Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

Ok, we’re getting down to the wire.

U.S. voters are starting vote, the final voting day is Nov 8.  There have been some ‘interesting’ articles this past week, for your consideration and discussion.

Policy positions

Both major candidates now have posted detailed policy positions:

It is interesting to see not just how their policies on particular topics differ, but which topics each of them chose to prepare policy positions on (and which topics each ignored). If only the choice was as simple as deciding which set of policies to prefer.


I get most of my links from twitter and RealClearPolitics.  But a number of political posts land in my Facebook feed, I have no idea where they come from, and they are really wild and extreme.  I don’t know how much of this stuff is true (on both sides), I only click on a small number of the links.  Crazy.

The deplorable candidates

This week’s selected articles reflect the tamer accusations on both sides, and can be broadly characterized as ‘deplorable candidates’.

Evil Queen versus Evil Clown [link]

Trump’s misdemeanors versus Hillary’s felonies [link]

Hillary’s henchmen pressured FBI on classification of documents [link]

The Clinton Goldman speeches [link]

The case for Trump [link]

Donald changed my mind.  I’m voting for him.  [link]

Who is Donald Trump? [link]

Hillary Clinton’s blackout America [link]

581 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Go Theresa May – may she the free world out of the mess it’s in.

  2. Trump beats Hillary only in Russia, poll shows

    “The worldwide survey, by WIN / Gallup International Association, surveyed a sample of nearly 50,000 people in 45 countries, covering 75 per cent of the global population.

    Mr Trump beat Ms Clinton in the Russian Federation by a 23 per cent gap, but every other country polled had Ms Clinton winning by what would be considered a landslide.”

    “In Finland, South Korea, Sweden, Colombia, Mexico, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Paraguay Mr Trump would lose by a margin of around 70 per cent or more, the poll found.”

    “In Britain Mr Trump get win 15 per cent of the vote to Ms Clinton’s 64 per cent, with 21 per cent saying they did not know which way they would vote.”


    Tony might be one of those 21 percenters.

    • Max apparently doesn’t understand that people in other countries don’t get to vote for US President

      • And if they are being fed the same crap Canadians are, it’s no wonder they don’t like Trump. Our premier conservative leaning national newspaper published an article yesterday about how Trump’s body language post debate shows he already knows he has lost. (????) The picture is of him stepping down the podium steps but his feet are cropped out of the image so you can’t tell he’s going downstairs. This is what passes for journalism these days. This same newspaper publishes 3-7 hit pieces by the half by the Washington Post and half by others each day. Every Friday they one single analysis of Hilary that could be called balanced to show they are not completely anti Trump. If that is what the rest of the world is getting in their press no wonder they think so poorly of Trump. Oh and for the record I am NOT a big Trump fan and I don’t get to vote but the bias against Trump and whitewashing of Hilary by the press makes me nauseous.

      • Tumble,

        The one sided reporting has been so blatant even I’m a bit surprised. The current theme of Trump obviously losing in a landslide – one not obvious in the polls – appears as a possible attempt to convince voters who don’t like him but plan to vote for him to stay home.

    • Always love when someone thinks it makes sense to poll people in other countries on who should be elects president. Why the f should anyone in the US care? Obama was the overwhelming chose of other countries and how has that works out? Not so well.

      • Ken Denison

        >…Obama…how has that works out? Not so well.”

        But he won a Nobel prize!

      • John Vonderlin

        “who should be elects,” “why the f,” “how has that works out.” And did you leave out the “I” as a start for your first sentence, as I assume, or were you commanding that I always love people who think it makes sense…? Couldn’t I do that just some of the time or just every once in a while? Congrats on demonstrating your obscenity and illiteracy in just a few sentences. Do I sense a poorly-educated Trump voter?

      • From what I saw on TV today all the nasty women are with her (HRC), according to Elezebeth Warrant. She also wore her pin proudly… you do too.

    • Max

      Here’s a link that works to the poll.


      I wouldn’t vote for either of the two astonishing candidates the US has managed to select. I would spoil my ballot or not bother to turn up (which would the first time I have ever not voted)

      Hillary is politically repugnant and a child of your political and business elite. Trump is personally repugnant. I like the ‘idea’ of someone like Trump doing a brexit by putting the ruling elite on notice, but that is not enough to persuade me to put an ‘x’ next to his name.

      As for this poll, I would suggest it is as a result of Clinton’s far superior reach as very little critical comment appears about her in the MSM. You would have to dig way below the BBC’s cheerleading in order to discover Clintons colourful past.

      320 million people and you guys manage to come up with these two? This surely suggests that there is a need for someone like trump-if not trump himself- to come along with a big brush and clean out the Augean stables, or are you proud of Hillary Clinton and think of her as a suitable President?.


      • Tony – remember Trump was selected by people voting in the primary. They had a choice of 17 candidates, most of whom were Romney-like milquetoasts. The conservative voters picked Trump. While I understand his foibles, none are relevant to a President. He has helped far more women than he has criticized, he is right about Muslims (and I suspect given the ripped-up fabric of society in Europe, you would agree), he is right about securing the border, he is right that drugs and people are smuggled into this country some of which are krem I nals and terrorists.

        Much of your concern has probably been induced by the media and various sorts of political and rich elites.

        I think he will be fine as a President. He just doesn’t have the polish and eloquence (and two-faced-ness) of the typical politician. I think that’s OK.

      • Tony

        I think we are envious of your monarcist tradition and may be on our way to establish our own. Since 1928 no Republican ticket without the name of Nixon or Bush on it has won a Presidential election.

        The Clintons might have a similar legacy in their vision.

      • Cersco kid

        That is an astonishing factoid.


        As I say I like the idea of trump but not the character himself?

        So what happens on polling day itself , do you troop along to the poll booth or is it decided by some sort of electoral college?


      • Ceresco kid

        What about Reagan?


      • Tony, both actually. The people vote, this is called the popular vote. But then a group of people selected by the parties, electors, form a group called the Electorol College. They then vote for President. The popular vote in a state determines if Dimowit or Redimowit electors are sent to the Electoral College. It can happen that the winner of the popular vote loses in the Electoral College.


      • Jim

        So are you saying there is not a popular direct vote as such, whereby on the one day say 100 million people vote for one candidate whilst 110 million vote for the other.

        Instead there is a vote for proxies to go along and vote on their behalf but they may not vote perhaps for the person the individual elector would have voted for themselves ?


      • TonyB – it was the Reagan-Bush ticket.

        President George W. Bush is concerned he may be the last Republican president.

      • Jch

        That is astonishing. I can think of no precedent in our national

        . A poor substitute would be the Kinnocks where Neil was the leader of the labour party but never a prime minister and his son is an mp. A number of his family then jumped on the huge euro gravy train. The potential halting of the gravy train is a big reason as to why so many of our politicians do not like the idea of Brexit.


      • Tony asked, “So are you saying there is not a popular direct vote as such, whereby on the one day say 100 million people vote for one candidate whilst 110 million vote for the other.”


      • Jim

        Bearing in mind everyone has voted directly! what on earth is the point of this complicated proxy vote, especially if the delegates might subvert the popular vote?


      • The founders knew that in a pure democracy, the voters would continually vote themselves favors and bankrupt the government. So they included checks and balances. This is one of those. They never intended the US to be a pure democracy.

        However, the Dimowits have stepped in and told the citizenry that if we vote for them, they will give us the favors anyway.

      • richardswarthout


        Your questioning of the US electoral system is understandable. It started out, originally, in the US Constitution, because the framers did not completely trust the competence/knowledge of the voters and wanted a body of independent knowledgeable electors. However, with the advent of political parties soon after the constitution was accepted, the notion of independent electors evaporated; electors would then be selected by the winning party of each state. Today, every election year, the electoral college process comes under fire but continues, because it it benefits the less populated states; the number of such states are sufficient to thwart a change to the constitution. But this is also compatible with the constitutional notion of limiting majority power.



      • jim2, forgets the reason is we (the wise people) don’t trust the voting population to not elect a crazy person. The population includes dummies, such as Trumpsters, who want to elect a crazy man. Our forefathers rigged the system to prevent such a disaster.

      • Max

        So, would you say the system has been an unqualified success in keeping the crazies out?


      • Richatd

        Thank you. So the elite don’t trust the ordinary voter to deliver the right decision?.


      • Tonyb,

        Pretty short yet decent link if you don’t care to read the “Federalist Papers” http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

      • Tony,
        I don’t know if it’s every been used that way in deciding an election (i.e., going against the voter’s wishes). The historians here may know.

        The popular vote thing has happened. Gore had more votes than Bush. I don’t know, but maybe winning the popular vote but losing the election has happened other times in the past.

        In the U.S., anyone who thinks his vote is equal to every other persons vote is almost right.

      • Danny

        Thanks for that link. The reasons for the college now seems archaic and outdated. is there ever talk on relying on just the direct vote?


      • Tony,

        It’s discussed pretty much every presidential election. Winner take all could be modified or it could go to popular vote, but tradition dating back to the beginning of our republic is a strong headwind so I don’t see a change any time soon. We can barely agree on a candidate, much less the process of electing.

      • I will exaggerate to make my point but in theory the following could happen. A candidate gets 60% of the popular vote (a landslide to some) but wins the electoral college vote by the slimmest of margins. Conversely, an election with a popular vote of 50.01% to 49.99% with an overwhelming majority of electoral votes to the winner .
        There are really 51 separate elections, each with its own political, economic and demographic dynamics.
        An example is the apparent sentiment in Ohio and Michigan. In so many ways they are similar and one would think they would prefer the same candidate and yet Trump leads in polls in Ohio while trailing badly in Michigan in almost all polling. Go figure.

      • Max,

        I’m speaking off the top of my head, but I believe it’s happened two other times. Andrew Jackson is one instance where I think he won the actual vote, but the election went to the House to decide.

      • The Electoral College has overridden the popular vote several times.


      • tmg56, you were right about Andrew Jackson being one of the candidates who won the popular vote, but lost the election. Others were Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, and of course, Al Gore.

        In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but got less than 50 percent of the electoral votes. John Quincy Adams became the next president when he was picked by the House of Representatives.

        In 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election when Rutherford B. Hayes got 185 electoral votes to Tilden’s 184.

        In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election when Benjamin Harrison got 233 electoral votes to Cleveland’s 168.

        In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush. In the most highly contested election in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount of ballots, giving Bush the state’s 25 electoral votes for a total of 271 to Gore’s 255.


      • Thank you Max.

        Tilden was one I was unfamiliar with.

    • Tony, thanks. I usually check links after posting but didn’t this time.

      No one has asked why Trump is so popular in Russia. Possible reasons are
      1. NATO stands in Russia’s way, and Trump wants less American assistance to NATO.
      2. Trump admires Putin
      3. Putin likes Trump
      4. Russians think Trump’s wife is Russian

      Ken Denison asks why Americans should care about what foreigners think about U.S. presidential candidates.

      Ken, because the U.S. deals with other countries, we have an interest in their leadership and they have an interest in ours.

      Tumbleweedstumbling complains a leading conservative-leaning Canadian newspaper is biased against Trump.

      Tumbleweed, I’m not surprised. Some leading conservative U.S. newspapers have also turned against Trump.

      timg56 believes I think foreigners vote in U.S. elections.

      No, I don’t, but lots of Trump supporters do.

      • Nice max,

        ” a lot of Trump supporters do.”

        I see you are clowning again. Absolutely no evidence for your claim, but so what. Facts have never been your thing anyway

      • johnvonderlin

        From the fact-challenged timg56 reply to your sensible post’s assertion that “apparently a lot of Trump supporters do:
        “I see you are clowning again. Absolutely no evidence for your claim, but so what. Facts have never been your thing anyway.”
        So, apparently tmg56 believes that when Donald Trump said recently that 14% of illegal aliens vote and the crowd cheered (as I saw and heard) either they were pretending to believe him or “illegals” are not classified in the poorly-educated world of T.Rump supporters as foreigners. Irrespective of that, to say “absolutely no evidence” and accusing you of clowning is truly head-scratching.
        Thankfully, Momma Hillary will soon put naughty boys like this over her knee and give them the spanking they deserve. I expect I’ll be perusing the CE archives for some of their comments for years whenever I need a good laugh.

    • ““In Britain Mr Trump get win 15 per cent of the vote to Ms Clinton’s 64 per cent”

      I don’t know where that comes from, in fact Trump support in the UK is very considerably higher than that and Clinton is commonly regarded as a potential warmonger.

      It’s not using the same sources that said Remian was going to win by 8% is it and that the last GE was going to result in a hung parliament, is it?

      In fact, there is a considerable correspondence between Trump supporters and Brexit voters, for very obvious reasons.

      I suspect the Trump-haters are in for a nasty shock.

      • I don’t know where that comes from, in fact Trump support in the UK is very considerably higher than that… Judging by my experience I would have thought 15% an overestimate: I don’t think I know anyone who supports Trump.
        In fact, there is a considerable correspondence between Trump supporters and Brexit voters, for very obvious reasons.No doubt there is some correspondence, but it’s worth noting that many Brexiteers are left wingers who despise Trump, and that Trump’s economic policies are more akin to those of the EU than those of most of us Brexiteers, in the sense that Trump favours protectionism, whereas we want to exit the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union, and trade more freely with the rest of the world.

      • “Judging by my experience I would have thought 15% an overestimate: I don’t think I know anyone who supports Trump.”


        I don’t know more than one or two that don’t, and that includes my on-line contacts. The same goes for Brexit voters too.

        Clearly we move in very different circles.

        I suppose it all depends whether you support Hillary’s warmongering. attitude to Russia and appeasement of radical Islam or Trump’s opinion that Russia is in fact the West’s strongest ally in the coming contest between 21st century civilisation and seventh century barbarism.

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

  4. Missing link:
    Hillary Clinton’s blackout America [link]

  5. Quotes from “The GOP’s Foolish Accommodation of Trump on Trade,” a Nationl Review article by James C. Capretta

    “America’s workers benefit immensely from access to goods and services made in other countries. On average, access to these goods provides a 29 percent increase in the purchasing power of the average American household. The 500 largest U.S. companies earn about half of their combined revenue from their international operations. The average U.S. worker earned $1,300 more annually over the past two decades owing to U.S. access to international markets.”

    “Trump seems to think he can start a trade war and leaders in other countries will unilaterally disarm. The reality is that if the U.S. retreats from its leadership position on global trade, other countries will follow suit and give in to protectionist impulses too. We have seen this before in history, and the results have been tragic. There would be job losses in the U.S. and elsewhere, not job gains, and U.S. consumers would be forced to pay much more for the products they buy. Protectionism hits the poorest households the hardest because they are least able to handle the price increases that follow for food, clothing, and other essential goods.”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438433/protectionism-donald-trumps-economic-plan-would-be-anti-growth

    While I’m not a free-market worshipper I do think free-trade is on balance a good thing. To me protectionism as a job creator makes little more sense than doing away with labor saving technology.

    • The US has some flagship companies. Apple, Google, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Uber, etc. Only Apple has a significant presence in China, and they are working on that problem.

      China has managed to keep these flagship companies out, so they can have their own versions.

      Having done business with China, I can say the government colludes to keep US businesses out. It looks like free trade with China has worked very well for China, and not so well for the US.

      • In the previously mentioned survey, Trump was almost as popular in China as he is in the U.S.

        “Apart from Russia the most Trump-friendly country was China, where he would only lose by 9 per cent.”

        Perhaps many Chinese don’t believe Trump would get tough with them on trade and see him as less a threat to their expansion than Hillary.

      • I’m curious about the survey. Do you have a link to it?

      • Never mind, I found it.

        I suspect the reason China likes Trump vs. Clinton is that Clinton is a warhawk and neocon. Trump was opposed to the Iraq war before it started, though public announcements indicating the opposition started days after the war started (note Trump was not a politician at the time, so it is hard to understand why he was quoted at all).

        It’s like Global Warming. You can measure the earth, know it is warming, but that doesn’t tell you why it is warming.

        Hillary, on the other hand, seems to like killing people.

      • That video at 4.08 (…it’s a game!
        What might Eisenhower say?
        ‘This world of ours… must avoid becoming a community
        of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud
        confederation of mutual trust and respect. The supreme
        quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity.

    • “While I’m not a free-market worshipper I do think free-trade is on balance a good thing.”

      I tend to agree, but would say that people want FAIR trade not free trade.
      For instance, here in the antipodes, there is a minimum wage, mandatory sick and annual leave, mandatory employee pension contribution, mandatory OH&S requirements, environmental regulations etc. Mandatory. These are not things any employer can refuse to provide, nor any employee offer to forgo.
      If I and my employer are to compete against workers in other countries who do not face the same requirements, then free trade is not in any way fair to either me or my employer – unless there are systems in place to tax the imports to the same degree that local employers are disadvantaged because of those mandatory requirements, I am faced with an UNlevel playing field, and it’s tilted against me.

      Bring on the fair trade agreements.

      • Kneel, you make a good point. The American consumer, and the Australian and New Zealand consumers as well, benefit not only from cheap foreign labor but also from the lack of fringe benefits received by foreign labor.

        Tariffs can be used to make prices of a domestically produced goods competitive with lower priced imported goods. While helping the producer and his workers, however, tariffs penalize domestic consumers because they have to pay more for goods. Consumers are in effect subsidizing domestic producers. Conversely, exports of American produced goods can be subsidized (a rebate to buyers) to make them competitive in the international market, but the subsidy is an expense for the taxpayer.

        Trump does not have a magical solution. To make good on his promise to create jobs in manufacturing, he would have to subsidize producers at the expense of consumers.

      • Damn max,

        I think I could recruit you to teach Junior Achievement with me.

        That was pretty good. Very basic, mind you, but well stated.

      • Max is ignoring Trump’s promise to reduce regulations and taxes. Depending on the details, that could jump start business.

        And the tax payers end up funneling money in various ways to the unemployed anyway, so they might as well help them with a job instead.

      • While helping the producer and his workers, however, tariffs penalize domestic consumers because they have to pay more for goods. Consumers are in effect subsidizing domestic producers.

        Time was they were pretty much the same group. Just wearing different hats.

        But the capitalized producers (typically corporate) focused on profits by outsourcing their labor requirements, all the workers ended up with barely living wage jobs, without the discretionary funds to buy all the stuff the capitalized producers were producing. And the foreign workers couldn’t afford to buy it either, even at its lower prices (because they were making peanuts).

        It wasn’t the fault of capitalized producers, it was the fault of the politicians who tore down the tariff walls and separated consumption from labor. (Yeah, yeah, I know some of them were the same people wearing different hats. But it was when they were wearing their politician hats that they were guilty, as corporate directors they had a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits.)

      • Max10K argues that free trade makes goods cheaper for consumers.

        What this argument neglects is the cost to taxpayers to subsidize those people whose jobs are lost. This shows up as Welfare, from the general fund and the broad based taxes, and increases in SSDI, which hit Social Security, which is funded through regressive taxes.

        There is a cost to shipping our jobs to other countries. Didn’t Spain do that too, after they became so fat from stealing North American gold? Odd how the Free Traders never comment on what happened to Spain after they outsourced their manufacturing.

      • edbarbar, you are right. Aid to American workers displaced by imports is a cost. But so is aid to our workers who are displaced because of foreign tariffs on American exports.

      • But so is aid to our workers who are displaced because of foreign tariffs on American exports

        Which also argues for more favorable trade deals, or doing some of the same things other countries do. Like not taxing their exports, but taxing their imports (i.e., VAT). Or bulk purchasing of drugs (Europe, Canada), leaving the US to pick up the majority of drug NRE costs.

        Some of the world taking advantage of the US, Trump has addressed. Not Clinton, who is more of the same (who is the real liberal, here?)

        [The US does stuff like this too, in Agriculture, particularly, but it seems with the ethanol subsidies the value from being a massive wheat exporter is diminishing as Russia picks up the slack. Plus, countries like China are purchasing South American farm land to keep themselves food independent.]

      • Set up import tariffs and use them to fund a negative income tax.

      • Back when I was in grad school, research using the numbers from a couple of decades of off shoring labor was starting to come out. Data was suggesting that lower productivity and issues with communicating off set gains from lower wages

      • The U.S. does have a trade deficit. The value of our imports is greater than the value of our exports. Imported oil is a large part of the deficit. A case can be made for putting a large duty on imported oil to make gasoline cost more. The price rise would result in an increase in domestic supply by encouraging more drilling with fracking, an expensive process which becomes more economically feasible as oil prices go up. More drilling would mean more jobs in the producing areas, and a another step toward energy independence. The environment also would benefit. Higher prices would encourage consumers to use less gasoline by switching to more fuel efficient vehicles and economizing in other ways.

  6. The best analog for this election is the Russian Roulette one.

    We have three choices

    Choose to play and select the revolver, knowing it could have more than one round in the cylinder.

    Choose to play and select the semi auto.

    Or make no choice and let someone else choose the gun you play with.

    • True or false?
      We despise the other side and we will continue to hate them regardless of who wins.

    • Nope. Not even close to the ‘best analog’. It may turn out that what’s taking place is both are analogous to using a ‘revolver’ but one is loaded with Hellfire missiles and the collateral damage (which we see evidence**** of already) is extensive.

      Nice continuing attempt at framing in your favor.

      ****(fear of rigged elections, fear of vote fraud and inTIMidation, fear of Muslims and Hispanics, fear of an UNPRECEDENTED lack of concession, fear of media, fear of illegitimacy of a standing president, fear of immigrants of all kinds, fear of illegitimacy of our military generals, fear of our military being decimated, fear of illegitimacy of our intelligence agencies, fear of nuclear proliferation, fear of anyone who challenges his standing on anything, fear of ‘elites’, fear of all major political parties, etc.)

      • If I could write, I might have written this. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/deciding-how-to-vote/504977/

      • Danny,

        The only framing at play is the one around the picture of you in your clown suit.

        While I know you are not really 13, your reading comprehension skills on this one are at that level. Nowhere in my comment do I indicate which of the three choices represents which candidate.

        PS – you might stay away from weapon analogies. Russian Roulette doesn’t care what the caliber or size of the round is. And I am guessing that your familiarity with Hellfire missles is from watching action movies involving drones.

      • Tim,

        While you may ‘frame’ where my comprehension level is to fit your narrative, you are leaving out that we’ve had this discussion before. My ‘recollection’ level remains intact unless you’re now changing which weapon represents which candidate. This is only the umpteenth time you’ve laid out a ‘weapon analogy’ which therefore makes it just a bit of a challenge for me to avoid.

        That you think the caliber or other potency of the weapon of choice for the Russian Roulette analogy is you typically showing a lack of thought. If you chose to ‘play’ using a nuclear weapon, might there be considerations for the proximity of other folks?

        Give it up Timmerooo!

      • Your math skills are as bad as your reading skills. This was the third or maybe fourth time I’ve referred to it. But maybe the advantage to using a term like umpteenth is it can mean whatever number you want it to.

        And while you remember which candidate I think represents which choice, what I posted stands by itself. Apparently you can’t respond without having to bring in additional information. I believe that is what framing looks like.

        Most people who bring up nuclear weapons in a politics reference have little or no real knowledge of the subject. If you can give a brief synopsis of what “bootstrapping” is reference to US strategic policy development – without doing a quick internet search- then maybe I can take as someone who actually knows the subject matter.

      • Tim,
        Wasting one more comment while I should be self limiting.

        “Most people who bring up nuclear weapons in a politics reference have little or no real knowledge of the subject.” Either I knew (and you and other readers do also) exactly why that reference was chosen, or you’ve hit on yet another concern w/r/t Trump’s candidacy.

        You really should think things through. Since you are obviously in the tank for him, and I’m obviously in the tank against I see no reason for further clogging up the thread.

  7. Sorry, it’s very much o/t but on a serious matter, i.e. the extent to which the honchos at the UNFCCC support the provisions of the UN charter re freedom of the press and freedom of speech, alas – as Canada’s Ezra Levant has learned – one has to be a UN cheerleader in order to get Press Accreditation for the upcoming Big Show in Marrakech (Nov. 7-18).

    The UN’s gadfly Nick Nuttall and his crew were hoping to, well, hide this decline – notwithstanding letters of support from Canada’s three major press organizations See: Let Us Report for details. Even Canada’s taxpayer funded national broadcaster of all things green, the CBC’s As It Happens has covered this story – and correctly nailed the problem.

    The UN’s Nuttall – with whom I have had pleasant but utterly uninformative correspondence in the past – is a completely different kettle of fish. And, thanks to Levant’s crew’s investigations, it appears that Nuttall aspires to have a musical credential to add to his unfathomable mediocrity.

    So, for your diversion and amusement … here’s some comic relief:


  8. Trump’s proposal to increase the standard deduction to $30,000 won’t get a word in the MSM because of the Left’s obsession with the top marginal tax rate but this will increase the progressivity of the tax code. Focusing on the bottom of the tax base can benefit lower income families just as much as the sexier “stick it to the rich” ideas. Increasing the personal exemption limit, increasing the child care tax credit ceiling and changing the mortgage interest deduction to a tax credit with a ceiling can benefit lower and middle income families. There are ways to have a more progressive tax code beside the worn out ideas of the left with their obsession on the top marginal rates. A fair effective tax rate should be the focus.

  9. “Political theatre” is a term that has been used to refer to three different things: theatre that comments on political issues, political action or protest that has a theatrical quality to it, and any action by politicians that is intended to make a point rather than accomplish something substantive.

    • Making a point is accomplishing something substantive. Political theatre is Trump’s strength. He says outrageous things which his opponents then try to take seriously. They fail and the spotlight stays on him. His fans get it and love it.

  10. In addition to the candidates posting their policy positions, a lot of policy proposals are being floated. I have floated two here at CE — refocusing the USGCRP and constraining agency abuse of science. Depending on who wins, some of these proposals may be important, but they are getting little public attention due to fascination with the ongoing circus.

    But each candidate has a big transition team hard at work formulating policies on an agency by agency basis. In particular, if Trump wins there will be big changes.

  11. If you believe the leaks, Hillary believes in “private” and “public” policies. That translates to: you can’t believe anything she tells you she will do. (Whether that is different from any other politician, you get to decide.)

    Therefore, it is best to evaluate her based on her worthy actions and public accomplishments. What are they? I know of no significant accomplishments, and many actions that have failed or had bad outcomes (such as Libya, Russia reset, Arab spring).

    • In the oligarchy tradition quasi bifida lingua loquuntur …
      not what you say but what you do.

    • Ed makes an excellent point. As the hot mic tape shows, there’s no space at all between what Trump says in private and what he says in public.

      Dude’s just a straight-talker.

      • I can see how some think Trump is worse. But, I’m still asking. What has Hillary done, on her own, that was successful, and that makes you want to vote for her?

        I don’t think Hillary supporters can answer that. They listen to her words, and haven’t a clue as to her actual deeds. See the Elizabeth Warren video, and watch the whole thing.

      • Yes, Trump has the brashness to tell NAPS (National Academy of Pseudo-Sciences) to stop lying or lose control over the budgets of federal research agencies like DOE NASA EPA NOAA etc.


      • ed –

        ==> I can see how some think Trump is worse. ==>

        I see no way to determine who’s “worse.”

        They’re both liars. That’s what politicians do in order to garner as many votes as they can. Trump lies constantly, and so does Clinton.

        Only real difference I can see is that Trump is better at it, in the sense that with Clinton, you can just kind of sense that she’s lying. With Trump, you kind of have to check the facts to know it’s the case.

        Either way, IMO, people who try to split hairs or play games of moral equivalency about them lying is just displaying a “motivation” to justify their political orientation.

        ==> But, I’m still asking. What has Hillary done, on her own, that was successful, and that makes you want to vote for her? ==>

        Likewise, just grounds for partisan wrangling, IMO.

        Clinton has done some things in her life that I consider admirable, and other things that I don’t consider admirable. I can’t think of anything that Trump has done that I admire, and I think he’s done a lot that I find pretty disgusting.

        I don’t consider either to be qualified on the basis of their previous accomplishments.

        Trump’s supposed “success” as a businessman doesn’t impress me in the least, as it’s been underhanded, with plenty of rule-skirting and rule-breaking. What he’s done is leverage massive wealth that he inherited, and been successful largely by being a blowhard, employing slimy used car salesmanship on a massive scale, and taking advantage of others. It’s not like he’s a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or someone like that who obtained massive wealth by virtue of some unique talent, skill, or gift.

        So I don’t weigh who to vote for on the basis of “qualifications.” On that basis, IMO, neither is suitable to be the president of the most powerful country in the world. Neither displays to me the qualities that I would consider to be qualifications, such as a sound approach to information and evidence when decision-making.

        I choose who to vote for simply on the basis of which one I think is more likely to promote policies that, on a relative scale, I consider to be beneficial in balance.

        I don’t care about all this identity politics, where everyone gets so worked up about the personal character traits of these candidates. That, IMO, is just a bunch of media-hype nonsense.

      • Why is it whenever anyone asks “Tell me something Hillary has done” that is great, they jump to “Oh, Trump is such a bad person!!!!”

    • I don’t agree that it’s morally wrong to have different “private” and “public” policies. It is quite common in business and political negotiations. Am I dishonest if I publically list a property for $500,000 while telling my real estate agent I will sell for $475,00? Is a politician dishonest for announcing he is opposed to a bill while knowing while he will vote for an amended version?

      • You are missing the point max.

        Yes, you can support public policies yet have differing private opinions. Saying you support policies in public yet having different policy plans in private is dishonest.

      • Max,
        I had a bit of a different perspective. Politicians frequently vote ‘for’ legislation they don’t support as long as riders which they do support are attached which benefits their or their constituencies.

        Normal course of business.

      • timg56 says “Saying you support policies in public yet having different policy plans in private is dishonest.”

        Well, it could be. For example, it would be dishonest for a politician to say in public he favored voting for a bill and then immediately tell his largest donors he would not vote for the bill because he knew they didn’t like it. But I don’t think that’s the kind of situation Hillary was talking about.

        Unless you or jim2 have an example of Hillary doing what you interpret her to mean, I will suspect your interpretation is wrong.

      • Danny,

        Do you want to be the balance scale or the pretzel?

        Your example sucks. It has nothing to do with holding public vs private positions. Representatives usually run on issues that matter locally. Getting a rider is an accomplishment. While they may not agree with the bill their rider is attached to, at least they can defend their vote. Their vote is public, just like whatever political position they may have espoused contrary to the bill their rider was attached to. Every two (or six) years, they get to answer to the voters.

        At this rate you are going to have to go by Danny Mendoza.

      • “Their vote is public.” Which is exactly the point. An alternative is that Joe Senator agrees to vote for Jane Senator’s legislation even though Joe is ‘against’ it (and it’s not in the best interest of him or his constituencies) in order to gain Jane’s vote for alternative legislation which interestingly might put Jane in a similar position.

        Or if you still have issues with that representation, one can hold private beliefs say as to being against the death penalty, but law requires one to implement same.

        There are any number of similar examples of conflicts between public and private positions.

        Whether you think they ‘suck’ or not is immaterial. Especially if they don’t fit your narrative.

      • Max,

        That is exactly the sort of situation Hillary was involved in. What is surprising is she tried to defend it.

        Don’t take my word or anyone else’s. Read her campaign platform, her campaign speeches, her debate responses and her press conference comments. Oh,wait. Kinda hard doing the last one. My bad.

        Now compare those to the texts of those private speeches she gave at $200,000 + a pop.

        Instead of running off a narrative which you make up in your head, do your own checking.

      • Sorry, tmg56, that’s not specific. I’m not searching for evidence to back up your statement. Remember, it was you who made the accusation not me.

      • Here is an example.


        You can believe it because it is Elizabeth Warren.

      • max10k

        I don’t agree that it’s morally wrong to have different “private” and “public” policies.

        The liar is intentionally making voters believe something false in order to obtain a vote they otherwise would not. That is taking something from someone.

        Hence, look at the deeds, not the words. But, it seems Hillary supporters do not require that.

      • edbarbar, I am puzzled as to why you think an example of Hillary saying one thing in public and a different thing in private is Warren telling how Hillary changed Bill’s mind about the bankruptcy bill.

        If you want an example of someone saying one thing in private and a different thing in public, you need look no further than Donald Trump who said in private that he groped women and then said in public that he didn’t.

      • Max. I’m puzzled why you think Hillary’s lying to get elected is the same thing as staking out a negotiating position. Unbelievable! I’d hate to have to carry water for Billary.

      • Thank you, edbarbar, for posting Senator Elizabeth Warren’s comment on Hillary Clinton. This is an encouraging sign that corrupt politicians and scientists are now in retreat.

      • jim2, everyone lies. I would not believe anyone who says he never lies. So it’s easy to say Hillary is a liar as a blanket statement, which is what you are doing.
        It’s also easy to accuse her of a lie, but an accusation without proof is dishonest.

      • Here’s the History Behind Hillary Clinton’s Abraham Lincoln Defense at the Debate.


      • edbarbar, I am puzzled as to why you think an example of Hillary saying one thing in public and a different thing in private is Warren telling how Hillary changed Bill’s mind about the bankruptcy bill.

        First, it’s about public and private policies.

        This is simply an example she can be bought, and pays her debts. Which goes to “You don’t know what policies she will implement, and they probably aren’t in your interests.”

        Thinking about this, perhaps it is possible to know Hillary’s actual policies. Look at who gave her money, and ask “What is in the interests of the moneyed elite who gave her money.”

      • Sure, everyone lies. But not all lies are created equal and many of hers are onerous and despicable.

      • Danny,

        Learn the difference between an opinion and a policy.

        Actually I believe you do know the difference and are just being disingenuous. Which is a stones throw from dishonest.

      • Tim,

        “Learn the difference between an opinion and a policy.”

        It would be helpful for you to cite exactly what you object to and why. Please refer to the ‘Willis’ method of commentary. It’s not my job to put forth an argument on your behalf. I looked upthread from this comment of yours to which I’m responding and it is unclear as to your intent. Any further effort w/r/t this will have to come from you.

      • Gee Danny,

        Earlier you managed to recall other comments of mine to use in a rebuttal. Now you have no recollection of the specific examples I have argued here, both to you and max.

        You could very well be correct when you said we might have more things we agree on than not. I even think you are right on that. And I know a blog is no place to make important decisions on the character of commenters, but I have to say it would take meeting you to change my low opinion of how you argue a point.

      • Tim,
        Yet another area we have in common: ” low opinion of how you argue a point.”? As you took two paragraphs to not answer my request. But look how well we’re getting along!

  12. Regarding the candidate’s detailed policy statements, to the extent that they can be carried out by Executive action rather than new legislation, the transition team is figuring out just how to do that, so these are very real.

    Following their convention, each candidate got Federal transition team funding. Romney’s team spent a reported $8.9 million before the election, so a lot of planning gets done.

    The transition begins the day after the election, not after the inauguration. That is when the agency transition teams start to take control, preparing the agencies for the new policies.

  13. Hillary Clinton’s blackout America [link]

    Link missing. Is this it:


    • As Australian blogger Joanne Nova explains, “A stable grid needs ‘synchronous inertia’ — big reliable turbines that drive at near constant speeds. Coal turbines are 600 tons and spin at 3,000 rpm. That’s inertia.”

      Low inertia grids lack this gyroscopic stability and are inherently unstable. Wind and solar offer the grid no inertia, making a system that is dependent on them very fragile. […]

      To mitigate the effects of variable weather and sunlight, renewables lobbyists argue that interconnectors between grids can create a pan-continental super-grid, something Mrs. Clinton alluded to in the third debate when she said she wanted an electric grid that crosses borders. The shutdown of the interconnector with Victoria confirms European experience and shows this argument for what it is. […]

      This is (probably) a typical example of dishonest rhetoric of anti-technology naysayers. While many “renewables lobbyists” may be making that argument, the people close to the technology are working on effective solutions to the problems.

      For instance: Understanding Inertial and Frequency Response of Wind Power Plants by E. Muljadi, Fellow, IEEE, V. Gevorgian, Member, IEEE, M. Singh, Member, IEEE, and S. Santoso, Senior Member, IEEE, July 2012

      Abstract—The objective of this paper is to analyze and quantify the inertia and frequency responses of wind power plants with different wind turbine technologies (particularly those of fixed speed, variable slip with rotor-resistance controls, and variable speed with vector controls). The fundamental theory, the operating range, and the modifications needed for the wind turbine to contribute to the inertial and primary frequency response during the frequency drop will be presented in this paper. We will demonstrate practical approaches to allow variable slip and speed wind turbines to contribute inertia to the host power system grid. The approaches are based on the inclusion of frequency error and the rate of change of frequency signals in the torque control loop and pitch control actions for wind speeds below and above its rated value. Detailed simulation models in the time domain will be conducted to demonstrate the efficacy of the approaches.

      This, and many other papers, make it clear that qualified engineering talent is being applied to the problem of solving the problem. Note that when the wind isn’t blowing, if CCGT is filling in it will also supply that rotating inertia.

      • Nova was discussing a reality – the South Australian blackout – whereas you are discussing papers – aka guesses. Those sorts of guesses are what led Australia to build the system that failed. Nova’s post, the information of which was from sources other than her, is spot on. If the system had had gas powered plants localized to S.A, the system would have stayed up.

        Even with hard evidence, you ignore reality in favor of “papers.” I might suggest a better use for that paper!

      • Nova was discussing a reality – the South Australian blackout – whereas you are discussing papers – aka guesses.

        The blackout was a reality. The attributions of cause were also “guesses.

        If the system had had gas powered plants localized to S.A, the system would have stayed up.

        Just a guess.

        Even with hard evidence, you ignore reality in favor of “papers.” I might suggest a better use for that paper!

        I would suggest a similar use for your guesses.

      • Solving the problem means there is in fact a problem, for which no practical solution has yet been found. Speculation is not engineering.

      • Solving the problem means there is in fact a problem, for which no practical solution has yet been found.

        Yes, solutions have been found.

        Speculation is not engineering.

        Do you think engineers work in a vacuum? The paper I linked is part of an ongoing engineering effort. If you don’t understand the difference between engineering communication and “speculation” you’re just a clueless naysayer.

      • Remember the models these engineers are using aren’t like GCM’s. They exist in a short-cycle feedback loop with physical experiments and ongoing experience in real systems. (For that matter, the Australia incident is part of that experience.)

      • GE has been selling their WindINERTIA™
        product for over five years.

      • AK: You say that solutions have been found. What are they? By the way, among other things I am an engineer. Once upon a time I was a PE. I also wrote for Electricity Daily for ten years, so I know speculation when I see it.

        Regarding the super grid, the Eastern Interconnection already is one, unless Clinton means an interconnection with Europe and Brazil, or some such nonsense.

      • You say that solutions have been found. What are they?

        Have you looked at the comment right above yours? Followed the link?

        I also wrote for Electricity Daily for ten years, so I know speculation when I see it.

        Regarding the super grid, the Eastern Interconnection already is one, unless Clinton means an interconnection with Europe and Brazil, or some such nonsense.

        Are you talking about the paper I linked to or Clinton’s arm-waving?

        I don’t believe she has what it takes to manage the problem-solving effectively, but the National Review article still engaged in dishonest rhetoric. Engineers are actually looking at solving the problem, as the papers I linked demonstrate. And there’s lots more where that came from.

      • AK, the South Australian blackout analysis used data gathered in real time. Your papers are no more than guesses, educated guesses maybe, but still just guesses. And probably wrong since those same sort of papers said windmills would work in S.A.

      • AK, the South Australian blackout analysis used data gathered in real time.

        Maybe gathered “in real time” but not made available.

        Your papers are no more than guesses, educated guesses maybe, but still just guesses.

        According to the October 5 Report:

        AEMO has been provided with preliminary data by Registered Participants as to the performance of some equipment leading up to, during, and after the Black System event in accordance with clauses 3.14 and 4.8.15 of the Rules. In addition, AEMO has collated information from its own systems. The information provided by Registered Participants and collated from AEMO’s own systems is preliminary information only. Any analysis and conclusions in these findings are also preliminary in nature.

        While AEMO has made every effort to ensure the quality of the information in this report, its investigations are incomplete and the findings expressed in it may change as further information becomes available and further analysis is conducted. AEMO will publish its final operating incident report as required by clause 4.8.15 and its report into the suspension of the spot market under clause 3.14 of the Rules.

        Thus: guesswork on incomplete information.

        Back to jim2:

        And probably wrong since those same sort of papers said windmills would work in S.A.

        According to the October 19 Update (with a similar disclaimer to the 10/5 report):

        Nine of the 13 wind farms online did not ride through the six voltage disturbances experienced during the event. In the days following, AEMO identified this issue and reclassified the simultaneous trip of these wind farms as a credible contingency.

        AEMO then worked with each of the operators of these wind farms and determined that their ‘voltage
        ride-through’ settings were set to disconnect or reduce turbine output when between three and six ‘voltage ride-through’ events were detected within a given timeframe. Investigations to date indicate that information on the control system involved and its settings was not included in the models of wind turbine operation provided to AEMO during NEM registration processes prior to connection of the wind farms.

        The wind farm operators and the turbine manufacturers are working to propose improved ‘voltage ride-through’ settings for consideration by AEMO. As they are re-configured, the wind farms are removed from the reclassification and returned to normal operation. At the time of this report, five of the wind farms that suffered sustained output reductions in the event have been removed from the reclassification.

        According to this story

        The operator’s update on the outage shows it expected all generators should have been able to ride through the transmission faults caused by the storm.

        They link to the same report (10/19) that I linked to above.

        The fact (if true) that the “information on the control system involved and its settings was not included in the models of wind turbine operation” the models, and the approval process applied to them, were inadequate. This is a learning experience, and AFAIK there’s no reason to assume that the entire universe of such contingencies would be considered up front.

        If it happens again it would be a different matter.

        I’ll also point out that the whole Australia thing is a straw man. There is no indication that issues with rotating inertia were involved in it, and the problem with rotating inertia was what I originally flagged.

      • AK, I do not really understand why you are accusing people of “nay-saying” and “dishonest rhetoric”. If I understand you correctly, you acknowledge that there is AT THIS TIME no solution for the lack of inertia and stability which the large steam turbines/generators create and the renewables cannot.
        The fact that lots of people are working on the problem and are trying to find a solution does not help the lack of inertia NOW.

        So don’t you agree that we’d better first find a solution before we demolish the existing systems and replace them with renewables?

      • AK, I do not really understand why you are accusing people of “nay-saying” and “dishonest rhetoric”.

        The “dishonest rhetoric” was from National Review, using clueless arm-waving by a dishonest politician as though it had some engineering relevance.

        The “nay-saying” also had to do with future technology. As I understand it, planning engineers normally work with with already mature technology (or at least prefer to), while development engineers, scientists, and forward-looking vendors are concerned with solving future problems.

        For a planning engineer to reject future technology, and technological solutions, because they aren’t available today as mature technology is tantamount to nay-saying. It’s a straw man, in the context of planning for future decades.

        If I understand you correctly, you acknowledge that there is AT THIS TIME no solution for the lack of inertia and stability which the large steam turbines/generators create and the renewables cannot.

        Your use of “renewables” is clear dishonest rhetoric.

        Regarding wind, technology is available today. Solar is somewhat behind (see below), but the efforts to solve the problem are underway.

        So don’t you agree that we’d better first find a solution before we demolish the existing systems and replace them with renewables?

        This looks to me like another straw man, but perhaps you just don’t understand.

        You don’t “find a solution” to this sort of technological problem. The process from identifying a problem to having off-the-shelf solutions (to “find” one of) is a long process, and needs (IMO) to be integrated into the planning process, along with contingencies.

        Solutions have been proposed. In the case of wind, the process has advanced to market products, which can be examined for their ability to advance system designs with the problem solved. In the case of Solar PV, the process is much earlier.

        These solutions can be evaluated in terms of feasibility, and cost. Planning for availability of off-the-shelf solutions should be integrated with planning for retirement and replacement of existing plant. With contingencies if the availability of needed solutions is delayed.

        From an energy standpoint, a large-scale deployment of gas/oil (flex-fuel) CCGT would have been better than rolling out massive wind while politicians engaged in loud denial of the ancillary services issue. (And, I suspect, suppression of input from qualified engineers.)

        But here’s where politics intervenes. The activists were simply unwilling to accept that a longer timeline was needed, that Australia might use some of its gas and oil resources as a bridge until wind and solar PV were ready.

        Meanwhile, nay-sayers kept keep yelling about how “renewables”can’t do the job. Well, perhaps not. Not today.

        But as long as both sides of the argument go into denial about the difference between “today” and “in a couple decades with the right policies”, they’re going to reinforce each other in their yelling match. And stuff’s going to get stuffed down their throats, because they refuse to address the problems.

      • AK: I asked for the solution and you just pointed to a product. The product literature does not address the system needs so it is not a solution. I ask again, what is the solution? Universal installation of this product? Show how that solves the problem. And if it does why is research still being done on the problem?

      • The issue of rotating inertia also applies to recovery of service after a trip.

      • @David Wojick…

        The problem that I flagged was that adding wind reduces the level of voltage support and rotating inertia (or equivalent). The product I pointed to implements a solution wherein it provides emulated rotating inertia (frequency support).

        I would assume a real planning engineer would know how to integrate this into system planning. Also how to find the necessary specifications and test results. Or you could consult your GE representative, who might find you papers like this (which I found with Google).

        The point is that as technology improves, it needs to be deployed based on models results, so the physical validation of the models can take place.

        Simply refusing to consider deploying technology that hasn’t already worked in physical production is sheer nay-saying.

        IMO it’s that sort of behavior that encourages politicians to simply slap down an implementation schedule, and it’s your job to make it happen.

      • Here we are in the politics thread and you guys want to argue renewables

        Where is Springer when you need him.

    • Solar PV is a little behind wind in this issue.

      For instance: Active power control of solar PV generation for large interconnection frequency regulation and oscillation damping by Yong Liu, Lin Zhu, Lingwei Zhan, Jose R. Gracia, Thomas Jr. King, and Yilu Liu (2015)

      Because of zero greenhouse gas emission and decreased manufacture cost, solar photovoltaic (PV) generation is expected to account for a significant portion of future power grid generation portfolio. Because it is indirectly connected to the power grid via power electronic devices, solar PV generation system is fully decoupled from the power grid, which will influence the interconnected power grid dynamic characteristics as a result. In this paper, the impact of solar PV penetration on large interconnected power system frequency response and inter-area oscillation is evaluated, taking the United States Eastern Interconnection (EI) as an example. Furthermore, based on the constructed solar PV electrical control model with additional active power control loops, the potential contributions of solar PV generation to power system frequency regulation and oscillation damping are examined. The advantages of solar PV frequency support over that of wind generator are also discussed. Simulation results demonstrate that solar PV generations can effectively work as ‘actuators’ in alleviating the negative impacts they bring about.

      I would place this at (or close to) the front of an approach to solving an engineering problem:

      •       Identify a first “straw man” definition of the problem.

      •       Propose a “straw man” “black box” solution to the problem with plausible guesses at performance definitions that might hopefully be both feasible and able to solve the problem.

      •       Model the operation of this “straw man” “black box” solution in the overall system.

      •       Set up an iterative loop of redefinition of the performance definitions of the “straw man” “black box” solution and testing the results in the model until you have a good handle on what will probably work and the optimization parameters. These are called “requirements”. Note that it’s important at this stage to be flexible about tweaking the definition of the original problem.

      •       Develop design solutions for the “straw man” “black box” solution, optimizing the trade-off of estimated final unit cost (with appropriate learning curve) and optimization parameters for requirements.

      •       Model the entire proposed design in situ, and if necessary use a second run of the iterative loop to optimize the design again. Modeling could well include creating physical model systems.

      •       Build a pilot of the designed solution.

      •       Test the performance of the pilot against the requirements.

      •       If necessary, go back and redesign and rebuild pilots until they match the requirements. Note that this stage also requires flexibility about tweaking the definition of the original problem.

      •       Install the pilot in a real system and observe its performance.

      •       If necessary, go back and tweak the requirements and designs in light of real-world experience.

      •       Install new pilots of tweaked designs and observe performance.

      •       Establish volume manufacturing.

      AFAIK the above would reasonably describe the process being used to solve the ancillary services issues with both wind and solar PV. Obviously, it’s highly simplistic, and many actual projects probably combine multiple steps. And several vendor projects are on-going in parallel.

      And, of course, given that it’s being done by humans, many projects will skip steps, or get ahead of themselves by mistake.

      Given sufficient time, this process could be used to transform to new technology without serious issues. However there are many political problems:

      Many activists don’t understand the engineering cycle, and want it all done yesterday.

      Many engineers don’t understand the urgency and don’t want to be flexible about project timelines and management.

      Many politicians don’t understand the issues and are pursuing very different agendas, often to the detriment of everyone concerned.

      Many of the ultimate customers don’t want to be flexible, and deliberately throw roadblocks in the way, hoping the whole issue will just go away.

      Given all those problems, it seems to me that the progress in solving the engineering problems integrating wind and solar PV is quite creditable.

      Given that large numbers of distinct organizations are involved in efforts like these, much less the number of actual people, we should reasonably expect quite a bit of communication, much of it in the form of peer-reviewed papers.

      • Curious George

        Solar and wind have very different characteristics. The destabilizing factor of wind is a sudden shutdown when a maximum operating wind speed is reached – that means going from a maximum power to zero in a fraction of a second. I am not saying that it has to be that way; it is that way today.

      • The destabilizing factor of wind is a sudden shutdown when a maximum operating wind speed is reached – that means going from a maximum power to zero in a fraction of a second.

        According to a British 2013 High Wind Speed Shutdown Workgroup Report:

        At the current time, based on the data presented by Workgroup members, HWSS Events normally occurred infrequently i.e. less than once a year, and over a timescale of hours rather than minutes, as a weather front moves across a region, affecting first those turbines within a particular wind farm which are at the most exposed locations.

        I’m also very skeptical of the “going from a maximum power to zero in a fraction of a second” WRT a single turbine. It’s my understanding that shutdown is usually accomplished by feathering the blades, which would allow rotating inertia to maintain its condition for a few seconds, well within the ability of other units on the network to respond.

        Perhaps you have some links for this “fraction of a second” thing even for a single turbine?

      • Solar and wind have very different characteristics.

        True. Also true for “bio-“fuels, geothermal, and hydropower.

        Which is why the use of the word “renewables” is either a straw man or an appeal to careless (categorical) thinking.

      • @Curious George…

        If that link was supposed to support your “fraction of a second” claim, it doesn’t. This was an emergency trip, not a high-wind shutdown.

      • As far as a sudden shut down with high wind speeds for wind turbines, I wonder if this might work. The angle of attack is reduced. Not feathered but closer to that and it still generates shaft torque and useful work. A braking force is applied by adding another generator or even 2 more as here:
        How does the wing perform in high speeds? It can be feathered and it doesn’t fail. However when it’s rotating it sees higher air speeds. Airplanes have Vne speeds. Velocity never exceed. A combination of low angle of attack (close to feathered) and enough generators engaged keeping the wings below Vne.

        Perhaps a lower tech approach is spoilers on the wind turbines that deploy in high winds.

      • Curious George

        I am not suggesting that the rotor stops in a fraction of a second. I am only suggesting that the power supplied to the grid stops in a fraction of a second – in my link, 0.9 seconds before the blackout. The paper of course attributes the blackout to something not wind power related, that happened 17.1 seconds earlier. Judge for yourself.

      • The paper of course attributes the blackout to something not wind power related, that happened 17.1 seconds earlier. Judge for yourself.

        I already did.

  14. The two parties (and the MSM) have given us two morally challenged and deeply flawed candidates. I cannot in good conscience vote for either. I believe in Thoreau’s “That government is best which governs least.” To me that makes it an easy choice – Johnson and Weld. Experienced, able to work in a bipartisan fashion, pragmatic.

    • BS Before running for president Trump never so much as got accused of ripping a button off a woman’s shirt. And he still hasn’t been accused of even that much even now. Get real.

    • The problem is that a guy who talks and acts like a genuine blue collar guy is politically incorrect and isn’t good enough to be president because he’s too rude and crude. Screw that. There is not a goddam single thing wrong with or be ashamed of American blue collar culture and it’s okay right up through the highest office in the land.

  15. Billary is the Russian puppet. From the article:

    “These WikiLeaks dumps are documenting practically everything that Schweizer wrote,” Limbaugh said. “Everything in Schweizer’s book — we didn’t need it documented, we knew it was true.”

    “That book nails the Clintons.”

    The conservative talk radio legend was responding to a caller who said he educates potential voters by explaining to them how then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped broker the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russian government.

    Indeed, in 2010, Clinton approved the transfer of half of U.S. Uranium output to the Kremlin.

    As Clinton Cash documents in great detail, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one of eight agencies to review the deal — but Hillary Clinton was the only agency head whose family foundation received $145 million in donations from people connected to the sale, as reported by the New York Times.

    In fact, Ian Telfer, the head of the Russian government’s uranium company, made a secret $2.35 million foreign donation to the Clinton Foundation, a Times investigation confirmed:

    As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million … Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

    Bill Clinton also received a $500,000 speaking fee for a speech in Moscow paid for by a Russian government-connected bank.


    • Well, if all that’s true, one has to wonder why Putin likes Trump and hates Hillary. Some reasons that occur to me are

      1. The uranium was no good and Russia can’t get its money back.

      2. Putin didn’t like Hillary’s Moscow speech.

      3. Hillary has turned into a Frankenpuppet and scares the sh*t out of Putin.

      4. Putin thinks Trump will fix him up with some hotties who won’t mind having their billybushes grabbed.


  16. From the article:

    WikiLeaks Supporters Likely Behind Massive Internet DDoS Attacks, Assange Possibly In Danger

    First, the U.S. officially accused Russia for the infamous DNC hack that outed the Hillary Clinton campaign’s manipulation of the democratic primary.

    Sprinkled amongst all of this drama was the third Presidential debate, during which the candidates tossed about grandiose accusations and technical terms like “WikiLeaks,” “hack,” and “cyber-attacks,” almost as if they knew what they were talking about, but I digress.

    Things took a turn for the worse this morning, when large parts of the internet were brought down by a massive distributed denial of service attack (DDoS) targeting DNS provider Dyn. If you couldn’t access Amazon, Twitter, and a host of other large sites and on-line services earlier today, this was why you were experiencing an outage and some of your favorite sites may have been offline. Now it seems, if a couple of additional tweets are to be believed, it looks like supporters of WikiLeaks are responsible for this large scale DDoS attack on Dyn.

    A little after 5PM, WikiLeaks published this tweet…
    Followed a few minutes later by this one…
    WikiLeaks is alleging that a group of its supporters launched today’s DDoS attack in retaliation for the Obama administration using its influence to push the Ecuadorian government to limit Assange’s internet access. This alleged action by the Obama admistration, on the surface at least, is claimed to be politically motivated towards silencing damaging leaks against presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

    The earlier tweet reassures supporters that Mr. Assange is still alive, which — along with a photo of heavily armed police posted this morning — implies that he may have been (or may still be) in danger, and directly asks said supporters to stop the attack. Engaging directly with its supporters in this way, implies that WikiLeaks knows who is responsible or at the very least has been contacted by the parties involved.


  17. Trump is either the missing link or he’s a democrat working deep undercover to help Hillary get elected. Hillary is sick, loses her shoes, and may send the world back to the Stone Age after she gets a nuclear war started.

    Vote write in Fernando Leanme for president. My platform is 1. Unemployment down to 4 %, 2. Student loans at 2 % interest 3. I will issue rubber bullet guns to all police forces just in case they see the chance to use them, 4. Support Israel as required by their lobby, 5. Legalized pot. and 6. All USA troops out of Djibouti and Thailand. Thank you.

  18. From the article:

    The Democratic nominee for president rallied with supporters and reached out to her GOP rival Donald J. Trump’s voters Friday at Cuyahoga Community College, just outside of Cleveland.
    “I want to say something to people, who may be reconsidering their support for my opponent,” said Hillary R. Clinton, who wore a dark green pant suit as she walked around a catwalk-like stage carrying a wireless microphone and referring from time-to-time to printed notes at the podium.

    “I know you may still have questions for me,” she said. “I respect that. I want to answer them. I want to earn your vote. I am reaching out to all Americans, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. I think America needs every single one of us to bring our energy, our talents, our ambition to build that better country.”

    The one-time senator from New York told her supporters that they need to find their friends and co-workers who are still supporting Trump and ask them to vote for her.” I want you to tell them that I want to be your president. I want to be every single American’s president.”


  19. From the article:

    Trump Lays Out His Plan For First 100 Days In Office: Here Are The Highlights

    In terms of soundbites, the following quotes stood out.

    On the economy:

    “Change has to come from outside our very broken system.”
    “We’ve doubled our national debt to $20 trillion under President Obama.”
    “Nearly 1 in 4 Americans in their prime earning years isn’t even working.”
    “I am asking the American people to dream big once again.”
    “Will withdraw the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
    “Will cancel every un-Constitutional executive action, memorandum, and order issued by President Obama.”
    “We will cancel all federal funding of sanctuary cities.”
    “The veterans will finally be taken care of properly.”
    “If we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by, and for the people.”
    On Obamacare:

    “Fully repeal ObamaCare and replace it with health savings accounts.”
    On education:

    “We are going to end Common Core.”
    On tax reform:

    “Tax forms will be greatly simplified.”
    “When they know there are consequences, our companies will stop leaving the United States.”
    On voter fraud:

    “1.8 million dead people are registered to vote. And some of them are voting.”
    “2.8 million people are registered in more than one state… 14% of non-citizens are registered to vote.”
    “According to Pew, there are 24 million voter registrations in the United States that are either invalid or significantly inaccurate.”
    “Just been learned on video that the violent protests at some of my rallies…were caused by paid DNC & Clinton campaign operatives.”
    On immigration:

    “We’re going to suspect immigration from terror-prone regions.”
    On Hillary:

    “Hillary Clinton should have been precluded from running… but the FBI and the Justice Dept. covered up her crimes.”
    “Hillary Clinton is not running against me. She’s running against change.”
    “HillaryClinton is… running against all of the American people and all of the American voters.
    In terms of actual political measures that Trump would propose and/or enact, he listed the following six:


  20. From the article:

    Casino magnate Steve Wynn expresses his disappointment at the lack of discussion of the economy during the course of the presidential election in an interview on Thursday’s Hannity. Wynn also weighed in on the debate describing it long on negativity and short on substance.

    Wynn said the printing of money by the U.S. Treasury under the guidance from the U.S. Federal Reserve and the national debt have not been properly addressed albeit a short segment at the final debate.

    “We take in $3.1 trillion and we spend $3.7 trillion,” Wynn said Thursday to guest host Eric Bolling. “And that $600 billion deficit is at the rate of $50 billion a month. Our government is printing money and it’s degrading the living standard of every person in America. It’s the cause of frustration, anger and confusion. I was disappointed we didn’t get in a real substantive conversation about that last night.”

    Wynn also addressed health care and said the more than 10,000 people he employees “paid more money but did not get more coverage” under Obamacare.

    “All of my employees [have] increased health care costs in spite of the fact the company picked up most of the increases but yet they have the same policy that they had before,” Wynn said.

    “We’ve been health care providers for over 45 years,” the founder of Wynn Resorts said on the FOX News Channel. “And when your prices go up and your product doesn’t get any better you sort of wonder whether you got a new deal or not.”


    • Casino magnate Steve Wynn says “Our government is printing money and it’s degrading the living standard of every person in America.”

      Uhh…wait a minute. Where’s the inflation? The standard of living suffers only when printing too much money causes inflation.
      We have had little or no inflation for many years. If Steve Wynn wants to help the financially strapped he should stop robbing the public who frequent his casinos instead of complaining about an imaginary problem.

      On another subject, I continue to be amazed at the kinds of words that will send a post to moderation here at CE. For example, one word for a person who lives in a cell.

      • No, but that one seemed to be a clue. I suspect the word was “cook” with an “r” added after the “c”. I’m not sure, however, it’s the guilty word. I think it’s funny the shocking P word passes while some words used in Sunday school classes don’t.

  21. Please Gaia
    Allow the Donald to win
    For me
    I hardly ever ask for anything

    I so desperately want to watch the Chuck Todds and the George Clooneys of this world loose the minds
    (not to mention the Lews and the Cooks)
    I’ll buy cable just to watch the freakout at CNN.
    The editorial boards of the WAPO and NYT will have a collective stroke.
    Anything bad stuff after that would be totally worth it.
    I should be able to buy a place in LA or Manhattan for cheap.
    Gaia you made me.
    Deplorable and, without question, irredeemable.
    May I keep producing CO2 in your grace.

    • ‘their minds’ if you can call them that

      • Early voting not lookin’ so golden for the Donald.

        Trump may claim that “nobody respects women more” than he does, but it looks like most women aren’t buying the candidate’s brand of casual misogyny. Nearly 90,000 Democratic women in North Carolina have returned their early-voting ballots, while just 60,000 Republican women have cast their votes early, according to Politico. Meanwhile, Democratic and Republican men in North Carolina have been voting early at the same rate. North Carolina just opened early voting last week, which makes the uptick in Democratic women turnout astonishing, and very telling for Trump.

        But it looks like it’s not only Democratic women who are turning in their ballots early. An Oct. 21 poll found that Clinton is leading Trump 52 percent to 47 percent in early voting, with Clinton winning women in the state overall. According to CNN, early voting in Georgia is already up by 25 percent, but Clinton would need a large number of non-white votes to win the state.

        Daniel Smith of the University of Florida told Politico that in Florida, roughly 55 percent of the 880,000 people who voted by the end of the day on Oct. 19 were women. Like Georgia and North Carolina, Florida is another battleground state where Clinton is ramping up her campaign. It may be working, considering just as many Democratic voters as Republican voters in the state have requested ballots.


  22. Clinton represents the political establishment, which makes academia’s global warming alarmism a part of the political establishment and also makes scientific skepticism, anti-establishment.

    • Yes , the establishment (undefined) is pushing global warming alarmism…Except for the FACT that there wasn’t a question about climate change in the debates and the actual amount of coverage of climate change in the mainstream media is pretty damn low. For instance, in 2015, ABC nightly news devoted a grand total 13 minutes to climate change for the entire year.


      Of course, the fantasy narrative among denialists is that climate change is being fiercely pushed all the time in order to brainwash the public (and some of them even believe it has to do with establishing a world government !).

      The truth is the establishment is paying lip service to climate change with non-binding agreements and such, while catering to fossil fuel companies and everyone else whose interest lies in denying it.

      • US debate: It’s no accident climate change is ignored — it’s a poison pill a pollie would prefer to hide


      • Hillary Clinton campaigns with Al Gore in Florida (CBS News, Oct. 11, 2016)

      • ‘Every week Dr Curry links to media accounts on climate change m, the majority of which argue for horrible things.

        Pay attention numbnuts.’

        Oh, how witty you are! Numbnuts!

        Links to ‘media accounts’? So what? Reread my post and try and think about it carefully, and not engage in straw men arguments.

        I didnt say there was no coverage, genius.

        ‘Hillary Clinton campaigns with Al Gore in Florida (CBS News, Oct. 11, 2016)’

        And??? One single campaign event designed to lure in millenials….

        You’d think climate change would receive *saturation* coverage (the way the run-up to a war would) if there was a huge interest by the PTB in converting the public to belief in it

        Think people.


  23. The Crook vs. the Monster.


    Anyone willing to list a good Hillary achievement they knew about prior to reading this sentence? Something they can point to and say “Hillary did THIS, and look at how great it is!”

    She is going to be our president. Given her tenure in public life, there ought to be one thing. Even one attempt. A bill she pushed forward that got shut down, something she championed in a meaningful way (that is, results occurred).

    • edbarbar

      “Anyone willing to list a good Hillary achievement they knew about prior to reading this sentence? ”

      Yes. When she and her husband left the White House they were so broke they had to borrow the furniture. Now, sixteen years later, Hillary and her husband are worth more than $100 Million each. A true Horatio Alger story. I feel inspired.

  24. From the article:

    PHOENIX (AP) – A campaign finance violation complaint has been filed with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office against a newly formed independent political committee linked to hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    An attorney representing Republican incumbent Bill Montgomery’s re-election campaign for Maricopa County Attorney filed a complaint Friday, saying the Arizona Safety & Justice has violated a state election law.

    Soros has been spending millions of dollars this year to support Democrats in prosecutor races around the country and all but one of his favored candidates have won.

    Phoenix lawyer Brett Johnson says the law requires political committees making independent expenditures to a candidate or office within 60 days of an election to provide 24 hours’ notice to opponents about submitted print or television ads.

    Montgomery’s campaign says it was not notified.


  25. Attention Mr. Lang. From the article (modified to be visible):

    On Friday, the government of gun-controlled Australia admitted that hundreds of thousands of “illegal firearms” remain in krim i nal possession and launched a new amnesty in hopes of persuading said krim i nals to turn over the weapons.
    In September, Breitbart News reported that Melbourne, Australia, had a gun problem; that they had witnessed more than one shooting a week on average since January 2015.

    Moreover, The Age reported:

    Known krim i nals were caught with firearms 755 times [in 2015], compared to 143 times in 2011

    The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind krim i nals are u sing gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts Now the government of Australia is admitting that hundreds of thousands of “illegal guns”–i.e., “illicit firearms”–are in the hands of krim i nals some 20 years after Australia’s gun ban was implemented. And Reuters reports an amnesty will be put in place in 2017 where those in possession of said weapons can turn them in with no questions asked.


    • We have had a rise in shootings in Melbourne. But guns overall aren’t very tightly controlled – restrictions are mainly on handguns and assault weapons. Gun homicide rate in 2013 was
      0.93 per 100000. UK has tighter controls and there the rate was 0.23.

      For contrast, in the US the rate was 10.54 per 100000 in 2014.

      • Nick,

        You’ve covered 2 out of three classes of firearms. Are shotguns now the weapon of choice down under?

      • Tim,
        Sawn-off shotguns used to be favored. Currently I think there is more variety.
        From that Age report:
        “A brand-new Glock semi-automatic pistol purchased for $700 from a legal firearms dealer in the United States will fetch $8000 to $12,000 on the streets of Melbourne.”
        Restrictions aren’t watertight, but they have an effect, as seen in the much lower gun homicide rate here.

      • Nick Stokes: “A brand-new Glock semi-automatic pistol purchased for $700 from a legal firearms dealer in the United States will fetch $8000 to $12,000 on the streets of Melbourne.”


        Doesn’t anyone in Australia have access to lathes and milling machines?

        In fact a quick trawl round the old Interwebs demonstrates a very serviceable firearm can be knocked up from less than $10’s worth of plumbing fittings, no need for machining at all, and a very serviceable SMG for little more.

      • Nick Stokes,

        “For contrast, in the US the rate was 10.54 per 100000 in 2014.”

        Mostly gangsters doing each other. We have a lot of those here in CA. Week after week, the same surnames, witnesses won’t talk, yada yada.

        Trump has promised to take care of it. Hillary promises more of the same.

      • Oops, I misread the table, and gave numbers for total gun death rate. Gun homicide rate was
        Australia 0.16, UK 0.06, USA 3.43 per 100000.

      • How many blacks you got in Melbourne, Nick?

        That’s a rhetorical question. Close to zero.

        I grew up in a small town in the US with no blacks. It has the lowest mean income of any city in the state. Murder rate was essentially zero and everyone owned guns. I started taking out a .22L Colt Woodsman target pistol to have fun shooting shiit around my 13th birthday.

        Gun violence is cultural but it’s politically incorrect to talk about which cultures foster it.

      • Springer, a Colt Woodsman is still on my to buy list.

        Do have a Ruger Bearcat, a Colt SAA in .22 and a Colt .25 semi auto pocket model. But the Woodsman would be the crown jewel.

      • I still have it in the original case with original instructions. Fires like a dream. Has a muzzle brake for rapid fire. Series 2 Match Target.

    • Of course, there is a cultural difference in attitudes toward firearms between Britain and the Unites States. For a hundred years firearms were essential for Americans who were settling a wilderness. The American idea of self-reliance and suspicion of government is also a factor. In fact, murder rates in the US have been falling for several decades. They are inflated by places like Chicago and Baltimore where there is a destructive and self-perpuating culture of violence and self-destructive behavior. This is often missed by foreigners when they quote national statistics.

      • ” They are inflated by places like Chicago and Baltimore”
        There is a list here of gun deaths by US state (I can’t find a homicide list). Illinois at 8.6/100000 and Maryland at 9.7 are mid-range. Much higher are Alaska (19.8), Idaho (14.1), Montana (16.7) and Wyoming (16.7). New York 4.2), Mass (3.1) and Conn (4.4) are among the lowest.

      • Nick Stokes kindly provided some rates of gun deaths by US state indicating that New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut are low compared to Alaska, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. I find the following more interesting and informative …

        Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities — United States, 2006–2007

        While the rate (firearm homicides) for New York City’s five boroughs was 4.0 per 100,000 it was 25.4 for City of Newark, New Jersey.

        Chicago; Naperville; Joliet: 6.0
        City of Chicago: 11.6

        Philadelphia; Camden; Wilmington: 7.8
        City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 20.0

        Detroit; Warren; Livonia: 9.3
        City of Detroit, Michigan: 35.9

        Looking at state numbers alone can be misleading and hides much important information.

      • “In fact, murder rates in the US have been falling for several decades. They are inflated by places like Chicago and Baltimore where there is a destructive and self-perpuating culture of violence and self-destructive behavior. This is often missed by foreigners when they quote national statistics.”

        Foreigners? Trump is no foreigner yet he doesn’t get this distinction all while he purports to be the only one able to ‘fix it’ in Chicago.

      • David is right. The stat you need is how many people were murdered. This would exclude killing in self defense and suicides, which is a pretty large chunk of gun deaths.

        It’s the gang culture in places like Chicago where homicides dominate. But the government doesn’t like that bit of truth to be evident, so you can’t get the relevant stat. But this will give you a sense of it. Check out pix of the victims.

        The violence in gun-controlled Chicago has now hit such levels that “nearly 12” people have been shot every day in 2016.
        ABC News reported this average of “nearly 12 shooting victims” a day on September 1, based on the “2,848 shooting victims” reported for the year on the same day. Fatalities among those victims totaled 468.

        Also on September 1, Breitbart News reported that August 2016 was the deadliest August in Chicago in 20 years. ABC News reported “472 total shooting victims” and 90 fatalities for that month alone. This brings the total of homicides to nearly 470 for the year, even as Chicago rolls into a Labor Day weekend where heightened violence and death are expected.

        The New York Daily News tried to put the huge August death toll into perspective, saying, “Chicago has seen more shootings and homicides this month than the combined total in New York City — a city three times as populous — and Los Angeles — a city with about 1.3 million more people.”


      • I have lived in the inner city since 1981. Never carried a gun; don’t have one in my house. It’s actually one of the safest places for white people to live. Stat boys… try to figure out why.

      • Chicago is controlled by Dimowits and has been for just about forever. It has strict gun control laws. It’s a death culture problem among certain groups.

      • More on the rise of gangs in Chicago:


      • The gun-control-law argument has more holes in it than a used target.

      • Nick, gun violence in the US is almost entirely urban in nature. It’s probably that way in Australia too, right? People didn’t evolve over evolutionary timespans to live in large close groups like that. Pure and simple. The problem is biology. I think dense urban areas out to be what’s not legal.

      • Name the city, JCH, and then I’ll verify the safe status and tell you why.

      • “Nick, gun violence in the US is almost entirely urban in nature. It’s probably that way in Australia too, right?”
        But the highest rates of gun deaths are in places like Montana and Wyoming. And NY and Mass are low.

        I don’t know the actual urban/rural rates in Australia. But the overall rate is far less than US (and Wyo). There are a lot less guns around, even with imperfect control.

      • Nick – hunting accidents were a frequent thing when I grew up in the Dakotas. By the time I finished grade school, I already knew two fatalities… one a classmate; another a friend of an elder sibling.

      • In terms of absolute numbers, certain cities have the most homicides.

      • One doesn’t have to take anyone’s word. You can go to DoJ’s website and see all of the data collected.

        One thing that (should) stand out is how much the homicide rate per 100,000 changes for the US when one small subset of the data is removed. US rate per 100,000 drops to about middle of the pack of EU countries.

        Imagine that.

      • Nick,

        Have to understand context when discussing rates for states like Montana and Wyoming. Low population, rural states, where hunting is a significant cultural more. Half a dozen hunting accidents a year will give a boost to the per 100,000 rate. The same number of fatalities is considered a quit week in Chicago.

      • David Young said Of course, there is a cultural difference in attitudes toward firearms between Britain and the Unites States. For a hundred years firearms were essential for Americans who were settling a wilderness.

        Yes, guns are essential to stealing land from the natives. But you forget the British did it too, around the world, using guns.

      • Ok max, you have starting point. Guns are essential to stealing land.

        Now can you expand on that? If they are essential for that purpose, what else might they be essential for?

        Don’t strain yourself.

      • Well, I found guns essential for shooting birds and beer cans, but I think the answer you want is for defending land. I hope you didn’t want bank robbery or suicide. Actually guns aren’t essential for suicide, just preferred.

      • The inner cities are easy to explain.


        According to FBI statistics young black males are relatively dangerous. They commit murder at 11-14 times the national average depending on the year and the data source . Many of these deaths are for “professional” reasons (gang or drug related) and only 60% are solved.

        Blacks (13.5% of the population) kill more people total than similar aged whites (70% of the population) when 13-29 years of age.


        Newark (50% black in 2010 census) is literally across the river from New York City (6% black in 2010 census). The murder rate for NYC is 3.9. The murder rate for Newark (across the river) is 33.3.

        Chicago at 32% black is about what you would expect if you interpolate between NYC and Newark.

        The good news is blacks over 65 look like normal citizens.

  26. “The soullessness of this campaign – all ambition and entitlement – emerges almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign is about. In one largely overlooked passage, she complains that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or rationale. Isn’t that the candidate’s job?”
    “It’s that emptiness at the core that makes every policy and position negotiable and politically calculable.”
    – Charles Krauthammer
    What is her campaign about? It’s the Seinfeld show. A show about nothing.

  27. Welcome to the InDterInOeT of things. From the article:
    …Dyn, a provider of Internet management for multiple companies, was hit with a large-scale distributed denial of service attack (DDoS), in which its servers were flooded with millions of fake requests for information, so many that they could no longer respond to real ones and crashed under the weight.

    Who orchestrated the attack is still unknown. But how they did it — by enslaving ordinary household electronic devices such as DVRs, routers and digital closed-circuit cameras —is established.

    The attackers created a digital army of co-opted robot networks, a “botnet,” that spewed millions of nonsense messages at Dyn’s servers. Like a firehose, they could direct it at will, knocking out the servers, turning down the flow and then hitting it full blast once again.

    The specific weapon? An easy-to-use botnet-creating software called Mirai that requires little technical expertise. An unknown person released it to the hacker underground earlier this month, and security experts immediately warned it might come into more general use.

    Internet of Things comes back to bite us as hackers spread botnet code

    Mirai insinuates itself into household devices without the owner’s knowledge, using them as platforms to send the sever-clogging messages even as the device continues to do its day job for its true owner.

    The software uses malware from phishing emails to first infect a computer or home network, then spreads to everything on it, taking over DVRs, cable set-top boxes, routers and even Internet-connected cameras used by stores and businesses for surveillance.


    • I do IoT programming myself. Got into it several months ago. A $2 wafer the size of a dime is a complete webserver. Software development system from top to bottom is free open source. Google ESP-8266.

      I was describing it to a buddy while he was remodeling a room. “See this hammer?” I said. He goes “Yeah”. I says “For $5 I could put a tiny webserver in it the keeps track of time and location of each swing. You could track an army of construction workers, where they are, how many nails they pounded, and when.”

      Truth. This shiit is awesome.

    • DYNDNS offers, among other things, a free service that takes dynamic (changing) IP addresses that residential subscribers get from TimeWarner, AT&T, etc and assigns them a permanent human readable URL such as http://www.impeachbillcam1.com. Fixed IPs are really expensive and DYNDNS is a free solution so, for instance, I can log into that camera anywhere in the world with any browser by typing its name in the address line. I’ve been using DYNDNS.com, both free and paid services, for going on 20 years.

      It’s very popular with IoT (Internet of Things) to give Things the advantage of a fixed IP address without the huge expense. Technically TimeWarner disallows using this or similar services, and the fine print of your contract has that in there, but in practice everyone does it and TimeWarner does nothing to stop it.

      • The odds are very good that anyone else can log into that camera too. You do it by first downloaded a firmware update, you don’t have to have a camera to do that. Then you use legal tools used by firmware developers to find the burned-in admin password to the web server. Then, you can substitute whatever image you like on the admin screen – the one you would be watching for krem I nails.

      • Y’know, maybe these people are actually doing a public service. I mean, if the IoT isn’t hardened soon, how many people will have stoves with a built-in web server, and a cracker could get in an turn it on and start a fire?

        This brings it to people’s attention in a way that Krebs can’t. Or hasn’t been able to yet

      • AK

        To me hacking, whether terrorism or criminal, is probably the greatest concern of this part of the 21st century, way ahead of global warming.

        The internet of things allows wholesale hacking whether it is stoves, fridges, heating systems or increasingly, moving vehicles. The creaking systems of the infrastructure-banking, water, communications, power etc could be reduced to a shambles by a concerted attack.

        Many people are now designing their finances so they are not accessible from the internet as Bank security systems are so poor and increasingly they won’t take responsibility for fraud.

        The internet is a VERY mixed blessing and I am not sure we have kept pace with the necessary regulation of it, as there remains something of a free for all with many aspects of it. Great in some ways, frightening in others.


  28. From the article:

    McAfee said they certainly have the capability and if it’s true…then forensic analysis will point to either Russia, China, or some group within the U.S. [And] who hacked the Democratic National Committee? McAfee — in an email exchange and follow up phone call — said sources within the Dark Web suggest it was Iran, and he absolutely agrees. While Russian hackers get more media attention nowadays, Iranian hackers have had their share… “The Iranians view Trump as a destabilizing force within America,” said McAfee. “They would like nothing more than to have Trump as President….

    “If all evidence points to the Russians, then, with 100% certainty, it is not the Russians. Anyone who is capable of carrying out a hack of such sophistication is also capable, with far less effort than that involved in the hack, of hiding their tracks or making it appear that the hack came from some other quarter…”


  29. More bad news, trumpettes.

    From WSJ’s well-respected reporter John Harwood’s twitter feed-

    John HarwoodVerified account
    senior GOP Senate strategist: “Trump now tied in Indiana. down 11 in PA and 14 in NH. going down hard”

    also, more on the ground game:


    (Think about this. Trump is too incompetent and/or disinterested to have put together a ground game, something absolutely basic to campaigns, yet somehow he’s going to Make America Great Again?)

    Don’t say I didn’t warn ya.

    • UbiksCube,
      I was not given the chance to run this story by John Darwood to see if it is OK.


      See for yourself just like everyone else.

      • Zero Hedge? ……come on…… lol

        As 1 person noted in 2014…

        “If you actually take Zero Hedge’s constant gold-flogging to heart, you could lose a lot of money. Since gold hit a peak in 2011, it has lost about 33 percent of its value in real terms. Zero Hedge kept touting gold all the way down. For example, in November 2011, Zero Hedge ran an article saying that gold could be “on its way to infinity.” In March 2012, Zero Hedge urged its readers to “stay long gold.” An October 2012 article made the same recommendation. As the price fell, Zero Hedge assured us that the collapse was only in “paper” gold, not the physical commodity. Needless to say, if you took Zero Hedge’s advice at any of these points, you would have lost a lot of money.”

        Here in 2016, we can see they are STILL giving similar advice to their gullible and/or paranoid readership.

        They traffic in conspiracy theories that are only a couple steps removed from Alex Jones, as well.

        Do you REALLY want to bring that to an ostensibly scientific blog?

      • From what you just wrote I would not be surprised to learn that you are a subscriber to Prison Planet. Etc. Etc. …

      • ‘From what you just wrote I would not be surprised to learn that you are a subscriber to Prison Planet. Etc. Etc. …’

        My criticism of conspiracy sites = I am a subscriber to them?

        Great rebuttal….

        No comment on the deplorable investment advice Zero Hedge has been giving for years?

        Didn’t think so.

  30. From the article:

    Lawsuit looms over South Australia wind shutdown

    South Australian businesses left without power could form a class action after it was revealed yesterday nine of the state’s 13 wind farms tripped or reduced output during last month’s storms ­because of a “software issue”.

    Litigation funder IMF Bentham said the statewide blackout was on the company’s radar as state Treasurer Tom Koutsan­tonis warned of “lawyers at 20 paces everywhere”.

    The Australian Energy Market Operator yesterday released an update to its preliminary report on the September 28 blackout. It identified six voltage disturbances which occurred in the network and also downed transmission towers, triggering the “ride through voltage” systems of nine wind farms.

    The wind farm systems tripped as a result, causing them either to shut down or to reduce their output, pushing 445MW of electricity demand on to the Heywood interconnector linking South Australia to Victoria.

    With the sudden rush in ­demand, the interconnector shut down to protect itself and isolated the state from the national grid.


  31. Observing from the other side of the Pond, it appears to me that Trump’s rallies bring out very large numbers of highly enthusiastic supporters, whereas at Clinton’s, if it wasn’t for the horde of Secret Service agents, there would be few or no listeners at all.

    If this pattern is repeated at the polls, Clinton is toast – well charred toast at that.

    • ‘If this pattern is repeated at the polls, Clinton is toast – well charred toast at that.’

      You know, you could spend a few minutes on google and see if larger crowds = winning in past US elections

      Spoiler alert – they don’t

      • Yes, it did. Just recently in fact. A young black freshman senator from Chicago with no experience except community organizing. Big crowds. Huge win. Maybe you heard of him?

      • Take crowd sizes. Attendance at Obama rallies are down significantly from 2008. Just last week, Breitbart reported that the president “drew crowds of 2,600 in Green Bay, Wis., and 4,500 in Las Vegas, Nev., a far cry from the nearly 80,000 people who showed up for a campaign rally of his during the last week of the 2008 campaign in Fairfax, Va.”

        This time last election, Obama was drawing crowd sizes of 15,000-30,000. Romney, on the other hand, has had the largest rally to date; on Nov. 2 he drew more than 20,000 supporters. New York Times reporter Mark Lander summed it up quite nicely when he described Obama’s crowd sizes as “not impressive.”


      • “Ubik”, as in Phillip K. Dick?

  32. Trump bragged that he walked in on naked beauty pageant contestants, say article from think progress.org. The following are excerpts from the article:

    On an appearance on The Howard Stern Show in 2005, published on Sunday by CNN, Trump described going backstage at the beauty pageants while the contestants were undressed.

    “You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’” he continued. “And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that.”

    According to interviews BuzzFeed News conducted with former Miss Teen USA contestants, Trump did just that in 1997.

    “I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’” Mariah Billado, former Miss Vermont Teen USA, said.

    Billado remembered Trump saying something like, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.” Another who was 17 at the time recalled that it seemed Trump felt “it was his given right… because he owned the pageant.”


    • And note Trump is +6 in Indiana not tied as Udik claimed a few comments above.

      • I didn’t claim anything. I posted what a respected reporter said regarding what GOP people in-the-know told him. So don’t lie about what I post.

        Campaigns DO have internal polling, perhaps you’re unaware of that fact?

    • Two weeks ago Hillary peaked at +11 in recent RCP polls. Trump is now tied with her. Fastest slide in presidential history this late in the race? Probably. If she doesn’t arrest Trump’s momentum in a big fooken hurry she’s not going to only lose she’ll lose in a landslide.

      • Today-

        Donald Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway acknowledged the Republican nominee’s latest dip in the polls.

        “We are behind,” Conway said on Meet the Press.

      • Ubik must consider himself expert. I don’t get the same sense from Springer. Impeach Barry offers his opinion. For all I know, he is wrong. But that isn’t the same as ubik being right.

        A lot of the messaging in an election, particularly when it might be close, is designed to either motivate turnout of supporters or demotivate the opponents supporters.

        Conway’s comments can be seen as a spur to people who don’t want Hillary. The line ubik is running out is meant to let people who don’t want Trump, but can’t stand Hillary have an excuse for not voting

      • “Ubik must consider himself expert. I don’t get the same sense from Springer. Impeach Barry offers his opinion. For all I know, he is wrong. But that isn’t the same as ubik being right.”

        Do you want to debate something specific, or just complain about how you perceive I present myself? If the latter, I didn’t see any comments from you when Barry was calling me an ‘asshat’ and other things.

        “A lot of the messaging in an election, particularly when it might be close, is designed to either motivate turnout of supporters or demotivate the opponents supporters.”

        You think it was messaging?


        I suggest you look up what she said after the “we are behind” remark. She was whining HIllary raised more money, had media supporter, etc.

        It’s a case of CYA.

        You won’t find many examples of campaign managers saying “we’re behind” this close to an election. It’s not a bit of brilliant messaging but either a slip or something else.

      • Believe what you want ubik. In two weeks we won’t have to listen to polls.

  33. Yeah, contra scott adams and internet trolls…trump is OVA

    We have real data


  34. We should elect deplorable Trump because he’s impeachable. Not deplorable Hillary because she’s unimpeachable.

  35. This is where the US is headed also, maybe couched in language less offensive to Western values, but still … from the article:

    It is the scenario contained in China’s ambitious plans to develop a far-reaching social credit system, a plan that the Communist Party hopes will build a culture of “sincerity” and a “harmonious socialist society” where “keeping trust is glorious.”

    Internet start-up employees work on their computers in Beijing this year. Mobile device usage and e-commerce are in wide use in China, and now the Communist Party wants to compile a “social credit” score based on citizens’ every activity. (Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post)
    A high-level policy document released in September listed the sanctions that could be imposed on any person or company deemed to have fallen short. The overriding principle: “If trust is broken in one place, restrictions are imposed everywhere.”

    A whole range of privileges would be denied, while people and companies breaking social trust would also be subject to expanded daily supervision and random inspections.

    The ambition is to collect every scrap of information available online about China’s companies and citizens in a single place — and then assign each of them a score based on their political, commercial, social and legal “credit.”

    The government hasn’t announced exactly how the plan will work — for example, how scores will be compiled and different qualities weighted against one another. But the idea is that good behavior will be rewarded and bad behavior punished, with the Communist Party acting as the ultimate judge.

    This is what China calls “Internet Plus,” but critics call a 21st-century police state.


    • It’s hard to articulate this thought, but let me try.

      China had a system that didn’t work well for its people. Instead of going through the process of modifying their system to make it work better (as compared to the west), the west cut a deal and infused China with some of the output of the better system of the west.

      The output is technology, knowledge, and our research. What this has allowed, is China to not include changes in their political system to generate the outputs of the West. It’s like giving a loaded gun to a child. (This is similar to Iraq: we tried to give them freedom, but you can’t.)

      I would normally say all this should sort itself out in a hundred years or so. The West, due to its superior ways, will out evolve good for its people, and China again will find itself in a situation in which it is in the dark ages compared to the West.

      Unfortunately, there are forces that conspire against that outcome. Here in the West, the smart people appear bent on cultural suicide, and eliminating the evolutionary forces that could adapt us out of the mess.

      • That’s true. In our quest for cheap goods and cheap labor we have created a monster, one that more and more threatens us with a military we upgraded.

    • That’s nothing new, Santa Claus has always kept tabs on who’s been naughty an nice. I see no problem with what the Chinese giving report cards to adults. Of course, the lazy and the trouble makers would object.

  36. This is what will happen to the US. Vote TRUMP!!! From the article:

    For years Sweden has regarded itself as a “humanitarian superpower” – making its mark by offering refugee to those fleeing war and persecution.

    But people’s patience with their visitors is wearing thin following a year of violence, sickening sex assaults and the death of social worker Alexandra Mezher, 22, who was knifed to death at an asylum centre for unaccompanied children at the hands of a Somalian migrant who claimed he was 15.

    At the time, her grieving mother, an immigrant herself from the Middle East said: “Immigration has destroyed Sweden.”


    • Other ‘news’ items from this year on express.co.uk

      Loch Ness Monster DISCOVERED in Scottish waters

      ALIEN INVASION: Fleet of flying saucer UFOs snapped over city

      I was shown inside alien UFO at Area 51


      • I can’t tell if you are disputing the article or just blowing hot air. I suspect the latter.

      • Here’s a venue more up your alley.

        JUDY WOODRUFF: Sweden is struggling to accommodate 165,000 people who’ve applied for asylum there amid the refugee crisis. Now, in a reversal of its open door policy, the government says as many as half could face deportation.

        A growing right-wing reaction to the migrant influx has fueled tensions.

        From Stockholm, special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports.

        MALCOLM BRABANT: Sweden fashions itself as the world’s humanitarian conscience and safe harbor for more refugees per capita than any other European nation, but it has been shaken by a series of incidents that have ruptured that image.

        MAGNUS RANSTORP, Sweden National Defense College: I would say that Sweden’s social structures are under severe stress.

        MALCOLM BRABANT: Magnus Ranstorp is an expert on extremism in Scandinavia.

        MAGNUS RANSTORP: It’s a cocktail of various ingredients which makes society extremely polarized. And the government is having a really difficult time dealing with this.

        TINA MORAD, Refugees Welcome Stockholm: As a refugee here, I would say it’s pretty hostile.


      • I’m saying, it doesn’t help anyone on this ostensibly scientific blog to post from tabloid papers that also seriously discuss UFOS , the Loch Ness Monster, and other such things.

        I never disputed there were problems in Sweden in relation to immigration.

        You posted a specific article making specific claims from a specific dingbat source, though.

      • UbiksCube

        Whilst the Express is nor personally my newspaper of choice you needed to question your own scepticism by actually reading the two articles you cited so cynically

        The Monster story was a perfectly respectable one about a 170 million year fossil of a giant beast being found near Loch Ness and the Express itself debunked the UFO storyas follows;

        ‘It should not take the organisation too long to crack this case however.

        While impressive looking, the bright discs are likely to the reflection of lights inside the building where the photograph was taken from.

        If that were the case, the snap would have been taken through a two-paned glass window, hence why there is a double reflection of each light, and the lights would have been behind the photographer at the time.

        Streaks running vertically down the glass are also visible on the picture.

        Scott Brando a forensic investigator of UFO pictures and videos said: “They are the reflections of lights on a window.”

        So occasionally a dingbat source, but not always then….


      • I apologize for impugning the good name of the express tabloid paper.


        Loch Ness Monster FOUND at last? Astonishing new photo of Nessie

        A WHISKY warehouse worker has taken a picture of what could be one of the most convincing Loch Ness Monster sightings to date.

      • Ubkis Cube

        But that is not the headline you originally gave, to which I responded with the actual Express story. Even the new headline you cite here shows a healthy scepticism of the story as it says

        ‘Some of Mr Bremner’s friends think his picture actually shows three seals playing in the water.’ Yes, precisely

        Both The Express and the Guardian are shadows of the papers they used to be, but maybe I might have to revise my opinion of the Express if they keep displaying the scepticism they seem to be. :)

        Mind you, if they are to be believed Britain would long ago have been destroyed by the severe blizzards/floods/heatwaves/storms they keep forecasting with monotonous regularity.

        BTW, I once took a boat through Loch Ness on a bleak and windy summers day (before AGW obviously) and moored beneath Castle Urquahart. Its easy to believe the legends when you are actually there, although rationality says of course there are nothing more than seals to contend with. Still, its been keeping the local Tourist industry profitably engaged for decades


      • Why are you two clowns, Ubik and Tony, arguing over Loch Ness monsters sitings on a thread about the 2016 US election?

      • Impeach

        If you look up the thread to jims comment, this came about as Ubric tried to diminish the credibility of a news source originally relating to an aspect of the election by attributing to it things that weren’t said, including aliens and UFO. ‘s.

  37. How to engineer the appearance of a lead via polling:


    The media may have put the kabash on trump by holding on to the trashy talk about women until the very end, but please. How low will democrats stoop, in order to create their anti-evolutionary, top down control system?

  38. Listen to Catweazle, Ubik. There is nothing ostensibly ‘scientific’ allowed on these political blogs. No logic, no ‘real’ skepticism’, nothing.

  39. For Jim2,

    Sheldon supports Trump. Sheldon buys paper. Paper endorses Trump.

    Jim2 rails against papers owned by Hillary supporter Soros which (in Jim2’s opinion) supports Hillary.

    Patiently awaiting Jim2’s railing against Sheldon and it’s support of Trump.


  40. The only Trump positions the press care about are: missionary, cowboy, reverse cowboy, doggy, speed bump, spoons, canoodle, man trap, tight squeeze, organ grinder, carpet burn, wraparound, dirty dancing, shoulder stand, and high dive.

  41. My .02:

    It’s not the end of the world if either one of these candidates gets in. I wish people on both sides would stop talking as though it is.

    I had friends who did WH support when Hillary was there and, according to them, her leadership style was “my way or the highway”. Anything is better than that in the WH and I’m still hoping that Trump can pull this off.

    That said, there are indications that she won’t let the CAGW cabal run wild like President Obama has. So, hopefully, all of these ridiculous legal actions and investigations can cool down if she is elected.

    And, c’mon folks, could anything possibly be worse than what has come out of the WH for the last 16 years? If we can survive that stretch, we can survive Clinton or Trump for four years.

    • “It’s not the end of the world if either one of these candidates gets in. I wish people on both sides would stop talking as though it is.”

      Actually two candidates, Donald Trump (R) and Jill Stein (G), are both on record as saying Hillary might start a shooting war with Russia that could lead to use of nuclear weapons. Maybe not the end of the world but potentially the end of the world as we know it.

      • If she gets in and merely promulgates Obummer’s and the Dimowits “policy” it will be the end of the world as we know it anyway.

      • ” Maybe not the end of the world “. What a wimpy attempt. If you’re going to have a go a fearmongering you left out a few things. Where are the Muslims and rapist Mexicans, all committing crime in ‘the inner cities’ while using banned guns, due to having no jobs because manufacturing no longer exists (see TPP/Nafta), in part because NATO isn’t paying ‘their fair share’ LEADING to nuclear war accidently started as a result of a twitch associated with Hillary’s Parkinsons’?

        Now THAT’s how it’s done!


  42. #Imwithher

    Not. An interview with the victim here. Note that the culprit, “Jarna Joshi”, has a common name. She’s the one on the right:

  43. https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-york-times-publishes-2-page-spread-of-trump-twitter-insults-140020870.html
    It’s rigged. I suppose there was a time when they were more objective. 2 full pages of Clinton’s emails? I doubt it. We may have thought we had institutions like the press that protected in difficult times. That were objective. Not so much.

  44. The Huffington Post reports
    Second Texas Judge Leaves The Republican Party In The Age Of Donald Trump

    Lauren Parish, a six-term district judge in Upshur County, Texas, is leaving the Republican Party, becoming the second judge in the state to bail on the GOP in recent weeks.

    In her announcement, Parish goes after the Donald Trump for making “a mockery of our country and our citizenry.” From her video announcement:

    I have watched in horror as he has disavowed our military heroes, made fun of the disabled, divided our country along racial, religious and gender lines, mocked the judicial branch of government, expounded untruth after untruth, promoted violence and disrespect, boasted about sexual assault against women, and made vitriol the platform of his campaign.

    In short, my family values, my Christian value, my core beliefs have been disenfranchised by my party’s nominee for president. Therefore, after much thought and deliberation I have come to the decision that it would violate my conscience to continue to be a member of the Republican Party.


    • Max,

      Nobody give’s a rats ass. Before this maybe a couple of thousand people had ever heard of this judge.

      • She may express the way many educated Republican women feel about Trump.
        It will be interesting to see what proportion of Republican women end up voting for Hillary, and the distribution by age and education.

      • Very small sample size but of the “Republican” I know who have expressed their opinion, most have said they are voting for Trump. For the same reason I have. He’s not Hillary. The few who are not have said they are leaving the President selection blank.

      • I left “women” as the subject of my sentence

    • Snowflake Lauren Parish melts and leaves Republican party. Film at 11.

  45. From the article:

    “I would love it if we could continue to build a more positive relationship with Russia,” Clinton said during a June 4, 2013 speech at Goldman Sachs’ IBD Ceo Annual Conference.

    During the same speech she said: “We would very much like to have a positive relationship with Russia and we would like to see Putin be less defensive toward a relationship with the United States so that we could work together on some issues.”


  46. Trump took $17 million in insurance for damage few remember

    PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Donald Trump said he received a $17 million insurance payment in 2005 for hurricane damage to Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Palm Beach, but The Associated Press found little evidence of such large-scale damage.
    For more go to


    • And …. so what? It was a private transaction that the insurance company agreed to pay, obviously.

    • If your roof is damaged, you can either put the money towards fixing the roof or use it for a down payment on a car. It’s your money.

      How many more hollow-headed attempts will there be to discredit Trump. Who it really discredits is the originator of this tripe.

    • jim2, if I were a stockholder in an insurance company that paid a claim for $17million for storm damage and people familiar with the property were surprised because they didn’t see that amount of damage, I would want an explanation.

  47. From the article:

    Hillary Clinton’s top campaign officials regularly discuss and assess the Democratic presidential candidate’s mental well-being, according to several conversations seen in Wikileaks’ release of campaign chairman John Podesta’s purported email accounts.

    Monday’s new batch of emails revealed a new thread, flagged by The American Mirror, showing that Clinton’s state of mind worried Podesta enough to reach out to the campaign’s Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri — presumably because she was face-to-face with Clinton.

    Podesta’s message simply says “How bad is her head?” under the subject heading “Any sense of whether and when she wants to talk?”

    Podesta’s phrasing here calls to mind a term that the campaign’s inner circle uses several other times in these emails: “head space.” They drop this term in reference to Clinton’s mental focus, her memory for stump speech lines and talking points, or her ability to handle a task.


  48. From the article:

    Tech blogger finds proof DNC chief’s emails weren’t ‘doctored’ despite claims


    • Anyone who really thinks the emails have been doctored is either 13 or a fool. Podestra’s own comments on that essentially gave the gave away, trying to sort of imply they might have been.

      Apparently they are hoping there are still a lot of people riding around on turnip trucks.

      • Nah, people who steal tapes wouldn’t stoop to doctoring tapes. You can trust thieves.

        Get off the turnip truck, jim2.

      • Not stolen. Podesta is consumed with guilt and gave his password to a whistle blower. That’s my story and I’m sticking with it.

        Let’s all play the “Guess the Source!” it’s a game the whole family can play!

      • The Dimowits will do everything they can to cast doubt on the emails without getting caught lying once again (and again … and again … and again …)

      • Max

        Unless you didn’t have to.

        However if telling yourself they must be doctored helps with ignoring them, fine. Just remember that closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going la, la, la, la, la has rarely been a good strategy.

      • timg56, I could believe the e-mails I have read so far have not been doctored. But these e-mails have not kept Trump from falling behind and he is running out of time. In a desperate attempt to keep Hilary from getting elected, her enemies may release e-mails that have been doctored. It would be a mistake to think the Russians don’t have the capability to do it.

        Now that voters have seen DNC e-mails they probably are curious about e-mails from Trump’s camp. Unless, they have something to hide, these e-mails should be released.

    • The “tech blogger” didn’t say he verified the authenticity of all of the stolen e-mails. He just thinks he has a foolproof way of detecting doctored e-mails. Not everyone agrees.


  49. From the article:

    The Clinton campaign’s recent attacks on Donald Trump for his comments about a beauty queen’s weight problems were months in the making, according to an opposition research report uncovered in emails released by WikiLeaks on Sunday.


  50. jim2, the Hillary hating hackers better start doctoring those tapes they stole from the DNC because what they have released is not working.

    Hacking is illegal in the U.S. but the DNC hackers won’t be caught because they are off in Russia or someplace else out of the reach of our law enforcement. If voters are interested in the DNC mails, they also would be interested in the RNC mails, especially since the RNC has not volunteered to make its mails public.

  51. 20,000+ turn out for Trump Rally in Tampa on 10/24/16

    It was his third rally of the day. High Energy Donald!


    • Trump’s well on his way to losing Florida

      Trump’s Florida fortunes are beginning to look so bleak that some Republicans are steeling themselves for what could be the equivalent of a “landslide” loss in the nation’s biggest battleground state.

      Trump has trailed Hillary Clinton in 10 of the 11 public polls conducted in October. According to POLITICO’s Battleground States polling average, Clinton has a 3.4-point lead. Even private surveys conducted by Republican-leaning groups show Trump’s in trouble in Florida, where a loss would end his White House hopes.
      Story Continued Below

      “On the presidential race we’ve found Clinton with a consistent 3% – 5% lead in surveys that attempt to reflect Florida’s actual electorate,” Ryan D. Tyson, vice president of political operations for the Associated Industries of Florida business group, wrote in a confidential memo emailed to his conservative-leaning members this weekend and obtained by POLITICO.

      Though Clinton’s lead is “within the margin of error for this survey, we would suggest that 3% really isn’t as close as it may seem in the state of Florida,” Tyson wrote, estimating a turnout of as much as 71 percent, or as many as 9.2 million Florida voters overall. If that happens and the polling margins hold, Clinton’s raw vote lead over Trump could end up being 275,000 to 460,000 votes.

      Clinton is ahead in your favorite polls, too, now (LA Times and IBD). Of course, it’s within the MOE, but it was when trump was ahead as well

      • Yes, Clinton’s victory in Florida is in the bag. Florida Democrats don’t need to stand in line for hours to cast a vote.. They can just watch their candidate winning in the press and stay home.

        Right, Ubik? LOL

      • Trump’s not really a Republican is the problem with mail-in indicators in FL. Republican mail-in ballots exceeded Dems as usual but not by as much as usual. Mail-ins are dominated by military overseas who all vote. They’re just about ordered to vote and you can’t swing a dead cat in a military barracks without hitting stacks of the proper forms. Trump is a 2:1 favorite in the military. But back to the problem, Trump’s a crossover candidate. He was a Democrat longer than he’s been Republican and doesn’t hew to any party platform.

        IBD, which you ought to pay close attention to if you know your ass from your elbow about which polls have the best track record, breaks out voter preference by party platform. These are informative:

        Clinton has 81% of Democrats, 8% of Republicans, and 33% of Indies.
        Trump has 81% of Republicans, 6% of Democrats, and 40% of Indies.

        Gallup’s 2016 voter breakdown by party is 29% Democrat, 26% Republican, and 42% Independent.

        If all voters turn out, and if Gallup’s distribution is correct, and if IBD’s support by party is correct, then it’s Trump by 2%. The math is pretty easy to do.

        Trump .81 * 26 + .40 * 42 + .06 * 29 = 41.3%
        Clinton .81 * 29 + .33 * 42 + .08 * 26 = 39.4%

        Clinton has to make up for Trump’s 2% gap with enthusiasm. IBD’s likely voter model has her making up 3% putting her 1% in the lead. However, judging by relative crowd sizes Trump has the lead in enthusiasm. The Brexit surprise was 5% due to enthusiasm that the polls and press missed in the UK. If that holds true in the US then Trump will win the popular vote by 6%. The electoral college has never disagreed with the popular vote when the popular vote delta is that large and it won’t happen this time either.

        Here is the RCP map with all the tossups in Trump’s column assuming Brexit factor. If he flips any one of the remaining leaning-Democrat states NH, CO, MN, WI, MI, PA, or CT then he wins.


        So again, judging by relative crowd sizes, and by online snap polls, I believe there is a very good likelyhood of a Brexit surprise. Online snap polls might not be scientific but both parties have an equal opportunity to vote in them, and to cheat in them where possible by clearing cookies to vote more than once, etc. Either way you cut it the Trump supporters are more motivated to take anonymous online polls or, which is also an expression of enthusiam, cheat in online polls. And when it comes to cheating I think we can be pretty well assured that Clinton supporters are the cheaters.

      • That is one of the more tortured bits of mental contortions I’ve witnessed lately.

        Your whole argument falls apart at the start, though.

        You cite IBD, based on the 538 chart you previously posted, which deals with accuracy in the 2012 election

        Then you give credence to Gallup for party breakdown.

        Now, I suggest you look again at the 538 chart you yourself posted.

        How did Gallup perform?


        That’s right, dead last.

        So you’re making an appeal for one poll’s accuracy based on that chart, while at the same time incorporating the very worst performing poll’s data to cherry pick your way down the garden path of obliviousness.

        Rallies and online snap polls (!) make up the remainder of your argument (lol).

        If those had validity, Kerry would be president (rallies). And Ron Paul would have been the nominee in past elections.

      • “I believe there is a very good likelyhood of a Brexit surprise.”
        Bookie’s odds for Trump now 15.4%. Lots of money to be made there.

    • I don’t know if this means anything but my wife just voted for Donald J. Trump, however I am now unable to tell any of her friends.

      • Sure it does. Between the well-known intention of “social-justice warriors” to punish anybody they discover opposing their fanaticism, and wide-spread suspicion that “anonymous” polling probably isn’t, there’s got to be some number of people who lie to the polls about intending to vote for Trump.

        I suspect that this will be the last presidential election with a secret ballot, unless Trump has a substantial majority win and opposes such changes.

      • AK: “there’s got to be some number of people who lie to the polls about intending to vote for Trump.”

        Bet the farm on it.

        In the UK it happened in the 1992 General election, the 2015 General Election and most recently in the EU referendum.

        One indicator is that the bookies’ takings show the larger proportion of the money from a smaller number of bets, and vice versa, eg >60% of the money from <40% of the punters.

        That appears to be happening in the current situation.

        Interesting times…

      • If they ask will you lie to them?

      • Disinformation, is my preferred word used to describe my answers to live poll takers.

      • Sorry Arch, I wasn’t very clear. If your wife’s friends ask you who your wife voted for would you lie to them.
        I suppose you Trump supporters are living proof that this research is true:

      • JackSmith4Tx,
        “Sorry Arch, I wasn’t very clear.” It was quite clear, just so ya know.
        Both sides practice the arts. The science is denying one’s own does.

      • Re jacksmith4tx, 10/25/2016 @ 6:56 pm
        Didn’t you learn, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain? As I hinted in a previous post, one that seemed to pass over everyone’s head here, Trump should tell people to vote for him because if he really messes up, he can be impeached. With Hillary we get a corrupt president to go along with a corrupt Justice Department, corrupt State Department, a corrupt FBI, and maybe even a corrupt Supreme Court and a corrupt Senate. Hillary forever. She’s indelible.

      • J.G. – a good point and a scary one, too!

      • “J.G. – a good point and a scary one, too!” Don’t forget based in propaganda with no assurance Trump can be impeached.

      • ==> I suspect that this will be the last presidential election with a secret ballot, … ==>

        Wow! This election is bringing to the surface some very interesting perspectives.

      • Jeff,
        If Clinton wins and the D’s take the senate my man Bernie Sanders could be the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. A Jewish democratic socialist in charge of the money. I like it!
        Did you know Bernie is the most popular politician in America?

        I don’t think Bernie ran a single negative ad in the primaries. No he didn’t win but he may still end up as the most powerful check against Clinton and the rest of the corrupted members of government (R’s & D’s).

      • Popular and Politician in the same sentence? Unprecedented?

        ” and the rest of the corrupted members of government (R’s & D’s).” Thank you for that. If counting correctly that’s 3 of us who’ve said it.

  52. http://www.theamericanmirror.com/email-podesta-asked-bad-head/

    Wikileaks John Podesta asked Palmieri about Clinton’s “How bad is her head?”

    It must be terrible and that explains why Bill was getting it from Monica Lewinsky.

  53. From the article:

    Republican Donald Trump is surging with African American voters and gaining more support from Latino voters than Mitt Romney and John McCain.

    The latest LA Times Daybreak poll has Hillary up by just six-tenths of a point.

    Trump is surging with black voters and doing better with Latino voters than Romney or McCain.


  54. Billary would just replace one lyin’ Dimowit with another. From the article:

    That $2,500 figure was Obama’s mantra on health care. You can watch the video if you don’t believe it.

    And Obama wasn’t talking about government subsidized insurance or expanding Medicaid or anything like that. He specifically focused on employer provided health care.

    For “people who already have insurance, and the employers who are providing it,” he said at one campaign event, “we will work to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family.”

    Since 2008, average family premiums have climbed a total of $4,865.


    Now here is some more recent lyin’ From the article:

    Emanuel also argued, “In fact, if you look at health insurance premiums from the Bush era, and you graph the line as if it continued, the fact is that premiums have gone substantially down compared to where they would have been under President Bush, if those lines had continued, and people actually have saved. That doesn’t mean the premiums have actually gone down in real dollars, but they’ve gone down compared to what they would have been, and that is a substantial savings. Second of all, many people in the exchanges are actually getting a better deal than they would have, had they tried to get insurance individually.”


  55. From the article:

    The Smoking Gun: Cheryl Mills Tells Podesta “We Need To Clean This Up – Obama Has Emails From Her”


    • There’s plenty of smoking guns. Another one will change no minds. In fact each one seems to diminish the power of the others. We are overwhelmed by a blizzard of lies

      • This is the Olympics of politics. The lies are bigger and better than ever before. And finally, the Dimowits have (unwillingly) lived up to their promise to be transparent!!

  56. Sometimes it’s a challenge to discern what the statements of one in particular actually mean. As example: “‘We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning’.” Was this what was meant? https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-camp-rnc-fundraising-shut-down

  57. From the article:

    Videos are, however, circulating on the internet, from her rather brief and rare appearances in public, which are purported to show pathological eye movements.

    “These are quick, episodic, and inconsistent,” states Dr. Orient, who is an internist. “So we decided to ask doctors on our email list to have a look at one of the videos. A helpful tool is to paste the URL into http://RowVid.com and watch it at half or quarter speed.”

    Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they saw abnormal movements. Only 15% did not, and 21% were unsure. There are long segments in which the eye movements appear normal.

    About 60% of those who saw abnormal movements thought “the cause could be a potentially disabling neurological condition,” and none of them were willing to say that it isn’t.

    Such movements signify an abnormality in portions of the brain that coordinate the eye muscles. There is a long differential diagnosis. Possibilities the respondents suggested include increased intracranial pressure (she is at risk for that because of her history of head trauma and a transverse sinus clot); a drug effect; or a chronic degenerative neurological condition. Parkinson’s disease is mentioned—with drug treatment concealing most manifestations but causing the eye signs.


    • No kidding. Color me surprised. Nothing to be skeptical of? Poll questions. Methods? Who are ‘the majority of doctors’ surveyed? Were they all Jim2?
      Poll says at bottom of question: “I think Americans should demand to see the results of the f……..” and at the bottom is says ‘candidate health-tests’ so where’s the portion about Trump?

      AAPS: “The association is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there are links between autism and vaccinations.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

  58. Early voting returns continue to paint a bleak picture for Donald Trump.

    In Nevada, where early in-person voting began on Saturday, Democratic voters cast 23,000 more ballots than Republicans as of Tuesday afternoon, good for a 15-percentage-point edge in the nearly 150,000 ballots cast. (Mail in and absentee ballots narrow the gap slightly).

    Polling and early voting returns suggest Democrats are maintaining an edge in North Carolina, and they are also slicing into a thinner-than-expected early vote lead for Republicans in Florida, who now lead by about half a percentage point; in 2012, the GOP held a much more significant edge two weeks from Election Day. Women in Florida are casting early ballots in far greater numbers than four years ago, and Hispanic turnout is surging as well, according to data released by the Clinton campaign. Polls suggest that both constituencies are strongly Democratic this year.

    In Colorado — where Democrats hold a voter registration edge for the first time — early returns give the party a 23,000-vote lead in returned and in-person ballots. In Arizona, which last went Democratic in 1996, Democrats held a thin early-vote lead on Monday.

    Even reliably Republican Texas is sending shudders down GOP spines. In the state’s most heavily populated, Democratic-leaning urban counties, early voting turnout is surging beyond its historical pace — and new polls suddenly show the unthinkable: Texas is not entirely out of reach for Clinton.

  59. Hillary toast. Trump has 15% of black vote according to IBD/TIPP, 16% according to Rasmussen, and 18% according to LAT/USC.

    TRUMP on Track to Win More Black Votes Than Any GOP Candidate Since 1960

    It’s true. I checked all three polls mentioned (article only mentions Rasmussen so I checked two others) and this long history of votes cast by race from Gallup shows no Republican coming even close to 15% of black vote since Nixon.


    Now with Obamacare increases in 2017 officially announced, insurance companies pulling out of many many states, there goes a shiit-ton of single women for Hillary who will be directly impacted.

    And the Wikileaks damage still piling up…. I might have to revise my prediction of a 47-43 Trump win. Take a few points away from Johnson/Stein and tack them onto Trump to put him over 50%.

  60. GOP leading early voting in FL but I still want to know what the flippin’ Independents are doing as they easily outnumber D and R both..


  61. Apropos of nothing in particular:


    About equally split between a state university system, Walmart, or a health care provider. Not much else.

    • Trump needs a good last week whilst Hillary has a poor last week. IF there is a brexit type effect of 3 or 4% Trump might then be in with a chance.

      Presumably we should fasten our sear belts as all sorts of claims and counter claims will emerge in these last few days.

      Care to make a final prediction of the outcome?


      • I already made my prediction. Trump 47%, Clinton 43%, Johnson 7%, Stein 3%. I’m wondering now if I was a few points too generous for Johnson/Stein and they’ll go to Trump to push him over 50%.

  62. From the article:


    DO NOT LISTEN TO THE CORRUPT MEDIA– We Know Hillary’s Plan. It was revealed by Wikileaks…

    LEAKED CLINTON INTERNAL DOCUMENT: Discourage Trump Supporters with Bogus Polls and Declaring Election Over

    So do not listen to the lying media–
    Trump is leading in early voting data—


    — MicroSpookyLeaks™ (@WDFx2EU7) October 24, 2016

    Here is the post from Reddit The Donald:

    I keep seeing post after post in this subreddit (and in other parts of Reddit) that claim that the early voting data is showing bad signs for Trump and good signs for Clinton. This is absolutely false.


    • jim

      In Britain no polls can be published immediately prior to the election, there is no talk of politics in the MSM on election day itself and comment can only begin again once polls close at 10pm on the day. There is no running commentary. Which makes it especially exciting when an exit poll is given at 10.01!

      Surely people can be influenced by being told by the media days in advance that one candidate or other is in the lead, perhaps discouraging those who are losing from bothering to turn out?

      How many people are eligible to ‘vote early’ and how many actually will?


      • We are seeing a very high turnout for early voting in many places.

        The influence of the exit polls is a concern that is discussed from time to time. Also, the US is spanned by four time zones. So by the time polls close in California, many times the race has been called by the media.

        I like your polling blackout idea. But the media here would have to be muzzled also. That would interfere with their Constitutional right of a free press.

      • Off the top of my head 37 of 50 states have early voting.

        Only restriction on 1st amendment free speech on election day is no political messages within 100 feet of a polling location. I used a tape measure last year to measure 100 feet from the doorway of the local polling place and put a political sign (for me) at 101 feet from it.

  63. Clinton down to +4 in both 2-way and 4-way RCP polls this morning. Still dropping like a stone.

    Now consider this. The RCP poll average had Clinton +20 in the Michigan primary then Bernie Sanders won it.

    Brexit baby. Yeah.

    • Your numbers are wrong. 4.4% in the 4 way 4.7 in the 2 way today

      That’s quite a healthy lead. If she lost a point a week she’d still win handily.

      October 26 , 2012 Obama was only up 0.9% in the RCP average. Which was the same number they had before election day. Obviously he outperformed that.

      This has gotten pretty comical. I bet you’ll be making yourself scarce come Nov 9.


      • How much do you want to bet?

      • You bet the farm on MSM sponsored polls. A tenuous position. I’m betting on the few polls that have not been wildly volatile and performed the best in previous election years. I’m betting on the American people voting their pocketbooks now that the bad news about Obamacare went public. I’m betting on Trump getting more of the black vote than any Republican since Nixon. I’m betting on the many millions of people who never voted before, the same people who gave Trump a record number of votes in the primary when every pollster said he’d never win. I’m betting on the women in the United States looking for a president who can change the failed corrupt establishment in Washington. Women are picking a president not looking for someone they’d like to date, duh.

        As the zen master said “We shall see”.

      • Hillary was ahead +18 in HuffPo average of 10 polls in Michigan the week before the primary vote. Yet Sanders won.

        Ubik wouldn’t be wasting his time here if he thought the race was such a done deal for Hillary. He’s nervous and trying to convince himself he has nothing to be nervous about. He’s got everything to be nervous about. Trump is a closer. He comes through in the clinch. He finally started outspending Hillary in TV advertising. His message is tuned and resonating with the voters. Watch what happens now.

      • Yer so funny. You state: “Ubik wouldn’t be wasting his time here if he thought the race was such a done deal for Hillary.”

        while you’re ‘wasting your time here if you thought the race was such a done deal for Trump.

  64. Trump +2 in Florida, Rubio +10

    Obamacare fiasco going public 48 hours ago sinking Democrats up and down the ticket big time. This is why the Dem GOTV machine was so desperately focusing on early voting. They knew this would happen with ACA enrollment beginning a week before the election.


    • Obama also has emails to Billary’s server before the time he said he learned of her illegal server. Lies on top of lies. It’s the Dimowit Lying Machine.

    • The excellent (A+ rated by Silver) Monmouth poll today has Clinton ahead by 3 in Florida. 2 other polls today show her in the lead.

      Bloomberg’s is an outlier as of now.

      However, let’s give trump Florida (although he won’t win that). And Ohio (he has a good shot of winning that). And North Carolina.

      Early voting (and polling) shows Nevada will go to hillary.

      The trump campaign has pretty much already conceded Virginia .

      So , unless trump can do the near-impossible, and flip Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania, he has lost the election.

      In other words, he has lost.

      Everything else everyone is saying is just noise and magical thinking.

  65. Pennsylvania goes TOSS-UP ! Clinton lead reduced to +3 in latest poll.


  66. Just some more food for thought… If the media says HRC has been declared the winner, would you accept the outcome? I am trying to get my head around the next step before we get there.

    • The reason I posed the question is from the way Chris Wallace, asked Donald J. Trump, if he would accept the loss. It felt to me that it was an attempt to defuse the outcome, which is right around the corner…

  67. Kelly is a huge disappointment. She posed as a conservative but was exposed at the first debate as a socialist Dimowit. The video is great. From the article:

    Gingrich Slams Megyn Kelly for Treatment of Trump — ‘You Are Fascinated With Sex and You Don’t Care About Public Policy’


    • CNN host Anderson Cooper pointed out Wednesday night the ridiculousness of Donald Trump surrogate Newt Gingrich accusing Megyn Kelly of being “fascinated with sex”. 

      “For Newt Gingrich to accuse Megyn Kelly of being fascinated by sex. This is a guy who is, what, on his third marriage, cheated on his first two wives, and was having an affair while he was impeaching Bill Clinton,” Cooper said.
      Gingrich and Trump seemed to be proud of the bizarre Fox News moment.

      During a campaign appearance earlier on Wednesday, Trump praised Gingrich for “an amazing interview.”


      I don’t think Gingrich helped Trump by suggesting that women who are offended by Trump are fascinated by sex.

      • Cooper and Kelly are both in the tank for Billary. Kelly’s “concern” about Trumps escapades with willing women was a put-on so she could put “Trump” and “sexual predator” in the same sentence. Her concern was NOT about women, it was about influencing the election.

        Kelly is smart, but very biased against Trump. To me, that makes her an id ee ot.

  68. From the article:

    Whether It’s John McCain, Mitt Romney or Donald Trump, Democrats Always Run ‘War on Women’ Campaign


  69. Sid Miller, Texas Ag Commissioner, talks about massive early voter turnout in Texas with record number of first time voters.


  70. From the article:

    Anti-Trump Violence Sweeps the Nation
    Media pays little attention to escalating attacks, thousands of threats against Trump supporters
    by Matthew Vadum | Updated 26 Oct 2016 at 9:55 AM
    While the mainstream media has been working day and night promoting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, it has largely ignored or downplayed violent attacks against supporters of Donald Trump.

    But assaults on Trump supporters appear to be growing increasingly common as Election Day approaches and tensions intensify. Reports of Trump lawn signs and banners being stolen and defaced are everywhere on social media.

    No doubt there will be plenty more such assaults in the final two weeks as Americans head to the polls.
    Making matters worse, undercover video evidence emerged showing senior Democrat operatives Robert Creamer and Scott Foval acknowledging using dirty, likely illegal tricks against the Trump campaign. Their goal was to generate negative media coverage of Trump rallies by fomenting violence at them. The media eagerly used the various fisticuffs and melees the Democrats created to attempt to discredit Trump by depicting his supporters as violent, knuckle-dragging crazies.

    The videos, shot by ACORN slayer James O’Keefe’s group Project Veritas Action, show Foval on camera saying his agents “infiltrate” Trump events. “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf****er.” He adds, “we’re starting anarchy here.”


    • “Anti-Trump Violence Sweeps the Nation
      Media pays little attention to escalating attacks, thousands of threats against Trump supporters.”

      Well, if anti-Trump violence is sweeping the nation, the Trump camp should be glad the media isn’t reporting it. Such Reports would make many Trump supporters afraid to leave their homes to vote.

      Oh wait a minute, I see what this is all about. It’s preparation for a Trump defeat at the polls. First, make up a story about anti-Trump violence sweeping the nation. Then later when Trump loses, say he would have won but many supporters were too scared to vote, and therefore he shouldn’t accept the results of the election.

      • I was afraid to have a Trump yard sign or bumper sticker on my car. In a solid red state of Texas no less. Is that the way it’s supposed to be in America now? Free political speech taken away by #ThugsForHillary? We’ll see on November 9th if there’s going to be any real violence.

      • As a Cubs fan, this gives me an idea. If Cleveland wins, it will prove the World Series is rigged, and Cub fans should just refuse to accept the loss.

      • If Cleveland’s team was caught red-handed using illegal performance enhancing drugs, illegal bats, and bribing umpires, would the Cubs accept the defeat? Would the fans?

      • No snappy comeback, Max? C’mon. You’re better than that. Would the Cubs and their fans roll over and accept a loss if the winning team cheated to win and was caught at it?

  71. From the article:

    VIRAL: Computer Programmer CONFESSES He Coded Computers to RIG Elections (VIDEO)
    You know how ‘the Media’ keeps saying Election rigging never happens? Do they understand what the word ‘never’ means?

    It means ‘not ever’.

    [Hey, Media! There’s this thing called a dictionary. It can come in handy when you are writing articles. They even have them online now, too. You’re welcome.]

    Maybe we need to rethink the computerized voting model…



  72. From the article:

    Agent Chris Cabrera told CBS News that they’ve been seeing a spike in immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, thanks in part to the election.

    “The smugglers are telling them if Hillary [Clinton] gets elected, that there’ll be some sort of amnesty, that they need to get here by a certain date,” Cabrera said. “They’re also being told that if [Donald] Trump gets elected, there’s going to be some magical wall that pops up overnight and once that wall gets up, nobody will ever get in again.”

    Cabrera added that they’ve encountered up to 1,000 immigrants along McAllen’s stretch of the border some days.

    “We’re getting mass spikes of people crossing and turning themselves in,” he said.


    • They could replace the Trump supporters who threaten to leave if he loses. I like the idea of people who want a better life replacing people who whine about life.

    • Agent Chris Cabrera told CBS News that they’ve been seeing a spike in immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, thanks in part to the election.

      After they have voted for Hillary do they stay here or go back across the border?

  73. From the article:

    With less than two weeks to go, the race for the White House has narrowed as Hillary Clinton now has a three-point advantage over Donald Trump.

    That’s within the margin of error of the national Fox News Poll of likely voters.

    Clinton is ahead of Trump by 44-41 percent. Another one-in-ten back a third-party candidate and four percent are undecided. Last week she was up by six points (45-39 percent) and before that by seven (45-38 percent).


  74. From the article:

    Polls are tightening in the presidential race with less than two weeks to go before Election Day.

    Some new surveys show Democrat Hillary Clinton’s national polling edge narrowing and Republican Donald Trump performing more strongly in the swing state of Florida. Trump still faces a steep uphill climb, and the Electoral College map is extremely challenging for him. But the movement in the poll numbers gives his campaign hope after perhaps the worst phase of his campaign.

    A new Bloomberg poll in Florida gave Trump a 2-point edge on Wednesday. In the RealClearPolitics (RCP) polling average in the Sunshine State, Clinton’s edge has been eroded from 4 percentage points on Oct. 21 to 1.6 points now.

    In the RCP national average, Clinton’s lead has softened from 7.1 points on Oct. 17 to 5.1 points now.


  75. Scott Adams unleashed! From the article:

    The Bully Party
    Posted October 25th, 2016 @ 9:14am in #Trump #Clinton

    I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.

    If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.

    If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.

    if you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.

    On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.

    We know from Project Veritas that Clinton supporters tried to incite violence at Trump rallies. The media downplays it.

    We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that.

    Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)

    Joe Biden said he wanted to take Trump behind the bleachers and beat him up. No one on Clinton’s side disavowed that call to violence because, I assume, they consider it justified hyperbole.

    Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?


    • Yup. Even in a deeply red state like Texas I’m afraid of vandalism or worse if I had a Trump yard sign or Trump bumper sticker. I never ever felt this way before. Thugs for Hillary have taken away my free speech in the public square. This is no longer America and I’m ready for civil war to take back my country.

      • I wonder how long a civil war in America would last? Virtually all police, two thirds of the military, and now even field agents in the FBI, are deeply disturbed and behind Trump. Thugs for Hillary’s corrupt establishment are concentrated in a relatively few densely populated cities while American patriots are dispersed throughout suburban and rural America. Population centers are soft targets. Just take out a bit of infrastructure like water supplies, electric grid choke points, and transportation corridors and they’d descend into anarchy within a week. No contest in other words. Of course I hope it doesn’t come to that but it’s pretty easy to pick the winner if it did.

      • “Thugs for Hillary have taken away my free speech in the public square.” Simply untrue. In Texas, on lawns and on pick up trucks there are indeed some signs supporting both candidates. Speaking anecdotally it seems there are not nearly as many as one usually sees for a major election. But neighboring houses with opposing signage is seen as well as neighboring houses with matching signage.

        If you’ve chosen to GIVE away your free speech due to lacking certain anatomical features that’s on you. And it’s fascinating that the supporters of the fear mongers express the greatest fear.

      • I should risk my family and property to #ThugsForClinton ? No thanks. Guerrilla tactics all the way, baby.

      • I live on a rural scenic drive frequented by tourists from nearby libtard stronghold, Austin, TX. Nobody out here has a Trump yard sign. A quiet residential neighborhood on a street where no one travels except those who live on it, well lit, with security cameras and police presence is different. I wouldn’t be worried about #ThugsForClinton in that case.

        You forgot to address bumper stickers. I have to occasionally drive into town and park somewhere. I just got my car painted. I don’t want it keyed and it probably would be with so many #ThugsForClinton running around. I haven’t seen a single Trump bumper sticker. I’d wear a #MAGA ball cap without fear however. With a taser in my pocket. Someone attacks me in public personally will wake up in a hospital with their teeth kicked in wondering how they got there.

    • jim2 said
      Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words.

      Well, that’s unfair. l don’t think all Trump supporters are all those things. I do believe, however, that most sexists, homophobes, and racists are Trump supporters. Not all, just most.

  76. clip of Scott Adams on Clinton team in moderation @jim2 | October 26, 2016 at 9:48 pm | Reply

  77. Best comment ever from an undecided single female voter:

    “I don’t care who groped who. I’m choosing a president not looking for a date.”

    I refuse to believe that a significant fraction of American women are so shallow, when it comes down to decision point, that they’d reject the person who can change the broken establishment because he’s not a guy they’d want to date. I simply refuse. I dunno, am I giving them more credit than they deserve?

  78. Fox News Poll Clinton +3. Last week it was Clinton +7.

    Four point slide in one week. Exactly what I said based on daily polls in the RCP average. Look at all the weekly polls. All of them that had Clinton way ahead a week ago have dropped about 4 points. Those polls that had Trump ahead a week ago have hardly changed and still show a dead heat.

    I’d be pretty f’ing disturbed by this if I was a thug for Hillary. But that’s just me.

    • You previously stated this

      “Impeach Barry | October 26, 2016 at 9:39 am |
      Clinton down to +4 in both 2-way and 4-way RCP polls this morning”

      Of course, you got those numbers wrong, but looking at RCP today, we see….wait for it

      Clinton has gone UP in the RCP Average to

      5.4 in the 2way and 5.6 in the 4way for 10/26/2016

      Now, compare that to Obama, who at this time was only 0.9 ahead of Romney in the RCP average…

  79. What do pollsters have at stake if they are way off two weeks before the election? Nothing. They are judged by how well they did on their last forecast before the election.

    Just about every establishment institution including the press and many polling organizations are #NeverTrump. By putting their finger on their own likely voter model and skewing aggregate polling averages into wide Clinton leads they are hoping for a bandwagon effect. People are more inclined to vote the same was as a majority. That’s just human nature. Trump has carefully aligned himself with the 68% of Americans wh no longer trust the press. When they see a poll prefaced with ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, etc. they don’t trust it. And well they shouldn’t.

    This race is currently a nail biter for both sides but Trump has clearly regained the momentum and if nothing happens to derail it he’s going to win.

  80. Speaking at a recent event on one of his Florida properties Donald Trump displayed a shocking lack of knowledge about

    Trump said “all of my employees are having a tremendous problem with Obamacare”

    Trump is so ill informed he doesn’t know most of his employees are covered by employer-sponsored plans, not Obamacare.

    Trump also said “I don’t use much Obamacare”

    No kidding. What 70 year old does? Does he understand Medicare.

    The quotes are from


    • I can’t find anywhere Trump actually said those things. Even presuming the quotes are accurate short blurbs of a few words taken out of context mean nothing.

      I’d like context for $500, Alex!

  81. Clinton voters believe that Russia may interfere with US election results. But they still trust the results.

    Wait. What?

  82. We hear from another fine Trump supporter

    Man Says, “I Can’t Wait Until Trump Gets Elected So I Can Force B*tches Like You Down on Your Knees” — October 2016
Writer Sara Nović shared a screenshot of a text message from her younger sister, in which she described being pestered by a man in Penn Station until she told him, “I don’t mean to be rude at all, but I’m just not interested.” He reportedly replied, “Wooowww, f**king b*tch! I can’t wait until Trump gets elected so I can force b*tches like you down on your knees when you talk like that.


  83. If these Gallup polls are accurate, and voters from each party plus independents turn out in proportion to their number in the population, then Trump landslide because polls aren’t weighted anywhere near the actual numbers in the population.

    Actual distribution according to Gallup latest D-R-I 32-27-40

    while Fox News for example uses 44-37-17

    it results in a poll ridiculously skewed Democrat. Adding insult to injury Trump leads among independents. The Donald may be leading by many points. It’s all a matter of turnout and the polls are assuming a pretty different turnout than the un-adjusted weighting in the population!

    We here at Climate Etc. know what adjusting the numbers can do, right? LOL


    • The Gallup numbers are reliable with data going back to 2004. Turnout is EVERYTHING. Hillary clowns better hope a f’ing LOT of Republicans and Independents stay home and don’t vote. I don’t see that happening. Too much intensity in this election. Turnout won’t be anything like past elections and by far the most energized mofo’s are Trump supporters who are predominantly Republicans and Independents.

      No wonder the Dems, establishment, wall street, and establishment press have been pulling out every possible stop to derail The Trump Train. Ain’t gonna happen!


  84. Trump ups the ante in speeches. His best ever?

  85. ABC News Poll – Clinton lead cut in half in three days.

    Wait. What?


    • RCP average for 10/27
      4 way : Clinton up 5.8
      2 way : 5.7

      On this day in 2012 Obama was only up 1.0 over romney

      Early voting looking good for Clinton in Nevada and North Carolina.

      This thing is OVA. Media will keep pretending it’s closer than it is, though, since it is better for their bottom line.

      • It’s probably best for you to believe that recent polls aren’t really within the margin of error, Trump isn’t trending up, and that there’s no more of the unprecedented volatility caused by so many people having such precarious perches atop the fence.

        How many elections have you watched closely? It seems like this must be your first.

      • Speaking of precarious-

        Pence had to campaign in UTAH, of all places.


        Trump is so toxic, some Republican congressional candidates are threatening suits when being linked to him…lol


        WASHINGTON ― Some Republicans are running so far away from their party’s nominee that they are threatening to sue TV stations for running ads that suggest they support Donald Trump.

        Just two weeks before Election Day, five Republicans ― Reps. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), David Jolly (R-Fla.), John Katko (R-N.Y.) and Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican running for an open seat that’s currently occupied by his brother ― contend that certain commercials paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee provide false or misleading information by connecting them to the GOP nominee.

  86. Annnnd… a little anti-semitism tossed into the mix by Trump supporter and conspiracy-monger Alex Jones. Let’s remember Trump granted him an interview and also praised him.


    Radio host Alex Jones is a big Trump fan — and Trump, for his part, has returned the favor. In December, he went on Jones’s show, telling the host, “your reputation is amazing” and promising him that “I will not let you down.”

    Given that Jones is one of America’s foremost conspiracy theorists, who has been accused of sowing racial and anti-Semitic fears before, that was almost certainly a mistake. Jones proved it on the latest edition of The Alex Jones Show, aired on Tuesday, when he blamed America’s ills on “the Jewish mafia.”

    “They run Uber, they run the health care, they’re going to scam you, they’re going to hurt you,” he said

    • Funny thing happened on the way to the Trump campaign. His daughter Ivanka who runs his empire while he’s away, is an orthodox Jew. His orthodox Jewish son-in-law Jared Kusner manages the campaign spending. Do those facts support Trump being an anti-semite, dopey?

      But anyhow, you have said over and over that Clinton already won and the vote is just a technicality. This begs the question of why you’re bothering with negative campaigning on behelf of Clinton. Or in other words, wait for it, click me.

      • Did I say trump is an anti-semite? No. Reading comprehension helps!

        What his campaign HAS been willing to do is court anti semites . Hence the dozens of retweets of white nationalists. That was no accident.


        One can find enthusiastic support among anti-semitic ,racist, and even outright neo-nazi sites for trump. Just take a gander at some of them, such as the execrable Daily Stormer, Stormfront, etc.

        I’d say the swamp that needs draining is on the right.

  87. Yikes! This isn’t good with Trump trending up rapidly. Obamacare debacle is bad, bad, bad. Give that shiit a week to sink in and be reflected in polls.


  88. Bad day for Trump supporters at RCP

    No poll shows Trump with lead. Even the IBD/TIPP which had Trump leading now has him trailing Clinton by 2 points. Republican friendly Rasmussen has Clinton up by 1 point.

    Obama’s popularity is surging. His favorability rating is +11 in Rasmussen’s poll.
    I can’t recall if it was ever that high before.

  89. Cartoonist Scott Adams says he supports Trump but would help kill him if he is elected and becomes even slightly Hitler-ish. Some think Trump is already slightly Hitler-ish.

    A promise to kill a president is crackpot talk. Adams may think he is humorous, but he has gone off the deep end with this one.



    • Some think Trump is already slightly Hitler-ish.

      Not really.

      Everybody knows he’s not. The ones who say they think that are ly1ng.

      A promise to kill a president is crackpot talk.


      That’s what the 2nd Amendment is really about. And Trump knows it. That’s what his mention of the “2nd Amendment folks” was really about. He knows what would happen to him if he acted “even slightly Hitler-ish.” And, IMO, clearly approves.

      Adams may think he is humorous, but he has gone off the deep end with this one.

      Neither humorous or “off the deep end”.

  90. “In doing so, Band also detailed a circle of enrichment in which he raised money for the Clinton Foundation from top-tier corporations such as Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola that were clients of his firm, Teneo, while pressing many of those same donors to provide personal income to the former president.”

    I was the President. Give money to my foundation and to me. Not, give it all to the foundation. Give some to me. I need lots of money.

    “An organization is not operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes if its net earnings inure in whole or in part to the benefit of private individuals. For the definition of the words “private shareholder or individual…””

    We would say in form, this did not happen. Did it happen in substance?

    Here’s the deal. Think Human Society. I give money to it. My dog will not benefit much and probably not at all. I don’t chair the Human Society and use money to kennel my dog or to pay its vet bills. To fly it across the county. You giving money to the Human Society is supposed to mean it helps all dogs, within reason. Dogs you don’t even know.

    If you are pitched, give my charity X dollars and me Y dollars, what is the substance of it? We rip away form to see substance.

    I thought Hillary Clinton was smart. The only star here is the auditor that objected. Trump’s problems with his foundation doesn’t really doesn’t match the magnitude of what went on here.

    • Ragnaar,
      “Trump’s problems with his foundation doesn’t really doesn’t match the magnitude of what went on here.” No argument with the quoted statement. Argument would be that ANY magnitude is acceptable. Thank you for being willing and capable of acknowledging deficiencies on the part of both. More than most will do.

      Neither candidate is acceptable. Both tell falsehoods and come with issues. The problems are with the blind support. Unfortunately we’re stuck with them.

      • In substance? Magnitude? What went on? In substance… appears to be a means of ascribing guilt when there is none.

      • JCH,
        Seriously? You see absolutely NO impropriety involving the Clinton Foundation? Trump’s is a mess sure, but giving a pass to the Clinton’s which certainly has issues? That’s as distasteful as those who suggest Trump’s is not a mess.

        IMO it’s a waste of energy to discuss magnitude, but is it reasonable to be ‘for’ even 10% of Robin Hood especially if Robin ‘gives’ to the rich? Bernie won’t be pleased.

      • What law was broken? He’s saying that because they did not break any laws, they’re still guilty. You want to live in that country?

      • im·pro·pri·e·ty
        a failure to observe standards or show due honesty or modesty; improper language, behavior, or character.

        How is that different from Trumps requirement that Clinton create regulations to support American steel and aluminum?

        Do you wanna live in ‘that country’ which has no standards or character?

        There is sufficient evidence that ‘issues’ occurred via each of the ‘big boy’ toyz (foundations). Discussion of ‘magnitude’ is farcical IMO. Nobody gets a pass. Justify all you wish. It ain’t right.

      • Where is the impropriety?

      • It’s better if you answer that……..honestly. You really see none?

        Did you see the comment about Trump ‘requiring’ legislation to make him support American efforts (doesn’t really matter what they are)?

        Does it really take a law?

        Look. The foundations (both) have some record of doing good. Does that justify that which is not?

        Guess you support Robin Hood as stated before even ‘giving’ 10% to ‘the rich’ as long as the 90% provides good works. Just look the other way on the 10%. Okay. I get it. Legislate the standards and character, but I don’t wanna live there.

      • Laughable arm twisting…

        If you don’t pay the Prez $500 grand for a personal appearance, we won’t let you give $2,000,000 to his charitable foundation. So there… take that big corporation.

        (They knuckle under and pay. Due to this extreme thuggery, the cost of giving away money is $500 grand. The substance… the Prez has stolen $500 grand from the mouths of starving babies.)

        Or, we could be rational.

      • Do we take that as you evaluating ‘honestly’?

        Was Trump being rational suggesting Clinton ‘must’ legislate his support of American enterprise? Clearly. Does it entail ‘character’ (like making America Great Again?) or ‘standards’ with which you’re comfortable?

        Aren’t you letting them off the hook a bit too easily? How the heck do you think we arrived where we are with these two? Guessing you’re okay with it.
        I’m not, but maybe I’m judgmental (or have different standards for our presidential candidates).

        It don’t smell good to me. Sorry.

      • Raising money to provide life saving drugs for poor people who have aids does not smell good?

        People having fun doing it does not smell good? No more church bingo…

        Fine… there has been olfactory offense taken; sorry, you die. The money for your life savings drugs isn’t pure enough.

      • No, JCH. Taking a cut doesn’t smell good, buying a football helmet or a life sized cardboard cutout doesn’t smell good. (If you need a hint, that’s taking issue with both foundations not one or the other).

        If you’re comfortable with being ‘required’ to do good vs. doing good for the reason of doing good that’s a ‘standard’. It should be, in my pollyanna world, that one doesn’t require reciprocation or compensation for doing that good. Maybe a pat on the back would do it.

        Taking issue with what the different foundations do in the form of good hasn’t been any part of this conversation. It’s how they get there that’s the discussion. Some take extreme issue with how one gets there, and gives a pass to the other. Does that seem okay to you?

      • And, “The money for your life savings drugs isn’t pure enough.” Is that the ‘standard’. Or is the standard that it could have saved two lives. Just think about it.

      • Danny

        We seem to have an attitude here by some of ‘my politician right or wrong.’

        The Washington swamp needs draining. Its does the US no credit at all for Politicians of whatever hue to behave in this manner and does their supporters no credit that they not only go along with it but see nothing wrong with it.

        I used the phrase with you earlier about Trump being the only one apparently capable of cleaning the Augean stables. Its certainly not going to be Hillary cleaning it

        What a dilemma you have in choosing between these two characters.


      • Tony,
        “We seem to have an attitude here by some of ‘my politician right or wrong.’” Yes, and going further ‘my politician can do no wrong’. It’s as if there was some sort of special on the sale of blinders.

        I don’t think we drain ‘the swamp’. We do need evaluate and address the tributaries. There are folks who look at the ‘swamp’ and dive right in hoping to ‘fix it’ then money gets in the way. And, a Trumpesque candidate with less baggage and higher morals would have been ‘just the ticket’ (pun intended) this very election.

        Money is the major tributary which needs addressed.

      • What cut?

        It would only, ONLY, be a cut if the proposition to the donor was… you pay for a speech or we won’t let you donate money, which is preposterous. There is no force there. There is zero coercion. The corporation could just send the check to the mailing address. The corporation can just walk away. The CEO’s precious horse’s head is not going to show up under his blankets.

        There is no cut. You’ve been tricked.

        Charity is a gift. The standard is we pay for a lot of necessary things in society via gifts. We send people out begging for dollars; it costs money. Begging is not free; it’s not easy. One of the most productive means of raising precious charity dollars is to charge to rub elbows with celebrity. That’s the standard. Celebrity contact and providing some fun is one means of cajoling those dollars into the kitty. Clinton took none of them from that kitty; he produced a lot of the dollars in that kitty.

        Then you want to change the standard and call an age-old activity, fun for charity dollars, an impropriety. The article indicates President Bush often appeared with him. You think that was for free?

        You want to do away with charity and pay for everything with tax dollars… no tax exemption for churches… Sunday offerings become taxable church income?

      • JCH,
        “There is no cut. You’ve been tricked.” I don’t think that’s correct. Here’s why.

        You used the term ‘the corporation’ repeatedly, individuals and other entities are no different. Corporations establish budgets (spending plans if you prefer that term). Once a budget particular allocation is used, it’s used. So if ‘one stop shopping’ (Get yer charity credit here, oh and by the way today we’re having a twofer one special on ex-prezes speechifying) has only one pot of money from which to draw the sheer existence of the ‘speechifying’ (item #2 on your menu today) has the effect of reducing resources for the greater good.

        And, IMO, if ‘the greater good’ is the real area of concern the ‘speechifying’ should be tossed in gratis. Paid spokesperson for profit, sure. Paid spokesperson for charity? From Charity Navigator:
        “Conflict of Interest Policy:
        Such a policy protects the organization, and by extension those it serves, when it is considering entering into a transaction that may benefit the private interest of an officer or director of the organization. Charities are not required to share their conflict of interest policies with the public. Although we can not evaluate the substance of its policy, we can tell you if the charity has one in place based on the information it reports on its Form 990.

        If the charity does not have a Conflict of Interest policy, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score.”

        Bill is an officer.

        Even Bill himself says: “Speaking at a Clinton Global Initiative event, Bill Clinton on Tuesday said, “You have to be careful to avoid actual or potential conflicts of interest.”
        “There’ll clearly be some changes in what the Clinton Foundation does and how we do it,” Bill Clinton said.”
        Why would there be a need for any changes should Hillary be elected? Potential for impropriety?

        I’m not saying it’s corrupt, but it doesn’t have to be. And it shouldn’t require legislation. Oh, and from my research the Clinton foundation generally does a hell of a good job.

        The balance of your commentary is not my suggestion so I feel no need to respond.

      • Cleaning out the Augean Stables,
        whether re the faceless unelected EU
        or Washington top-down coterie,
        say, who’s behind the green door,
        the curtain … can’t be certain …
        pay no attention citizens, yous
        Rosencrantz and Guildensterns,
        non-party to off-stage machinations.

      • The Washington swamp needs draining. Its does the US no credit at all for Politicians of whatever hue to behave in this manner and does their supporters no credit that they not only go along with it but see nothing wrong with it.

        Behave in what manner? What you have written is sheer lunacy because there is absolutely nothing wrong with obeying the law and raising money for charity. Yes, folks like you actually have tried to drain the swamp by outlawing church bingo.

      • JCH

        You said

        ‘Yes, folks like you actually have tried to drain the swamp by outlawing church bingo.’

        It is difficult to think of anything more irrelevant to anything. What has church bingo got to do with anything?

        We are talking about monumental world class corruption and graft and a loss of the moral compass as the old adage is proved about absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        Are you really satisfied as to what goes on in Washington and the hierarchy in general with these huge donations, coercions, lobbying, outright corruption and lies from WHICHEVER Side it emanates from?

        When something is wrong-and we are talking about something much broader than the latest revelations-surely you would want to condemn it?


      • Down through history there have been attempts to outlaw bingo because it “smells”. It smells because bingo is gambling, and gambling is often considered to be immoral. Priests and pastors long ago realized bingo is a very effective means of raising charity dollars, so they convinced the government to exempt church bingo from laws against gambling.

        According to the logic here, the bingo winner gets a cut of the charity dollars and takes food away from a poor person.

      • We are talking about monumental world class corruption and graft and a loss of the moral compass as the old adage is proved about absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        No. Not even close. If it is as described, it’s perfectly legal.

        You would destroy charity completely because you can’t figure anything out.

      • I had to smile when I read this, Duterte, used the capital G, the writer uses the small g for God.


        The evidence of things not seen. He should fill his promise to God, he believes.

  91. OK, so who investigates the FBI?? From the article:

    Judge Napolitano: What happened to the FBI? It’s been corrupted by Obama and his team


    • Who investigates the FBI?

      I suppose Congress could. I don’t know if they plan to, but I would be reluctant to trust a Hillary-hating Republican Congress to conduct a fair investigation of the FBI’s Hillary investigation.

  92. Lies and disrespect. Dimowits, it’s what they eat for breakfast. From the article:

    Erica Garner, the daughter of police chokehold victim Eric Garner, ripped the Hillary Clinton campaign in a series of tweets Thursday after new campaign emails released by WikiLeaks showed how the Democratic nominee’s staffers discussed the death of her father.

    “I’m troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed ‘using’ Eric Garner … Why would you want to ‘use my dad?” Garner tweeted along with a link to emails released by WikiLeaks. “These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.

    “I’m vey (sic) interested to know exactly what @CoreyCiorciari meant when he said ‘I know we have an Erica Garner problem’ in the #PodestaEmails19,” added Garner.


  93. From the article:

    VIDEO: Hillary stumbles boarding campaign plane
    OCTOBER 27, 2016

    Hillary Clinton appeared to stumble or nearly miss a step as she boarded her campaign plane on Thursday.


  94. From the article:

    John Bolton: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Fatal Mistake’ Was Not Seeing Arab Spring Was Really ‘Rise of Radical Islam’


  95. 69-year old woman punched in face by Trump supporter

    At a rally in Asheville, North Carolina, a 69-year-old protester named Shirley Teter who was hooked up to an oxygen tank says she was punched right in the face …


  96. Early voting in Texas breaking records. I’ve had friends tell me the lines are much longer than they’ve ever seen.

    There’s no GOTV operations here in Texas from either party. So we can forget about voters staying home in this election. People really want to vote for some reason. Turnout’s almost certainly going to be huge across the nation.

    Huge turnout is kind of amazing given the stratospheric unfavorable numbers for both candidates. Talking heads, the usual suspects at MSM outlets, have been telling us voters would be staying home out of disgust.

    Evidently voters are not staying home but turning out in record numbers. Something big is happening. It’s a movement. Voters have wanted to #DrainTheSwamp in Washington, DC for a very long time but had no way to do it. Until now.

    One thing I can tell you about Texas and one common theme that binds together voters of all persuasions. We phucking hate Washington, DC interfering with our state. After having been married to a Mexican-American for 35 years which includes a huge extended family, I can tell you another thing. Those of them that were Democrats have turned Republican because they hate corruption in gov’t and Hillary is the poster girl for beltway corruption. I can tell you another thing about Mexican-Americans who are registered to vote – they do not want to compete for jobs with illegal Mexicans and they do not want their good names associated with illegals. And they’re mostly Catholics so that’s one more strike against the Clinton machine which attracts the irreligious not the religious.

    The huge turnout could possibly be women turning out against Trump but that just doesn’t make sense because regardless of whether Trump snatches kisses and cops feels he’s not a convicted sexual predator like Bill Clinton. That’s a wash at best. Women aren’t going to prefer sending a known rapist to the East Wing of the White House over sending a suspected predator to the West Wing. No way.

    That only leaves on thing for the massive turnout in Texas… it’s a movement to clean out Washington. A once in a lifetime opportunity to #DrainTheSwamp. It’s a beautiful thing. I never thought it possible but here it is happening as we speak.

  97. Voter turnout in the UK referendum on leaving the EU was 72%. That’s the highest turnout since 1992 by 10% – 20%.

    What is happening in the United States is a referendum on business-as-usual in Washington, DC just like what happened in the UK was a referendum on business-as-usual in the EU.

    I’m tripping out. This is really happening.

  98. Michael Moore on Election 2016: Why Trump Will Win

    • Just to be clear, Michael Moore hates Donald Trump and does not endorse him. He did not intend this speech to help Donald Trump. In fact his hope was that this expose on bitter blue collar America would work against Trump. It doesn’t appear to have had that effect but the truthiness of it is not thereby diminished. It’s not just white guys either. Blacks and Hispanics, their wives and children, are blue collar people who’ve had the American Dream snatched away from them too.

      As Moore said, whether Trump is able to give them back their futures or not is immaterial. They know Trump is going to totally phuck up the status quo in Washington who robbed them of their futures. It’s payback, if nothing else, and it’s going to feel GOOD.

  99. I’ll give even odds that when Trump wins on November 8th the Clinton campaign will say the Russians rigged our election and attempt to contest the results. One last hypocritical act of defiance as the Democratic party implodes. The new Republican party is a nationalist cross section that cuts across all the usual identity politics divisions. The symbol of this new party isn’t an elephant, or a donkey, it’s an American Bald Eagle.

    As a former United States Marine I’ve seen first hand what happens when the American Flag is your gang symbol. Race, color, creed, and gender barriers are erased. Everyone is playing for the same team. Everyone gets an equal chance to contribute. Everyone gets an equal chance to excel. It’s really an extraordinary experience and civilians don’t know it. But they will. And I’m here to tell you, in advance, that playing for Team America feels GOOD.

  100. For what it’s worth my daughter and I both noticed this evening that Trump has become more relaxed, smiling, joking, and confident in his stump speaking.

    He’s also giving interviews to MSM outlets in addition to Fox. And Melania is stepping out into the media spotlight to defend her husband. And she’s good at it. See here for a 35 minute grilling by ABC’s George Stephanopoulus of Trump alone, Trump and Melania, then finally the whole Trump family. George wasn’t throwing softballs either. Hillary wouldn’t dream of putting herself and family out to a hostile press like this. Only unashamed, confident leaders will do this:

  101. ABC News Tracking – Clinton Lead reduced by 2 more overnight. Clinton lead narrowed from +12 to + 4 since Sunday. RCP 4-way average now less than 5% Clinton lead again and dropping. Incredible.


  102. A computer model made this prediction so you now know FOR SURE that Clinton is toast!! From the article:

    Trump will win the election and is more popular than Obama in 2008, AI system finds

    An artificial intelligence (AI) system that correctly predicted the last three U.S. presidential elections puts Republican nominee Donald Trump ahead of Democrat rival Hillary Clinton in the race to the White House.


  103. Finally, we see the truth in the mainstream media. From the article:


    The Clintons don’t draw lines between their ‘charity’ and personal enrichment.

    Oct. 27, 2016 7:26 p.m. ET

    In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

    This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.


  104. This may be just a pet peeve of mine… What is the meaning of ‘sacrifice’?
    Why won’t people say “He died in combat fighting for the United States.” He died in a truck accident in Iraq delivering fuel.” People do not serve their country to be ‘sacrificed’.

  105. Al Gore or Slick Willie might get out to see if someone could attend to his “Second Chakra.” From the article:

    Donald Trump Jr. was traveling between campaign events Thursday when his car was delayed by another motorist, whose car had stalled ahead of them.

    The eldest Trump son reacted in a different way than Tyler Bowyer, chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Party, was used to.

    “I’ve been around a lot of politicians. Most would just freak out or go around,” Bowyer told the Arizona Republic. “But Don Jr. … before you can blink, he’s out there pushing the car.”

    Bowyer took a video of Trump Jr. and two other men pushing the Chevy Impala out of the street and posted it to Facebook and Twitter. It has been shared more than 10,000 times on Facebook and retweeted nearly 5,000 times on Twitter.


  106. This is where the US is headed. From the article:

    Their new militancy heightens the risk of unrest as the South American OPEC member of 30 million people grapples with a dangerous economic and political crisis.

    “Can anyone in the world now really doubt that Venezuela is living in tyranny?” said housewife Mabel Pinate, 62, dressed in white among thousands of protesters who took to the streets against Maduro on Wednesday.

    “We are sick of this. It’s time to toughen up and do what we must to save Venezuela,” added Pinate, whose husband was fired from state oil company PDVSA by Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez and whose two children have gone abroad.

    After pinning its hopes on a referendum this year – which could have triggered a presidential election and put them in power after 17 years of leftist rule – the enraged opposition Democratic Unity coalition has taken its gloves off.

    It is holding a symbolic political trial of Maduro in the legislature, organizing daily street protests, and shunning talks with the government that had been announced by the Vatican for this weekend.

    Recalling tactics that led to a short-lived coup against Chavez in 2002 and a shutdown of the oil industry, the coalition has also called for a general strike on Friday and a march to the Miraflores presidential palace next week.

    “We’ve reached the limit,” said Henrique Capriles, a usually moderate opposition leader, calling the government “Satan.”


  107. From the article:

    The latest poll shows Donald Trump regaining some momentum nationally.
    The ABC/Washington Post tracking poll shows that Trump is now at 44 percent, while Hillary Clinton still leads at 48 percent.

    Screen Shot 2016-10-28 at 9.00.19 AM

    After reaching a polling low of 38 percent on October 22 amid a series of accusations from women and leaked eleven year old audio featuring lewd comments, Trump’s support has ticked back up six points to put him within striking distance of Clinton.

    Clinton reached a high of 50 percent on October 22, but has since fallen two points to 48 percent.

    The Clinton campaign sent a warning to supporters on Thursday that the polls were tightening.

    “Donald Trump has been going around telling people not to listen to the polls, and saying that he can still win this race. Well you know what, he’s absolutely right,” Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook announced in a video.


  108. From the article:

    L.A. Times Tracking Poll: Donald Trump Leading Hillary Clinton Again

    Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton engaged in a pre-dawn Twitter match over former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, who claims Trump bullied her mercilessly after she won his beauty pageant in 1996AFP
    by CHARLIE SPIERING28 Oct 2016149

    Donald Trump’s polling numbers are ticking back up, according to the latest L.A. Times tracking poll.

    Trump is now at 45.2 percent nationally in the poll, while Hillary Clinton is 44.5 percent.

  109. Hopefully, they are saving the best for last, although the ones released so far are damning enough. From the article:

    Podesta Part 21: Wikileaks Releases Another 1,400 Emails; Total Is Now 35,594

    Tyler Durden’s picture
    by Tyler Durden
    Oct 28, 2016 9:08 AM

    With just days to go until the November 8 presidential election, the final countdown is now on, and Wikileaks continues its ongoing Podesta dump by unveiling another 1400+ emails in the latest Part 21 of its Podesta release, bringing the total emails released so far to exactly 35,594, leaving just 30% of the total dump left to go.


    • Damaging Wikileaks ? What a laugh!

      The Russian hackers will grow desperate the closer we get to the election with Hillary still in the lead. So watch for Wikileaks to become Ficileaks. Yes, fictitious e-mails. If these thieving creeps can’t find a smoking gun they will make one up.

      What a laugh

      • jokes on you, G.


        Guns for self defense against the federal government.

      • Guns for self defense against the federal government.

        It’s an open secret that’s what the 2nd amendment was about.

        Of course, the only reason it’s a “secret” is that most people today don’t understand the functional meaning of the word “militia” at the time the Constitution was ratified.

        It’s also worth noting that the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, uses clear language between forbidding the Federal Government and any government to interfere with some right. Compare the 1st with the 2nd Amendment:

        1.     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[8

        2.     A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      • I’m glad some of these anti-government crackpots face other charges. They need some time behind bars.

      • They need some time behind bars.

        So do the “occupy” and “Black Lives Matter” goons.

    • Well,

      The sale of 20% of the US uranium mining capacity to the Russians and the intense repeated Clinton profitable involvement seems interesting.

      It is easy to accuse the Clintons of dishonesty and corruption, because they make it easy.

      From the Wikileaks 100:
      “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders”
      Said at a $225,000 speech to Goldman Sachs. This makes Trumps statement on the subject 100% true.

      Politifact: rated Trump ‘Mostly False’
      FactCheck lumped it under “Trump Twists Facts on WikiLeaks”

      The biggest take from the Wiki 100 is Hillary is basically dishonest and has contempt for the rules other people have to follow, and that the MSM is her propaganda organ.

      • “This makes Trumps statement on the subject 100% true.” Not even close. . First, which ‘Trump’ statement?

        Did you bother to look, or did you just accept because Trump says it and you want it to fit a narrative?

        Plausible possibilities? See #13 here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presidential-debate-fact-check-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/story?id=42906344

        Which is reasonably supported here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/20/fact-checkers-dont-know-what-to-make-of-hillarys-open-borders-claim/

        Wiki put out a portion, not the entirety. No way to tell without the total.

      • Can the Russians and their hackers misrepresent by omission. Sure, just release e-mails out of context and leave out the e-mails that give the context.

        Hackers are thieves. Would thieves lie by omission? Of course they would. Thieves will lie by any means possible.

      • Sorry, Arch, but Judicial Watch is not an organization I trust. It’s easy to make accusations, and I can understand your willingness to believe the accusations are proof, but don’t expect me to believe them.

      • You must be a scientist, you refuse to see a pattern even when you are out riding your bias.

      • Danny Thomas | October 28, 2016 at 12:29 pm |
        “This makes Trumps statement on the subject 100% true.” Not even close. . First, which ‘Trump’ statement?

        Well, funny that.

        “Under her plan you have open borders,” Trump said at Wednesday’s debate. “You will have a disaster on trade, you will have a disaster with open borders.”

        Hillary’s plan does incorporate amnesty and other features that are unquestionably more “open” than Trump’s plan..

        Whether or not that qualifies as open borders is a matter of opinion.

        Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton would create ‘totally open borders’

        Well. that statement is arguable as well. Hillary is going to need a Democratic congress to get open borders.

        I”m going to back off a little bit. Trumps statements aren’t 100% true. Totally open borders to me means no customs inspections, no border booths, just a sign you are entering the US.

        Trump is exaggerating Hillary’s position a little. But it may fall within the range of “Kentucky windage” and may be true in the long run particularly if Mexico reannexes the southwest – which is a simmering problem.

        However statements that she hasn’t advocated for open borders or as the LA times puts it:
        Yet the notion that Clinton supports “open borders” is misleading.
        Are damn lies.

        From the Wiki 100:
        4. Hillary has public positions on policy and her private ones
        “But If Everybody’s Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”

        The problem with Hillary is she is two faced and we end up with people on one side arguing what she says in private and on the other arguing what she says in public.

        It is really hard to tell what Hillary’s real position is. Trump may be right and he may wrong, it really depends what the biggest contributors to Hillary’s foundation want and who pays her the most honoraria.

      • PA,
        “It is really hard to tell what Hillary’s real position is. Trump may be right and he may wrong, it really depends what the biggest contributors to Hillary’s foundation want and who pays her the most honoraria.”

        And it’s often hard to tell what Trumps is. Immigration is one example. He has settled on a consistent presentation but is that his ‘private’ position, or one generated from feedbacks which indicate a higher likelyhood of election? Were you to discover that the answer was generated and not ‘private’ wouldn’t ‘two-faced’ be an apt description of Trump? And another example using your thought process of ‘arguing a public vs private’ position do we accept his surrogates disagreeing with the candidate presuming surrogates receive ‘marching orders’ from the candidate?

        And can you show actual evidence that ‘honoraria’ has led to influence? While IMO just the optics is awful and certainly a justification for decision making by a voter, it is not sufficient for ‘criminal punishment’.

      • And can you show actual evidence that ‘honoraria’ has led to influence? While IMO just the optics is awful and certainly a justification for decision making by a voter, it is not sufficient for ‘criminal punishment’.


        Living close to ground zero, the big problem is Hillary isn’t alone. The culture in DC has finessed the art of payoffs, kickbacks, and backscratching to an impresario level. They don’t call the beltway bandits, bandits for nothing. The amount of assets congressmen and senators amass on a government salary is both impressive and alarming.

        I’m sort of disgusted with the whole lot.

        It is sort of pointless to call for the criminal prosecution of Hillary. Hillary careful bends the narrative to where she appears to be sit on the fence at the edge of legal. A lesser mortal like Scooter Libby would have gotten convicted for perjury and other offenses like obstruction for what Hillary did in the email case. Someone higher on the food chain than Libby like Petraeus would gotten a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified documents (which he did for something similar)..

        Hillary carefully got everyone together and got their story straight. Even the fact she got a full time government employee to work on her private server got glossed over.

        The problem with Hillary is she is like the Dukes of Hazzard and does “just a little bit more than the law will allow.”

        The Bill birthday gift vs Qatar arms would concern me more,.but let’s look at the honoraria:

        According to public records, Clinton gave 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015. Her standard fee is $225,000, and she collected $21.6 million dollars in just under two years. Clinton made 8 speeches to big banks, netting $1.8 million, according to a CNN analysis.

        I don’t believe it is possible to charge a private citizen for giving speeches that aren’t openly treasonous. The lack of tweets about Hillary’s speeches would indicate she is pretty boring. But it does look bad and would appear to indicate bad judgment.

        On a final note: statements like Walid Shoebat’s: “Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt And 100% Pure Evil” are exaggerations. I’m fairly sure Hillary isn’t pure and have grave doubts about the 100%.

      • I’ll take all that to mean that ‘no’ you have no actual evidence. Thanks for being of sufficient character to say so.

      • Danny Thomas | October 28, 2016 at 7:30 pm |
        I’ll take all that to mean that ‘no’ you have no actual evidence. Thanks for being of sufficient character to say so.

        What I find distressing is that Hillary does so much of this sort of stuff. On the hand when I drill down on things like her Watergate work, it appears (at least with the current internet information) that Doar, Marshall, and Nussbaum were involved in the scheme to deny Nixon counsel and it isn’t clear who was supervising her. But it looks bad.

        Well, if I get a chance I’ll look to see how good the trail of quid pro quo is. But given that she hasn’t held a government position since January 23, 2013 unless a convincing case can be made for buying future favors there isn’t much meat there.

  110. 100 most damaging wikileaks, so far …


    • jim

      The general public and probably not the partisan MSM, are going to read 100 wikileaks.

      Why not point me to the top 5?


      • I haven’t had a chance today to read them all myself. But they are summarized in a list, so it’s pretty easy to scan for what looks interesting. And the emails backing up the summaries are linked so you can see for yourself.

      • Tony
        Have you seen the Dorset fog-fall doing Brexit

        p.s TonyB calls for second referendum, May says ‘you may not have it’

      • jim

        pretty dam*ing.

        I would be interested to get the reaction specifically of the first 10 on the list from a Clinton fan here and Danny who seems to be sitting agonisingly on the fence.

        You guys desperately need your Brexit moment to clear out the worst excesses of the govt and business elite. I am not sure though that Trump is the right person to deliver it. Mind you, can he be any worse than Hillary who some seem to defend no matter how she behaves.


      • Tony,

        Of the so called ‘top 10’ I’ve looked at #’s 2 & 4 previously so will only address those. If Jim wants to make a one sided case linking to a website with the title ‘most damaging’ that’s up to him. Of note, I cannot track down the ownership/source of the website and we all know how biased the media is. The website itself makes a case for just that w/o any transparency of it’s own. Makes me skeptical. Additionally, the website goes to conspiracy theories put forth by the more Trump aligned and it the ‘About’ section in fact links to ZeroHedge to substantiate arguments. Please google for background and come to your own conclusions.

        Just here, Jim made a selection of one so called dam*ing email which was sent TO Podesta, not from. https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/22/week-in-review-politics-edition-14/#comment-820209 (My response below).

        #2 from the list: “*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

        This is an excerpt. Page 28 as cited. And can be read as pertaining to energy which she stated in debate 3. Dam*ing? Hardly. Suspect? Maybe. Out of context? Most assuredly.
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/ (you can go to the ‘find’ tool and search wiki {only 5 results} and the discussion can be found).

        #4 is similar. Comes from same leaked e-mail, and Clinton addressed in Debate 2. Link for your evaluation: http://time.com/4524426/second-presidential-debate-hillary-clinton-abraham-lincoln/

        Context is important.

      • Ring the hour, bring the man.

      • KIMMM!!!

        (That’s meant to echo the acclamation ‘Normmm! in Cheers)


      • Jim2,
        Based on your criteria you therefore must be a Mercer puppet.

        I am anti Trump. I’m a bit less anti Clinton.

        I don’t sit on the fence I straddle it, and I’m not alone (check unpopularity polls if you don’t believe me). You’re on only one side and I cannot recall a single comment which would in any way indicate any area of concern about Trump. You cannot say the same about me an Clinton.

  111. Here’s a good one from the 100 list:

    81. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in direct contact with the
    Hillary campaign

    “[He is] particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about. He wants to meet folks who can inform his understanding about effective political operations to advance public policy goals”

    They are basically saying he wants to learn how to bribe people.
    Mark Zuckerberg has been very outspoken about Trump and his wall idea, when he himself is building a large wall around his mansion. Guess protecting yourself is OK, but not the American people.
    Facebook also manipulates it’s trending stories to not show pro-Trump/anti-Hillary articles or trends, and even censors videos against Hillary. The censorship is well known and has reduced Facebook’s integrity tenfold. Pro-Trump stories with hundreds of thousands of mentions are deleted to allow room for anti-Trump articles with less than a thousand mentions. Happens literally daily. Unfortunately this is the case across Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Reddit as well (and why it seems like at times more support Hillary despite Trump getting 30,000 at his rallies and Hillary getting 200). They are in the tank for Hillary.


  112. Another from the 100:

    78. Violating campaign finance law

    “I’m swinging way above my weight class here. And I’m 100% sure this out of protocol. I’m trying to land the campaign a big fat whale that can give between $100,000 to maybe $1 million if their ego can be reassured that they won’t be just treated “just like any other donor. With your permission, can I CC you in an email to these guys. I’m work with Haim Saban’s political director on these same guys. If it’s 100% inappropriate I understand.”

    Haim Saiban is the owner of Univision, who has been working with Hillary as revealed throughout the leaks.

  113. From the 100:

    66. Illegally coordinating with Priorities USA, a SuperPAC funded by
    George Soros

    “So afraid that NYT is going with this story on Priorities whether we like it or not. They have sources about the meetings.”

    They were scrambling to make sure they were within the law and really worried the donor list was about to come out.
    The New York Times spiked the story about the corruption to protect her, shielding the donors which OpenSecrets.org shares with us from a later disclosure.
    As you can see clearly there, the top contributor is none other than George Soros with $6 million in. Staff from the two groups met and coordinated efforts, which caused the concern from Hillary’s side because the Priorities people were talking and the media, specifically the New York Times hid this violation of campaign election law.

  114. kim | October 28, 2016 at 12:35 pm |
    Ring the hour, bring the man.

    Whatever the hell that means?

    Hey Kim, I haven’t seem you for a while. Welcome back to the looney bin.

  115. From the article:

    “I think we have seen a very similar thing here in the U.K. with Brexit. We saw a lot of the liberal press kind of sneering at Brexiteers,” she said before dropping a bombshell that left CNN host Hala Gorani speechless:

    “We saw a lot of the sneering that we see from the Clinton News Network.”

    “That’s CNN, you’re calling us the Clinton News Network,” Gorani quickly clarified, aghast.

    “That’s exactly correct,” Hopkins replied.

    “Why?” Gorani asked, claiming that the fact that they shared a Florida poll which had Trump a couple points ahead of Hillary proves they’re not biased.

    Hopkins gave her an answer that confirms what Republicans have been saying about the news media for quite some time.

    “I will say, having sat in the Republican convention in Cleveland and watched your news network, it is completely biased,” she said, adding, “And I think Trump is doing a great job.”

    Hopkins then slammed what the network has been inferring through polls and other interviews — that women love Hillary Clinton.

    “You’ll also find polls that find 70% of individuals find Clinton to be utterly distasteful,” she gleefully noted. “I find her abhorrent to look at. Her little smile there does nothing for me.”


  116. Cognitive dissonance happens when you are confronted with a truth that conflicts with your self-image. To reconcile the conflict, your brain automatically triggers an hallucination to rationalize-away the discrepancy.

    To be clear, that is the way normal brains work. Cognitive dissonance is happening to all of us on a regular basis. It’s just easier to spot when it happens to someone else.

    Scott Adams

    Denial: it ain’t just a river in Egypt.

  117. On the BBC news this evening was a report that Clinton is to investigated again by the FBI about additional emails found on her server


    • Obviously someone was copying emails either in real time (most likely) or managed to get to them before they were deleted. When I throw away my old PCs, on top of having Norton always installed, I take disk drive out, drill half a dozen holes through it end then smash it with a hammer.

      • Vuc – you can take the disk drive apart, remove the disk, and soak it in muriatic (hydrochloric acid – sold as pool cleaner). That removes the magnetic coating from the disk. That should thwart any effort to recover data.

      • Letter reads “reopen the investigation”

        What don’t the usual suspects understand about those three words?


      • Letter reads “reopen the investigation”

        No, it doesn’t.

        It would be easy to infer from what it does say that “reopening the investigation” is involved. Personally, I don’t know whether that’s a formal step or not, or even whether it had ever been “closed”. But the journalists seem to think it’s inevitable.

    • Here’s another link: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-reopens-clinton-email-server-investigation-230454

      FBI must and should reopen based on new evidence. Existence of said evidence in and of itself is not confirmation of commission of a crime but certainly reinforces the bad judgement.

      Still amazing to me that we wound up with these two.

      • Comey’s letter didn’t say the FBI was reopening the case. He said the FBI was reviewing some newly found e-mails.

        Here’s some additional information from nbcnews:

        “A senior law enforcement official told NBC News Friday that the Comey letter was sent to the Hill “out of an abundance of caution” and to be extra-thorough.

        The official said the emails were discovered “on another device.”

        There’s no indication, the official said, that Clinton, her campaign or the State Department was withholding information. But the emails were not held by someone who was investigated in the Clinton email case, the official said.”


      • Max1OK,

        ” But the emails were not held by someone who was investigated in the Clinton email case, the official said.” (maybe they were, see bottom para)

        Alternative source, The Atlantic, states: “NBC’s Pete Williams reported Friday afternoon that the new emails were discovered on “another device” but did not appear to be withheld by Clinton or the State Department from the FBI originally.” IMO this is just as troubling not necessarily regarding any illegal activity on her part (that would be an assumption), but it does go to the argument that there was carelessness.

        I’m not a conspiracist. If FBI says not prosecutable I accept that unless and until FBI is shown to be untrustable. But I don’t dismiss the continuing statements of recklessness.


        “Federal law enforcement officials said Friday that the new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, and her husband, Anthony D. Weiner.”

      • How bad does it have to get with Billary before you vote for Trump?

      • Past tense. Vote absentee & mailed days ago.

        But, Jim2, just like you won’t find a link from me saying that Trump admitted to sexual assault, you won’t find me here saying this is evidence of a crime by Clinton. You see, I apply the same standards to both. Try it for yourself.

      • Comey’s letter didn’t say the FBI was reopening the case. He said the FBI was reviewing some newly found e-mails.

        More cognitive dissonance.

        From the Business Insider story

        The FBI will reopen its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server after learning of “the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation,” FBI Director James Comey wrote in a letter to congressional leaders on Friday.


        The emails were reportedly uncovered after the FBI seized devices belong to Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner, the New York Times reported, citing law enforcement officials. Prosecutors issued a subpoena for Weiner’s cell phone and other records in late September amid allegations that he had been sexting with a 15-year-old girl.

        Previous reports indicated that only three relevant emails were found, but a federal official told the Times on Friday afternoon that the number of emails uncovered through Abedin’s and Weiner’s devices numbered in the thousands. [my bold]

        There are two issues:

        •       If there are thousands of emails that were forwarded or saved off by Huma Abedin that hadn’t been turned over by Hillary, this almost certainly means Hillary lied (again!) about not deleting anything important.

        •       AFAIK forwarding or saving off large numbers of emails onto an assistant’s phone would have been contrary to security policy. (It sure would be if I were making such policy.) This would be true whether the emails were on the proper “state.gov” server or not. (Although it might have been harder from the proper server.)

        So we have two new issues for the FBI to address. As for “reopening the case”, at this point it’s like a triple fork in chess:

        •       If the FBI doesn’t reopen the case, everybody will consider it collusion and Hillary loses.

        •       If the FBI reopens the case and clears Hillary before the election, everybody will consider it collusion and Hillary loses

        •       If the FBI reopens the case and it’s still open on election day, everybody will consider her guilty and Hillary loses.

      • @Danny Thomas…

        Checks and balances. IMO it’s possible Comey was afraid he’d be arrested by his own rank and file on Nov. 9 if Trump wins.

        But I doubt there’s anything bad in the emails they found that hasn’t, or won’t, be exposed by WikiLeaks.

        I found a source that says the FBI already had witnesses tell them that:

        Abedin, in turn, “routinely” forwarded State government emails — including ones containing classified information — from her state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her Yahoo.com account “so that she could print them” at her home, the summary of her interview with the FBI reveals.

        The source itself is clearly biased/tendentious, but the link in the blockquote is to an FBI page.

        I haven’t actually gone through the document(s) to verify the CounterJihad interpretations.

        I am sort of speculating that the underage sexting charge against Weiner might have been a frame, designed to get those phones into FBI hands without getting them blamed by Horrible Hillary.

      • AK, if you read Comey’s letter he didn’t say the FBI was re-opening the case.

      • AK – if there is anyone who doesn’t ALREADY consider her guilty, nothing will convince them at this point.

        And of course, there will be those of her ilk who consider her illegal activities something they identify with and that it is a plus.

      • Jim2,
        Guilty of what? Found so by what court?

        What would convince me? Not an arrest, not even a trial. A conviction would. That has not happened unless I’ve missed it. Please provide a link.

        For those who purportedly tout ‘law and order’ there is seemingly a lack of reliance on law enforcement and ‘innocence until PROVEN guilty’.

        Guessing you’re unaware that the presumption of innocence has been a long standing concept. Look it up. While your at it, research the order part of ‘law and order’. Hint, it’s not a tool of convenience for your political narrative.

        Were it a tool for political narratives, a confession of sexual assault is pretty strong evidence. Would that be okay for use in your eyes? Should we expect your comment suggesting we ‘lock HIM up’? Get real.

      • @max1ok…

        If you’d read my comment you’d have seen that I know he didn’t say the FBI was re-opening the case. But I guess you’re too lost in cognitive dissonance to actually pay attention to what people are saying. You might notice what an idi0t you’re being.

        Denial: it ain’t just a river in Egypt.

      • @jim2…

        That’s the point of Scott Adam’s cognitive dissonance post. They can’t accept that their preferred candidate is murderous cr00k, so they go into denial. Or hallucinate “Hitler-ish” features for Trump. Or both.

      • AK,

        Or alternatively ‘they’ believe in ACTUAL law and order not convenient versions.

      • ==> IMO it’s possible Comey was afraid he’d be arrested by his own rank and file on Nov. 9 if Trump wins. ==>

        Wow! This election is bringing to the surface some very interesting perspectives.

      • Josh,
        It’s ‘law and order’ everywhere ya look!

      • Wow! This election is bringing to the surface some very interesting perspectives.

        There are always tensions in US Federal bureaucracies between the Civil Service rank and file and the politically appointed “top brass”.

        When/if the “top brass” is crooked, or pursues the agendas of elected officials at the expense of the perceived longer-term mission of the agency, these tensions can become literally deadly.

        In the case of a police, military, or intelligence agency whose mission involves societal values generally considered to outrank the short-term political agendas of presidents and other elected officials, it’s hardly inconceivable for the regular members of the bureaucracy to arrest (or assassinate, in the case of intelligence agencies) political appointees who put their personal agendas ahead of national interests.

        If there’s corruption at the top, this may be the only way to deal with it. OTOH, I can’t see any way the claim of such corruption could be fully verified. Trial and conviction only works if the corruption has not spread to the judiciary, which in this case it clearly has, although it’s not nearly so clear just how far.

        All the public evidence points to such corruption. There’s a proper legal procedure, which involves the appointment of a special prosecutor, whose authority and chain of command bypass the “top brass” in the FBI, or whichever agency is suspected of such contamination.

        It would be perfectly appropriate for the general mass of FBI bureaucrats to arrest Comey and his sycophants/yes men, and demand the appointment of a special prosecutor, if they were convinced that the President and Attorney General were involved with him in corruption.

        It would probably precipitate a Constitutional Crisis, but that would be better than another Civil War. As long as the right side won.

      • Danny –

        ==> What would convince me? Not an arrest, not even a trial. A conviction would. That has not happened unless I’ve missed it. Please provide a link.==>

        Who would have thought, 40, or 20, or even 10 years ago, that the supporters of the Republican presidential candidate would be so absolutely confident that the FBI is corrupt, and that the supporters of the Democratic presidential candidate would be pointing to a lack of prosecution (or conviction) based on an FBI investigation as an indication that someone isn’t necessarily guilty.

      • @Danny Thomas…

        AFAIK everybody involved in the investigation except for a few political appointees at the top believed she should have been indicted. We all know she’s guilty. The only question is whether the proof will be brought into court so she can be convicted.

        Guilty of what? Convicted of what?

        Willfully and deliberately violating legally sanctioned security protocols, risking the security of the country she was (supposedly) working for. Probably for no reason but her own selfish, short-sighted, convenience.

      • Guilty? Maybe. Convicted? You know better.

      • ==> Willfully and deliberately violating legally sanctioned security protocols, risking the security of the country she was (supposedly) working for. Probably for no reason but her own selfish, short-sighted, convenience.==>

        indeed. With such an absolute and confident belief, you have no choice but to believe that Comey disregarded the law in order to protect Clinton.

        Which then, of course, requires another round of gymnastics when Comey writes a letter like the one he did today.

        And of course, your own political orientation doesn’t help to explain your confidence in Clinton’s guilt and Comey’s malfeasance.

        The mind of a “skeptic” never ceases to amaze.

      • Fox News weighs in.

      • No, not your exact words, but you implied they were by quoting the following statement

        AK | October 28, 2016 at 6:13 pm |

        If you’d read my comment you’d have seen that I know he didn’t say the FBI was re-opening the case.

        No, you just implied they were by quoting from Business Insider:

        “The FBI will reopen its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server after learning of “the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation,” FBI Director James Comey wrote in a letter to congressional leaders on Friday.”

        And even that isn’t correct. Come didn’t say “reopen” anything.

        AK, you don’t fool me. I’m on to your trickiness.

      • Only fifty years ago you were down with this, remember?


        The proof is in the eating. Let’s wait for dessert.

      • Nice Arch. That something occurred 50 years ago is certainly evidence that it’s happening again now.

        It’s a sad state of affairs when I’m the most scientifically oriented one in the conversation.

      • That’s obvious.

      • AK, you don’t fool me. I’m on to your trickiness.

        So “on to [my] trickiness” that you still didn’t bother to read what I wrote. (Hint: try searching on “triple fork”.)

    • Important, don’t Putin your emails!

    • Tony
      The new emails turned up from separate investigation into Anthony Weiner sexting activities. This whole affair including the perv Weiner goes beyond any fiction writer’s imagination. The gift that keeps giving.

  118. “We believe that this tax credit-assisted program could help finance up to a trillion dollars’ worth of projects over a ten-year period.

    Worth fleshing out. ‘Up to’ is key and it appears this may not consider that the construction is staffed by those currently employed and therefore a shift in tax revenue not a generation of new, but should be evaluated fairly: http://peternavarro.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/infrastructurereport.pdf

    Had Trump done business and not memes he’d be a better candidate.

  119. From the article:

    Arivaca (United States) (AFP) – To many, Donald Trump’s pledge to build a wall along the US-Mexico border is unrealistic. But for Jim Chilton, it’s the only way he’ll get a good night’s sleep.

    The 77-year-old, a fifth-generation rancher on the Arizona border with Mexico, says he has grown weary of seeing drug smugglers — rather than just cattle — on his ranch and a wall is the answer to his troubles.

    “I really admire Trump for having the insight and the knowledge to know what’s wrong with the current border system,” he said, as he surveyed the sprawling desert plains of his 75-square-mile ranch that stretches to the Mexican border.

    “We need a wall. I’ve been saying that for 10 years… and we need roads along the boundary and the border patrol to be deployed there and not let anybody in,” he added. “It would make my life so much better and I’d feel more secure.”


  120. From the article:

    Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).

    “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

    Chomsky recalls being taken aback that “anyone could support the idea—offered by a national political leader, no less—that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections.”

    Some eyebrows were also raised when then-Senator Clinton appeared to make a questionable moral equivalency.


  121. For those so concerned about ‘law and order’ and who work soley on evidence and care not about conviction, the Russians are GUILTY: “While the email most certainly wasn’t legitimate — security researchers have traced the Bitly link it included to a server tied to Russian hackers,”
    Confident that L & O types will be hollaring out loud that the Russians must be ‘locked up’.


  122. I have to laugh that Danny maintains the Clinton’s haven’t broken the law. They are both lawyers, so in most cases they violate the spirit, but not necessarily the letter of the law. This doesn’t make them desirable representatives of the people, however. The obviously are using their political clout to enrich themselves. And I’m sure they have failed in some cases to avoid breaking the letter of the law.

    Yup, we’ll see, won’t we.

    • Jim2,
      Your politically rose colored glasses make you wrong so often it’s not even funny.

      “I have to laugh that Danny maintains the Clinton’s haven’t broken the law.” First, you said “Clinton’s”. Quote where I said that about Bill, who is NOT by the way, a candidate.
      Second, I didn’t say Hillary has not broken the law. In fact if you’ll bother to search (and you won’t so you won’t embarrass yourself) you’ll find my words saying “Guilty? Maybe.” in reference to Hillary.

      What I have said is she has not been convicted. Be a stand up person for once if you have have it in you and correct the record. Or be a hypocrite when you supposedly support a ‘law and order’ candidate and are such a law and order guy yourself.

      “The obviously are using their