiracy proven? “Stringer, a reporter of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, said he personally finds it disturbing that money was promised and apparently not given.” (unless they meant supporter, but freud?)http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/10/14/stringer-trump-9-11-charities/

  44. This is an equal opportunity tongue lashing. Why is no one talking about the $14.2 Trillion Debt Held by the Public? I understand why the Democrats are not. And the MSM are too dense to understand since they are the original economic and financial illiterates. But where are the Republicans with their numbers. Why aren’t they pointing out the massive debt was not accumulated due to undertaxing but rather over spending. Social Program outlays have increased since 2000 by nearly $2 Trillion per year and is now nearly $3 Trillion. Defense spending has gone from $300 Billion to $600 Billion during that same period. The Bush tax cut for the rich reduced revenue by only $100 per year and that has been repealed. By 2020 Social Program spending with increase by an additional $600 Billion, equal to the entire Defense budget for that year.
    Why don’t the Republicans point out that under Obama the Debt Held by the Public has more than doubled and has grown by over 300% since FY2000. Why don’t they educate the public by explaining for the 16 years after WWII, when the Debt had also exploded, the increase was only 1%. Why don’t they point out that the Left’s beloved 91% top marginal rate did not mean the richest paid 91% of their income in taxes. Rather during the 1950s, when the top rate was 91%, the effective rate (actual percent of gross income paid in taxes) was 45 to 50% And since there was only an extremely small number paying the 91%, (640 taxpayers in 1954) there was no massive income redistribution.
    Why isn’t it explained that contrary to conventional wisdom, pushed by the MSM, taxes on the individual as measured by the effective rate is actually greater today than in the 1950s. The effective rate for the Individual Income Taxes was in the 11 to 12% range then. The latest IRS report for 2014 shows the effective rate to be 15.1%. (Clinton balanced the budget with an effective rate of 15.1% ) And with Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, the gap between the 1950s and now is even greater. The effective rate for all those taxes in the 1950s was 12 to 13% Today with a much higher payroll tax rate, the rate is 19 to 20%. Individuals are over taxed not under taxed. Having the 1% pay an effective rate comparable to the 1950s would bring in only $120 to 150 Billion more per year, far short of eliminating the FY 2016 deficit of $587 Billion. I have no problem having the rich pay more taxes but given the magnitude of the deficit and debt, it is a pittance and will not solve the problem.
    Shame on the Republicans for allowing the Democrats to control the narrative and having the entire country believe we are under taxing individuals compared to the so called good ol day of the 1950s when the top marginal rate was 91%.
    When including payroll taxes, the percent of gross income paid in taxes by individuals is 50% higher today than when the top marginal rate was 91%.

    • Trump frequently speaks of how the public debt has doubled under Obama, and now stands at nearly $20 trillion.

      Clinton, on the other hand, argues that the “tax cuts for the rich” will greatly exacerbate the public debt problem.

      Neither candidate ever speaks of the elephant in the room, the skyrocketing private debt.

      Neither the public nor private debt saturations can be solved without more robust growth in production, in our nations’s GDP.

      I am skeptical of Trump’s claims that he can restore growth in the production of goods and services to the economy. In my opinion, this would require the kind of scientific and technolgical revolution imagined by commenters like AK, something which I am skeptical of. But I find Clinton’s claim that investment in “green energy” can become the engine for productive growth to be downright nonsensical. Spending twice the resources to produce half the energy is not going to solve our productivity problem.

    • The establishment apologists frame Fox News as being the mirror image of the Corporate Media.

      Fox News, they claim, is as much in the tank for Trump as what The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Slate, Huffington Post, The Guardian, The Daily Beats, Vox, etc. are in the tank for Hillary Clinton.

      The Last Refuge blog, however, disputes that claim being made by the establishment polemicists:

      Both media wings are part of Corporate Media in the same way that both Democrat and Republican political franchise wings are distinctions within the UniParty.

      This basic understanding underscores what is about to become increasingly obvious a Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch (aka “Mr. Wall Street“) positions his media entities to target Donald Trump and remove the existential risk Trump represents.

      Rupert Murdoch Prepares Final Assault on Donald Trump – And Chris Wallace Debate Prep…

      Last Refuge points out that, quite remarkably, the results of only three national polls were released this last week: LA Times, Rasmussen and Fox. The LA Times and Rasmussen polls show Trump either holding his own or gaining, whereas the Fox poll shows his polling numbers plummeting.

      But the Fox poll, the blog argues, was rigged.

      Murdoch’s Fox pollster, Daron Shaw, is “a big GOPe party operative (TX) with deep connections to the Bush family global agenda and the BIG GOPe elements within the UniParty,” the blog argues.

      “Suffice to say, Shaw is part of the Bush-Murdoch-Romney-Rubio mold of Wall Street legislative items, and in full alignment with Tom Donohue and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.” That’s “in addition to being Murdoch’s Fox Pollster.”

      And the Fox/Shaw “poll release dovetails nicely with” the other Corporate Media “messaging” that “Trump has been hurt by the coordinated NBC/Universal hit that took place a week ago (the trump Access Hollywood edited tapes).”

      So how did Fox/Shaw rig the poll?

      Last Refuge demonstrates that, if one looks at the poll internals, they rigged the poll by shifting the sample:

      All Daron Shaw did was increase the number of Democrats and decrease the number of responding Republicans. The poll shifted by 7% toward Democrats.

      • The “NEW” poll of Likely voters is 45% Dem -vs- 36% Rep (9% more Dem, or D+9).

      • The Oct 3-6 poll of Likely voters was 41% Dem -vs- 39% Rep (2% more, or D+2).

      In essence, if you factor in only a 1% gain for Hillary with a 7% increase in Democrats, the actual poll result heavily favors an improvement by Donald Trump. However, that doesn’t fit the unified (Corporate Media) narrative need.

    • Trump mentions the debt continually.

      • Posted this on last thread and AK chimed in a bit:


        This paper analyzes presidential candidate Donald Trump’s revised tax proposal, which would significantly reduce marginal tax rates, increase standard deduction amounts, repeal personal exemptions, cap itemized deductions, and allow businesses to elect to expense new investment and not deduct interest expense. His proposal would cut taxes at 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 debt would rise by $7.2 trillion over the first decade and by $20.9 trillion by 2036.”


        Her’s, according to TPC analysis, also adds but ‘only’ $1.3T IIRC.

  45. From the article:

    The sausage maker was Mrs. Clinton, giving one of her $225,000 speeches that she’s so long sought to conceal from the public, in this instance to the National Multi-Housing Council in April 2013. It came at a time when the just-retired secretary of state was coyly gearing up for a White House run, little tin cup at the ready, raking in nearly a million dollars that month alone.

    ‘Her public career has been based on showing one face to her gullible supporters and another, more ruthless one to allies and adversaries behind closed doors.’

    When her ode to pragmatic two-facedness was called out by Donald Trump at last week’s debate, she lamely blamed it on Abe Lincoln, as portrayed in Steven Spielberg’s 2012 film. Never mind that a high-priced collection plate and the passage of the 13th Amendment have little in common. It’s all in a day’s work for a woman who claims to be for the Little Guy but spends most of her time frolicking with the political and financial elites.

    Then again, Hillary has long believed that “the personal is political,” especially when political power can benefit her personally. Indeed, as the emails show, her public career has been based on showing one face to her gullible supporters and another, more ruthless one to allies and adversaries behind closed doors.

    Let’s review the evidence. Thirteen years after she and Bill left the White House in 2001 “dead broke,” Hillary regaled the well-fed bankers and financial managers at Goldman Sachs and BlackRock, Inc., with tales of her humble lifestyle before she and Bubba learned how to spin the dross of “public service” into the finest gold access and protection money can buy: “I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. I mean, were there really rich people, of course . . . but we had a solid middle class upbringing. And now, obviously, I’m kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven’t forgotten it.”

    Forget that those “fortunes” came from the very rigging she was supposedly decrying; as secretary of state, Hillary had to deal with lots of unsavory characters — but sometimes their natures were made sweeter by their touching thoughtfulness toward the Clintons.

    Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business. (See: “On favors.”) And a far greater threat than murderous Muslims adhering to a fanatical 7th-century religious ideology lurks right here at home — those pesky Roman Catholics and their silly 2,000-year-old faith. (See: “On Catholics.”)


    • stevenreincarnated

      Sounds like one from this morning is promising the FBI more overseas slots in exchange for them changing the security classification on some of the emails. I will give you this if you do that for me. They have a legal term for that which rhymes with quid pro quo.

    • “When her ode to pragmatic two-facedness was called out by Donald Trump at last week’s debate, she lamely blamed it on Abe Lincoln, as portrayed in Steven Spielberg’s 2012 film. Never mind that a high-priced collection plate and the passage of the 13th Amendment have little in common.”

      Doesn’t everyone say different things to different people? I know I do. It’s not hard for me to imagine politicians doing the same. Trump, for example, says in private that he gropes women but denies it in public.

      • He said he gropes women who let him grope with the implication that because of his celebrity there’s a never-ending supply of willing women.

        That’s true enough. Celebrity billionaires with a reputation for dating and marrying the most beautiful and successful women in the world have an endless supply of willing women of lesser status attracted to money and celebrity. Is this supposed to be some kind of secret? Trump had an endless supply of smart beautiful women throwing themselves at him. His current wife and mother of his third son is pretty conclusive evidence he still has what it takes as recently as 11 years ago. His supply of willing young tail is probably tapering off these days and likely his interest in it too.

  46. Given the sheer political, computing, and financial powers arrayed against Trump, it’s amazing the poll numbers are so close! From the article:

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta facilitated meetings between Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google, and key Clinton players Robby Mook and Cheryl Mills in 2014, according to hacked emails released by WikiLeaks.

    Schmidt also quietly funds a data company that provides services to the Clinton campaign.

    Podesta wrote to Schmidt on April 3, 2014, saying he would like him to speak with Robby Mook, now Clinton’s campaign manager, and Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton aide.


  47. From the article:

    On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” Republican vice-presidential nominee Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) said while his running mate Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is under heavy media scrutiny, the media is ignoring “an avalanche of hard evidence about corruption, pay to play, political favoritism emanating out of Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state.”

    Pence said, “The American people are very, very troubled. once again, here we are in an election of such enormous magnitude in the life of this nation, and once again, the media is piling on with unsubstantiated claims as the headlines while they ignore an avalanche of hard evidence about corruption, pay to play, political favoritism emanating out of Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state. We found out this week, that while she was secretary of state, her officials in that department actually directed reconstruction contracts in Haiti to friends of the Clinton. this is precisely the kind of pay to play politics she said wasn’t happening as their foundation accepted tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments.”

    “Just this morning The New York Times is reporting that in exchange for a five-minute meeting, the government of Qatar pledged $1 million to the Clinton Foundation. The American people are tired of all of this, and frankly, they’re very tired, present company excepted, they’re tired of the media going after unsubstantiated allegations that Donald Trump has categorically denied while they willfully ignore an avalanche of hard evidence about Clinton’s scandals,” he added.


    • Many of the polls are rigged to show Hillary ahead. It’s an effort to keep that status quo in Washington in place through a divide and conquer strategy. Down ballot republicans become worried about being associated with a POTUS candidate they believe has only 40% of the electorate supporting them and balk.

      There is a 12-point spread among polls right now. The most accurate POTUS poll of 2012 was the LA Times/USC poll. That poll today has Trump up by 1% in a two-candidate race. It’s not tampered by diddling with weighting in the model or by using newly recruited respondents for each iteration of the poll. Other polls, especially telephone polls, can be influenced by the peons manning the phones.

      The volatility and spread in the polls is a dead giveaway that something is wrong in polling land and it broke loose when the election became all about p u s s y instead of real problems facing the US.

    • Both campaigns of course have internal polling they rely upon. Neither Kellyanne Conway nor John Podesta fell off the turnip truck yesterday. What you see the Clinton campaign doing by making the campaign about p u s s y grabbing. Given Bill Clinton’s well documented history of sexual predation much of which he admitted under oath while he was POTUS and/or paid off the victim ($850,000 to Paula Jones) this was a very risky move borne of desperation. They know they can’t win on issues so this is all they really have. A majority of Americans aren’t really falling for it it’s all a bluff with a cooperative mainstream media behind the facade.

  48. “once again, the media is piling on with unsubstantiated claims as the headlines”

    Well, the latest woman to accuse Trump of sexual assault has a witness. Typically, however, assaults on women occur without witnesses. Obviously, assaulters don’t try
    to put their behavior on display.

    • I was sexually assaulted by Hillary Clinton when I was a virile young Marine sergeant in 1978 on leave in Arkansas. She fondled my johnson and stuck her tongue my ear. I was afraid to object because her husband was Arkansas attorney general.

      I find I can no longer keep this to myself. The pain and humiliation are just too much to bear. I’m sure I can find a witness to it.

      Thousands of people like me are telling their stories of being sexually assaulted by Hillary. Obviously not ALL of them can be true but with so many some of them must be true, right? Check it out.


  49. From the article:

    “This is about last Friday when the networks spent 23 minutes on the Trump tape,” he said. “And less than one minute — all three networks combined — less than one minute on the Hillary Clinton’s secret speeches that were being revealed on WikiLeaks.”

    “I think it’s amazing that Trump is as close as he is right now, considering the one-sidedness of the news media barrage,” Gingrich said.

    He also said: “I’m old enough to remember when Richard Nixon had the election stolen in 1960 and no serious historian doubts that Illinois and Texas were stolen. So to suggest that we have — that you don’t have theft in Philadelphia is to deny reality.”


    • ==> … So to suggest that we have — that you don’t have theft in Philadelphia is to deny reality.” ==>

      It will be interesting to see what happens if Trump loses. This nonsense before the election is one thing. But what if he loses? Will Trump and his cronies, surrogates, sycophants, and toadies keep up with the victimhood claims at the hands of rigging and “theft?”

      If so, it isn’t out of the question that there would be violence. Could turn out that the political posturing from Democrats linking the politics of dictatorships to Trump’s threats to put Clinton in prison if he’s elected might not be so over the top after all.

      Of course, if violence did occur, for the first time in our history in response to electoral outcomes, it would just be Obama’s fault…right?

      • “If so, it isn’t out of the question that there would be violence.”

        That seems almost assured at this point.

        If I were you I’d put a little effort into figuring out which side of this divide uniformed police and military fall when it comes to the movement Trump is leading.

        Let me know if you need any help figuring it out.

      • There’s an elephant in the room when it comes to Russia.

        Russia is mostly populated and entirely ruled by white guys who don’t like radical Islam any more than the same demographic in the United States.

        The kicker is that the uniformed forces of the US from city police to county sheriff to state & national guard to military are all overwhelmingly against the politics of bleeding heart liberals. Racial minorities are highly over-represented in the uniformed services but the thing of it is that these guys don’t care about the skin color of others who wear the same uniform. They care about the color of the uniform instead and are united by it.

        I tell you this as a former non-commissioned officer of a very famous uniformed service; The United States Marine Corps. I flash my military ID card to cops and it’s like a get out of jail free card. I’d guess about 10% of the police in the US started out as Marines. Uniformed services are a close knit community loyal to others wearing the uniform.

        And they really like talking about p u s s y it’s like the ultimate boys club. So there.

      • Joshua, what happens if Trump wins the popular vote by a substantial margin but loses the electoral college vote. This has never before happened in history. What happens with regard to peaceful transfer of power in this unique situation especially where the winner of the popular vote is a populist who says, credibly enough to the popular majority, the system is rigged in favor of corrupt, big money status quo interests assisted by a popular press that a super majority in the US don’t trust?

        This is central to the issue:


        Only 32% of the public expresses a fair or greater amount of trust in the press!

        Trump chose the right enemy (the press) and they are fighting for their lives. Journalistic integrity left the building when it caught on fire.

      • “Joshua, what happens if Trump wins the popular vote by a substantial margin but loses the electoral college vote.”

        What a silly question. He loses and whomever gets the most electoral college vote wins. It is as it’s always been.

        Write that down!

      • J0shua, what happens if Trump wins the popular vote by a substantial margin but loses the electoral college vote. This has never before happened in history. What happens with regard to peaceful transfer of power in this unique situation especially where the winner of the popular vote is a populist who says, credibly enough to the popular majority, the system is rigged in favor of corrupt, big money status quo interests assisted by a popular press that a super majority in the US don’t trust?

        This is central to the issue:


        Only 32% of the public expresses a fair or greater amount of trust in the press!

        Trump chose the right enemy (the press) and they are fighting for their lives. Journalistic integrity left the building when it caught on fire.

  50. Awesome! May the farce stick to her! From the article:

    Wikileaks Releases Another 1,054 Podesta Emails In Part 9 Of Data Dump; Total Is Now 12,073

    Tyler Durden’s picture
    by Tyler Durden
    Oct 16, 2016 8:23 AM
    Twitter Facebook Reddit
    Another day, another data dump.

    In a now familiar daily routine, one which forces the Clinton campaign to bring up ever starker sexual scandals involving Trump to provide a media distraction, moments ago Wikileaks released yet another roughly 1,054 emails in Part 9 of its ongoing Podesta Email dump, which brings the total number of released emails to 12,073.


  51. The law is such an inconvenience for Dimowits. (One word modified so it would be visible) From the article:

    Hillsborough police are investigating the apparent weekend firebombing of the Orange County Republican headquarters, an incident that one GOP official called an act of “political terrorism.”

    Police say the incident occurred when a bottle of flammable liquid was thrown through the front window of the office on Ja-Max Dr.

    The words, “Nah zee Republicans get out of town or else” were spray painted on the side of an adjacent building.

    “This highly disturbing act goes far beyond vandalizing property; it willfully threatens our community’s safety via fire, and its hateful message undermines decency, respect and integrity in civic participation,” Hillsborough Mayor Tom Stevens said in a statement. “Acts like this have no place in our community.”

    Orange County, home to the University of North Carolina in nearby Chapel Hill, is overwhelmingly Democratic. Democrats and independents outnumber Republicans 5-1.

    Hillsborough police along with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were continuing to investigate.

    Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of state GOP, called the bombing “political terrorism.”


  52. Many sports stars are saying it is not locker room talk, and you can see why it isn’t. It is entitlement talk, and I think it is better characterized as boardroom talk, especially in companies that have sexual harassment issues (like Fox News for example). So call it “boardroom talk” not “locker room talk”. Also, I suspect Trump inhabits boardrooms more than he does locker rooms.

    • Golf courses have locker rooms. He owns 7 here and a couple more across the ponds.

      • Maybe he is talking to managers in those locker rooms.

      • Have to see tax returns and receipts for ‘entertainment’ write offs on business expenses to know. Wonder how much he pays himself for using his golf course properties.

      • You don’t really need to go beyond the write-offs he gets by flying that jumbo jet all over the world to supervise his businesses like golf courses and beauty contests.

        Let’s save time by me conceding that Trump takes advantage of tax loopholes in ways that people like you and I cannot and you acknowledge that it’s perfectly legal and his activities are audited by the IRS every year to ensure he’s playing by the rules.


      • David,
        Hardly. You get your conspiracies. I get mine (and I really don’t expect to find anything of substance any more than wiki has proven Clinton unfit). If it’s as clean and clear as you suggest, why not serve up the records?

        Until then……Trump must be hiding something. Deal?

    • JimD has to rely on “sports stars” to determine what locker room talk is. Ever been in a locker room JimD?

      • I am saying it is entitlement talk. It doesn’t have to be in a locker room, so that is the wrong way to characterize it. His friend Ailes probably says this kind of thing to his buddies too.

      • “Locker room” is a euphemism for guys talking about women with other guys. By “guys” I don’t mean metrosexual pearl clutchers who traded their balls for approval from feminazzis of course. Some of you, perhaps most of you in this venue, might not know any guys other than the dweebs who wouldn’t say p u s s y if they had a mouthful of it.

      • “Locker room” is a euphemism for guys talking about p u s s y with other guys. Not feminized men who wouldn’t even say the word p u s s y if they had a mouthful of it of course although they’ll sometimes play the part to get approval from any alpha males in the group.

      • P u s s y is an extremely popular topic when boys get together. For any of you boys who don’t understand this perhaps you can do a study on sexual reproduction in primates of the homo family. That’s the latin homo of course. Regular homos probably don’t discuss p u s s y much but I’m just guessing.

      • OMG Judith Curry had to approve the first and second of my attempts to explain locker room euphemism in very crude terms. There are three similar replies above only the last one of which wasn’t thrown into moderation by trigger words.

        I don’t care what everyone else says about you, Judith. You’re an extraordinary woman on several levels.

    • It’s guy talk and isn’t usually done in a locker room when everyone’s johnson is hanging out. Try a group of guys, mostly single guys in their prime, drinking beer during half time, who get on the subject by talking about which cheerleader has the best tits and ass, which leads to stories of personal conquests, which are then exaggerated and lead to claims of who has the biggest dick and has satisfied the most women but no one ever whips it out to prove anything. It’s guy talk.

      Just sayin’.

    • Too funny! All this talk about p u s s y from feminized men horrified by online porn which, as everyone knows, is the real driving force behind the internet and threatens to make actual p u s s y far less of a daily concern.

  53. The voters will eventually fatigue from unsubstantiated charges from women. It may already be happening. But Wikkileaks is the gift that keeps on giving. From the article:

    Bucking the trend of recent national polls that showed Hillary Clinton pulling into a solid nationwide lead over Donald Trump, and the media consensus that his campaign just experienced Armageddon, the latest poll from ABC News and the Washington Post says the race is a statistical tie, with Clinton leading by only four points in a poll with a four-point margin of error.


    • Did they also mention this poll today, or are you just getting a filtered selection over there?

      • It’s Breitbart! Of course it’s ‘filtered’. Complaints about ‘the media’ being biased are being met head on by biased mini-media. And those who cite it are likely the loudest complainers (I.E. Trump).

      • Yes, they wouldn’t even know about these other polls if someone didn’t mention them in response. It probably came as a shocker.

      • Much rancor and gnashing about media bias and yet dead silence when it’s biased ‘correctly’. But it’s okay, it’s not ‘mainstream’.

    • If you mean to say that referring to Breitbart is an appropriate response to citations of CNN based upon “fighting fire with fire” is fair dinkum then I will agree with your characterization. Let’s meet in the fair and balanced middle by using Fox, okay? ;-)

      Speaking of media in the tank for Hillary why is it that she doesn’t utilize it by doing interviews with friendly journalists at CNN and NBC? Or why don’t we see her on those channels standing up in front of large crowds hours on end every day? Hillary is sick and in hiding. Both her health and her record in office are disasters so her surrogates, including the press, has to make the debate about uber-critical single issues like as p u s s y grabbing by billionaire Hollywood celebrities who have women throwing themselves at him like celebrity ball players and musicians.

      WTF is the matter with you that you’d possibly play along by ignoring what’s going on?

  54. No, George. He just appointed himself to protect frail women and the underprivileged.

  55. More Dimowit handiwork.

    Police identified several cars vandalized with white paint outside a rally in Bangor, Maine, for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Saturday, officials say.
    The investigation is ongoing and new information will not be released until Monday, but so far no one has been charged, the Bangor Daily News reported. Officers were “seeking witnesses and reviewing video” in the criminal mischief case, a Bangor Police spokesman said in a statement released Saturday.

    More than 20 parked cars were sprayed with lines of white paint. Attendees said the owners of some of the cars appeared to drive off without noticing the vandalism.


  56. Here it is, organizing violence at political rallies …

  57. At the chiefio, some info.

  58. Trump has a new conspiracy theory. Rigging elections. This from the guy who supposed Obama’s American mother went from the relative comfort of Hawaii to give birth in Africa in the early 60’s.

    • She wasn’t pregnant when she went to Africa. She was never pregnant at all.

      Thanks for asking!

    • I demand that Russia release DNA test results of Anne Dunham and Barrack Obama! LOL

      And throw in Clinton’s actual health records too while they’re at it.

      The first sentence above is tongue-in-cheek. I expect the second sentence will actually happen. Clinton’s real health records have almost certainly been hacked by now and will be the pièce de résistance of Wikileaks in this election if the Russians are really behind Trump.

      Reference the huge, rapid, long-lasting lead Trump got just from the video of Clinton collapsing at the 9/11 Memorial. If she’s been lying about her health, which most people either admit or privately fear is true, she’s sunk if comes to light before November 8th.


  59. One of Hillary’s emails talks about making Soros happy. Soros is her puppet master, I’m thinking.

    • ONE email = puppetmaster? Right.

      Why not send Brietbart a note and ask them to check with Mercer to see if it’d be okay to suggest that in an article.

  60. This I don’t think is satire, nor sarcasm:
    “Melania Trump is suggesting that, as First Lady, she could be interested in leading an effort to combat bullying and negativity on social media.”

    Anyone got any suggestions on where such a campaign might start?

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article108712447.html#storylink=cpy

  61. The British are coming! The British are coming! They’re in on it too: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37682947

    • Danny

      The British have concluded there is no electoral rigging or fraud on any meaningful scale that could affect the outcome of the election. Trump needs to come up with specifics in order to validate his claim.

      Mind you his other claim that the media is mostly against him probably has more merit


      • Tony,

        “Mind you his other claim that the media is mostly against him probably has more merit”. Yes. And evidenced in that the BBC article suggests something (anything) counter to what bounces between Trumps ears. Now this means there’s an international conspiratorial effort against him also, except maybe Russia.

        I’ve never seen more assertions with less evidence ever.

        You know, if climate was discussed in a similar fashion as Trump does things, a ‘real’ skeptic would laugh it up. Maybe those on the more climate concerned side (Mosher as example?) are right. There may actually not be but a couple ‘real’ skeptics. Plenty of evidence for that statement on these politics threads. When I’m the most ‘skeptical’ I’d suggest there’s a real problem.

      • Tony,

        An example of ‘real’ skepticism IMO would be to address the concerns of voter ‘disenfranchisement’ as detailed here when one evaluates the concern of voter fraud:

        “This Court will not allow the Florida Secretary of State — a high-level officer of the State of Florida — to take a knee and deprive Florida citizens of their most precious right.”

        “In dismissing the argument that tossing ballots with mismatched signatures would help prevent voter fraud, Walker responded: “In fact, letting mismatched-signature voters cure their vote by proving their identity further prevents voter fraud — it allows supervisors of elections to confirm the identity of that voter before their vote is counted.”

        (The above para might be important to those concerned about fraud)

        “Walker concluded by referencing the quote “I know it when I see it . . .” from Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in reference to pornography in an obscenity case.

        Walker quipped back: “Likewise, this Court knows disenfranchisement when it sees it and it is obscene.”

        (Walker, the judge, was voted in 94-0 in 2012 by our Senate according to his wiki)


        IMO if there are criminal charges for fraud there should be same for disenfranchisement. Hoping there are some ‘real’ skeptics who’ll agree.

        We’ve got to come together and stand up against BOTH sides.

      • Danny

        People disenfranchise themselves without any help from officialdom. They don’t get registered for a vote when they don’t bother to return the card to the local council. They deliberately go on holiday when an important election is on and don’t bother to get a postal vote. Biggest disenfranchisement of all is when they simply don’t bother to turn up at the polling station on the day

        During the Brexit vote vast numbers of young people did not bother to register to vote and many who did then failed to actually turn up at the election station then complained when the result wasn’t what they wanted.

        It was very noticeable when we went to the polling station at 7.30pm that the majority of people voting were older ones. The polls are open from 7am to 10 pm and in urban areas they are spaced every few hundred yards. Help will be given to get you to a polling station if you don’t have transport or are perhaps a little poorly.

        The Voter fraud you describe probably does not begin to compare to the numbers who have personally disenfranchised themselves.

        I do not know how successful Clinton or Trump have been in getting people registered nor how many of their supporters will turn up on the day. Would you bring charges against those who disenfranchise themselves? I believe in Australia it is mandatory to vote so presumably there is a fine if you don’t

        (which is not say I disagree with you about bringing criminal charges for fraud)


      • Tony,

        I’ve tried 20 times to respond, but wordpress won’t let me. Maybe it’s tired of my voice. Will try again later. Using this as test.

      • Russia is probably in the tank for Hillary and they would have the technical talent and physical resources to hack electronic voting machines.

        Putin is nationalizing Russia and he needs an enemy to unite Russians against. None better than Hillary Clinton who will continue Obama’s policies. He wants and needs US aggression to bolster his political power in Russia. It’s plausible that he wants a weakened dog in the White House to have a war with so he’s simultaneously destroying the United States electorates’ confidence in its leaders and elections. This will lead to victories he can claim against US hegemony.

      • David,
        Being the good skeptic you are.
        Russia & Hillary probably? That’s a good as Russia & Trump probably.


        Can it be done? Sure.
        Is it likely? Not very.
        Is it likely to be caught? Probably.

        Who’s destroying confidence in US elections? Donald Trump. Just making it such a high profile topic can plant the idea of attempts.

        “Seventy-five percent of the country’s votes are cast using paper ballots and even many electronic machines print a ballot so that there’s a paper trail. But five states (Georgia, Delaware, Louisiana, South Carolina and New Jersey) use electronic voting machines that leave no way to audit results after the fact, according to Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting, which advocates for transparency in voting machines.”

        Please take note of which party is concerned most about fraud and which has no audit trail as stated above: http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/09/technology/voting-machine-hack-election/

        Why don’t you try being skeptical?

      • Probably the ultimate outcome for Putin is that Trump wins the popular vote by a good margin and lose the electoral vote by a slim margin. That would probably result in civil war in the United States which would overjoy and embolden every tin pot expansionist dictator in the world and allow Russia to reform the Soviet Union led with an iron fist by Putin.

      • From the article:

        State investigating allegations of voter fraud in Tarrant


      • Yep. As I’ve suggested absentee, official misconduct and vote buying along with intimidation which Trump prefers, are the areas of concern. The unconstitutional due to being overly strict ID laws won’t touch the areas which may be of ‘real’ concern. Glad to see Jim2 finally showing concern where it should be.

        Those putting forth the unconstitutional laws should be charged criminally for disenfranchisement.

        Law & Order and all that.

        As far as the registration issues, conflating those with actual fraud is disingenuous.

  62. Interesting that politics thread is generating replies much faster than all the other CE articles combined.

    • It’s mainly a political forum these days, so no surprise there.

    • Equally interesting that ‘skepticism’ is dead.

      • No, as I’ve been saying all along it’s an extremely low priority concern except to a very tiny segment of the American population hovering around 2%. As soon as something, anything even slightly more important comes up then Climate Change gets dropped like a hot potato.

        It dropping completely off the radar screen, overshadowed by many orders of magnitude by things as important as p u s s y grabbing by rich Hollywood male celebrities. Was I right or was I right?

      • No David,
        What I saying is that when it comes to the topic of politics ‘skepticism’ is dead. You guys are ‘all in’ drinking the koolaid. Since you and Monfort had you tiff and you swung to Trump you’re in up to your neck. Jim2 can’t say a skeptical word, nor can Glenn.

        You guys wouldn’t recognize a ‘real’ skeptic if it told you you wouldn’t recognize a real skeptic.

        There are some, TIMG56 & a couple others who’ve expressed a bit of hesitation but no real analysis that I recall. Just ‘ABH’ (Anyone but Hillary). That just doesn’t seem like ‘real’ skepticism.

        So no, you were not right. You’re one of the worst.

      • Anyone but a lefty socialist like Billary!!!

      • Danny, you should read up on how the gov of WWII Germany ganged up with businesses there. Scarily like businesses here and the Dimowits. Think!!

  63. This was called the RAND poll in 2012 and it was the most accurate POTUS poll that year easily beating the RCP average. It’s conducted in the same way this year.

    It has Trump +2 this morning. The recent sustained lead by Trump began on September 12th and was a result of Clinton passing out on camera at the 9/11 Memorial in NYC and then subsequent lame attempt to lie about it in the days afterward.


      • David –

        Is that the same poll you were recommending for assessing Trump’s support in the AA community after it jumped by some 600% before then dropping by sine 600%?

      • David –

        Is that the poll that you said we should use to assess Trump’s support in the AA comminity..you know, just after his support jumped by like 600%, right before it dropped by like 500% a couple of weeks later? I noticed you haven’t posted anything about the LA Tidea poll numbers on his AA support lately. Any particular reason for that? Talk about too funny.

      • I explained this last time you introduced this red herring. I noticed, without your help, that the black vote % was changing in increments of ~4% over the course of one day which then quickly led to the obvious conclusion that the sample size for that category was too small to be reliable.

        The fact remains that this same poll was both an outlier in 2012 and the most accurate poll in 2012. Perhaps you can present a cogent argument for why it was the best in 2012 but worth shiit in 2016. I sincerely doubt you could produce a sound argument to save your life but go ahead and give it the old college try anyway, ok?

      • Lol. You were on here talking about how the LA Times poll showed Trump was going to get 20% of the AA vote…after your premature articulation about how Trump’s convention bounce was twice that of Hillary (based on a “motivated” reading of the LA Times poll). Perhaps “premature” is something you’re very familiar with, eh?

        The LA Times methodology is interesting, but just like any polling, it’s sampling is potentially biased…and there is no way to generalize from a previous election to conclude that this year’s sample isn’t biased.

        The bottom line is that any general election polling alone is less interesting than projections that combine national and state polling.

        Speaking about generalizing from previous accurate forecasts…



        2012 U.S. presidential election Edit
        The 2012 PollyVote was launched in January 2011 and forecast a victory for President Obama over the 22 months that it was making daily forecasts. On Election Eve, it predicted that Obama would receive 51.0% of the popular two-party vote, an error of 0.9 percentage points.[1]


        So, what do you think about this?


      • Tonight’s Fox poll. 61%, Trump doesn’t have temperament to be prez. 61%, Clinton does.

        Should be a close election. It is a closely divided electorate. But Trump’s got some significant obstacles to overcome. Not to mention, the whole system is rigged against him. Lol.

      • Not to mention, the whole system is rigged against him. Lol.

        Yup. Twitter is shadowbanning enemies of Clinton, evidently including Scott Adams.

        If true, Scott Adams “would regard it as treason”:

        If one political party can use the machinery of social networks to reduce free speech, that is an attack on American values at the deepest level. As a patriot, I would feel obligated to help kill Twitter. (And you wouldn’t want to bet against me.)

        I understand Twitter is looking for a buyer. If management is shadowbanning me, that would be breach of fiduciary responsibility, screwing both the shareholders and the employees who hope the company can be purchased. In my view, shadowbanning would make Twitter too toxic to own. That toxicity – treason in my view – would transfer to the buyer.

      • I love how Trump supporters, who are so deeply concerned about limits to freedom of speech and “censorship,’ flat out fail to even notice Trump’s promises to make it massively easier to sue for libel because he’s…well..you know….such a “victim.”

        Also worth noting that although “skeptics” get so worked up about Michael Mann’s assault on free speech by suing a pundit, I have yet to see any of them criticize Trump’s attempts to leverage our legal system to protect his thin skin.

        What a shock.

  64. My emphasis.


    There’s one word to describe the major national presidential election polls over the last two weeks: “wild.”

    Just about all of those wild swings in the polls lately have been in favor of Hillary Clinton, as she’s now increased her lead from less than one percentage point in the RealClearPolitics poll average to 4.6 points as of Thursday morning.

    But there’s another word you have to use when you see such massive swings in the polls in just a few days with less than a month to go before Election Day: “baloney.” And the reason why they’re baloney has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, partisan weighting, or even Russian hacking. It’s all about common sense.

    –more at link

  65. Tim Cook and Bill Gates as prospective V.P. candidates.

  66. That Hillary’s victory -barring a black swan- was and is assured is obvious to any *objective* observer

    Simply look at demographics. The electoral map. And the great disparity between Trump’s ground game and Hillary’s.

    Yet, we have people on this site running around, looking to such authorities (?) as a cartoonist (Scott Adams) for assurance that Trump will win.

    After Trump loses, I expect the claims (sans evidence) of a ‘rigged’ election will be deafening. More conspiratorial nonsense from the people who think climate change science is a plot to install a world government (lol).

    • Except for things like this:


      That’s not a cartoonist it’s seasoned journalist Jake Novak now at NBC who worked for decades at Fox and CNN too. He has a masters degree in journalism from an Ivy League school.


      Drop by again if you find something intelligent to say where I can’t put your dick in the dirt with two links and a single paragraph, asshat.

      • Your insults are juvenile. And they certainly don’t bolster your case.

        And, yes, people here and elsewhere have cited Scott Adams as some sort of electoral authority. So my statement was accurate. You haven’t knocked anything into the dirt.

        Jake Novak works at CNBC. Do you consider that a good source of info? If so, Jim Cramer can lose you a lot of money. Just follow his advice.

        Jake Novak produced Larry Kramer’s show. The same Larry Kramer who said Romney would win in a landslide, on the show Novak produced. Go look it up.

        This is the guy you’re citing as an ‘expert’. Good luck with that. Come back and revisit this on Nov 9.

      • Touched a nerve. My point stands. Novak is not a cartoonist. He’s an Ivy League professional journalist with decades of experience.

        Any argument over Novak’s record is a separate matter. He’s eminently qualifed.

        The point also still remains that the 2012 LA/Times poll (called the RAND poll back then) was the most accurate poll that year. It was also an outlier in 2012 and the methodology was not changed in 2016 and remains a unique combination of measuring how both undecided votes are leaning, if at all, and how sure decided voters are of their decision.

        Also unique as far as I know is they start and end with exactly the same set of 4000 people. It is demonstrated by scientific study that decided voters who are disappointed by something their candidate did don’t want to pick up the phone and talk about their feelings with pollsters. So in this election year with Trump doing something disappointing on a regular basis then for the next several days polls that recruit new people for each iteration of the poll there’s a large under sampling of the disappointed but still brand-loyal voter. This is why there are such large rapid swings in polling uncharacteristic of previous election cycles. Nobody has been as consistently embarrassing a a candidate or such brand-loyalty and NeverClinton factors working together to produce the massive volatility.

        Digest that and see if you can produce an intelligent counter argument.

      • You can’t even get the methodology straight of the single poll you’re touting, ie “they start and end with exactly the same set of 4000 people” is not correct. They add in people as time goes on.

        Rand was not THE most accurate poll. Angus-Reid and a couple of others were closer to the final tally.

        Anyway, you can’t expect to be taken seriously as someone analyzing an election when your entire argument rests on a single pollster. I mean, it’s comical and desperate really.

      • Angus-Reid? Some obscure hoser? Seriously?

        I’m sure I can find some asshat on Twitter who was closer than Angus-Reid the same way I could find a broken clock with the right time on it if I looked through enough of them.

        Try again.

      • “they start and end with exactly practically the same set of 4000 people”

        Fixed that for ya. Any substantive arguments?

      • It’s difficult to make a substantive argument against someone whose entire argument for trump’s victory rests on one national poll. You’re not giving much to work with.

        Notice how you don’t discuss state polling or ground operations? You make no mention of trump’s possible electoral pathway.

        Go ahead and explain which states trump will win to bring him to 270. You expect a Pennsylvania win? If so, explain why so, with actual data. If not Pennsylvania, which Obama states will he pick off that will be sufficient to bring him to 270? He could win Ohio and Florida and still lose, quite easily. For all practical purposes his campaign has given up on VA, so Hillary just needs to win VA and hold on to PA and it’s over. Then again, she could still lose either of those states and STILL have multiple viable pathways to 270. Math is your friend.

        Everyone with sense and education in this area understands he has lost the election. Calling people names on an internet site isn’t going to change that.

      • Ubik lyin’ for Hillary – Angus-Reid poll was NOT more accurate than RAND in 2012. #1 poll in 2012 was IBD/TIPP and that poll today has Trump +1. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!11

        Ubik u dumabass.



      • Just noticed this…

        ‘Ubik lyin’ for Hillary – Angus-Reid poll was NOT more accurate than RAND in 2012. #1 poll in 2012 was IBD/TIPP and that poll today has Trump +1. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!11’

        Actually, in their *final* polling before the election, Agnus-Reid was more accurate.

        Final result- Obama 51.1 % Romney 47.2 %

        Angus-Reid – 51% 48%

        RAND- 49.5% 46.18%

        lol@your histrionic desperation

    • This appears to be a J0shua sock puppet, by the way. That correct, Ubik?

  67. For my friend, Glenn:


    Year. SD Total swing Largest change
    2008 2.5% 10% 7.6%
    2012 2.0% 7% 4.5%
    2016 2.2% 12%* 5.9%

    By these measures, 2016 is a year of middling stability – by recent standards. But again, keep in mind that such high stability is a post-mid-1990s phenomenon.



  68. Part 2,

    I support criminal action against actual voter fraud. Many (knowingly?) conflate voter registration issues with voter fraud to support a narrative. But I equally support criminal action against disenfranchisement especially when done in the form of official misconduct.

    IMO, this: “The Voter fraud you describe probably does not begin to compare to the numbers who have personally disenfranchised themselves.” is the wrong comparison. The more valuable comparison again, IMO, is voter fraud compared with imposed (not self) disenfranchisement.

  69. Mods. Please delete this: https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/14/week-in-review-politics-edition-13/#comment-818287

    WordPress acting up so tried to post in parts, part one never appeared so makes no sense.


  70. Cartoon. Moderator don’t delete until you see it!


  71. Putin in the tank for Triump series. Potential events if true.

    Here’s one I haven’t seen talked about. Trump set the stage by a surprise public meeting with the president of Mexico who invited him. Trump can do the exact same thing with Putin. Have a sit down to demonstrate they can be civil and respectful, work together to identify common and adverse interests, and begin talking about working together for common interests (read squash radical Islam) and talk frankly about how to end the civil war in Syria before it becomes more than another bloody proxy war led by vested interests in the US military-industrial complex and establishment neocons in both parties owned by those vested interests.

  72. This oughta be interesting. But since the play is it’s the content not the messenger that’s important (see wikileaks) I guess all is fair…………

    Hillary Fixer Breaks Ranks: I Arranged Sex Trysts For Her — With Men & WOMEN
    Stunning revelations of Clinton bag man!


  74. The witnesses keep coming. The People Magazine reporter told friends about Trump sexually attacking her shortly after the incident, and the friends are coming forward.


    • Thousands of people have now claimed to have been groped by Hillary.

      It’s a fun game the whole family can play. Give it a try! I did. 38 years ago I was a handsome young Marine Sgt. on leave in Arkansas. Hillary saw me at campaign speech her husband, Arkansas attorney general Bill Clinton, was speaking at. I was in uniform. Hillary said ‘C’mere Marine, I want to thank you for your service”. I said “Yes ma’am”. It wasn’t quite out of sight behind the stage. She threw one around me pulling me close, the smell of alcohol was heavy on her breath. She stuck her tongue in my ear and fondled my gun through my trousers and whispered “Semper fidelis my ass I wanna get f**ked by a real man tonight”. I broke loose and fled the scene fearing for my life that the corrupt Arkansas State police would put me down. Nothing more came of it.

      I can no longer bear the pain and humuliation of what happened that day. I have several eyewitnesses on Twitter who will come forward to support me. The timing of this has nothing to do with the election being a few weeks away. Just pure coincidence.


  75. From the article:

    China’s holdings of U.S. Treasuries fell to the lowest level since November 2012, as the world’s second-largest economy draws down its foreign reserves to prop up the yuan.

    The biggest foreign holder of U.S. government debt had $1.19 trillion in bonds, notes and bills in August, down $33.7 billion from the prior month, the biggest drop since 2013, according to U.S. Treasury Department data released Tuesday in Washington and previous figures compiled by Bloomberg.

    The portfolio of Japan, the largest holder after China, fell for the first time in three months, down $10.6 billion to $1.14 trillion. Saudi Arabia’s holdings of Treasuries declined for a seventh straight month, to $93 billion.

    China sold an estimated $570 billion in foreign-exchange assets from August 2015 to August 2016 in an effort to keep the currency from plunging, according to an estimate by the U.S. Treasury released last week. It reiterated that China’s efforts to support the yuan were preventing a rapid depreciation that would hurt the global economy.


  76. This is downright scary. God only knows what in the firmware and software in these machines. From the article:

    Smartmatic, a U.K.-based voting technology company with deep ties to George Soros, has control over voting machines in 16 states including battleground zones like Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Other jurisdictions affected are California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin.

    Its website includes a flow-chart that describes how the company has contributed to elections in the U.S. from 2006-2015 with “57,000 voting and counting machines deployed” and “35 million voters assisted.”

    In 2005, Smartmatic bought-out California-based Sequoia Voting Systems and entered the world of U.S. elections.

    According to Smarmatic’s website, “In less than one year Smartmatic tripled Sequoia’s market share” and “has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States.”


    • Jim2,

      You and Trump must be cousins. You’re so very good at pointing out concerns, and possible issues while not bothering to evaluate likelyhood taking timing, coordination, lack of system similarities, audit trails, and the like in to account.

      So, now that we see how you’ve attached yourself so very tightly to yet another fear campaign, please tell us how it should be addressed.

      You and your Trumpetmaster know all the problems yet keep all the solutions a secret.

      Oh…………and boo!! (Just wanted to make ya jump)

      • I’m sure Soros is proud of your work here, Danny.

      • If Soros would be proud of ‘skepticism’ I’d appreciate his support.

        I KNOW Trump would be proud of your fearmongering. Being a computer guy, I figured you’d have some sort of insight in to solutions. But your apparent relation to Trump I shoulda known better.

      • I’m sure you’re pleased with Soros’ meddling in the affairs of Western countries. He and his money have brought nothing but death and heartache to their citizens.

      • Jim2,
        “I’m sure you’re pleased with Soros’ meddling in the affairs of Western countries.” No more ‘pleased’ than you are about ‘wikileaks’. So tell us how pleased that is and well be in similar positions. Deal?

      • Billary broke the law when she destroyed emails under subpoena. I think it’s great we the voters get some idea of what we would have found. She’s still a krim e nal. Soros is an evil force in the world. He is the prime mover in open borders and the bloody mess in the US and Europe. There is no comparison between him and the whistle blower or hacker.

        Not even a good try on your part.

      • Jim2,

        I’m naive`. But when the justice system disagrees witcha I’m not gonna trust some ANON-e-mouse guy on da internet. Especially a guy who promotes unsubstantiated fear including the fear of evaluating fairly that which does NOT support his narrative. Congress has the right, and is looking in to it, to establish if the justice system evaluated if a krim e nal act occurred or not. If yer suggestion is that not only is the election rigged (see redistricting) but congress is also I can’t help ya (and am willing to spread the ‘fear’ that nothing/noone can).

        Soros evil? Dunno. Don’t know the guy. Does he use his money for influence. You bet. Does Trump self admission of doing exactly the same not bother you or do you hypocritically give him a pass?

        Bloody mess? You’ll have to define that as I have no idea to what you refer.

        Comparison between ‘whistle blower’ (huh? who? what?) or hacker? Hacker is defined as krim e nal, agreed? Are you not expressing an aversion to krim e nals? Which krim e nals do you support and why? And since you support some krim e nals does it matter that one candidate purportedly is against you as he’s a ‘law and order’ guy?

        “Not even a good try on your part.” And showing absolutely no thought process whatsoever!

        Would you like another shot at it with a semblance of an honest evaluation, or alternatively you can continue putting up the nonsense you continually post. Up to you.

      • Danny,

        This is another example of your fake balance and skepticism.

        Here is the argument – Trump gets bashed, pretty much for breathing. Supporters point out that he’s not doing anything that others are, (And he admits as much.) and provide examples such as Soros. So according to your “balance meter” it is ok to invert that argument to exhibit your unbelievable balance. You should try out for the womens gymnastics team.

        BTW – speaking only for myself, Soros is someone American’s should be very concerned about. Unless of course you think our nation has outlived its purpose and needs to slip silently into the night.

    • Let’s go to the deep end of the pool. Ponder what it would be like to be digitally a$$a$$inated. Every number in the system associated with you is zeroed out. This web site is a honey pot for IP harvesting.

      • What do you imagine can be done by knowing that the IP address of my cable modem is one of a block of many millions of IP addresses owned by Time/Warner?

      • Do you know you have a public host URL? Mine is:
        68-xxx-xxx-180.static.ftwo.tx.charter.com. Yours will have different ISP. Your computer MAC Address is static even if it’s a laptop.
        Only a fool would think they can remain anonymous using commercial internet access points.

    • From the article:

      “”In World War II, there used to be a saying: Loose lips sink ships,” DeBeauvoir said. “It’s the case in this instance, too. It’s not real that there’s a concern that there’s going to be a hack that would affect voters, it’s the talk about it that’s the real hack.”
      She added, “It’s cheap, easy and effective. It works really well unless we all recognize that’s what it is and give voters information.””


      Varying systems:

      “Special Situations

      Winning the Popular Vote but Losing the Election

      Though uncommon, it is possible to win the Electoral College, but lose the popular vote. That means that a candidate can win a combination of states and reach the 270 electors mark without winning the majority of votes across the country. This has happened four times in American elections, most recently in 2000.” https://www.usa.gov/election

      Note: Electoral College vote does not occur until December allowing for sufficient time for ‘extreme vetting’ the vote and certification.

      Don’t listen to fear mongering. Do your own research and use your own mind and eyes to discover the truth.

  77. From the article:

    Memo: Google’s Eric Schmidt Working Directly With the Clinton Campaign
    ‘Discreet conversations’ also started with Facebook, Apple in 2014

    BY: Joe Schoffstall
    October 19, 2016 5:00 am

    Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, is working directly with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, according to a memo contained within an email released by WikiLeaks.

    “Discreet conservations” of forming “working relationships” with companies such as Facebook and Apple were also facilitated as early as October 2014, the memo stated. This is at least six months prior to when Clinton announced her candidacy for president.

    The document was attached to an Oct. 26, 2014 email sent from Robby Mook, now Clinton’s campaign manager, to Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton aide; David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s previous campaign manager; and John Podesta, Clinton’s current campaign chairman whose email account was compromised.


    • Wait. Are you now complaining about ‘businesspeople’? If so, would that included Steve Bannon? Just wanna be clear on the standards.

      • Bannon’s an employee of a business not a business person, isn’t he?

      • Dave,
        No surprise you’d state that as it fits your narrative. But what a ‘real’ skeptic would do is a least a minimal google:
        “Stephen K. Bannon (born November 27, 1953) is an American businessman, media executive, conservative filmmaker, and former naval officer.

        In August 2016, he was designated the chief executive officer of the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[3][4][5][6] He is the co-founder and executive chairman of the Government Accountability Institute and the former executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company of Breitbart News.[7] He has been involved in the financing and production of a number of films, including Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman, The Undefeated, and Occupy Unmasked. Bannon also hosts a radio show (Breitbart News Daily) on a Sirius XM satellite radio channel.[8]


      • There was a question mark at the end of my “statement”, Double Deal. That means it was a question not a statement. Try again.

      • I’m off every day. I’ve been focusing on the election elsewhere lately, Thanks for asking!

  78. From the article:

    Dems killing Democracy? — Massive Voter Fraud for “50 years” and paid activists at Trump rallies.

    Two damning videos released. Two heads claimed.
    Allegedly, these schemes to illegally bus in false voters and to disrupt Trump rallies with deliberate violence, were approved “at the highest level” of the DNC. The second scalp claimed here (Bob Creamer) admitted on video that Clinton is aware of “all” of his work.


  79. Betting pattern on Trump same as Brexit. There’s more money bet on Clinton (71%) but more individual bets are on Trump (65%).

    Same pattern emerged in the surprise Brexit win that both polls and betting markets got wrong.


    • The polls failed to pick up around 5% of ‘leave’ voters. Generally it was not considered the right thing to do and people did not necessarily want to admit they intended to vote this way

      . Trump may well have a similar hidden vote.


      • Tontb
        Two of the better polls show esentially tied at this day of the debate,


        Both are interested in getting it right not media bias in favor of the Democrats.

      • Gallup (not Gallop…) and Rasmussen performed very poorly in the 2012 election. Go look it up

      • Yabbut LA Times did extremely well in 2012. Best of major polls followed by RCP. It also has a tie today. IBD/IPSOS poll has Trump +1 today.

        The tell however that something is rotten in the state of Polling this year isn’t really the dramatic spread of 12% between major polls it’s the volatility where they are moving 5 points in a matter of a few days.

        We’ll have an answer soon enough in the only poll that really counts. The one where the same size is a over a hundred million.

      • ==> Yabbut LA Times did extremely well in 2012. Best of major polls followed by RCP. It also has a tie today. IBD/IPSOS poll has Trump +1 today. ==>

        Sheece. RCP isn’t a poll. What are you talking about?

      • David –

        ==>…. it’s the volatility where they are moving 5 points in a matter of a few days. ==>


        Year. SD Total swing Largest change
        2008 2.5% 10% 7.6%
        2012 2.0% 7% 4.5%
        2016 2.2% 12%* 5.9%

        By these measures, 2016 is a year of middling stability – by recent standards. But again, keep in mind that such high stability is a post-mid-1990s phenomenon.



      • There’s a bigger hidden vote for Trump IMO. He’s much more “wrong” than leaving the EU. Politically incorrect on steroids. There’s also a scientifically measured effect that when someone whose chosen candidate does something embarrassing or disappointing the person doesn’t change how they’ll vote they will just clam up and refuse to talk about it. Supporters of the opponent are happier than usual to talk about. So when a pollster calls the embarrassed person either won’t answer or will say they are undecided while the proud opponent will chatter away endlessly about how much they like their candidate. This is, without a doubt, what happened when the national conversation in the US turned to Trump’s love of beautiful women and scorned women who flirted with him unsuccessfully popping out of the woodwork to talk shiit about him. The tell is that Clinton’s percentage generally didn’t rise when that happened but rather Trump’s percentage fell. Neither did Johonson or Stein’s number rise. What then happened to those voters? They became “undecided” voters. Those most deeply embarrassed by the sex scandals are conservative Christian voters. They won’t desert the ship however because they are voting for Trump purely because of his (undisputed) promise to nominate conservatives to the supreme court. Keep in mind 4 out of 5 US voters are Christians. Athiests are about 10% of the population and some 90% of atheists support Hillary. Other religions make up the remaining 10%. This is really a referendum on the culture wars and the Christians will win it due to sheer number of them. They’ve had enough with the direction that Godless elite liberals are taking the country.

      • I didn’t call RCP a poll. Read harder. It’s an average of polls selected by RCP.

      • Yes, potentially there is a larger hidden vote for Trump than for ‘leave’ as Brexit was just the wrong side of being unacceptable whereas Trump is way off the scale.

        Whether or not this hidden vote is imaginary or real we shall have to wait and see.

        The US desperately needs a Brexit type moment, but whether Trump is the man to deliver it is another question as he is plainly highly divisive but does not have the charm or charisma to disguise his inadequacies.

        Clinton has to be surely the worst presidential nominee of the ruling party ever to be brought forward for scrutiny.


      • tony –

        ==> Yes, potentially there is a larger hidden vote for Trump than for ‘leave’ as Brexit was just the wrong side of being unacceptable whereas Trump is way off the scale.

        Whether or not this hidden vote is imaginary or real we shall have to wait and see. ==>

        Since you think it’s plausible that there is a significant “hidden vote” for Trump, what’s your theory that no such phenomenon showed up with the primaries?


      • “he is plainly highly divisive but does not have the charm or charisma to disguise his inadequacies”.

        Bullshiit. That’s your opinion and I would say it’s uninformed. Trump didn’t call tens of millions of Americans deplorable and irredeemable. That was Hillary. Trump has promised at every single rally or other opportunity that he will fight for every American citizen regardless of race, creed, color, or political belief.

        Wise up.

    • You know that 68% of ‘the public’ don’t trust ‘the media’, right?

    • MASS media. Write that down.

      • From Gallup (my emphasis for the reading-challenged Double Deal Danny):


        Bottom Line

        The divisive presidential election this year may be corroding Americans’ trust and confidence in the media, particularly among Republicans who may believe the “mainstream media” are too hyperfocused on every controversial statement or policy proposal from Trump while devoting far less attention to controversies surrounding the Clinton campaign. However, the slide in media trust has been happening for the past decade. Before 2004, it was common for a majority of Americans to profess at least some trust in the mass media, but since then, less than half of Americans feel that way. Now, only about a third of the U.S. has any trust in the Fourth Estate, a stunning development for an institution designed to inform the public.

        Now we can ask what exactly is the Fourth Estate they are talking about.


        The Fourth Estate (or fourth power) is a societal or political force or institution whose influence is not consistently or officially recognized. “Fourth Estate” most commonly refers to the news media, especially print journalism or “the press”.

        And what is meant by mainstream media.


        Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence a large number of people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought.[1] The term is used to contrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissenting thought as they do not reflect the prevailing world-view.

        The term is often used for large news conglomerates, including newspapers and broadcast media, which underwent successive mergers in many countries. The concentration of media ownership has raised concerns of a homogenization of viewpoints presented to news consumers. Consequently, the term mainstream media has been widely used in conversation and the blogosphere, often in oppositional, pejorative, or dismissive senses, in discussion of the mass media and media bias.

        According to philosopher Noam Chomsky, media organizations with an elite audience such as CBS News and The New York Times, successful corporations with the assets necessary to engage in original reporting, set the tone for other smaller news organizations which lack resources by creating conversations that cascade down to smaller news organizations using the Associated Press and other means of aggregation. An elite mainstream sets the agenda and smaller organizations parrot it.

        Thanks for playing Double Deal. Better luck next time.

      • Thanks for playing makes it sound like some sort of conclusion has been reached. I assure you that’s not the case. For example, how was this left unbolded: “Consequently, the term mainstream media has been widely used in conversation and the blogosphere, often in oppositional, pejorative, or dismissive senses.”?

        Also, how did you slip ‘mainstream’ in when Gallop stated specifically: “Republicans who MAY believe the “mainstream media” are too hyperfocused………..”

        Yet you keep referring to 68% lacking trust of the media and Gallop concurs via: “Now, only about a third of the U.S. has any trust in the Fourth Estate,……….” (no mention of mainstream here Single Deal).

        And then you didn’t bold this: “The term is used to contrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissenting thought as they do not reflect the prevailing world-view.” Hmm. Do NOT reflect the prevailing world view.

        You see, yours is a narrative based point of view. A ‘real’ skeptic might look at the broader picture. But since you’re showing evidence you’re not a ‘real’ skeptic’, you wouldn’t know wouldya.

        So thanks for playing Single Deal. Some luck next time as you sure didn’t show any this time.

      • Comeon’ Single Deal. Mass media: “any of the means of communication, as television or newspapers, that reach very large numbers of people.”

        Try googling ‘very large numbers of people’.

        If the narrative don’t fit, you must acquit.

  80. Another campaign day in America:
    ““It’s one thing if you get some jackleg coming through in an old RV (raw sewage dump). But to see a campaign bus with people’s pictures and names all over it stop and do it,” Robins said.”

  81. Democrats are crushing Republicans in Florida in new registrations

    As of a couple days ago, 503,000 new registration forms were submitted by Democrats vs only 60,000 for Republicans.

    Bear in mind Clinton doesn’t need Florida to win. Whereas Trump does.

    This isn’t a poll or a cartoonist’s opinion. This is hard data from the state

    • Trump doesn’t need Florida if he can swing a couple rust belt states.

      • You mean a couple MORE rust belt states. Do the math. He’d likely need all of em if he loses Florida.

        He’ll take Indiana. Let’s give him Ohio. How in the hell can he win PA? There’s no data supporting such a win. And then he’s supposed to win MI too? lol

        Enjoy your pipedreams for a couple more weeks.

  82. One if by land! Two if by sea! How many if by ‘the media’?


    It’s just gotta be a problem with the reporting. Can’t have anything to do with: the pollee’s, the candidates, the issues, the morals, the policies.

    Polls. Pick one that fits your preferred narrative and go with it. If you don’t find one in your size or color we can create one for you: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/19/poll-hillary-clinton-winning-majority-men-beating-donald-trump-nine-points/

    Oooops. Did I really post that? It’s from ‘the media’. 68% don’t trust ‘the media’. This ‘the media’ is funded by a yuge Trump backer. What does it say? Trump fans are ‘enthusiastic’ (and Trump looks like a BIG loser……..yet ‘the media’ reports that Trump hates losers which means………..)

    Politics are fun!

    • Oh noes! Ecuador’s in on it tooooo! It’s rigged, some people say. Believe me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/19/julian-assange-was-ecuadors-guest-of-honor-until-he-wore-out-his-welcome/

    • Proof Breitbart isn’t biased, Double Deal. They reported on a Bloomberg poll which found a majority of men backing Hillary. That’s what I’d call a real outlier. Good for Breitbart for reporting it and thanks for bringing it to my attention as I’d thought Breitbart was in the tank for The Donald. Now I know they aren’t. Thanks!

      • One report is all it takes to remove ‘bias’ in your eyes. Interesting. So 100 reports which support a candidate by say, NYT or WAPO and all it takes to remove bias is ‘one report’.

        You’re flailing in the dark, Single Deal. Swinging blind and missing while trying to mock “bias”.

        It’s probably best for you if you continue to believe the things you do and it harms no one so please have at it. Get even more screechy if you think that helps. :-)

        You really crack me up.

  83. It’s Rigged! Rigged I tell ya!

    “A cynic might call such an outcome “rigged.””

    And both sides have done it.

    Hello. Any ‘real’ skeptics out there?

  84. LePage just de-legitimized his own election. Poly-ticians aren’t real bright are they: “‘‘I don’t think the elections in the United States or the state of Maine are legitimate.’’ http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/19/election/cqRgKjw9LX6Ji8vFgGEAdI/story.html

    Good thing 68% of ‘us’ don’t trust ‘the media’.

    Poly-ticks are fun!

  85. What we don’t know and can’t predict is what will happen in the clinch when Trump spends a few hundred million on ad buys in batteground states. The result of Hillary doing that is already baked into the cake. Trump has yet to play that card and he’s keeping it close to the vest.

    Here’s a sample he started A-B testing on this week. Went viral in the first seven hours with 2 million views. Presumably it’s a keeper and will be flooding TVs in battleground states. :-)

    If he has others of this quality, which he presumably does given his extreme experience and success in managing and branding Apprentice for so many years, this will push him into landslide victory territory. Trump is a closer and I’ve no doubt he’s going to close this deal with the American people in a spectacular way.


  86. You’re flailing in the dark, Double Deal. Swinging blind and missing while trying to mock “rigged”.

    It’s probably best for you if you continue to believe the things you do and it harms no one so please have at it. Get even more screechy if you think that helps. :-)

  87. More Election Fraud from the Dimowit Elites. From the article (modified to stay visible):

    In the latest Wikileaks Podesta documents John Podesta actually says it is OK for illegals to vote if they have a driver’s license.

    Trump says the system is rigged.
    Then we see this email the next day.

    John Podesta: I think Teddy’s idea scratches the itch, is pretty safe and uncomplicated.

    On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.

    These people are krem ah nals.


  88. It could be Trumpsters can’t read. No one said it’s OK for non-citizens to vote. On the other hand, it could be Trumpsters like to make up sh*t. Anyway, in the quoted e-mail Pedesta didn’t say it’s OK to vote if you aren’t a citizen.

    It looks like Trumpsters are preparing for disappointment by claiming the election is rigged against Trump. But if they really think it’s rigged, why bother to vote?

  89. Jim2 posted here specifically for TonyB: https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/14/week-in-review-politics-edition-13/#comment-818340 about voter frawd.

    Yet allowing just a couple days for a ‘real’ skeptic to check things out this is found: ““It’s very possible that because of heightened activity this year that many of those changes are changes that the individual made,” Lawson told the AP. “… That should give Indiana voters the comfort that we are vigilant and we are protecting their rights and the elections here are not rigged.”


    How about that. Folks doing what they’re supposed to do by updating registration leads to a RAID in the state of the V.P. candidate and viola`. Nothing to see here folks. Just move along.

    Did Jim2 post the update, or did a ‘real’ skeptic?

    • And a local source, since 68% don’t trust ‘the media’ (or is it Mass Media, or 4th estate, or alt media……..or maybe just don’t trust that which does not support their narrative):

      “Local election officials say they’re not experiencing the kind of widespread discrepancies in voter registration records that Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson has alleged as potential voter fraud.

      Their assessments came a day after Lawson said her office has found thousands of instances where the birth dates and first names of voters were changed. The election chief on Tuesday said she believed this “may be a case of voter fraud” and turned information over to Indiana State Police. The agency has confirmed that an investigation is ongoing.

      Local officials in the Indianapolis area told IndyStar that county records are overwhelmingly correct, and they’re not seeing cases where a voter’s information has been altered without that person’s knowledge. What they are seeing is voters not finding themselves when they check their registration in a separate database kept by the Secretary of State at the office’s website, indianavoters.com. The clerks suspect those cases stem from voters putting incorrect information into the site, such as a person searching for “Beth” but registered under “Elizabeth.””


  90. Trump said he would let us know later whether he will accept the results of the election, which suggests if he wins he will accept the results but if he loses he won’t.
    Have any previous losing presidential candidates refused to accept election results?

  91. Clinton sounds a lot like Danny. Hmmmmm ….

    • Well Jim2, Hillary (first name basis) and I have been spending a lot of time e-mailing via my not secure server and I’ve taught her well.

      Trump sounds like……..let’s just say if change was being sold via a different change agent who isn’t so narcissistic and incapable of stating he’s wrong, incapable of accepting responsibility, too hot headed, lacking the character to be reasonably honest, I’d vote for him too. This guy is the wrong guy, with a reasonably correct message of issues needing addressed and few answers to address them. Requiring legislation to be a ‘good American’ is not for small government but is for more regulation. And you know that’s true, but being so Trump like you probably don’t have the backbone to state it publicly. I drive a friggin Chevy because I think I should support an American company voluntarily. You don’t have to pass a law to make me do so! Those asinine comments pissed me off even more. Trump is less of an American than I am IMO since he specifically stated he bought Chinese steel/aluminum and used illegal immigrants because big government didn’t stop him. And that’s just what he’s admitted.

      And to be clear, I sound more like the moderator. Both candidates are of lesser quality than America deserves. Say it Jim, you might find it cathartic.

      • Danny

        I listened to some of the debate which was more suited to a third world country than America. None of these candidates do you credit. One should be arguably behind bars, or certainly too ashamed of their past shenanigans to stand and the other candidate is inadequate. Yet we have people here blindly supporting one or the other without admitting their deep flaws.

        As for Trump not agreeing to accept the result? What is that about? Shades of a third world nation petulance.

        Due to the last 8 years hands off approach the Western world has been leaderless. The next four years do not look any better.

        After so many months of primaries you would think the system would throw up two top class candidates. It plainly hasn’t. Something in the system needs fixing.


      • TonyB,
        “Something in the system needs fixing.”
        So many things.

        Change is needed, but not for the sake of change. America first! Money removed from the system. Involvement by citizenry. Removal of labels requiring focus on actual policies not voting for what used to be some set of ideals.

        It would take more time and more space than I’m sure you’d care to hear from me. But I’m ever the optimist. We must learn from this election as to how not to go about it. We need to meld the best of these two and deny continuation of the worst.

        I put the responsibility on us, not our candidates. We get/got what we deserve.

        This format might actually be a key. We could work together, tightly modded from culprits such as I who devolve. We could recreate the land of compromise, team work, and Americanism. No Republicanism and No Democratism allowed. Only Americanism. Only Americanism. No names when posting, just ideas. I dunno. Couldn’t hurt to try. Can’t be much more dug in nor divisive.

      • Danny

        At one time it was said that in UK labour party strongholds (one of the two natural parties of govt here) that you could put a monkey in a red rosette (their colours) and the party faithful would elect him.

        This cosy relationship was dealt a fatal blow through Scottish devolution ( a labour idea to retain permanent power in Scotland which spectacularly backfired) the recent general election and Brexit-where people voted for their consciences and beliefs often against the official party line and laid waste the labour party


        Judging by the comments of some of the party faithful on this very blog much the same principle applies in the US.

        Brexit in particular -with the chief agent for change a complacent British establishment and Nigel Farage,nowhere near a objectionable as Trump- was a key moment in reshaping politics.

        Clinton is beyond words bad. But I am not sure you have enough of the various component parts in place to cleanse the US Augean stables.


      • Tony,

        We’ll get there. As I’ve stated before, we deserve better than these two. Clinton asked why she wasn’t leading by 50 points. That answer is pretty self explanatory. Obviously a weak candidacy.

        Then it’s fair to ask that question of the competing side (one that any ‘real’ skeptic worth their salt would be asking, but that leaves out many here). Answer equally self explanatory, but only if one bothers to look.

        The dishonesty level of these two is disheartening.

        But we’re on a good path here. It’s not great, but the trend is positive. Current Obama approvals about 55% and that’s not all that usual. IMO that’s in part due to comparisons folks are making with his soon to be successor, candidate field. There is no urgency in the larger sense of the republic to clean out the stables in a single day.

        The things I thank Trump for are bringing certain topics to the table. Had he convincing solutions he could have been ahead by that 50 points. Apparently that convincing has not occurred unless the polls are off by unbelievable margins. Trump has not built trust even with his supporters as you’ve witnessed in their responses when I ask why they support him. It’s the ‘anybody but Hillary’ channel all the time. He has built angst, fear, and conspiracy.

        He cannot gain my vote. I’ve seen enough.

      • tony –

        ==> What is that about? ==>

        It’s about appealing to his base, which have for years argued that they are victims of a “rigged” system…well, at least when the candidates that they prefer don’t win.

        Check out Trump’s conspiratorial rants regarding the 2012 election:


        There’s nothing new here.

      • Tony, I’m going to pretend I give a shiit about any opinions of the US coming out of the UK. I try not to stick my nose into your national affairs or and withhold judgments without being able to walk a mile in your shoes first. Reciprocation would be the classy thing for you to do.

        So with that said exactly, and I do mean f*cking exactly, what makes Trump so unqualified in your opinion? No blanket statements.

        Keep in mind the US constitution requires no more qualification than at least 35 years of age, born in the United States, and having been a resident at least 14 years.

        Trump has been endorsed by judges, police, military, economists, and any other important representative class or institution you care to name. He’s single handedly built and managed a private multi-billion dollar global corporation for decades. The only thing he isn’t is a professional politician who needs big money financiers and special interests to fund his candidacy and THAT is what makes him MORE qualified than anyone else I can name. Elections shouldn’t be purchased yet almost all of them go to whoever can raise the most money.

      • Tony, I haven’t been keeping up with the fallout from Brexit, but I know the value of the pound has plummeted against the Euro, and some in the UK , concerned about the future of trade with the EU, are proposing something called “Brexit Lite,” which implies a watered down version of Brexit. If Lite is an attempt to get the trade benefits of being in the EU without the cost of membership, why would EU members agree to such a deal?

      • Let me get this straight Danny. Even though you believe that the message is the right one, you plan on voting for the wrong one based on your personal dislike for Trump?

        I’ll put you down under the Semi – Auto column in the Russian Roulette sign up sheet.

    • And Jim,
      Any one man who’s THINKS he’s bigger and more important than the entire Republic by not conceding should he lose doesn’t deserve even YOUR vote!

      • Right Danny. Only a true leader says he’ll concede an election prior to it happening.

      • Tim,

        True leader?
        No one asked him to concede, and you know it! Wallace asked him to ‘commit to the principle’ of concession SHOULD HE LOSE in order to insure a peaceful transition of power.

        From your view, “A true leader” is one who would require specific legislation requiring HIM to support American Steel and American workers when building his American Business then sending American jobs to other than Americans to make products all while bitching that American needs to be MADE great again?

        I guess I misunderstood the slogan. When I read MAKE America great again, I didn’t recognize that he create laws MAKING us do so. And he said he would have reduced the number of regulations? Those two concepts don’t jive.

        A ‘true leader’ puts the republic ahead of the individual even when the last name is Trump.

        Your conceptualization of ‘True Leader’ and mine are not the same. Actions speak louder than regulations.

        “Wallace: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and no matter how hard fought a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?

        Trump: What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense, okay?

        Clinton: (para) “We’ve been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election.”

      • Danny, if the election isn’t rigged why did Russia want to send election monitors, and if it isn’t rigged why did Hillary’s friends at the Department of State threaten to arrest any Russians who showed up?

      • Any one man who’s THINKS he’s bigger and more important than the entire Republic

        As usual the left gives Hillary a pass.

        Hillary doesn’t deserve your vote whether she concedes or not.

      • PA,

        The statement was about TRUMP. I didn’t hear Clinton being asked the question.

        What Trump was asked was to commit to a principle. The question and his response:
        “Wallace: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and no matter how hard fought a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?
        Trump: What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense, okay?”

        It’s noted how you’re giving Trump as pass, as usual. Don’t you see that as just a bit hypocritical when you complain about the left supposedly doing exactly what you are, even thought Clinton wasn’t asked?

        Yet in part, her comment: “We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election.” That’s a pretty strong indication of where she stands.


      • max,

        RE Russian election monitors – because Russia wants to pull our chain. They like how that plays in large parts of the world where the US inserts themselves (ourselves) into others affairs. We’ve been generally supportive of monitoring elections where we think rigging may be a high probability.

        I generally discount claims of the election being rigged, other than seeing the usual tricks like making sure the dead vote or letting people who want to be involved in the process vote more than once. What cannot be discounted is how the election is being gamed. As jaded as I have become about the quality of journalism and the state of the media, I have been surprised by how blatant the coverage has been.

      • Yes,tmg56, I know Russians are just trying to make fun of us. Trumrp isn’t helping. Instead of making America great, he’s making us a laughing stock.

      • Danny Thomas | October 20, 2016 at 11:03 pm |

        The statement was about TRUMP. I didn’t hear Clinton being asked the question.

        Exactly. The Democrats net about a 1% fraudulent vote advantage over Republicans. Hillary is the one who should be asked to forswear a recount. That she wasn’t asked indicates moderator bias.

        And besides, since the Democrats are the only party to recount a presidential election the Republicans are due a free one.

        Asking the Republican not to exercise a privilege the Democrats have already used is unjust and unfair.

        The candidate who should be asked to forswear recounts is the candidate of the party that has asked for them in the past.

        A further defense of Trump:

      • You are a joke Danny. Only a clown goes on at length painting a picture that has no basis in fact – in this instance what my views are RE a true leader – just so he can state his own views.

      • Tim,
        I’m a joke? You misrepresent my views and my specific words available here to quote and you think I’m a joke? Find a mirror my friend.

        Oh, and beware. There have been quite a number of ‘clown’ sightings recently.

        Trump could be a leader. He chooses not to be. No one asked him to ‘pre’ concede. They asked if he’d accept the principle behind the concept. No surprise you cannot comprehend the distinction.

        Get over it, and get over yourself.

  92. From the article:

    A key operative in a Democratic scheme to send agitators to cause unrest at Donald Trump’s rallies has visited the White House 342 times since 2009, White House records show.

    Robert Creamer, who acted as a middle man between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and “protesters” who tried — and succeeded — to provoke violence at Trump rallies met with President Obama during 47 of those 342 visits, according to White House records. Creamer’s last visit was in June 2016.


  93. From the article:

    he liberal billionaire funder, who has been tied to a globalist elite pushing the Muslim migrant crisis and multiculturalism onto Western societies, comes up a lot in private discussions between top Hillary Clinton campaign officials.

    A search by American Lookout showed Soros has been mentioned at least 56 times throughout the 11 batches of emails put out by Wikileaks which show collusion between elites, the mainstream media and the Hillary campaign.

    Likewise, Soros was directly mentioned in multiple subject headlines on emails, often times requesting a meeting with top Clinton official, John Podesta.


  94. From the article:

    The three 30-second ads, which will target swing state and undecided voters, reveal Clinton’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as well as her “lies exposed by the FBI” and her “belief that her political future matters more than justice for terrorists,” according to the PAC’s press release.

    The ads are titled “How to Lie,” “More Important Than Justice,” and “Saving Her Job While Losing Yours.”


  95. Billary reminded us once again that she was sitting in a nice air conditioned room while SEAL Team Six killed Bin Laden.

  96. https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz

    Everyone commenting on the third debate ought to first see the focus group reactions.

  97. Hit it out of the park when he talked about Hillary’s experience. Drove one line off the scale. Biggest score of the debate.


  98. The audience was told not to laugh at the the debaters. When Trump said no one was more respectful to women than him, the audience could’t control the urge to laugh.
    I laughed too. I was astonished.

    • Once we were told that 97% of AGW scientists were the only, authority, ask Steven. Who’s laughing now?

      • I don’t recall the moderator asking about AGW or the topic being discussed in the debate. Hillary may have alluded to AGW, but if Trump replied I missed it.

        I am aware a few scientists believe AGW is no big deal and can never be a problem.
        I think these are mostly old timers who are starting to get soft in the head. It happens to everyone.

      • AGW is SOOO 1990’s. Get a new schtick.

  99. This was almost off the chart when he was talking about fixing NAFTA, TPP, and factory town decay. This is a big winner for the critical rust belt. He wins the rust belt he wins the election.


  100. Hillary tanks when she pivots away from Wikileaks question by blaming Russia for the leak instead of being accountable for what was revealed.


  101. I love Trump’s logic: “I don’t trust the polls, all the polls say that I won.”

    Reminds me of much of the logic I see in these threads.