Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

11 more days . . .

I haven’t flagged many posts for this week, just tooooo much . . .  Here are a few fun reads.

Camille Paglia:  Hillary Clinton is a disaster [link]

The real scientist behind @ScientistTrump. @ScientistTrump will make science great again [link]

Think this is the most negative US election ever? Don’t forget about Adams v. Jefferson in 1800 [link]

It’s fitting that the most serious, even-handed & thoughtful analysis of the Trump phenomenon comes from Cracked. [link]

 

691 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. 11 more days. Trump is closing the gap with Billary on several fronts now. Meantime, the lefties show their true colors. From the article:

    A homeless woman quietly demonstrating in support of Donald Trump near his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on Thursday was violently harassed and abused by a group of people who surrounded her, yelled insults at her and appeared to knock her to the ground.
    The woman can be seen in a series of videos posted to YouTube sitting silently while holding signs in support of the Republican presidential nominee, including one that read, “20 Million Illegals and Americans sleep on the streets in tents. Vote Trump.”

    The woman — who has not yet been identified — was demonstrating near Trump’s star on the Hollywood landmark, which was destroyed by 53-year-old James Otis in a pre-dawn pick-ax attack early Wednesday morning.

    [Warning: Strong Language]

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/10/28/video-liberals-assault-homeless-woman-defending-trump-star-walk-fame/

  2. Love the article about the 1800 election. US politics has never been peaches and cream. We are fighters.

  3. Whenever I start getting all smug Canadian about your American election I remind myself we put Justin Trudeau in power last year. Then I shut up.

  4. Wondering about the anti-establishment movement lately. Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Jeremy Corbyn (for fellow Yankees, an English Bernie).

    • Obama and McCain in ’08.

      • Carter and Bill Clinton were not part of the establishment when they ran either.

      • But they were not as anti-establishment as Gary, Jill, or Bernie.

      • Carter and Bill Clinton were both part of the political establishment when they ran.

        Outsiders were Kennedy (son of a gangster), Reagan (ex-actor hated by the MSM), Obama, McCain (1/2), Bernie, and Trump.

        Obama and Bernie were connected to the socialist left. McCain had come to Washington as a reformer, but sold out. Kennedy lost his nerve and was assassinated. Reagan won the Cold War.

        Trump?

  5. I love coming to Korea. This trip it has the added benefit of not seeing the garbage that passes for media and journalistic coverage in the US. No Hillary. No Donald. Here the big political news is that President Park, has had a personal confidant, with whom she talks about all sorts of things, including government business. Like big deal. Name a US President who hasn’t had one.

  6. Fox Business host and Trump supporter Lou Dobbs sees a Mormon Mafia behind Evan McMullin, the third-party candidate who has pulled votes away from Trump in Utah, a State with a history of being dependably Republican. Trump is slightly ahead in the polls but both McMullin and Hillary are close behind. Many readers probably have seen the Mormon Mafia bicycle gangs. If you haven’t, here’s a youtube video that shows what they look like.

  7. US and EU are going down the gurgler. China and Russia taking over. North Korea, ISIS, Middle East, Turkey, Philippines aligning with China and Russia. This is just the beginning.

  8. Another Mormon Mafioso
    OUCH !

  9. Britain now has the chance to do something beautiful and bold
    Household budgets will be given a boost if we opt out of EU tariffs and open our economy to the world

    Daniel Hannan

    “Leaving the EU was never an end in itself. It was only ever a means to an end – that end being a freer, wealthier and more global Britain. There’s no point in leaving our cramped cell and striding into the sunshine if we then lose our nerve and sit timidly on the doorstep.

    Theresa May is determined to show the world that Britain is, as she likes to put it, “open for business”. The words are easy; the decisions they imply are not. Mrs May was no enthusiast for expanding Heathrow – and neither, frankly, was I. But if London is to remain the world’s capital city, it needs a worthy airport. Similarly, the PM plainly had her doubts about building a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point – and, again, I shared her doubts. But, whatever the rights and wrongs of the original decision, a serious country does not go back on agreements with overseas investors.

    By the same token, Philip Hammond is right to oppose restrictions on skilled migrants. As he says, the objections to immigration were never about “computer programmers, brain surgeons, bankers”. A poll commissioned by British Future shows that 88 per cent of voters want skilled workers to continue to come here. Indeed, the Chancellor should go further and actively ease restrictions on key industries, such as pharmaceuticals and financial services, thus stealing a march on our rivals.

    Heathrow, Hinkley, Hammond – none of the decisions is directly to do with Brexit. Yet all of them recognise that Britain is in an unfrozen moment. We sense that the eyes of the world are on us, watching to see whether we stumble. It stiffens our resolve.

    Most people who voted Remain, from the PM downwards, are cheerfully getting on with making a success of our new opportunities. For example, the CBI campaigned strongly to stay in the EU, yet its director, Carolyn Fairbairn, is now touring the world talking up the opportunities Britain will soon have to strike its own trade deals.

    Trade deals are the key. Although media coverage has so far focused on our relations with the 27 remaining EU states, it’s the 165 non-EU states that account for almost all the world’s economic growth. Britain now has an opportunity to do something beautiful and bold. We can become the first large country to open our economy – something that, so far, only tiny states such as Singapore and Hong Kong have done, and even they imperfectly.

    It is now clear that free trade and membership of the EU are incompatible. If Brussels can’t agree a deal even with patient, cuddly, liberal Canada, it won’t open its markets to the fast-growing economies of India, China or South America.

    Britain, though, does not have the vested interests that, in many Continental states, stand in the way of free trade: subsidised textile manufacturers, state-run steel companies, cosseted farmers, protected film-makers. A report published yesterday by the World Bank says ours is the most business-friendly major economy on the planet. We have everything to gain from unrestricted commerce.

    By opting out of EU tariffs and allowing prices to fall back to world levels, we could save the average family £933 a year. Boosting household budgets is a far more effective way of stimulating the economy than printing money; and, unlike printing money, it mainly helps the poor.

    The case for free trade is as much moral as economic. Commerce is the ultimate instrument of poverty alleviation, conflict resolution and social justice. Since 1990, the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen from 36 per cent to 8 per cent as previously closed Asian and African economies have joined the global market system. One of the oddities of our age is that idealistic youngsters demonstrate against trade deals in the belief that they are somehow standing up for the poor against multinational corporations; in fact, multinationals thrive on restrictions.

    Opening our economy will do more to tackle poverty in developing nations than decades of government-to-government aid. And, instead of coming at the expense of taxpayers, it will bring a handsome dividend to consumers, especially those on low incomes who will gain disproportionately from cheaper food and clothes.

    There is a happy corollary. Once you invite produce from the world, you have to deregulate at home, otherwise your domestic companies are at a disadvantage. Most distortions are the result of lobbying by industrial cartels. Mega-banks, for example, have demanded a highly regulated system so that it is almost impossible for a new entrant to challenge them. Dismantling restrictions will make life easier for innovators, start-ups and entrepreneurs.

    Leaving the EU opens the door. Striding through that door means building on decisions like Heathrow and Hinkley. It means lower, flatter and simpler taxes; more plentiful housing; streamlined welfare; cheaper energy.

    Why should the EU offer us market access as we become more competitive? Because, as David Hume observed more than two and a half centuries ago: “The increase of riches and commerce in any one nation, instead of hurting, commonly promotes the riches and commerce of all its neighbours.” It is in Britain’s interest to have a prosperous EU next door, and vice versa: wealthy neighbours make good customers.

    During the recent referendum, some Remainers argued as if countries trade with each other out of kindness. But as Hume’s great countryman and contemporary Adam Smith said: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner.”

    Britain and the EU will start from a position of zero tariffs, and moving away from the status quo is more tiresome than retaining it. None of the EU’s national leaders seriously wants a trade war with the state that, on departure, will be their biggest customer.

    British openness to the rest of the world will directly benefit its EU allies; and perhaps, in time, encourage them to follow. An open, internationalist Brexit is not just in our interest; it is the greatest gift we can give our neighbours.”

    • As Benny Hill would say
      WHAT A CLOCK OF CLAP !
      Who in his right mind would buy anything made in the UK ! It’s RUBBISH, except for
      Newcastle Brown and Boddingtons.

      But a British made car? Ha Ha
      Well, too be fair there is one benefit to owning a British car. All your other worries will seem like nothing.

      Actually, I recently took advantage of the free-falling pound to order some books from London.

    • … cheaper energy.

      Far better idea than old folks having to burn books in the winter for warmth.

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

  11. Oil pricing politics?
    Does politics or geophysics control oil supply, demand and prices?
    Bradley Parkes argues the Oligopoly case: Why the Peak Oil Argument Refuses to Die
    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-The-Peak-Oil-Argument-Refuses-To-Die.html
    For discussion see Oligopoly game theory http://thismatter.com/economics/oligopoly-game-theory.htm

    • I liked the oligopoly game theory. Small producers should have it so good.

      I just wish the price of oil would go back up.
      We could do it with the import duty. Consider what would happen if we gradually increased an import duty on foreign oil. We would buy less oil from foreign sources, thus reducing our trade deficit. Because the duty would increase the price of oil, the price of gasoline would rise, but domestic firms would have more incentive to drill, meaning more jobs for Americans, as well as another step toward energy independence. The environment would benefit as the higher prices encouraged consumers to use less gas by switching to more fuel efficient vehicles and economizing in other ways.

      Are there any downsides other than higher gas prices. Sure, but I will leave those for others to point out.

      I usually favor free trade, but if we are going to start slapping duties on imports, there are more reasons to penalize imported oil than imported manufactured goods.

      • David L. Hagen

        National vs Global Benefits?
        Differences are whose ox is being gored? vs who has the political clout? Vs economic “theory” for the “common” good?
        Cheap energy combined with policy drove dramatically helped the poor.
        Capitalism’s Triumph

        In the last 20 years, for instance, capitalism has lifted more than a billion people worldwide out of poverty, while the share of people in developing countries living on less than $1.25 a day has been cut in half. In China alone, 680 million people have been rescued from poverty, and the extreme-poverty rate has gone from 84 percent in 1980 to less than 10 percent today. In Africa, inflation-adjusted per capita incomes rose by an astonishing 97 percent between 1999 and 2010. Hunger in India shrank by 90 percent after the country replaced 40 years’ worth of socialist stagnation with capitalist reforms in 1991.

      • Max! You sound like Trump!

      • David – in addition to those points, we have also helped China build a military machine based on our money and technology, all because we want cheap goods and cheap labor. I’m not so sure pulling them out of the muck of poverty was such a great achievement after all.

      • I miss the cold war. We probably were better off with Russia being commie. We definitely were better off with China being commie.

      • I know, David, but China has become sort of a hybrid communist \capitalist country. Some call it State-directed capitalism.

  12. What, no comments on this thread about FBI Director Comey reopening the investigation into Clinton’s criminal activities?

    I think this might be a distraction to protect down ballot Democrats from 10 days of defending the collapse of their signature legislation: The (Un)Affordable Care Act.

    Too funny! Say goodnight Hillary.

  13. What, no comments on this thread about FBI Director Comey reopening the investigation into Clinton’s crimina1 activities?

    I think this might be a distraction to protect down ballot Democrats from 10 days of defending the collapse of their signature legislation: The (Un)Affordable Care Act.

    Too funny! Say goodnight Hillary.

  14. Don’t be a sap. The FBI is trying to distract the public from wikileaks. Hold your attention for a while, then … pffft, nothing there. You never were very bright.

  15. Witches’ brew of the presidential pretenders
    Greg Sheridan
    The Australian

    Excerpt:

    “ …

    Obama pioneered the first ever postmodern American foreign policy and while it may have failed utterly in the real world, it had a semiotic success, in the only two places that count for a postmodern politician — in the academy and on the liberal talk shows and conferences circuit, where, as a kind of upmarket, younger and suaver Bill Clinton, Obama is destined to make a great deal of money.

    To understand Obama’s foreign policy you have to get two key ideas. First, he knew almost nothing about foreign policy when he took over the presidency. Second, as a result, his first four years were radically different from, if not entirely antithetical to, his second four years.

    Obama knew so little of, and was so timid about, foreign policy and national security when he was first elected that he actually kept George W Bush’s defence secretary, Robert Gates. As Gates makes clear in his splendid memoirs, he essentially kept pursuing most of Bush’s policies in national security. And Obama appointed as secretary of state the most establishment and hawkish Democrat he could find, Hillary Clinton.

    Through a process more or less of dumb momentum, therefore, Obama’s first four years represented broad continuity in foreign policy. He started to venture down the postmodern road, criticising America as often as he rhetorically defended it, making diplomatic love the most to the people and leaders who hated America the most, from the Iranians to the Russians, and shunning its allies. But Gates and Clinton kept things on an even keel.

    As Obama grew more confident he dispensed with the dinosaurs of the past, appointing anonymous non-entities to defence and an empty suit with a bouffant hairdo at state. All decision making was centralised in the White House. Obama showed his disdain for allies, not least in the way he treacherously without notice attacked Tony Abbott, his most helpful ally in the world, over climate change at the G20 in Brisbane.

    Obama virtually gave up on his own Asia pivot, and especially on any serious effort to maintain international law in the South China Sea, so that the Chinese would not deny him another media orgasm and moment of postmodern bliss at the Paris climate conference.

    Of course, if this conference were really about saving the world, and were really in every nation’s interests, Obama would not have needed to bribe the Chinese with creeping appeasement in Southeast Asia in order to get their agreement to participate in a euphoric press conference and multi-media moment.

    But Obama made his strategic priorities clear, for him the orgasmic multi media moment wins every time.
    …”

    • Witches’ brew of the presidential pretenders – Excerpt continued :

      “In many respects Hillary is the most traditional of all these pretenders. She is the ultimate insider wheeler dealer. The amplitude of revelations in the Wikileaks emails of her campaign chairman, John Podesta, will keep us all busy for a long time. But what they suggest more than anything is an almost Warren Harding style determination to use public office for private profit for the Clinton family.

      The Clintons do this in a completely contemporary fashion. I am not suggesting Clinton is legally corrupt in the way Harding was, but the use of office for the overriding pursuit of money, fame, celebrity and power only loosely defined, is reminiscent of the Jazz Age.

      Commentators look at Wikileaks and are encouraged by Clinton’s pragmatism. She is an identity politics avatar to progressive audiences — the legal system is “riddled with systemic racism”, the whole of society suffers “implicit bias” on race issues, and to these audiences she is also the scourge of Wall Street, the avenger of the little people, but the Wikileaks emails show us that when she talks to Wall Street — admittedly at a price of a few hundred thousand bucks a time — she understands their pain. Wall St is misunderstood, she coos, if only more of them went into politics, and naturally she would like them to design any financial system reform she might undertake.
      There are worse things to be than a wheeler dealer in politics of course. An ideologue committed to a mad ideology is one. But this extreme plasticity in the Clinton policy persona means that her four years as secretary of state, in which she was mainstream and sensible, do not guarantee a similar approach as president.

      For the day after the election Hillary will focus on her next overriding objective, getting re-elected in four years time.

      And that could take her, and us, anywhere at all.”

  16. Hillary says lay it on me

    “Voting is underway, so the American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately,” Clinton said at a brief news conference in Des Moines, Iowa, adding it was “imperative that the bureau explain this issue in question, whatever it is, without any delay.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/

    America is waiting for Comey’s response.

    • As usual he pulls these stunts on Friday afternoons. It distracts the public from the collapse of Obamacare over the weekend.

    • Isn’t what Comey is saying that the FBI is still trying to determine whether or not Hillary sent classified information through non-secure channels in a way that violates the law? I think that’s what it means. The FBI was not convinced Hillary committed no crimes wrt handling classified information. In fact, it would seem to indicate some in the FBI thinks she did violate the law, otherwise why bother.

      Meanwhile, Comey states:

      “I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

      I wonder with whom he agreed. People in the FBI, presumably, since the letter was (probably) the first communication from the FBI to congress about the existence of the emails. But, it would be nice to know. I suppose he left that to our imagination, since it might be prejudicial to say people in the FBI, as the conclusion many would draw is agents in the FBI are furious Comey didn’t recommend prosecuting.

  17. Bernstein is feeble. The writer says “reopen.” He’s a n*tiwt. The investigation was never closed. New material to supplement the investigation found. Comey says new material pertinent, but may or may not be significant, and will know sometime, but can’t say when. Comey trying to protect himself. He’s now in a terrible situation.

    • Semantics. For all intents and purposes the investigation was closed. I’d love to know why Comey rejected Lynch’s wishes, and brought the scandal out in the public eye again now. How does a bought underling overrule his bosses and make an already-chaotic election more chaotic?

      • You could view him as a whistle blower?

      • Quoting Josh: “Just curious, does that logic apply to the sexual assault claims against Trump?” Or use of illegal immigrants to build his stuff, or the release of his tax returns surreptitiously? (just to name a few)

      • How does a bought underling overrule his bosses and make an already-chaotic election more chaotic?

        Because he could go to prison if he didn’t?

  18. Enthusiasm may be a big factor in who actually votes. Recently I drove 400 miles on I-81. Saw a lot of Trump stickers but not a single Clinton sticker. But then maybe Democrats stay in the cities.

    • At least the Yanks can repair the damage in 4 years time.
      Unfortunately the Brits have no such luxury with the Brexit.

      • From the article:

        LONDON—The U.K. economy delivered a twin boost for Prime Minister Theresa May’s government on Thursday, as Nissan Motor Co. confirmed a major investment in England’s northeast and post-Brexit-vote growth figures came in better than expected.

        The government trumpeted the news as a sign the country is absorbing the reverberations of the nation’s historic decision to depart the European Union, but economists cautioned that the greater test still lies ahead, as Mrs. May has yet to formally begin disentangling the U.K. from the 28-member club.

        In the most comprehensive picture since the June referendum, the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics said the economy expanded at an annualized rate of 2% in the three months immediately following June’s vote, slower than the 2.7% annualized pace clocked up in the second quarter. But that was better than many were expecting and far better than many economists had predicted if the U.K. voted to leave.

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-economy-sees-third-quarter-growth-of-0-5-after-brexit-vote-1477557714

      • The Brits have no damage to repair, globalist boy.

      • vuk

        Things will be tough in the next couple of years which the ‘remoaners’ will no doubt be gleeful about. However, our economy is basically strong, our exporters have been given a boost, tourism is booming as curious Europeans flock here to catch a glimpse of the strange island race that are the first to leave the EU asylum

        I for one am proud that we once again will be an independent sovereign country able to decide our own destiny, make our own laws, create our own trade deals without having corrupt and inefficient EU bureaucrats to decide that nanny knows best.

        PS How do you feel being on the same side of the debate as Tony Blair?

        tonyb

      • Jim

        for those interested, these are a couple of comments from our charming friends across the channel. They are determined to cause us maximum damage because we dared to say enough is enough.

        ‘Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, declares that for Brexiting Britain ‘there will only be salt and vinegar’.

        ‘there must be a threat ‘ said French President Francois Hollande; ‘ there must be a price…otherwise other countries or other parties will want to leave the European Union. ‘

        The arrogance of the political elite is breath taking. Fancy anyone wanting to leave their club from which they do very nicely with jobs for the boys and girls, great salaries, golden pensions, redundancy pay others can only dream of, barely scrutinised travel expenses and the expensive nonsense of rotating between two parliaments, one built to salvage the pride of the French.

        Our prime minister was allowed to speak for five minutes at 1am at the recent EU summit and was then snubbed by the unelected EU commissioner . The sooner we action clause 50 and can once again resume a sensible relationship with other countries that are not based on threats the better

        We would have left decades ago if we had been permitted a referendum

        There are many lessons here for the US whose elite are every bit as bad as those of the EU but at least you didn’t surrender your sovereignity

        tonyb

      • They need to figure out how to let their foreign labor force stay. That is part of their efficiency. The British won’t want those jobs unless they get higher wages, which is why they are not doing them now.

      • Tony – someone needs to remind Mr. Snort that salt and vinegar go hand-in-hand with fish and chips!! :)

      • Hi there boys
        Nissan – that is a joke supreme, they sell 90% of their cars to Europe, and they are doubling production capacity for the Brexit.
        Free trade with EU requires not only transparent borders but also a substantial membership fee. On the other hand if either the EU or the WTA introduces 10%+ tariffs, and Nissan is guaranteed same return in profits, then merry “May-pole dancing” Brits are going to subsidise either millions of the European car buyers or topping up Japanese factory owners bank accounts.
        No surprise Nissan is happy to double current output even before the Brexit, bring it on, can’t wait, either way Japs are doubling their net gains.
        There it goes your pension triple lock protection, followed by all kinds of benefits to the poor. People said they prefer to be ruled by their own parliament, which has now been bluntly told to shut up, to collect their substantial pay and expenses and keep their nose out of the government’s business.
        The other brilliant idea you often heard from the three Downing street “May-pole dancing” musketeers:
        “We sell to them 40 billion but they sell us 50 billion (or such like), so they have more to loose! “ Mind boggles.
        What’s wrong with you people, can’t you use your brains?
        There are 65M Brits and 450M European Unionists. Are you going to punish them by loosing 6 times more per head of population then they do?
        Tony Blair for ones in his life is talking some good sense.
        (ps not that I am shedding too many tears, European properties have gained about 20% in the recent months)

      • Since Britain is a large chunk of the EU, at least of the prosperous faction, the EU would be cutting off its nose to spite its face if they impose onerous restrictions. And then there is the entire rest of the world that Brits can freely do business with.

      • Curious George

        Vuk, new Supreme Court justices are there for the rest of their lives. Imagine a Supreme Court consisting of nine clones of Justice Sotomayor.

        Tony, I feel with you, but .. how was Prime Minister May elected?

      • Vuk

        According to the Guardian, (so it must be right) some 55% of UK car sales went to the EU.

        They also say
        “Also on Thursday, Nissan reported an 11% rise in global production in September to 485,154 cars – a record for the month. In the UK, it ramped up production by 6.6% to 50,133 cars, another record.”

        Nissan aren’t stupid, they have made a hard headed commercial decision to expand in the UK.

        As regards a tariff, I do not understand your maths. If we hard brexit and WTO tariffs are imposed on a roughly like for like basis of 2 to 10%, we buy £100 billion of goods from the EU and they buy £60 Billion from us. So per head we will make a handsome profit on the deal. Enough to ensure no market sector are disadvantaged by tariff impositions. mind you it can’t be open ended and must take into account the overall exchange rate of the pound.

        as regards a useful 20% profit on foreign homes, it depends when you buy or when you sell.. For a great deal of the last few years the Euro was around 84p to the pound. It is now around 90p.

        tonyb

      • Curious George

        We do not have a Presidential system so when we have a general election we are voting for a constituency MP NOT for the Prime Minister.

        The leader of the largest party then becomes Prime Minister. This is a very long standing tradition. The previous Prime minister Gordon Brown was Prime Minister because of being head of the largest party (never elected directly after becoming so) as was John Major and many others. There is nothing out of the ordinary with the election of Teresa May and if she had an election to ‘legitimise’ herself it would stand our constitution on its head

        Personally I think she is a bit of a ditherer but perhaps we need a period of calm reflection after the fiery furnace of Brexit.

        Having watched the extraordinary shenanigans of your presidential race which even then is decided by an electoral college, I prefer our system to yours. Its also quick and clean.

        tonyb

      • Curious George

        Tony, you are right. I took an issue with “the unelected EU commissioner”.

      • At least the Yanks can repair the damage in 4 years time.

        Nonsense! The US, under Obama, has done irreparable damage to world stability. The consequences will be forever. It’s a downhill run from here as the developed world sinks and is surpassed by a combination of power house states (Asia) and lunatics (Puttin, N. Korea, ISIS, etc).

      • Nonsense! The US, under Obama, has done irreparable damage to world stability. The consequences will be forever. It’s a downhill run from here as the developed world sinks and is surpassed by a combination of power house states (Asia) and lunatics (Puttin, N. Korea, IS1S, etc).

      • The Eu powering on w/out Britannica. )

      • Hi Ms Beth
        What EU needs is a sensible reform, and what no one needs or wishes for (I hope) is destruction of EU. It is in no one’s interest anywhere from Alaska to Australia to see disintegration of European Union with the overwhelming often crushing third world immigration, giving rise to even more rampant nationalism, be it Hungary and Austria or Germany and France, and all the consequences that may follow.
        The UK presence was contributing degree of wisdom to its course which sadly will not be there any longer, despite the fact that the most of environmental issues which people here object to, were not only supported but often initiated by the UK councillors.
        I hope that both UK and the EU are going to prosper along each other, it is in the interest of all of the well meaning people.

      • Certainly agree, Vuk, that reform creates less misery
        than than anarchist attempts to wipe the slate clean.
        That said, unelected elites in Brussels, making far-flung
        decisions and demanding even closer union of people
        with their own unique nation problems bodes ill for the
        supranational state.

        The EU needs more democracy to allow nations to regain
        control over their own destinies… Agree with much of the
        commentary by Stefan Auer in the following link.

        http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2011-12-01-auer-en.html

      • Vuk and Beth,

        What EU needs is a sensible reform, and what no one needs or wishes for (I hope) is destruction of EU. It is in no one’s interest anywhere from Alaska to Australia to see disintegration of European Union …

        I agree. However, I don’t see any signs on the horizon they recognise or are willing to accept the sort of reform they need, let alone leaders with the wisdom and competence to lead EU to make those changes.

      • As long as the people throughout the EU consider the EU elections as a bit of a joke, the Brussels’ merry go round’ will go on. We all have opportunity to vote for MEPs (EU MPs) but very few do, councillors are appointed by the member state governments, again the people we have elected. In short we get what we elect.

      • The whole structure is not suitable. EU has been taken over by the regressive-Left. EU will continue to go backwards until the focus is on free trade, competition, minimal regulation just to ensure fair competition, freedom of speech, freedom to think freely without being told what to do, say, think, eat, buy, etc. In short, get rid of the nanny state and the mothers to all – like ex-communist, Angela Merkel and socialist, François Hollande, and most of the other EU leaders and governments

      • Beth

        It would be a very interesting exercise for someone to chart at what stage the EU started diverging materially from the path that has made us Brits so uncomfortable. It started out as the iron, coal and steel community and morphs, via the EEC to the full blown EU we have today with far too many countries all at different stages of development, an unelected elite that wants even more Europe, its own currency, flag, national anthem and sundry other quasi trappings of statehood.

        I might like lots of people and want to cooperate and work closely with various of them at times but that doesn’t mean to say I want to marry all of them!

        I would place that time around 1992/1995 when the single market started coming in and most of the countries within the organisation were at roughly the same level of development.

        I hope some sort of close relationship can continue based on mutual respect, trade and common interests but it needs to be vastly different from the organisation we see today.

        The European leaders intend to make life VERY difficult for us to prevent other inmates leaving the asylum.

        tonyb

      • Tonyb,

        It would be a very interesting exercise for someone to chart at what stage the EU started diverging materially from the path that has made us Brits so uncomfortable.

        That’s easy to answer. The disruption started when Maggie Thatcher left office. :)

      • Petere

        The Parliament is the only directly elected EU body.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament

        The MEP covers roughly 800,000 people each and are often failed politicians so hardly in touch with the people they represent.

        Our MEP in the south west also covers Gibraltar. (look at a map!!) That and the fact that the EU shuttles at great expense between two parliaments-one built to placate French pride–tells us all we need to know about this over blown and ineffective organisation.

        tonyb

      • Tonyb,

        Thank you. I have a basic understanding of the EU system. I am after much bigger changes than just fiddling with deck chairs. i am hoping Brexit and threat of other exists, and threat or Russia, may make them consider the real underlying problems – and fix them before its too late. Massive change to the EU system is needed.

      • Don’t just blame Europeans, British are just as guilty as the rest of them,
        “Boris Johnson says Britain will now help Turkey join EU despite using prospect to help win referendum”
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/27/boris-johnson-says-britain-will-now-help-turkey-join-eu-despite/
        Imagine that nightmare, does the current British Foreign minister of all people in the UK government, know what is going on in Turkey, the 80 million strong Muslim country?!
        Mind boggles.
        We get what we have elected. I rest my case.

      • The problem is much deeper than just “you got what you elected”. The whole “constitution” of the EU is fundamentally flawed. I rest my case. :)

      • Mr. Lang
        EU current constitution is creation of member states, British had and still have powerful voice in there, British government could have put veto on any part of change in the Constitutiont, but they did not.
        Easiest thing to do is to blame the rest. British not Europeans elected the UK Governments, tacitly approving all changes step by step . It is Mr. Johnson who the Foreign secretary, second in ranking to the PM, the voice of the British state in the EU and the rest of the world, elected and appointed to his role by ‘us’ and not the Brussels lunatics. Anyone familiar with current Turkish political scene would realise how crazy that idea is, but then we live in ‘strange’ time on the both sides of Atlantic.

      • You are not getting what I am attempting to say.. It’s far more deepseated than just Brexit. Never mind. Let’s leave it.

      • I think I do know what you mean, it is just that I lived in the EU of one form or another for about forty years. Every step that the EU took was approved by the British government, else they got an exemption or put down veto as Mrs. Thatcher did every Tuesday and Thursday, and what did British do, forced her out of office over the EU.
        So what is there to complain about?
        Oh, yes, those unelected officials. It is rich of ‘us’ overhere to complain on that one too. All appointments are made by elected state governments. There are 7-800 unelected people in the British Parliament, the most recent appointment is the prime ministers hairdresser; don’t hear anyone screaming too much about it.
        EU is no better or worse than the member state governments that compose it and run it.
        We elect governments, they do it on our behalf, we don’t like it, so we elect the same people again and again.
        You are right, I’ve said enough else I might get deported, ‘prompto ut montenegro’

      • Every step that the EU took was approved by the British government

        That is totally irrelevant to the fact the EU is a basket case. It’s been taken over by the regressive Left. It’s totally dependent on the US for defence. It can’t eve take on Libya and does nothing to help with world peace and stability. It’s a basket case of socialism. The system is not working. It needs a representative properly working democracy, focus on global free trade instead of blocking it. Much more. Brexit occurred because of the mess EU is in. So much to point out but your on a totally different wave length trying to blame UK. You said “I rest my case”. You haven’t presented a case that is relevant. Let’s drop it. We’ll get no where on this.

      • Recently the British PM was ignored, in eyes of many possibly humiliated, by the Brussels’ third rate politicians, I was personally upset to see such situation.
        But it need not to be so, British were due to take over presidency of the EU council, but what they do, turn it down, failing in their duty of taking the responsibility for charting the EU-wide way ahead for the Brexit, so now no one knows what is going on, total shambles on the both sides.

      • Tony,

        The EU was likely never intended to be merely a
        common market. It’s following in the footsteps of
        empires in the past gaining sway over the provinces.
        Ruling elites are constitutionally drawn to empire
        building. Just require the means. Those checks and
        balances of democracy and constant vigilance, are
        so necessary, as we’re seeing acted out on the
        political stage right now.

        https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/beta-political/files/5-presidents-report_en.pdf

        ( Gotta’ go, Foyle’s War on TV. bts )

      • Vuk,

        You are clutching at straws and avoiding the real issue when truying to blame the problems with EU on the British. the problem is caused by the EU, not the British. You haven’t understood the depth of the problem.

      • Ah you mentioned socialism. Most of the objectionable changes came in the last 15-20 years. Tony Blair and his UK Socialist Government came to power in 1997 and they ruled until 2010, when the Tory-Liberal coalition took over, the Liberals were and are the most fervent supporters of everything EU, while PM Cameron agreeing to everything for the sake of coalition’s survival, that makes it 18 years of collaboration on the shape of EU that we have today.
        Mr. Lang not only that I lived through 40 years of it, but almost on the daily basis followed what went on in Brussels. My daughter who is a lawyer worked for EU on formulating laws and regulations for digital trading, currently in use by all EU countries. She was one of hundreds of UK legal experts working on various EU regulations, the British contingent often being one of top two.
        British were no better or worse than majority of the EU bureaucracy, but due to their economic strength and monetary contributions made, had more power than many to shape the EU according to what they thought the best.

      • Clearly, you are suffering from the group think and herd mentality of those working inside. You are incapable of looking objectively at the problem. Look at the results and the consequences. Look at the mass of excessive regulations telling everyone what they can and can’t do. But from your comments, it’s clear to me you are incapable of doing that. You are incapable of objective analysis of something you are so close to. You’d prefer to blame UK.

      • Boris’ dad has had a loot to do with some of those regulations.

      • You keep blaming the UK for the EU mess. Look at the EU regulations and you’ll understand why the UK was wise enough to see realise there was little likelihood the EU could fix itself. They wisely deserted the sinking ship.

        Go GB! I wish them well. I hope they can lead the developed world out of the mire again – as they did in WWII.

      • p.s. the experts, oh yes many there, some are asked to come back home to help with the Brexit negotiations; guess what, the word is they rather stay overthere and work on behalf of the EU. Brits are not to be beaten, not having enough domestic ones, all good lot gone native in Brussels, ‘we’ are importing negotiators from Australia and New Zeeland and now possibly Canada.
        To complete comic situation we may find during Brexit tournament games: Brits for EU vs. Commonwealth for the UK.
        Such is the life.

      • The EU leadership are behaving like petulant children.

      • Now you got it. Only thing is needed another poem from B. Johnson (google it)

      • Well, if comes to a fist fight, Brits MEPs have great advantage there, two UKIP’s Brexiters (UKIP is the largest UK contingent in the EU Parliament) had some practice the other day in the EU Parliament’s chamber, among themselves of course, the looser ending hospitalised for a week.

      • Vuk,

        You keep blaming the UK. It’s EU’s problem. Not UK’s. As long as the EU keeps trying to blame EU for their problem there is no chance of them recognising the real problem. So they won’t address it. Clearly the UK citizens realised this and made the right decisions – i.e. desert the sinking ship. Well done UK!!!

      • Correcrtion:

        s long as the EU keeps trying to blame UK for their problems there is no chance of them recognising the real problem and no chance of fixing it.

      • Peter

        Here is a timeline of the development of the EU

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6181087/Timeline-history-of-the-European-Union.html

        As can be seen the organisation today (28 members) bears no relation whatsoever to the organisation we voted to join in 1973 when we became the 9th member. The fact that the British took the first opportunity presented to them to leave this organisation speaks volumes. Its a shame this ‘first opportunity’ was denied to us for so long (since 1975) as they knew full well the result.

        tonyb

      • So in 1973, they threw you Brits into a pot of water, put it on the stove, and in the interim have been slowing upping the flame.

      • Jim

        The EU lobster strategy eh? Funny, I’ve never heard it mentioned in the European parliament but I suspect its clause 5550 of the Rome treaty…

        tonyb

      • Tonyb,

        The timeline of the development of the EU doesn’t mention when they opened the borders to allow free access to anyone who wants to come to the good life. The only requirement being you don’t die along the way.

      • Is it true Germany is on the verge of civil breakdown?

      • People’s power is not vested in the tabloids writing about strait bananas or bent cucumbers.
        People’s power is in their parliamentary representatives.

        To protect democracy you can’t have referendum every month on all sort of matters, matters are decided in the parliament, for which I have the utmost respect. Democracy is not preserved by a referendum or two every 40 years, it protected by the parliament’s supremacy over the executive.

      • jim2

        I think you must have been reading the express again….

        However, there is probably a kernel of truth in there, in as much crime has apparently soared over the last year or so and some germans who no longer feel safe are recognising the problems they have introduced.

        the german media-as with the swedes-are very reluctant to give ethnicity of any criminals where it is politically sensitive. So there are problems brewing which are probably not being fully acknowledged but are being flagged up by locals and some police chiefs.

        Since Merkel went mad however-about the time of the first greek crisis-she just refuses to acknowledge that her migrant whims are not universally popular.

        tonyb

      • Vuk,

        Your comments continually are missing the point. They are irrelevant to the points I’ve raised. Your comments suggest you have not begun to understand, let alone acknowledge, the depth and breadth of the problems with the EU – like most of the EU leaders. You and they appear to be in a state of Denial.

      • Mr. Lang
        I never said or considered that the EU is either perfect or that the UK is responsible for its ills.
        UK and Germany, the two strongest EU economies most often are on the same side of the argument, but didn’t do as much as they could and should have done.
        You disagree, yes, it is your free choice to do so.

        I don’t know what is your attitude to the current US presidential election, I am not any kind of expert on the subject, but it appears to me that is a big mess.

        Just thinking, wouldn’t you consider it good idea to get rid of presidential elections, i.e. to have an American ‘Elecexit’, go back to the ‘good old days’, have Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II as the head of the state, and just elect your senators and congressmen to run the country?

        Looking from this side of the pond, the TonyB & Brexitiers (sounds like a folk band) would welcome you with the open arms, Trump could come to, but as an ordinary subject of Her Majesty.
        However, you may need to learn how to swear the allegiance, as I did nearly 40 years ago.

        If there is a serious problem, it needs sorting out, not running away from it.

      • Vuk,

        Your arguments atre all over the place. A succession of attempts to difver the discussion from recognising the deep seated problems with the EU. Forget about the UK and the US. Just focus on the deep problems with the EU. Understand them. Explain them. Acknowledge them. then consider how to rectify them. It will require a major restructuring of the EU system. It will take a decades to achieve.

      • Ah, yes, maybe, etc… not to mention that our suddenly anorexic looking the Lady Pound Sterling would gladly welcome the protective company of the younger handsome the muscle bound Mr. Buck Dollar.

      • Vukek,

        Your comments are really silly. Clearly you have limited understanding of time scales and you are incapable of analysing what is important. Your avoidance of the real issues is a sign you are in denial, like most of the EU leadership has been for many decades. There is so much you could analyse, if you opened your mind and looked at the problem objectively.

      • Vuk,

        Some issues that point to the deep seated problems with the EU

        Lack a porperly working constitution and representative democracy

        Lack a defence force capable of defending EU – couldn’t even fight Libya

        Lack control of your borders

        Socialism has taken over

        Socilaist ideology pervades everything = education, media, laws and regulations

        Huge unemployment in many states

        Massive cross subsidies within EU – e.g to French farmers

        Highly protectionst trade barriers

        Ideological belief in CAGW is doing enormous damage

        – carbon pricing, ETS carbon taxes in some states

        – renewable energy requirements

        – huge cost of anti-nuclear beliefs

        This is just a few off the top of my head. The EU is a basket case.

      • Mr. Lang
        It is hard to believe that you know anything about the EU.
        British are and were vetoing creation of the EU defence force, France & Germany hope to start it after the Brexit.
        Thatcher uniquely got rebate on account of the excessive French farmers subsidy. Many UK farmers would be in trouble if it wasn’t for the subsidy, they are anxious that the government will replace it after the brexit. Our royal family gets more than £1,000,000 annually in farm subsidy from EU. All the rest you complain about were and are strongly promoted by our government. Have you any idea what is percentage of nuclear in France? They are about to build latest and largest nuclear power station in England, since UK has no expertise any longer to do it .
        Have a nice day and good bye to you sir.

  19. You beat me to it :) He’s the official Poster Boy for the Dimowit party!

  20. The (politically verbose) Denizens here seem to caught up in the US election and Brexit, but there’s more revolution about. From the article:

    REYKJAVIK (Reuters) – Iceland’s anti-establishment Pirate Party is in a tight race to become the largest party in parliament after an election on Saturday called when the prime minister resigned as a result of the Panama Papers scandal.

    The Pirates have been riding a wave of anger against the establishment in a country that was one of the hardest hit in the 2008 financial crisis when its banking system collapsed, hitting thousands of savers.

    Polls put it in close second place to the Independence Party, currently the junior partner in the governing coalition.

    It wants, among other things, to give asylum to U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden, accept the bitcoin virtual currency and clean up corruption.

    The Pirates – founded less than four years ago as a protest movement against global copyright laws, and whose election campaign is partly crowdfunded – have 21 percent in a Morgunbladid poll published on Friday.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-establishment-pirates-tight-race-win-icelandic-election-125057748–sector.html

  21. From the article:

    Gowdy called Comey’s letter “cryptic,” but added he was going to let the FBI do their job. However, he suggested Clinton had no one to blame but herself.

    “It’s pretty extraordinary because Secretary Clinton has an extraordinary email arrangement with herself,” Gowdy said. “And she’s the author of her own destiny. Everything that has happened since then, it is the natural probable consequence of deciding you’re going to have a rogue email system. So, I understand she’s upset and I understand she doesn’t like the timing but she need not look further than herself.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/10/28/gowdy-on-fbi-announcement-hillary-the-author-of-her-own-destiny-need-not-look-further-than-herself/

  22. Now I know Billary is getting desperate. She’s trotting out that old Dimowit mainstay: “The Children.” She fights to allow them to be k*lled. From the article:

    Flanked by giants of the abortion industry as she spoke in Cedar Rapids, Iowa at a women’s rally, Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton emphasized that one of her primary areas of focus as president will be the welfare of children.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/28/hillary-clinton-fighting-kids-cause-life/

  23. Clinton’s surrogate parents failed to tell her “no.” Yeah, that’s it! From the article:

    Hillary Clinton’s allies were cast into a state of anger and disbelief over the FBI’s stunning announcement that it is reviewing new emails “pertinent” to Clinton’s use of a private email server.

    That shocking development — revealed in a letter to Congress by FBI Director James Comey — pushed some of Clinton’s allies past the boiling point.

    They said they were “dumbfounded” by the revelation that the new FBI review may have been spurred by a separate investigation into Anthony Weiner sending lewd texts to a minor. Weiner is separated from wife Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s closest aides.

    And they worried that Clinton’s unconventional email arrangement had finally caught up to her and might imperil her presidential bid less than two weeks before Election Day.

    “I’m livid, actually,” one Clinton surrogate told The Hill. “This has turned into malpractice. It’s an unforced error at this point. I have no idea what Comey is up to but the idea this email issue is popping back up again is outrageous. It never should have occurred in the first place. Someone somewhere should have told her no. And they didn’t and now we’re all paying the price.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303402-anger-disbelief-in-clinton-camp

    • Looks like this will fizzle out, starved of facts, because the FBI can’t put out details before the election. Comey is already being criticized for not respecting the 60-day window, and that was when he said hardly anything.

      • It takes about a week for these things to “play out.” And you don’t know what’s coming out in Wikileaks on top of this latest (incompetent) Billary fiasco. This woman can’t even manage her own affairs, why anyone would want her for President is beyond me.

      • Podesta’s emails showed nothing special, so who’s next?

      • “nothing special” Right JimD. Nothing to see here, move along. Ha!

      • Yes. Next.

      • The very fact that the FBI has proof it can’t ignore that these emails were being saved off onto an unsecured machine is a big issue.

        The FBI had already had testimony that this was going on, but they swept it under the rug, probably at the corrupt urging of the Attorney General.

        But once those machines were in Federal hands, it became impossible to ignore. Comey was guilty of giving in to corrupt pressure, and now he’s in full CYA mode. If he hadn’t released this information as soon as he had it, he would have faced being convicted by a special prosecutor (appointed by a Republican Congress) and going to prison even if Horrible Hillary had been elected.

        Or she could have pardoned him. But even without a pardon, she faces a huge likelihood of being impeached before she ever takes office. If the American people are really dumb enough to elect her.

      • ==> The FBI had already had testimony that this was going on, but they swept it under the rug, probably at the corrupt urging of the Attorney General. ==>

        So interesting, the perspectives that this election is bringing to the surface.

      • This is an extraordinary event, Jimmy Dee.

        Even you must be curious about what the FBI has that they felt had to come out ten days before the election.

        Even you must suspect it’s something serious as a heart attack otherwise they’d have kept it to themselves for a mere ten more days.

        My next door neighbor is a retired FBI special agent. The scuttlebutt is that Comey was about to be drawn and quartered by the FBI’s rank and file for folding under pressure and treating the Clinton cartel as too big to jail. Hillary is a fel0n and her campaign is flush with more of them. The FBI knows it and eventually everyone else will too.

        Watch for the DemocRATS to start leaving the sinking ship. It looks like Obama quickly threw her under the bus and cancelled all campaigning for her. I’m sure he’s shiitting bricks right now wondering if there’s anything incriminating about himself in the WeinerGate data.

      • Fascinating:

        ==> It looks like Obama quickly threw her under the bus and cancelled all campaigning for her. ==>

        Indeed…

        –snip–

        Late Friday night, the White House very quietly CANCELED all of Barack Obama’s scheduled campaign appearances on behalf of Hillary Clinton!

        –snip–

        http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/white-house-cancels-all-obama-appearances-at-hillary-campaign-events-

        Well now, then there’s this:

        –snip–

        President Obama has a very busy week ahead of him. According to a schedule released by the White House, the president plans to campaign Tuesday through Friday next week for Hillary Clinton. He is likely to keep up the vigorous campaign schedule in the days leading up to the election.

        –snip–

        http://www.npr.org/2016/10/29/499639406/obama-ramps-up-appearances-in-final-campaign-sprint

        Amazing that the “MSM” is keeping up the charade, isn’t it? Thanks god for the rightwing media to keep us informed about the “rigging.”

      • Since the prrty (or whatever) site who ‘broke’ the news of Obama cancelling and ‘screen grabbed’ Hillary’s site, me being a real skeptic, went there and found: https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/

        To my surprise (not) Obama is on the schedule. Amazing that.

      • Look. “The MSM” even made a fake video of Obama speaking last night:

        http://on.flatoday.com/2eF1COv

        President Obama speaks at UCF to support Hillary Clinton. Video by Tim Shortt, FLORIDA TODAY Posted Oct. 28, 2016

      • To my surprise (not) Obama is on the schedule. Amazing that.

        If you go to the very bottom of the Red Flag page, you’ll find the following update:

        After screenshots taken and story posted, the website updated with Obama on schedule!

        Interesting. It would certainly be plausible that Obama’s engagements were taken off in panic, then replaced after he had a minute to think.

        It would also be possible to fake that screen grab, I could probably do it in a couple hours by editing the HTML from a saved-off copy.

        The fact that they don’t mention the Wayback Machine, or any other archiving utility, suggests that they didn’t even know enough to archive a copy in case the page changed again. Anybody who understands this stuff knows how easy it would be to fake, and would have archived copies as evidence. Unless they were faking it.

        P.S. The most recent archive, from this morning has Obama there.

        The next previous archive, from October 16, only goes (partway) through 10/28.

        Another thing, the schedule on the right includes yesterday (10/28) but the one on the left starts with today (10/29). It seems very likely to me that the order is reversed, and the one on the right was captured earlier.

        Hard to believe they faked it and put in a day (10/28) that the current schedule lacks. So it’s somewhat likely that Obama hadn’t scheduled any more after his 10/28 speech until after the news broke, and the one on the left is the most current, including a whole bunch of newly scheduled Obama appearances.

        I’d guess the Red Flag operation (whoever they are) got the orders of screen grabs mixed up and were seduced by confirmation bias.

  24. I did not see a link for the cracked article so here it is for anyone interested

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

    I think it says a lot about the resentment felt in rural America (flyover country) for what happens in urban areas and DC.

    • “it says a lot about the resentment felt in rural America”

      Gee, ya think? Really?

    • If there was a civil war in the US, rural vs. urban, how long would it last?

      The way I see it cities are what we refer to as “soft” targets. Their food, water, and electricity come in on narrow arteries. So say those arteries were tactically cut. Take out a water main here, some high tension electrical lines there, and maybe a few bridges. The bridges are probably overkill. White flags would by waving in the hands of the city slickers in 48 hours. Maybe less. Quickest civil war in recorded history. Does that sound about right?

    • You know where a lot of those beat to shiit country bumpkins go to escape the rural blight in small town America to make something of themselves?

      I’ll give you three chances to say “United States Armed Forces”.

      Here’s a clue. They still love where they grew up and when the shiit hits the fan, well, that’s where their hearts will be.

      Another thing of note is that a majority of urban police forces are former military. They are, not surprisingly, interested in law & order. Interested in a society where they could do their jobs without really needing to wear a gun.

      Make America Mayberry Again!

  25. Hey Ubik, whoever you are, any further denial that Clinton’s poll numbers are cratering? I snapped a pic of them this time so you can’t argue with the numbers.

    Are you as excited as I am to see how they look after the FBI news gets baked into them? :-)

    • You spent a dozen of posts last week arguing trump’s lead of 1 (one) point in the IBD poll (“the best performing poll of 2012”) meant he would win. Today’s numbers from that same poll-

      IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 45, trump 41, Johnson 7, Stein 2 Clinton +4

      IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 46, trump 41 Clinton +5

      Are you now going to say it’s rigged? lol

      You have a very curious definition of ‘cratering’. And you think a 13 point deficit in trump’s favorability rating is something to crow about…

      In any event, as I keep having to repeat. Obama had only a 0.9 lead in the RCP average against romney. How did that turn out?

  26. The FBI is acting independently of DOJ. This is SWEET!!! From the article:

    On Friday, James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting independently of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to Congress saying that the F.B.I. had discovered e-mails that were potentially relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server. Coming less than two weeks before the Presidential election, Comey’s decision to make public new evidence that may raise additional legal questions about Clinton was contrary to the views of the Attorney General, according to a well-informed Administration official. Lynch expressed her preference that Comey follow the department’s longstanding practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations, and not taking any action that could influence the outcome of an election, but he said that he felt compelled to do otherwise.

    Comey’s decision is a striking break with the policies of the Department of Justice, according to current and former federal legal officials. Comey, who is a Republican appointee of President Obama, has a reputation for integrity and independence, but his latest action is stirring an extraordinary level of concern among legal authorities, who see it as potentially affecting the outcome of the Presidential and congressional elections.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/james-comey-broke-with-loretta-lynch-and-justice-department-tradition

  27. Dammit. Election fraud is rampant after all.

    One person commits for a Republican Mayoral candidate.
    One person commits for legal dope (not Trump, in this case)
    One person commits for legal dope (Trump, in this case).

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article111029767.html

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/10/28/voter-fraud-suspect-arrested-des-moines/92892042/

      • Steven,
        Yep. It’s amazing what you have the opportunity to see if you’re willing to actually look. Only 28 states bother to, according to your link. Simple. If one is registered to vote in more than one state and state registrations are compared, the likelyhood of actual voter fraud is reduced.

        Implications are ‘fraud’ is due to leftists. Yet how many states have Republican control in the Governors office and legislative branches, or both?

        Focus is on ID’s. Seems misdirected if one has actual concerns about election rigging.

        The concern is not really about fraud, it’s about optics.

      • Hmm. Seems that article dates to April of 2014. Digging and found this which has references dating in to 2015 and details about a 2nd system, for those interested. http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/1d6cccf4b34b9645da_hdm6i29rp.pdf

        http://ericstates.org/

        https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files/2013/09/SOS-Kris-Kobach-Interstate-Crosscheck-PCEA-.pdf

        I have a chip in my credit card. Creating an equivalent for voting at no cost seems plausible.

      • ==> the tool only works if you actually check ==>

        Who checked? Have you seen the results of the probe? Interesting that the “new evidence” is data from 2014, isn’t it?

        http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/voter-fraud-north-carolina-not-so-fast-0

      • Danny –

        ==> Yep. It’s amazing what you have the opportunity to see if you’re willing to actually look. Only 28 states bother to, according to your link. ==>

        What are they looking for, exactly? Voter fraud? What is your evidence that the 28 states are looking for voter fraud? Obviously, cross-checking names and birthdates is not checking for voter fraud, not even adding cross-checks for names, birthdates, and last four digits of the SSN is checking for voter fraud.

        As it turns out, those who actually check for voter fraud don’t seem to have found very many examples.

        But as much as there might be the potential for voter fraud, let’s not forget the ramifications of those who claim evidence of voter fraud, on a massive scale even, when they don’t have such, and when they use such facile claims as a basis for passing legislation that could very well disenfranchise voters, and underrepresented voters disproportionately.

      • Josh,

        “What are they looking for, exactly?” Duplicate records. Thread begins here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/28/week-in-review-politics-edition-15/#comment-820427

        The best answer is ericstates.org and a google search about the crosscheck tool. (It’s in the thread and I recommend you read it if you interested in the fraud topic)

        Some conflate voter registration issues with voter fraud. My contention is that voter registration is in fact a tool capable of reduction of instances of voter fraud. Springer thinks I’ve lost my mind but I remind him I could register a billion registrations and not lead to one instance of actual voter fraud. But we know he doesn’t think things thru if they don’t fit his narrative.

        Voter fraud is an area of concern. I’m okay with ID’s but not to the point of disenfranchisement. An example is states being willing to take massive funds and award degrees under their names yet disallowing the use of university ID’s. And, ID laws won’t touch the biggest areas of actual voter fraud concerns such as: vote buying, official misconduct, absentee ballot fraud. And I’m on record that those who purposefully cause disenfranchisement should suffer a legal fate aligned with those who conduct actual fraud.

      • Your comment is awaiting moderation.
        Josh,

        “What are they looking for, exactly?” Duplicate records. Thread begins here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/28/week-in-review-politics-edition-15/#comment-820427

        The best answer is ericstates.org and a google search about the crosscheck tool. (It’s in the thread and I recommend you read it if you interested in the fraud topic)

        Some conflate voter registration issues with voter fraud. My contention is that voter registration is in fact a tool capable of reduction of instances of voter fraud. Sprin**ger thinks I’ve lost my mind but I remind him I could register a billion registrations and not lead to one instance of actual voter fraud. But we know he doesn’t think things thru if they don’t fit his narrative.

        Voter fraud is an area of concern. I’m okay with ID’s but not to the point of disenfranchisement. An example is states being willing to take massive funds and award degrees under their names yet disallowing the use of university ID’s. And, ID laws won’t touch the biggest areas of actual voter fraud concerns such as: vote buying, official misconduct, absentee ballot fraud. And I’m on record that those who purposefully cause disenfranchisement should suffer a legal fate aligned with those who conduct actual fraud.

      • Danny

        “Steven,
        Yep. It’s amazing what you have the opportunity to see if you’re willing to actually look. Only 28 states bother to, according to your link. Simple. If one is registered to vote in more than one state and state registrations are compared, the likelyhood of actual voter fraud is reduced.

        Implications are ‘fraud’ is due to leftists. Yet how many states have Republican control in the Governors office and legislative branches, or both?

        Focus is on ID’s. Seems misdirected if one has actual concerns about election rigging.

        The concern is not really about fraud, it’s about optics.

        ##############

        I dont see how this comes close to addressing the point.

        As for Optics. I see no evidence that its about Optics.

      • Steven,
        “I dont see how this comes close to addressing the point.” Maybe you’ll need to clarify your point.

        “As for Optics. I see no evidence that its about Optics.”

        Optics are what Trump is promoting. He puts out commentary that election is rigged and voter fraud is rampant and does so w/o evidence. Why might he do so?

      • “Steven,
        “I dont see how this comes close to addressing the point.” Maybe you’ll need to clarify your point.
        ##########################

        the point cant be much clearer. registration, whether it be guns or voters, or guys who lobby, only works if you actually use the tool.
        So with double voting it only works if you actually check. Like with gun registration. you wouldnt suggest that it would work if you actually never did a back ground check.

        “As for Optics. I see no evidence that its about Optics.”

        Optics are what Trump is promoting. He puts out commentary that election is rigged and voter fraud is rampant and does so w/o evidence. Why might he do so?

        1. you are asserting that there is no evidence, when there is evidence.
        2. Had you argued that he is making a case on CONTESTED evidence you’d be on firmer epistemic ground.
        for example.. trump uses this study
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

        Now clearly refering to a published paper is not NO EVIDENCE.. the paper has been criticized.. so we have contested evidence.. not no evidence.

        3. Why Might he do so? occam says.. because he believes it.
        Or what evidence do you have of your mind reading abilities..

        basically Trump gets to make a case based on contested evidence.
        heck, folks contest the evidence of climate change and that doesnt stop me from making a case. BLM gets to make a case of being brutalized by police when the evidence is contested. Clinton gets to make a case that Trump is a tax evader when the evidence is contested.

      • Steven,
        Not even wrong.
        From Sci/Direct: “The question of noncitizen voting is, in the end, a political rather than a legal one.” Non citizens used to vote. States make the rules.

        “1. you are asserting that there is no evidence, when there is evidence”
        No sir. That was never my assertion. My assertion is that clearly and without a doubt registration is a tool to reduce the likelyhood of actual voter fraud. If citizenship proof is a requirement this would further lead to a reduction in non-citizen voting. There is clearly evidence of duplicate registrations and even rolls which have not been cleaned of deceased, but that does not equal evidence for actual voter fraud. http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf

        It’s not helpful to conflate voter registration issues with actual vote fraud.

        In the sci/direct work are quite a number of maybe’s, but actual confirmed I don’t see any in a quick review. I will read more fully and I thank you for the link. Interestingly it does make this statement: “Our results also suggest that photo-identification requirements are unlikely to be effective at preventing electoral participation by non-citizen immigrants:………..”

        Even your link from 2014 was overblown based on: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/voter-fraud-north-carolina-not-so-fast-0
        and here: https://www.facingsouth.org/2014/04/after-initial-hysteria-back-pedaling-over-nc-voter.html
        h/t Josh u a

        “because he believes it” That’s one theory, o’ great mindreaderyourownself. He also believes he’s presidential material. So much for theories.
        Or alternatively it could (equally plausibly) be because he sees it as a way to ‘manipulate’ the voting population, cause (indirectly and accidentally of course) voter intimidation by others, and so on.

      • Danny Thomas version 1

        ‘Optics are what Trump is promoting. He puts out commentary that election is rigged and voter fraud is rampant and does so w/o evidence. Why might he do so?”

        Danny Thomas version 2

        ‘“1. you are asserting that there is no evidence, when there is evidence”
        No sir. That was never my assertion.’

        Danny 1: he puts out commentary with no evidence
        danny 2: that was never my assertion.

        Version 3?

      • Steven,

        This discussion between you and I began here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/28/week-in-review-politics-edition-15/#comment-820439 where I clearly stated: “Voter registration fraud is not Voter fraud. Voter registration is a tool used in part to insure AGAINST voter fraud.” This : ““1. you are asserting that there is no evidence, when there is evidence”
        No sir. That was never my assertion.’ is where the context of this comment came in.

        The optics comment came in much later. At that point you stated: ““As for Optics. I see no evidence that its about Optics.”

        In response you provided evidence and stated ‘that’s what Trump uses’ referring to the Sci/Direct work. I’ve never seen any article or quote where Trump provided evidence. I can’t read all, but I read much. Show me a link where Trump provided the evidence.

  28. Hillary loses 10 points in 5 days in ABC News Tracking poll. And this doesn’t have the new FBI fiasco reflected in it yet.

    Where’s Ubik now, huh? C’mon Ubik. Daddy wants to play.

    • I love how you vacillate between saying that polls that vary dramatically over short periods of time aren’t meaningful, and crowing when polls vary dramatically over short periods of time – all depending on the direction in which they vary.

      Did you learn nothing from your comments about the post-convention bounce (based on short-term variation in the LA Times poll)?

      Did you learn nothing from your comments about Trump’s support among African Americans (based on short-term variation in the LA Times poll)?

      It was rather predictable that the polls would tighten closer to election day, with Clinton’s lead diminishing. It seems likely that Trump will get a bounce over the whole Abedin email thing – making it even closer.

      It will likely be a close election, rather predictable by the fact that the electorate is evenly divided, and the fact that we have two candidates with historically bad favorability ratings, with the one whose favorability is the lowest running against the incumbent party in a mediocre economy.

      • Josh@a

        I think you were around at the time, but wasn’t it Gary who was utterly convinced that Obama was going to lose the ladt election and when he didn’t claimed the result was a fraud?

        Tonyb

      • tony –

        Gary, like a lot of “conservatives” who were very confident in their analytical skills, were quite convinced of a conspiracy among pollsters – whereby they “skewed” their data so as to give Obama an boost by making it seem that he’d get a larger share of the vote than he was destined to get.

        The only problem was that actually, Obama **underperformed** his polling.

        Remember that Romney was so convinced of the “skewing” theory that he was absolutely shocked when he lost, even though he lost by a significant margin.

        I don’t recall Gary saying that the result was fraudulent after the election was over. He certainly ducked accountability for his flawed analysis, but he didn’t go that far.

        What is so interesting to me is to see so many “conservatives” watch Trump claim that the polls are rigged, except when he likes the results. It was funny to read that recent post that Judith put up about a “culture of victimhood” among scientists, without any actual evidence to support an assertion that such an attribute applies to scientists more than anyone else. Just look at the culture of victimhood here in the states among political partisans. In particular, “conservatives” are absolutely convinced that they are the victim of the press, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, etc. Not that liberals don’t play the game, they certainly do – but it seems to me that Trump supporters and folks like Hannity have made victimhood their core sense of identity.

      • tony –

        Re: that culture of victimhood thing:

        –snip–

        max –

        “I wasn’t planning on doing it twice. It was a spur of the moment,” Rote told Iowa Public Radio. “The polls are rigged.” She said she feared her first vote for Trump would be changed to a vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

        –snip–

        http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/Trump-supporter-arrested-voter-fraud-polls-are-rigged.html

        My bold. The polls are “rigged,” She’s a victim. So she voted twice.

        Just perfect.

  29. For those who think it’s important to listen to those actually in the trenches: “Of course there’s always room for improvement,” says Chris Cabrera, a local official with the National Border Patrol Council in McAllen. “But you can’t just start saying, ‘Let’s fix it, let’s fix it, let’s fix it’ when you don’t even understand what you’re trying to fix.”

    Important words…………..”when you don’t even understand what you’re trying to fix.”

    It’s a tough job in a tough environment and it takes tough individuals. But they must be held to tough standards.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/10/29/499739689/combating-corruption-u-s-customs-and-border-protection-seeks-deep-reform

  30. From the article:

    The FBI announced Friday it had uncovered news emails related to its investigation of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton‘s handling of classified information while conducting a separate investigation into the pervy sexting habits of former Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner. Weiner of course is the estranged husband of Hillary’s closest aide, Huma Abedin who herself figures prominently in Clinton’s email scandals.

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump saw this coming from a mile away, fingering Weiner as a potential national security threat all the way back in August of 2015. “It came out that Huma Abedin knows all about Hillary’s private illegal emails,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Huma’s PR husband, Anthony Weiner, will tell the world.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/29/trump-called-it-months-ago-anthony-weiner-threatens-national-security.html

  31. No surprise that you lack the capability to comprehend the distinction.

    You can go out right now and register a billion names and not create one vote. Even you can’t be that lacking in intelligence so I’ll just assume you wanted to try to attack me by saying I lost my mind. Feel better now?

  32. It’s all perfectly legal of course, but nevertheless, they are the slimiest of the slimy. From the article:

    Donald Trump and fellow Republicans are reviving long-simmering allegations of murky deals and ‘pay-to-play’ surrounding the Clintons, in the wake of new revelations from WikiLeaks-published emails about how the family, their foundation and the Hillary Clinton State Department operated alongside each other.

    “The more emails WikiLeaks releases, the more the lines between the Clinton Foundation, the Secretary of State’s office, and the Clintons’ personal finances are blurred,” the GOP presidential nominee said in a statement Thursday.

    Emails unearthed from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s hacked account reveal numerous conflict-of-interest concerns raised by Clinton Foundation staffers and subsequent efforts to separate the entangled companies and roles that made Bill and Hillary Clinton wealthy. The messages also dredge up the several companies that donated to the Foundation – and at the same time had business before the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

    “If the Clintons were willing to play this fast and loose with their enterprise when they weren’t in the White House, just imagine what they will do if they are given the chance to control the Oval Office,” Trump said.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/28/trump-gop-seize-on-new-clinton-cash-revelations-to-revive-pay-to-play-charge.html

  33. Re-posting this on the right thread.

    How can you people vote for this grifter. From the article:

    The Nuclear Option — Wikileaks Reveals Even Hillary’s Own Staff Knows Truth: She’s Psychotic

    Turns out the Clintons have been right all along: Lying really does work.
    Poring through all these purloined emails, you get the sense that these people spend every breathing second of their day either lying, plotting to tell lies or lying about lies they told in the past.

    And each batch of stolen emails is worse than the last.

    Hillary Clinton is a liar. She has terrible instincts. She doesn’t believe in anything. Her head is broken. She doesn’t know why she should be president. She is pathological. And she is psychotic.

    Just ask everybody who works for her. Just ask campaign chairman John Podesta. Just ask the people working the hardest to get her elected president.

    I mean, in her most rabid streak of attacks on Donald Trump’s alleged unfitness for office, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t call him “psychotic.”

    Psychotic! That is what her campaign chairman called her.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/29/nuclear-option-wikileaks-reveals-even-hillarys-staff-knows-truth-shes-psychotic/

  34. Duel polls and bad behaviors on the part of two candidates. Posted this on the immediately preceding thread and zero comments so would like to bring it here for discussion about an actual potential positive: ““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.”

    • Nothing can make Billary an acceptable candidate. Can’t wait for the next batch of Billarymails.

      • Jim2,

        Once again, you make a complete and utter fool of yourself. What I linked to and find that may indeed be a net positive, is a Trump proposal. And it may be a good one. Leaping w/o looking makes for an entertaining landing.

      • What you linked, Danny, is irrelevant. Nothing can make Billary an acceptable candidate.

  35. Winston Churchill had a simple answer to the questions:
    Why Brits voted for the Brexit ?
    Why Yanks have such ‘inspiring presidential’ choice?

    “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

    • Vuk

      He also said ‘democracy is the worst form of government ,,,except for all the other forms.’

      With self serving war mongering politicians like tony Blair, now firmly on your side Vuk, isn’t it a good job we can throw them out?

      Tonyb

      • Tony
        Churchill had in mind Parliamentary Democracy which sadly has been suspended for time being.
        Royal prerogative as its name implies has very little to do with democracy and people, it is a tool of an authoritarian regime. Tony Blair is calling for return of the parliamentary democracy, and I would gladly support him on that.
        Referendums, first, second or any kind is no good, specially if irreversible.
        The best democracy I know of is what the British had: elect your MP, let him/her vote on your behalf, and if you are not happy you can change your choice few years later.
        I ask any American admirer of Brexit: would you give priority to the Royal prerogative, over the elected Parliament as a way of making important decision?
        Any PM who humiliates the elected parliament does it not only at his/her own peril, but far more importantly at the peril of the people and the country.

      • AK was one of those 0.6′ ers.

      • vuk – As an American observer, I would note the people have expressed their wish. At this point, the people having made that choice, the representative wouldn’t be very representative, if you catch my meaning.

        After all, the vote was set up by a government official acting well within his authority. That means the vote is legitimate and should be taken as binding by Parliament.

        This does not mean Parliamentary system is done for.

      • Vuk

        You do realise the Uk has had eleven referendum since 1973? The one previous to the recent EU one occurred around 2012 on the constitution

        http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/

        Do not forget also that it was a referendum in 1975 that confirmed our membership of the EU in the first place!

        Was that referendum valid because it gave the ‘right’ result but a regerndum forty years later on EXACTLY the same question that gave the ‘wrong’ result is somehow illegitimate?

        Tonyb

      • I know of some in the past and even remember voted in the last two, no idea what happen in the rest.
        UK constitution says referendums are advisory.
        So who is suppose to be advised ? Parliament of course.
        Why is the Royal Prerogative needed? Is it to override will of the elected parliament?
        Was the RP used before, or did the parliament agreed and the law was accordingly adjusted by an act of the parliament?
        Or was it a decision of a single person that happened to be PM at the time using the RP?
        What if the Great Repeal Act is voted down by parliament?
        General election on a single issue, never a good thing, which could be won by either side.

      • p.s. It might take another 40 years to decide was it ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ referendum result.
        I suspect there will be lot of ‘cross-dressing’ of views on the both sides in the years to come.

      • Vuk

        Please explain why you believe the first EU referendum vote in 1975 was valid but the one in 2016 was not?

        They were on PRECISELY the same subject, whether we should stay in the EU or leave it. You can not have it both ways by claiming the first is legitimate whilst the second is not.

        For the record I voted to stay in 1975. The organisation at the time – the EEC- is a very different entity now to what it was then . Surely we have the right to vote to stay in or leave what is now a totally different set up to the one we originally voted on?

        Tonyb

      • Tony, don’t listen to Max concerning Romney. The Dimowits went after him also. He wasn’t spared because he was a “gentleman.” See …

        http://humanevents.com/2012/09/08/top-10-democratic-attacks-on-mitt-romney/

      • Tony
        It is job and the duty of the elected parliament to decide if it is right or wrong for the country and not individual voters, or any individual person. In this case it should be the parliament to authorise or instruct the PM to enacted article 50. Was it Tony Blair or Gordon Brown that brought the Lisbon agreement to the parliament, which if it was not passed, there would be no ‘article 50’ which provides for an expedient Brexit, otherwise the Brexit would be a real royal mess, with or without the Royal Prerogative.
        No idea what happened in 1975, was not involved, was not on voting register and when UK decided to join I was glad.
        I voted for proportional representation in May 2011, apparently only the second ‘country wide’ referendum, the Brexit being the third.
        Result was negative and (according to my quick search) on the 8th of July 2011, the Alternative Vote Provisions were repealed by the parliament. That is way to do things. I was on loosing side then as well, but accepted it with no regrets.

      • Vuk

        You can not possibly have it both ways and pick and choose.

        The referendum in 1975 was on PRECISELY the same matter as the one in 2016. A vote on whether or not to remain in the EU.

        In 1975 the retainers won. In 2016 the leavers won. end of story.

        Tonyb

      • Vuk

        Here are the 12 stages the European referendum bill of 2015 passed through.

        http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/europeanunionreferendum.html

        I do not know where you got this idea it was dreamt up by one person.

        The 1975 and 2016 refetendum were on exactly the same Question. Both were equally valid.

        Tonyb

    • “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

      For which you can blame the educational system. For which you can blame the voters, for not keeping a better eye on the scum that infested it.

      • AK was one of those 0.6′ ers.

      • More cognitive dissonance.

        Denial: it ain’t just a river in Egypt.

      • Agree entirely. Current American election looks a bit like a referendum on two candidates; economic, foreign policy and defence programs appear to be ignored, no one is interested. Thanks god, there is a powerful parliament (both houses) to control any excesses that might come from the presidency.

      • vukcevic both houses of the US “parliament” is Republican and now it will undoubtedly stay that way for at least two more years. If the presidency (aptly called “the bully pulpit”) is Republican too, and more importantly occupied by a master at public persuasion like Trump, there’s not much restraint. The president uses the bully pulpit to get the voters behind him, who in turn descend on their representatives in congress like bees on a corpse to cooperate with the president, there is little restraint.

    • The average voter comes from a family with 2.6 children.

  36. “He was a candidate few thought stood a chance. Best known as a television showman, he seemed more interested in self-promotion than winning public office. But soon he was dominating media coverage and debate stages, each pungent remark only endearing him more to a disenchanted public.”
    http://elections.ap.org/durangoherald/content/trump-there-was-jesse-ventura-and-big-victory

  37. One-Two Punch on down-ballot Democrats in 12th Hour

    1) (Un)Affordable Care Act a.k.a. HillaryCare

    2) FBI Investigation re-opened

    Is Hillary now toxic to down-ballot Democrats?

    Trump predicted both these events.

    Will Republicans now be returning to the fold since Trump was right, after all?

    Will this result in Republican gains in both house and senate instead of loses?

    • True Republicans, as well as decent people, are sickened by Trump. Americans of all persuasions, except Trumpsters, believe in being fair. Voters can see Hillary is getting a raw deal here, and they know by voting for her the worst that can happen is Kane becomes president, a better choice than Trump.

      • Max

        Do ŷou want to buy my mitt Romney campaign mug that my son brought back for me from the US during the last election?

        Mitt Romney is looking a positive giant of intellect and morality these days…

        Tonyb

      • No Tony, Romney is still a Republican establishment-backed vulture capitalist. Nothing can ever change that. I voted for the Libertarian whoever that was, not Romney, in 2012.

      • Getting nervous, Max?

      • Impeach
        I am not a betting man but I looked in our bookies to see the presidential odds. Hillary is 2 to 1 favourite but Trump is still only 3 to 1 . This doesn’t show that Hillary is the clear favourite she was Until recently

        Tonyb

      • The big problem with the USA system is term limits. It’s simply not possible to produce a person qualified to be President every 4 years, or even every 8 years. Right now Obama would win a 3rd term in a landslide, and it is profoundly undemocratic that the people cannot have him.

        Way better than McCain… way better than Romney… way better than Hillary… way way way better than King Trump Louis XII”.

      • Tony even the stock market tanked on the F B I news. That plus Obamacare crisis spells doom for Clinton.

      • Tony even the stock market tanked on the FBI news. That plus notice of skyrocketing health care cost, insurers pulling out of ACA in dozens of states, Democrats are in BIG trouble from the top of the ticket on down.

      • The big problem with the USA system is term limits.

        Nope. Not since FDR. Good riddance. A republic just doesn’t need dictators/presidents for life.

      • Hi Tony,

        Mit and Obama were gentlemen. I don’t recall much mud slinging. Their debates covered issues pretty well. Although I voted for Obama, a Mit win wouldn’t have caused me to lose sleep. I didn’t care for some of Mit’s policy positions, but thought he had integrity. He is LDS, and found them trustworthy.

        While I slightly opposed Mit, I strongly oppose Trump. He’s a crazy clown selling snake oil. Make America Great Again my azz !

      • Max

        I did not care that much for mitt until he made his speech on election day conceding defeat when I thought he came over very well.

        I can’t help feeling that if it was him against Hillary that Romney would likely be streets ahead although he would not have tapped into the well spring of anger that trump has tapped

        Tonyb

      • Tony, you may be right. And if Obama could serve 3 terms and were running against Trump, I doubt Trump would be polling over 40%. Have you noticed Obama’s approval rating has been rising fast? Even the Republican-Friendly Rasmussen Poll had him at +6 or more a day or two ago.

      • “Have you noticed Obama’s approval rating has been rising fast?”
        Yep. Personal theory is a comparison of Obama vs. the two current candidates. Many suggest they wish Obama wasn’t the prez. Sometimes you get what you ask for and that comes with unintended consequences.

      • Hillary is lucky that the Republicans teed up such an atrocious person as a candidate. He puts his foot in his mouth when he isn’t shooting himself in it.

      • Who was it that said: “Why am I not leading by 50%?” Trump?

      • It’s a sign of Republican ineptitude. It’s always hard to get a third term for a party, but it happens when the other guy doesn’t look presidential enough.

      • Obama for life is exactly what you deserve… lol. Total misery.

        But President Hillary Rodham Clinton will do.

        W is worried he may be the last Republican president. How fitting.

  38. Reuters-

    An estimated 19 million Americans have voted so far in the election, according to the University of Florida’s United States Election Project, accounting for as much as 20 percent of the electorate.

    Overall, Clinton remained on track to win a majority of votes in the Electoral College, the Reuters/Ipsos survey showed.
    Having so many ballots locked down before the Nov. 8 election is good news for the Clinton campaign.

    As of Thursday, Clinton’s odds of receiving the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency remained at greater than 95 percent, according to State of the Nation polling results released Saturday. The project estimated she would win by 320 votes to 218, with 278 votes solidly for the Democrat.

    Clinton’s lead among early voters is similar to the lead enjoyed by President Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney at this point of the 2012 race, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken at the time. Obama won the election by 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206

    • Well well well. Look who’s cherry picking polls now. :-)

      Obamacare warnings came out 11 days ago. Early voters got the memo in time.

      What do you think sunk Hillary in the ABC News tracking poll 10 points in the past 5 days if not the looming health care insurance crisis? Do you think single women might care

      [ ] a little
      [ ] some
      [ ] a lot
      [x] a shiit-ton

      about not being able to afford huge increases in cost of health care for themselves and their children with a reduction in benefits and increase in deductibles?

  39. Well well well. Look who’s cherry picking polls now. :-)

    Obamacare warnings came out 11 days ago. Early voters got the memo in time.

    What do you think sunk Hillary in the ABC News tracking poll 10 points in the past 5 days if not that?

  40. I live in a one party blue state.
    I think my bathroom is in a different congressional district than my kitchen.
    The city council is about to declare “Indigenous Peoples” day because, to quote a city council person, Columbus was a “terrorist”.
    (I’m pretty sure Columbus was a global free trader)
    Miffed at the local Democratic establishment, I voted straight R last round and the machine switched my vote to D three times.
    The police can’t be bothered.
    (They’re overworked, understaffed, and blamed for everything)
    The streets are potholed except around the nearby private university where the asphalt is pristine.
    They want to shut down the mom & pop stores in poor neighborhoods because because they sell beer and not organic vegetables.
    So I’m votin’ Trump.
    But no matter since my vote will not count or be counted if past experience is indicative.

    • Rebelronin

      I do not understand when yOu say the machine switched your vote. How is that possible? Are you saying there was fraud or a machine malfunction?

      Tonyb

    • I have heard that same story numerous times in the last week. Hearing it once could be attributed to a loony but when the same circumstances come from so many individuals it makes one wonder what is going on. I trust a full fledge investigation will be initiated wherever the reports occur. Each time one of these reports come out the local election official says that is not possible. But apparently it is.

      • It won’t be investigated. Nothing will come of it because that’s what the Dimowits want.

      • ==> …it makes one wonder what is going on. ==>

        Sounds like what Trump says when he promotes conspiracies with no actual evidence, “There’s something going on.”

        Amazing that it happens so frequently, without any solid documentation, isn’t it?

        ==> Hearing it once could be attributed to a loony but when the same circumstances come from so many individuals… ==>

        Just curious, does that logic apply to the sexual assault claims against Trump?

      • Sounds like what Trump says when he promotes conspiracies with no actual evidence, “There’s something going on.”

        Amazing that it happens so frequently, without any solid documentation, isn’t it?

        Actually, I’ve investigated, identified and fixed the coding error, and tested and productionalized the fix for many problems like that.

        Do you suppose there’s a record anywhere for the acceptance testing and/or V&V for the software for those machines?

        One account I read said that it sometimes happened both ways: sometimes somebody would vote a straight Dem ticket and it would change the pres to Repub as well.

        Sound to me much more like a routine software bug due to insufficient testing. If the code isn’t written properly there will be a few unique paths through the system that cause an error, while the normal paths won’t.

        You know, since all the Democrat party leaders are saying it doesn’t happen, perhaps democratic voters are also getting hit, just not noticing it happen.

      • I highly doubt that there aren’t sometimes glitches.

        The problem is when their are claims of a conspiracy, based on hearsay, anecdotal evidence, or most often no evidence whatsoever.

        Of course it happens sometimes; the problem is when people who are certainly capable of sophisticated analysis stoop to relying on unverified, and likely unrepresentative sampling, to draw conclusions because, well…, they heard something a number of times. What’s even worse is when they line up to support a candidate for president of the U.S., who employs that kind of thinking as a rhetorical device for the purpose of political expediency. ‘m sure that Clinton does it as well, but with Trump it is a major strategy of his candidacy. How many times have we heard him say…”Some people say..” or “some people think…” or (effectively) “I’m don’t have any actual evidence, but something’s going on…”? The most famous case in point being his leadership in the birther movement.

      • Steven Mosher

        “==> …it makes one wonder what is going on. ==>

        Sounds like what Trump says when he promotes conspiracies with no actual evidence, “There’s something going on.”

        Amazing that it happens so frequently, without any solid documentation, isn’t it?”

        #####################

        huh? it sounds nothing like the crap Trump throws around.

        1. What would constitute “solid documentation”? for “it”
        2. You have eyewitness reports from various folks
        3. You have 5 machines being taken out of service because of two
        complaints about the same Machine

        Is this documentation?

        So. you have evidence . you have eyewitness reports (including I think a US congressional candidate). you have
        state officials deciding to take machines out of service due to multiple complaints. You have video evidence. And that evidence is what it is.
        incomplete, perhaps ambiguous, but its evidence none the less.

        What you dont have is any evidence that these irregularities are
        A) more widespread than normal
        B) slanted one way or the other
        C) part of a conciuous deliberate effort.

        That evidence can make you wonder. The same way a tape recording of Trump can make you wonder. the same way a email detailing pay for play can make you wonder.

        We do after all get to wonder, we get to do that without requiring any defense whatsoever. or justification.
        We do get to and we HAVE TO always make decisions based on incomplete, imperfect information.

        There is nothing inherently irrational in coming to conclusions about trump, clinton, and voter fraud based on incomplete information.
        Its normal, rational, human behavior. we do it every day

        Remember Spock was a fictional character.

  41. From the article:

    The Watergate investigation revealed Nixon’s attempted cover-up of the June 1972 break-in at Democratic National Committee HQ at the Watergate Hotel. It was the cover-up that led to Nixon’s downfall, not the break-in.

    The FBI investigation has already revealed Hillary Clinton’s perjury, and a new investigation of additional classified documents shared through her personal email server can lead to criminal indictments—unless the FBI itself wants to fall on its sword in a far more visible and viral cover-up than we have seen to date.

    It is not at all clear that the FBI has not already been hopelessly compromised: Did the FBI have knowledge of Barack Obama’s participation in the illegal email server and the president’s lies about it to the public? Who will investigate the investigators?

    What happens if Clinton wins the election and is then indicted on criminal charges prior to January 20? What happens if the FBI again fails to recommend criminal charges but the House of Representatives finds her in contempt of Congress and asks the Department of Justice to prosecute her for perjury? What happens if the Congress holds up all presidential appointments and all Democrat legislation until a nonpartisan Special Prosecutor is appointed?

    The likelihood of a constitutional crisis grows each day that Clinton continues to lie about her classified emails and continues to avoid criminal penalties for her possible perjury.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/29/tancredo-hillary-clinton-should-step-down-to-avoid-constitutional-crisis/

    • The Framers foresaw this. The Vice President takes over, and the Speaker of the House is the next in succession. Remember, back then, there were only limited Mass Media, and no High Explosives.

  42. “First why did Comey do it? Some see a sinister political motive here. Claims that the Bill Clinton’s visit with the attorney general on the tarmac lead to a deal to squash prosecution. This is the conspiracy thesis. Comey’s letter to Congress is political payback, with him recognizing that he does not keep his job if Clinton is president. Maybe. ‘But a more probable theory is that Comey did it to protect the FBI budget.’ Congressional Republicans were angry with the decision not to charge Clinton and they were making noise about budgetary retaliation.”
    http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-clinton-e-mails-political-versus.html
    I thought the establishment Republicans were not helping Trump. Maybe they were hoping to weaken Clinton.

    • I thought the establishment Republicans were not helping Trump.

      Much of the Republican Establishment has a very low opinion of people who break the law. Especially in ways that put the country at risk.

      Contra David Schultz (linked above), Clinton and Huma Abedin had both been properly briefed on the security protocols for classified documents. Deliberate violation of those protocols is a crime, whether or not there was intent to use them to harm the US.

      At this point, nobody outside of the FBI appears to know what those thousands of emails constitute. However, if they’re stored in the fashion I suspect they are, it would take me, or any competent IT person, no more than minutes to find documents with “classified” headers if they were present.

      The logic regarding how serious the issue probably had to be for Comey to write that letter has been widely disseminated. It seems highly plausible to me, which means that I see a great probability that documents with “classified” headers were actually present on the machine(s) in question, raising the issue to a much higher level.

      If they are, then Horrible Hillary is proven to have lied every time she denied having classified documents in inappropriate spots. She and her chief of staff were both guilty (Abedin as Hillary’s agent) of knowingly violating the protocols, something Horrible Hillary has repeatedly denied.

      Of course, everybody knew she was guilty. This was a typical Washington Whitewash, and so blatant that it insults the intelligence of every American (except those to mired in cognitive dissonance to be honest with themselves).

      But, if classified documents are present on the machine(s) in question, this is irrefutable proof, along with reason for both President Obama and his Attorney General to recuse themselves.

      At this point, the game is “rigged” in a very different way. Basically, there are procedures and requirements, enshrined in law, that dictate how the case is to be treated going forward. I still think that Comey (correctly) had reason to fear being arrested by the FBI rank and file if he didn’t act promptly according to the law.

      Remember that the PotUS, and his Attorney General, are simply people. Their “authority” and power come from the people who are, or are not, prepared to follow their directions. When the president is clearly a socialist mole, and his Attorney General is clearly a sycophant with no respect for the law they’re both supposed to obey, their power will dissolve in their hands.

      As is has in this case.

      • AK,
        “Especially in ways that put the country at risk.” Ah. So now we’re ‘selective’ about how people go about breaking the law?

        Interesting. Can’t say that I’ve seen much expression of any sort of consternation about Wikileaks excepting Rubio. So you’re stating ‘the Republican Establishment’ is okay with illegal hacking of American’s computers/computer systems. And certainly there’s a purported ‘law and order’ Republican anti-establishment candidate who has actually praised wikileaks.

        Actually, I think what you’re avoiding saying is that ‘the Republican Establishment’ is only concerned with ways that put Republican’s at risk.

        To be clear, I’ve called Hillary’s actions w/r/t e-mails reckless and showing poor judgement. I don’t call them criminal (as yet) as I’m not in position to make that judgement.

        Question is. Now will you call a spade a spade?

      • It may not be as simple as you think. It’s possible for classified information to appear in documents that haven’t been classified, and occasionally information that’s classified is also available to the public in newspapers and other the media.

      • AK,
        “Especially in ways that put the country at risk.” Ah. So now we’re ‘selective’ about how people go about breaking the law?

        Interesting. Can’t say that I’ve seen much expression of any sort of consternation about Wikileaks excepting Rubio. So you’re stating ‘the Republican Establishment’ is okay with illegal hacking of American’s computers/computer systems. And certainly there’s a purported ‘law and order’ Republican anti-establishment candidate who has actually praised wikileaks.

        Actually, I think what you’re avoiding saying is that ‘the Republican Establishment’ is only concerned with ways that put Republican’s at risk.

        To be clear, I’ve called Hillary’s actions w/r/t e-mails reckless and showing poor judgement. I don’t call them Krim i nal (as yet) as I’m not in position to make that judgement.

        Question is. Now will you call a spade a spade?

      • @max1ok…

        It’s possible for classified information to appear in documents that haven’t been classified, […]

        Yes, but Clinton has at least the rudiments of a case that she didn’t realize that.

        […] and occasionally information that’s classified is also available to the public in newspapers and other the media.

        More than occasionally.

        However, if a document is marked “classified” then people are legally required to treat its contents as private to the US government. According to the law, it’s not their option to decide to expose it.

        For example, if a classified document refers to the neutron absorption cross-section of a certain isotope, it would be illegal to use the number or write it down in another document.

        Of course, if the CRC handbook on your shelf contains the same number, then you can use it. Once you’ve checked.

        If the numbers are different, you would be legally allowed to use the one from the CRC handbook, but not the one from the classified document, or even to discuss or write down anything about their being different.

        Of course, things get much stickier when criminals inside the government are using security classifications to hide their own crimes. If somebody decides to act contrary to the security laws to deal with it, their martyrdom is on their own heads.

        All the above AFAIK, IANAL.

      • @Danny Thomas…

        So now we’re ‘selective’ about how people go about breaking the law?

        Not really.

        Can’t say that I’ve seen much expression of any sort of consternation about Wikileaks excepting Rubio. So you’re stating ‘the Republican Establishment’ is okay with illegal hacking of American’s computers/computer systems. […]

        Nope.

        First, if you leave the car you’re driving parked with the engine running and door unlocked while you run into a store, that doesn’t mean somebody who steals it isn’t guilty of a crime.

        But you’ll get no sympathy from me when the insurance company(s) refuse to settle, while the rental agency (if it’s a rental) holds you responsible for the full cost.

        Second, there’s a difference between stealing the data, and using the data once it’s in the public domain. The notion that evidence of a crime, or social equivalent, mustn’t be used because a crime was committed in obtaining it is ludicrous.

        I know that’s been the precedent since the ’60’s, but it’s wrong. Available evidence should be used for conviction, and other decision making. If some criminal, even a law-breaking police officer, commits a crime to gain access they should be prosecuted fully. The fact that their action led to a criminal going to prison should not be an extenuating circumstance.

        But the fact that a crime was committed in the information becoming public shouldn’t become a get-out-of-jail-free card either.

        In this case, if Russian agencies were responsible for penetrating security and extracting the information, they were not guilty of a crime. Perhaps a “soft” act of war, but not a crime.

        There appears to be good evidence that two putative state actors, using methods usually assigned to the (both) Russian FSB (“Cozy Bear”) and the GRU (“Fancy Bear”) independently gained access to the information.

        The evidence that they were responsible for turning it over to WikiLeaks is much thinner. It’s completely plausible that such evidence was a setup.

        For that matter, we don’t even know that the copy of the information made available to WikiLeaks was actually “stolen” via system;penetration. It could have been a whistleblower.

        There is also a sticky moral issue. The DNC is a RICO with substantial influence within the government, which means that people trying to get the criminals involved prosecuted would arguably have a case that their action(s) were in an emergency.

        By contrast, Hillary and Abedin would appear to have had no motive besides their own convenience and sense of entitlement.

        Actually, I think what you’re avoiding saying is that ‘the Republican Establishment’ is only concerned with ways that put Republican’s at risk.

        I’d guess that some feel that way, in common with almost all the Democrats.

        Others clearly have a much more rigid perspective.

      • AK,
        “Much of the Republican Establishment has a very low opinion of people who break the law.” This was the exact quote of your words with which issue is taken. Rubio is the only one (tiko) who has come out cautioning that what comes around can go around. Where are the calls for going after the hackers? (Link’s please).

        I find: “The Republican National Committee seized on the leaked excerpts, trying to drive a wedge between Clinton and former supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who had made his calls for her speech transcripts a centerpiece of his primary challenge.
        “With today’s WikiLeaks revelations we are finding out who Hillary Clinton really is, and it’s not hard to see why she fought so hard to keep her transcripts of speeches to Wall Street banks paying her millions of dollars secret,” said RNC Chairman Reince Preibus in a statement. “The truth that has been exposed here is that the persona Hillary Clinton has adopted for her campaign is a complete and utter fraud. How can Bernie Sanders and many like-minded Democrats continue to support her candidacy in light of these revelations?” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/john-podesta-wikileaks-hacked-emails-229304

        Please point to the outrage.

        And here, many have tried to scale (much as you’re doing) that the ill gotten gains are acceptable booty. What you’re suggesting is that one might be dealt with criminally (say generating funds for a foundation) as a bribe, but it’s okay to go ahead and use the money if used for the benefit of one over another. (That might even sound familiar, DiCaprio comes to mind and maybe others you might think of?). Maybe your definition of ‘ludicrous’ is different than mine.

        Playing this off as having left the door open and car running is much like giving ‘permission’ for it to be STOLEN (let’s call it what is is) so it’s justified that the victim be punished, is skewed. Maybe you’re not ancient enough to remember the 1950’s when houses nor cars were locked and engines were usually left running. That’s punishing the victim. If someone steals your cash but donates it to a public charity that’s acceptable use of your cash? Remember, the genie doesn’t go back in the bottle. And who says the car was left accessible, plus what is the scale which defines that ‘reasonable’ efforts were made to protect?

        And if we’re being honest, what crimes have been proven via the evidence? This set of STOLEN communication has been used to embarass, frame, divert, deflect, but what KRIME has been exposed? Maybe I’m not paying attention, but I don’t recall anyone on teevee being shown on a perp walk as a result.

        Alternatively, if wikileaks did indeed leak information which is a danger to American National Security how does that fit your scenario? Or names of private citizens damaged collaterally?

        Flip the scenario. Should hackers hack Trump’s private enterprises (just like speeches to wall street) and politically damaging sensitive information leaked you’re suggesting you’d charge the hackers but defend the use of the information? Think a lucrative cottage industry has been born.

        You don’t think Trump would be the first to pursue: ” An unsigned statement from the Trump campaign posted to its website late Saturday did not appear to deny or dispute a single fact in the Times story, but asserted the document was “illegally obtained.”” (Re: 1995 taxes). After all, he’s a ‘law and order’ guy. Since he’s been silent about this since occurrence maybe it was a ‘whistleblower’. In contrast he’s been vocal about suing w/r/t sexual assault comments.

        Finally, here in the U.S. illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible. Now I’m no attorney, but if it’s obtained illegally by someone outside the Krimi nal justice system is that evidence acceptable if constitutional rights are violated? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule
        “Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible.” Is wikileaks ‘a private person’? Guccifer? Russians?

        Seems to me to involve many matters of convenience and lacks consistency of application. Don’t get me wrong. Both sides do it. But please refer to the first statement quoted above. It’s done very selectively. Call it like it is, please.

      • I’m okay with whistle blowers regardless of where they live, what flag they salute, or how they acquire evidence of crime and corruption in America’s government.

        Write that down.

      • And a Big Hat Tip to P.J. , too.

      • @AK

        […] and occasionally information that’s classified is also available to the public in newspapers and other the media.
        More than occasionally.

        However, if a document is marked “classified” then people are legally required to treat its contents as private to the US government. According to the law, it’s not their option to decide to expose it.
        ____

        True, but iI think that could depend on whether the person with the security clearance has seen the classified document or not. Suppose he reads a newspaper article about something and discusses what he read with friends, unaware the contents of the article also appear in a classified document he can access but has never read. Has he broken the law?

      • @max1ok…

        You seem to have a problem with reading beyond the first couple paragraphs of a comment.

      • Sorry, I didn’t read your hypothetical example carefully. It’s similar to my hypothetical and makes the same point.

    • stevenreincarnated

      I think he is more worried about the immunity deal where they destroyed laptops. The FBI and DOJ have no legal authority to destroy information under a congressional subpoena. He is working on his immunity deal now.

      • Interesting thought, Steven. If that’s the case, then he can see the Clinton Dynasty is collapsing. He sees that it’s inevitable and is trying to salvage his own skin.

  43. Here.

    10,000,000 × more sensible than the MSM.

  44. VIDEO of a trump supporter chanting “Jew S A” (and flashing Klan hand signs) at reporters….

      • Uh huh. Because trump supporters would never be anti-semitic?

        http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-white-nationalists-alt-right-214388

        The embrace of Donald Trump by America’s white nationalists has been one of the most surprising and unsettling threads in the 2016 campaign. The celebrity New York developer has been endorsed by the nation’s most prominent neo-Nazis, as well as both current and former Klansmen. He is supported online by a legion of racist and anti-Semitic trolls, who push his campaign’s message and viciously attack journalists and politicians they see as hostile to Trump. Whether deliberately or not, the candidate, his son Donald Jr. and his surrogates have circulated white nationalist messages and imagery online. The Republican National Committee even displayed a white nationalist’s tweet during the GOP convention.

      • Ubiks3, How can you be anti-Semitic when Jesus, is the Jew, who preached the gospel of the coming Kingdom. Trump, supporters love this Jew, Jesus, because he gave us all the opportunity to accept the gospel of Grace. Deniers hang on to their unbelief, what an Age.
        I know it’s not science however many agree with this world view.

    • So what. It’s not as there is any evidence Trump’s campaign abetted agitating. Unlike Hillary’s campaign.

    • Even if this ONE GUY isn’t a Dimowit plant, this proves nothing. Billary, OTOH, has a ton of evidence proving she is unfit to be dog catcher, much less President. Wiener – the gift that keeps on giving.

    • Libtards clutching at straws. Desperation. Panic. I love it so!

  45. From the article:

    ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL: 2016 Election Tracking No. 8
    EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AFTER 7 a.m. Sunday, Oct. 30, 2016

    A slim point separates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the latest ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll results, cementing Trump’s resurgence in the past week and marking the potentially critical role of turnout in the election’s outcome.

    The race stands at 46-45 percent, Clinton-Trump, in the latest results, so tight that the draw by third-party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein could matter. Clinton, +1 vs. Trump in a four way trial heat, is +3 head-to-head – not a significant difference, but suggestive.

    http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1184a82016ElectionTrackingNo8.pdf

    • I have 1 word for our loony leftist friends

      M…O…M…E…N…T…U…M

    • @jim2

      “Clinton, +1 vs. Trump in a four way trial heat, is +3 head-to-head – not a significant difference, but suggestive.”
      _____

      Yes, it suggests Clinton will win.Trump probably got a bounce from Comey’s statement to congress but don’t count on that to last.

  46. From the article:

    A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a “crime family” and argued top officials hindered the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

    During a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom heaped praise on Donald Trump before taking aim at the Clintons.

    “The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”
    Kallstrom, best known for leading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late 90s, said that Hillary Clinton was a “pathological liar.”

    He also blasted Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claiming that she impeded the investigation into Clinton’s private server.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303458-former-fbi-official-clintons-are-a-crime-family

    • During a radio interview with John “Catsimatidis, former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom heaped praise on Donald Trump before taking aim at the Clintons.”
      _____

      Kallstrom Heaped praise on Trump. Well, there went his credibility.

  47. Hillary Hell Week – 12% lead reduced to 1% in ABC tracking poll

    http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1184a82016ElectionTrackingNo8.pdf

    The 11 point crash was due to Obamacare crisis IMO. Down-ballot Democrats in big trouble. No hope of taking control of Senate. House might even gain Republican seats now.

    Worse still, the reopened FBI investigation not reflected in polls yet. Stick a fork in the #HillBullies, they’re done.

  48. Helping the “poor.” Right. From the article:

    On Friday’s broadcast of PBS’ “Washington Week,” TIME Magazine Washington Bureau Chief Michael Scherer stated that a memo released by WikiLeaks “undercuts the Clinton line that the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative were really altruistic do-gooder efforts.” And “it’s clear from this memo that the same operation that was raising money for Haiti or AIDS drugs was making Bill Clinton rich.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/10/29/michael-scherer-its-clear-charity-operation-was-making-bill-clinton-rich/

  49. Helping the “poor.” Right. From the article:

    Three months after the storm, in December 2005, President Clinton announced more than $110 million had been raised and money was still coming in. But when the official Katrina Fund was finally set up, ledgers show the Presidents’ charities transferred less than $80 million. $52.3 million from the Bush charity and a month later, about half that from The Clinton Foundation: $27.4 million.
    That’s over $30 million dollars short of what Clinton said had been raised.
    The Bush charity told us that’s because a lot of the donations hadn’t actually been collected more than 4 months after they were announced.

    http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/clinton-foundation

  50. This makes the email scandal all the sweeter. From the article:

    Whispers of “payback” are being directed at Hillary Clinton after she decried as “unprecedented” the surprise FBI revival of its probe of her email scandal.

    That’s because 24 years ago, as former President George H.W. Bush was surging back against challenger Bill Clinton, a special prosecutor raised new charges against Bush in the Iran-Contra probe, prompting Clinton to claim he was running against a “culture of corruption.”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-clinton-cheered-11th-hour-indictment-that-doomed-bush-reelection/article/2606000

  51. Tankage. Most recent 4-way polls in RCP average have Clinton +1.

    These polls are a week behind and simply reflect what the Obamacare crisis has done to Democrats up and down the ticket. Trump’s upward momentum has not shown any sign of stopping and now the FBI brouhaha has added fresh fuel to power it even higher.

    Stick a fork in the DemocRATS, they’re done.

  52. Tankage. Most recent 4-way polls in RCP average have Clinton +1.

    • Interesting. I was trying to figure out what word kept putting my replies into moderation. It was c.r.i.s.i.s and it’s because it contains I.S.I.S. in it. Whatever naughty word filter that either Curry in particular or WordPress in general is using is moderating any mention of I.S.I.S.

      Isn’t that just precious?

    • The poll with the best record, the IBD/TIPP, has Clinton by +2. You swore by that poll back when it had Trump by +2.

      • About a month ago I remember I was astonished when someone here mentioned that votes could be cast weeks in advance of election day.

        Many aspects of this election puzzle me, from the extremely long winded selection process, through to the President actually being chosen by proxy via an electoral college, through to it being several months before the new President actually takes up office.

        However, what surprised me the most was this early voting as I asked what would happen if one candidate became incapacitated or-more likely-was embroiled in additional scandals.

        As votes have already been cast it is impossible for anyone to reconsider their vote, should they want to, in the light of emerging (unproven) scandals about Hillary which no doubt will be countered by additional ones concerning Trump.

        If evolving events deal a decisive hammer blow to either candidate for those voting on the day, the winner may already have been decided by early voters who weren’t in possession of all the latest facts.

        I can understand early voting in a big country such as the States in the 19th century when communications were poor, but surely it has no place today?

        Are voters coloured so firmly red or blue that early voting doesn’t matter as they simply don’t care what their candidate (allegedly) gets up to? Surely not?

        tonyb

      • TonyB,
        “I can understand early voting in a big country such as the States in the 19th century when communications were poor, but surely it has no place today?

        Are voters coloured so firmly red or blue that early voting doesn’t matter as they simply don’t care what their candidate (allegedly) gets up to? Surely not?”

        330Million folks voting on the same day is a logistic challenge. In fact, early voting is leading to lines and in an instant gratification society full of busy folks working and raising families many don’t participate. Early voting includes absentee (mail) ballots also.

        On the 2nd para of yours quoted above, the answer is simply yes. We’re basically lazy and run with blinders as you’ve witnessed here. Few care to heal the divides. Most prefer to perpetuate.

      • @climatereason…

        The US has gone through a long, evolutionary development of its process for selecting a president. Since even changes to the process are subject to strong ideological/political divides in preferences, they tend to be slow, late, and often at a tangent to the problems to be solved. (Especially the longer-term problems, which nobody in the “leadership” is willing to mention till they happen much later.)

        I suppose most US’ers would have similar problems WRT the British Constitution.

      • @climatereason

        “As votes have already been cast it is impossible for anyone to reconsider their vote, should they want to, in the light of emerging (unproven) scandals about Hillary which no doubt will be countered by additional ones concerning Trump.”
        _____

        Good point, Tony. Technically, it might be possible for a voter to change his vote if a paper ballot with his name on it can be retrieved. But I’m not aware of any place that allows it.

        Corey’s statement to congress may cause some slowing of early voting, as some undecided voters choose to wait until they know more.

      • I had to wait a half in line today to vote early. Normally, where I live, I can vote on election day and the line won’t be longer than 10 minutes tops. More often than not if I vote during the day between 9am and 12am or 1pm to 4pm there’s no line at all. This year is different.

      • “The poll with the best record, the IBD/TIPP, has Clinton by +2. You swore by that poll back when it had Trump by +2.”

        +2 and -2 are both inside the margin of error. Deviations within that range are technically noise. LAT/USC was a top four performer overall and was better than IBD in 2012. It has Trump +2. What we have is a statistical tie a point in time about a week ago. A week’s worth of trend line should be added to that result for an idea of what would happen today. Clinton lost 3 points in the RCP average over the past week so today we’re looking at Trump in the lead by a percentage point or two and there’s still nine more days of trend line before the 8th. If something doesn’t change that arrests and reverses Trump’s momentum then he wins.

      • This is the first time I’ve heard statistical noise described as momentum.

        Unfortunately for Trump, the polling placing are seeing huge crowds of Hillary supporters, motivated by outrage over Comey’s statement. Americans who believe in fair play will not stand still for Hillary getting shafted.

  53. The Clintons had a different take on corruption investigations back when Bill was running against George Herbert Walker B.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-clinton-cheered-11th-hour-indictment-that-doomed-bush-reelection/article/2606000

  54. The internet is an alternate reality as long as anyone can be anonymous and it seems to me we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

    John Walker, founder of Autodesk (co-author of AutoCAD) and fourmilab.ch put the issues clearly in focus in his essay: The case for The Digital Imprimatur. Even though he wrote this in 2003 I found it to be nearly clairvoyant as we try to deal with hackers (both in and outside of government) who can change the course of history in an instant.
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

  55. I’d assume this would interest people on a scientific blog. I mean, does this bother anyone even just a little?

    Mike Pence thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes. He also doesn’t understand such rudimentary scientific concepts as what a theory is, and that humans did not evolve from monkeys.

    He actually thinks evolution isn’t viable because new evidence is continually found…

    • This scares you why?… There is not even a single definition of science according to Willard, so why all the dogma?

    • Pence doesn’t control the entire government, so no, I’m not bothered in the least. He is free to believe as he chooses, just as you are (assuming you aren’t a Russian or Chinese or something.)

    • He is 100% right that “Evolution” a la Darwin was taught as fact, rather than theory. He is 100% right that recent work has falsified Darwin’s theory, although he doesn’t realize that Darwin’s theory had already been falsified in the early 20th century.

      I see no reason why “theories” based on (partly) literal interpretations of Genesis shouldn’t be taught along Darwin’s theory, mutationism, the “new” synthesis (“neo-Darwinism”), and even the “spandrel”-based notions of Gould. All of them are now known to be obsolete, superseded, explanations of biological origins.

      The currently accepted synthesis, usually called “evo-devo” should also be taught as theory almost certainly doomed to be superseded as new research brings better understanding of the roles and interactions of epigenetics and “dark” DNA.

      If simplistic leftist educators hadn’t worked to hide the realities of science in popular education, this issue would never have arisen. But “science” has been taught in most pre-college and non-STEM education as something completely different from real science. Something not too much different than the older bible-based “facts”.

      • I should note that Clinton, and (almost) all her supporters have even less understanding of what Science is than Pence does. For them, it’s nothing but a bunch of symbols to be manipulated in pursuit of political power.

      • “I should note that Clinton, and (almost) all her supporters have even less understanding of what Science is than Pence does.”
        Yeah, but Trump………………………..

      • Trump understands what science is about, even if his interpretations are simplistic.

        But there is a “global warming” hoax. There may be a real risk behind it, but it’s been turned into a hoax.

        By saying this,Trump shows superior understanding to any of the other candidates.

      • ==> Trump understands what science is about, even if his interpretations are simplistic.

        But there is a “global warming” hoax….

        By saying this,Trump shows superior understanding to any of the other candidates. ==>

        Yeah, and the Chinese are behind it just like he says.

        And don’t forget, Al the polls showed he won all the debates, By saying that, Trump understands math too.

        Hilarious. No confirmation bits there. Lol.

      • When I was a kid growing up in upstate NY Wednesday afternoon had an optional 45 minute early dismissal for religious instruction at any accredited church.

        Mud to man evolution is a narrative science. A just-so story. There is compelling, nearly irrefutable evidence that all known life is deeply related to a common source of some sort but that doesn’t rule out the relations being the result of having a creator in common rather than an ancestor in common. Multiple creation events for living things is pretty much ruled out. Common ancestry and common creation are not mutually exclusive.

        The scientific problem is the origin of order in the universe which includes the most highly ordered improbable thing of all – rational man.

        The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system order does not increase but rather decreases over time. Also called the law of entropy. Entropy is what gives direction to the arrow of time. You can bake a cake but, despite it being physically possible, you can’t unbake a cake.

        Anyhow, because of the law of entropy, we can categorically state that at the beginning of time our universe, if it is a closed system, was more complex then than now. So all the information in the universe including the design of space shuttles and the millions of books in the library of congress, that ordered information was all present 14 billion years ago in the singularity which bloomed like a giant origami into the present universe.

        My instinct after many years of study is that the chemical and biological evolution of life leading to the production of rational man was a prescribed, inevitable process that was built into the fabric of the universe at the instant of the big bang some 14 billion years ago. Beyond that math and science fail to provide further insight.

      • Anyhow, because of the law of entropy, we can categorically state that at the beginning of time our universe, if it is a closed system, was more complex then than now.

        Nope.

        The relationship between entropy and “complexity” is much more complex than that.

      • I’m using entropy in the information theoretic context. I thought that was clear from context given I mentioned ordered information several times.

        By your response I can see now that information theory is above your pay grade.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

        Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) applies to information as well as it does to energy. Information and energy are like mass and energy — different expressions of the same thing.

        Using the law of equivalency information and mass are also different expressions of the same thing. Information is the location and momentum of any given particle where each particle must have a unique description. The requirement for unique description of all particles is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

      • By your response I can see now that information theory is above your pay grade.

        I looked into it years ago in relationship to the use of entropy-based logic to explain the fact the DNA replication, transcription, and translation all require a double dose of energy (2 phosphate groups) from ATP.

        Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) applies to information as well as it does to energy. Information and energy are like mass and energy — different expressions of the same thing.

        That’s a statement of religious belief, not science.

        Scientifically speaking, the question remains open. See here and here.

        Using the law of equivalency information and mass are also different expressions of the same thing. Information is the location and momentum of any given particle where each particle must have a unique description. The requirement for unique description of all particles is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

        Irrelevant.

        For purposes of evolution we need only note that the solar system is not closed, and that its formation from a giant molecular cloud, as currently modeled, would have represented an increase of even thermodynamic entropy, much less Shannon entropy.

        A similar logic applies to the condensation of galaxies according to current models. AFAIK the “big bang” also fits that model, although I haven’t looked into it.

        Your statement that:

        [… B]ecause of the law of entropy, we can categorically state that at the beginning of time our universe, if it is a closed system, was more complex then than now.

        …Falls into an argument that people at the leading edge of science are still having.

        But it certainly does not imply predestination. Only that the dispersed cloud of hydrogen, etc. that ended up condensing into galaxies, stellar systems, and plantes had less Shannon free entropy than the results of that evolutionary condensation. Anything beyond that is religious fanaticism.

      • By your response I can see now that information theory is above your pay grade.

      • Way above your paygrade but I’ll continue with your edification in the hope it will sink in.

        Not only does 2LoT apply to information, so does the 1st Law of Thermodynamics — Conservation

        Taking the equivalency of mass, energy, and information a step further we can say “Information cannot be created or destroyed. It only changes form.”

        http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=24045

        The conservation of information is derived from quantum field theory via the quantum Liouville theorem. Quantum field theory works both forward and backward in time, so the conservation of entropy (or information) works both ways. If quantum field theory is correct (as it so far seems to be) then information, in the abstract, is neither created nor destroyed. Pure states remain pure states. A probabilistic combination of pure states keeps the same set of probabilities.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

        Principles in action[edit]

        There are two main principles in play:[citation needed]

        Quantum determinism means that given a present wave function, its future changes are uniquely determined by the evolution operator.

        Reversibility refers to the fact that the evolution operator has an inverse, meaning that the past wave functions are similarly unique.

        The combination of the two means that information must always be preserved.

        Starting in the mid-1970s, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein put forward theoretical arguments based on general relativity and quantum field theory that not only appeared to be inconsistent with information conservation but were not accounting for the information loss and state no reason for it. Specifically, Hawking’s calculations[4] indicated that black hole evaporation via Hawking radiation does not preserve information. Today, many physicists believe that the holographic principle (specifically the AdS/CFT duality) demonstrates that Hawking’s conclusion was incorrect, and that information is in fact preserved.[5] In 2004 Hawking himself conceded a bet he had made, agreeing that black hole evaporation does in fact preserve information.

        http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/statistical-mechanics/2013/spring/lecture-1

      • Just to be clear the lecture above is from Stanford University Professor of Theoretical Physics Leonard Susskind, Director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. He is arguably in the top five living theoretical physicists in the world. The lecture discusses conservation of information towards the end.

        Published on Apr 16, 2013
        (April 1, 2013) Leonard Susskind introduces statistical mechanics as one of the most universal disciplines in modern physics. He begins with a brief review of probability theory, and then presents the concepts of entropy and conservation of information.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind

    • There is far too much order in the universe for it be the result of chance. Hallmarks of design leap out at all scales from the quantum to galactic super clusters.

      Theoretical physicists have no good answer as to how such a highly ordered universe came to exist. The best they can come up with is what’s called “multi-verse” theories. These postulate an infinite, or nearly infinite number of universes where the fundamental laws of physics differ, where the number of universes that have laws which allow life to exist approximates zero, but is not quite zero.

      An infinite number of universes, none of which we can ever observe or test in some other way, is hardly a satisfactory counter-argument to belief in a single created universe.

      Thanks for asking.

    • Oh no! They are going to lose the plan Ned parent hood vote!

  56. Clinton “campaigning” in a Florida bar at noon today. It was her second stop of the day. The first stop was a frozen bottle of vodka in the freezer of the hotel where she regained consciousness.

    So was she always an alcoholic or is she drinking at noon on Sunday 9 days before the election to ease the pain of losing 11% in the preceding five days because of Obamacare then getting slammed with reopening of FBI crimina1 investigation into her on Friday afternoon.

    CHOO-CHOO all aboard the #TrumpTrain on its way to Washington with @realDonaldTrump ready to #DrainTheSwamp.

  57. Dang! Huma’s Wiener outdid Assange! From the article:

    WSJ reports that FBI agents will examine over half a million emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop in their reopened investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information while Secretary of State.
    From the Wall Street Journal:

    Federal agents are preparing to scour roughly 650,000 emails contained on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner to see how many relate to a prior probe of Hillary Clinton’s email use, as metadata on the device suggests there may be thousands sent to or from the private server that the Democratic nominee used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/30/report-fbi-agents-examine-650000-emails-anthony-weiners-computer/

  58. OK, so here’s why Comey acted. From the article:

    EXCLUSIVE: Resignation letters piling up from disaffected FBI agents, his wife urging him to admit he was wrong: Why Director Comey jumped at the chance to reopen Hillary investigation

    James Comey revived the investigation of Clinton’s email server as he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents, sources say

    The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn’t recommend an indictment against Hillary

    He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents

    Comes was also worried that Republicans would accuse him of granting Hillary political favoritism after the presidential election

    When new emails allegedly linked to Hillary’s personal server turned up in Abedin and Anthony Weiner’s computer, Comey jumped at the excuse

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886942/Resignation-letters-piling-disaffected-FBI-agents-wife-urging-admit-wrong-Director-Comey-jumped-chance-reopen-Hillary-investigation.html

  59. This is coming from the “Anonymous” channel on YouTube. I must admit great skepticism WRT its connection with the penetration anarchy of the same name. Especially in light of this clip.

    Even if it actually comes from that group, the documents they’re reading may have been altered or cherry-picked.

    Interesting, though. Rockets? In Chelsey’s apartment? (I’m not sure I heard correctly, have a listen.)

  60. FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe

    The surprise disclosure that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation are taking a new look at Hillary Clinton’s email use lays bare, just days before the election, tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the Democratic presidential nominee.

    You may need to use this Google Search to get past the paywall.

  61. For the poor. Right. From the article:

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark.—One of Hillary Clinton’s first assignments as a corporate lawyer landed her far from her roots. She helped overturn a ballot measure that increased electric rates for businesses and lowered them for the poor.

    “Instead of defending poor people and righting wrongs, we found ourselves squarely on the side of corporate greed against the little people,” her colleague, Webb Hubbell, later wrote.

    The future presidential contender worked for 15 years as a corporate litigator at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas’s capital, longer than any other position in or out of government. Her portrait still hangs in the firm’s downtown offices.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-forgotten-career-corporate-lawyer-1477674562

  62. Scott Adams weighs in.

    I’m not going to excerpt. I strongly recommend reading it.

    • His movie appears credible.

    • Why? What does your ‘cognitive dissonance’ suggest we learn?

      Scott Adams has skin in the game (an endorsement) and an opinion.

    • Adams blinked a few weeks ago and lost credibility IMO. At the height of PussyGate he threw in the towel, hedged his bets, and said that Trump even getting close to winning was proof of Adam’s prophetic abilities.

      I on the other hand never lost confidence in Trump and predicted he’d come storming back from PussyGate to win the election. Who’s the prophetic guy now, Adams?

      • Scott Adams isn’t trying to call the election. He’s just trying to point out the direction it’s going from a persuader’s POV.

        And he did hedge his bets by saying “unless something changes”.

        You don’t seem to be any better than Danny Thomas: talk about “credibility” is pure ad hominem. It’s not like he gave us any new facts.

        The point is to read the argument, with sympathy, then judge for yourself how much sense it makes.

      • AK,
        All Adams does is provide an opinion. Even he says it’s not based on evidence unless you consider evaluating ‘credibility’ (of Comey) as evidence and obviously you don’t considering you express such angst towards those of us who have a perspective towards Adams own credibility.

      • All Adams does is provide an opinion.

        One worth listening to.

      • AK,
        And so we complete the circle back to my original question: “Why? What does your ‘cognitive dissonance’ suggest we learn?”

        Adams himself has switched his allegiance. That’s about as dissonant as it gets. Yet somehow his ‘opinion’ (which he clearly states he has only his evaluation of ‘credibility’ on which to base) holds some sort of value to you?

        Reviewing. I expressed an opinion that Adams has ‘skin in the game’ and that leads to my concern about his ‘credibility’ as impartial. Adams says consistency is part of his evaluation of Comey’s ‘credibility’. Adams himself is inconsistent (does that make him more or less credible…..based on Adams criteria the answer must be less). Adams expresses an opinion on which he says he has no actual evidence.

        Go for it!

      • Since you’re comfortable that Adams is ‘an opinion worth listening to’ might you say the same for this:
        “I served with Jim Comey and I know him well. This is a very difficult piece for me to write. He is a man of integrity and honor. I respect him. But good men make mistakes. In this instance, he has committed a serious error with potentially severe implications.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eric-holder-james-comey-is-a-good-man-but-he-made-a-serious-mistake/2016/10/30/08e7208e-9f07-11e6-8832-23a007c77bb4_story.html?utm_term=.ef9503259b03

        Credibility anyone?

      • @Danny Thomas…

        Since you’re comfortable that Adams is ‘an opinion worth listening to’ might you say the same for this:

        Eric Holder is a political hack. Having read his op-ed, I’m pretty much convinced he does not have any idea what the word “integrity” represents.

        The money quote is here:

        He is a man of integrity and honor. I respect him.

        Beyond that, all he does is demonstrate his lack of understanding of what “honor” and “integrity” represent.

        That statement goes to support Scott Adam’s interpretation. But not very much, to me, because I’m pretty sure Holder said that because he feared losing the respect of his betters, not because he had any idea what he was saying.

        But reading his whole op-ed was worth it. I now know what a despicable political hack Holder (probably) is.

      • AK,

        “Eric Holder is a political hack.” and ” I now know what a despicable political hack Holder (probably) is.” are opinions and you offer zero evidence plus couch with ‘probably’. And you’re allowed. Frankly I often find yours to be worthy of consideration and researching. Having said that, Adam’s offering is also an opinion. What is his CV in comparison with Holder? Might Adam’s be equally described as ‘a political hack’?

        There are two sides to every coin (3 if ya count the edges).

      • Having said that, Adam’s offering is also an opinion.

        Correct.

        And, as with Holder, I evaluate what he says against what I know from other sources. Adams makes sense. Holder’s op-ed only makes sense as the output of a political hack who doesn’t understand the issues he’s talking about.

        Might Adam’s be equally described as ‘a political hack’?

        Nope.

        He’s an observer of human interaction, quite insightful as his comics demonstrate. (I’ve worked in cubicle environments on IT projects.)

        He refers to his training as a hypnotist, which I’ll take at his word, but depend on my own research into human cognition and behavior. Which, IMO, supports his theses.

        He tries to be even-handed, but is offended by the bullying surrounding the Clinton campaign.

        Same here. I’m also highly offended by the behavior of the MSM, and have been since they snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory in ’68 (Viet Nam). Anybody the MSM attacks as hard as they have Trump starts out with a great deal of credit.

        The only serious issue, other than accusations of mental illness reminiscent of the Soviet Union (and the campaign against Goldwater), is the nonsense about his “locker-room” bragging about his relations with willing partners.

        Here, again, the MSM has shown themselves up by labeling consensual (bragged) interactions as “sexual assault”. Again, the MSM attacks him dishonestly. Again, that’s in his favor. If the despicable MSM is willing to attack him so much, maybe he’s the right person.

      • AK,

        From this: “All I desire is equal application of standards.” “And anybody who believes that,……..”

        To this: “He tries to be even-handed, but is offended by the bullying surrounding the Clinton campaign.”

        And finally: “Again, the MSM attacks him dishonestly”. Generalization. But at times I’d stipulate that as accurate. But at times ‘the MSM’ just quotes his own words and that’s not ‘dishonest’ except when it’s extrapolated to being and issue with ‘the media’ when in fact it’s an issue with ‘the candidate’.

        So two of us, Adams and I, at least profess to at least a desire for ‘equal application of standards’. Care to join us?

  63. Equally as important as the newly found copies of e-mails: ““In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers and the Russian government,” Mr. Reid wrote in a letter to Mr. Comey. “The public has a right to know this information.”

    It was unclear what Mr. Reid was referring to. A spokesman said in a telephone interview Sunday that Mr. Reid did not believe it was his place to disclose national security information, which had been told to him in confidential briefings with senior intelligence and law enforcement officials.'”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/us/politics/justice-department-warrant-clinton-abedin-fbi.html?_r=0

    Comey’s gonna have a busy and tough week! Conspiracy theories are entertaining.

    • Best explanation is that Reid’s talking out his back passage.

      But if it’s true, I would expect that if Comey doesn’t release it, Lynch will. In fact, she already would have long ago.

      At this point, all the Democratic arm-waving will just make things worse (for them). If Comey says he doesn’t have such information, everybody but the Hillbullies who don’t care about the truth will assume he (Reid) is just making empty accusations.

      This isn’t the Cold War. Russia is just another pseudo-capitalist dictatorship (fake democracy) with an economy no larger than Portugal. They’re not our friends, but they’re also not ideological enemies.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I have to agree with Trump on the ineptitude of declaring when and where you will attack. In a situation like Mosul the first notice they should get is the surrounding of the city and the cutting off of their supply lines.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Oops wrong spot. Should be somewhere where people are talking about it :).

    • Well the “17 security agencies” is a damn lie.

      Of the 17 5-7 are the Coast Guard or similar agencies that wouldn’t have an interest or information.

      One of the agencies (I think its acronym begins with U or O) has disavowed it.

      Perhaps if someone could list which agency(s) are making the claim that would be helpful and a much shorter list.

      • PA,

        Predicting you won’t care for the source, but:
        “The 17 agencies are: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

        The 17 separate agencies did not independently declare Russia the perpetrator behind the hacks. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said that this cuts against Clinton’s point, saying, “It is unlikely that all 16 of the agencies had looked independently at the Russian connection, which is what Clinton seemed to indicate.” (Cheung said 16 agencies because he omitted the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from his count.)

        However, as the head of the 17-agency intelligence community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, headed by James Clapper, speaks on behalf of the group.”

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

      • 1. Air Force Intelligence – probably won’t care.
        2. Army Intelligence – probably won’t care.
        3. Central Intelligence Agency – relevant
        4. Coast Guard Intelligence – won’t care
        5. Defense Intelligence Agency – might care.
        6. Energy Department – won’t care
        7. Homeland Security Department , – might care
        8. State Department – relevant
        9. Treasury Department – probably won’t care.unless Trump has counterfeiting scheme with Russians.
        10. Drug Enforcement Administration – might care.
        11, Federal Bureau of Investigation – relevant
        12. Marine Corps Intelligence – probably won’t care.
        13. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency – won’t care
        14. National Reconnaissance Office – won’t care
        15. National Security Agency – relevant
        16. Navy Intelligence – probably won’t care.
        17 Office of the Director of National Intelligence.- top of food chain – doesn’t gather intelligence.

        http://www.govexec.com/defense/2016/10/denying-trumps-denial-us-intel-chief-says-theres-more-evidence-russian-hacking/132547/
        “I would be remiss. It was US Cyber Command, with support from the information assurance directorate” said Dukes, NSA’s deputy national Manager for National Security Systems . “U.S. Cyber command led the activity. I can’t get into who the actors are.”

        The US Cyber Command is subordinate to United States Strategic Command but run by the head of the NSA.

        And there you go. Basically one agency.

      • PA,
        “17 Office of the Director of National Intelligence.- top of food chain – doesn’t gather intelligence.”

        Wouldn’t that apply to Comey equally as far as speaking for the totality w/o actually doing the grunt work?

      • Wouldn’t that apply to Comey equally as far as speaking for the totality w/o actually doing the grunt work?

        You are barking up the wrong tree here.

        The US Cyber Command and the United States Strategic Command weren’t on your shopping list. Further that the UCC is run by the NSA and not the DIA is surprising.

        Not sure what this means. I was expecting the NSA or CIA to be developing this information.

        Knowing Russians I suspect Russian sailors/soldiers bored out of their minds are hacking Hillary. That reset button wasn’t a prize winner. I can’t think of another reason the UCC is reporting this, not NSA. But it is the result of signals intelligence.

        The source is odd. When the source is odd that means something strange is happening.

        If “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers and the Russian government,” is a bored Russian sailor with:

        on his webpage I’m not going to be happy.

      • PA,
        “If “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers and the Russian government,” is a bored Russian sailor with:…….”

        And if it happens to be ‘more than that’ how happy will you be?

        Of note, it wasn’t MY shopping list. I just provided the source.

        To be clear. I put no credibility in to an implication backed by zero evidence. And I apply that standard to all. But Reid indicated ‘briefings’ were the source. It’s possible those ‘briefings’ came from a single voice speaking on behalf of the 17, just like Comey does when he doesn’t do the grunt work.

      • DT I think we are in the same boat.

        It is an interesting story. But it is hard to determine the significance without more information.

        James Clapper says that the OCC believes it is the Russians. They seem fairly certain. This is a long way from Reid’s “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers and the Russian government.”.

        Ah, well. At least it looks like Trump and Putin will get along, and the Russians won’t have to bribe Trump like they did Hillary.

      • PA,
        We might be ‘in part’ of the same boat. Here’s where we (potentially) diverge.

        “Ah, well. At least it looks like Trump and Putin will get along, and the Russians won’t have to bribe Trump like they did Hillary.” (Quoting PA)

        “While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there’s simply no proof of any quid pro quo.”
        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

        To be clear. I don’t like it. Because it shows ‘potential’ issues with regard to judgement and recklessness (suppositions) and certainly optics aren’t good.

        But on an equal footing w/r/t ‘optics and suppositions’.
        Trump in Reid’s letter, specifically para 3: http://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Letter-to-Director-Comey-10_30_2016.pdf

        “It suggests there is specific information in FBI possession, not just vague innuendo and suspicion linking Trump to Putin.
        Since this specific information is at least several months old, it is more than likely that ongoing followups have added to that trove of information.
        Note a separate full sentence “There is no danger to American interests from releasing it”, further cementing the idea that the information is specific.
        If Reid has it, so do all the other Republican Senators and at least some House members, making them complicit in their endorsement of Trump. No longer can they hide behind the idea that they support him just as “the party nominee”.
        Everyone would recall FBI has specifically refused to comment or even confirm if they are even investigating Trump’s Russia connection. So the FBI double standard in keeping on going after Clinton is laid very bare and helps undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the entire Clinton Email scandal which has just been blown out of all reasonable proportion.”

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/30/1588935/-The-real-bombshell-in-Harry-Reid-s-letter?detail=email&link_id=1&can_id=c27e9165113b5b735c07cd8561ab831b&source=email-the-real-bombshell-in-harry-reids-letter-2&email_referrer=the-real-bombshell-in-harry-reids-letter-2&email_subject=the-real-bombshell-in-harry-reids-letter

        Yes. It’s Daily Kos. Which I equate to the left (alt-left?) version of Brietbart. But It’s hard to debate the content as being incorrect in ‘suggesting’. And that’s being done in substantial fashion towards one particular candidate.

        I’ve railed here against both candidates. Still do. Transparency is of issue, but that applies both ways. And if Comey is found to have ‘broken the law’ (certainly subject to partisan debate over the Hatch Act) then wouldn’t he be no better than others who have?

        All I desire is equal application of standards. Most here cannot find a way to do so.

      • All I desire is equal application of standards.

        And anybody who believes that, I’ve got some bottom land to sell you. (Just don’t ask what it’s on the bottom of.)

      • DT
        “It suggests there is specific information in FBI possession, not just vague innuendo and suspicion linking Trump to Putin.

        Well, Trump doesn’t have a Russian property, but it is alleged he works with questionable Russian business interests.

        Tevfik Arif is apparently a senior advisor to the Trump organization and that seems what most people are making hay about.

        However, the Podesta “hacking” was apparently the result of him or one of his assistants clicking on a phishing email.

        I’m not sure what to say about this. If indeed it was via phishing emails, this says negative things about the Hillary group and calls their competence into question.

        Phishing emails is just a step up from a Nigerian email scam. This isn’t hacking by software masterminds.

        http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/what-is-the-trump-putin-connection/vi-AAj8VUq

      • PA,
        “but it is alleged he works with questionable Russian business interests.” or he ‘works with others’ with questionable Russian connections as evidenced by maybe not the best track record of vetting those (past tense) from his own campaign. IE Manafort. Surely we can agree on that.

        Which leads me to this: “If indeed it was via phishing emails, this says negative things about the Hillary group and calls their competence into question.” If we’re gonna apply competence to ‘the group’ of Hillary’s we must do the same with Trump. See para #1 above.

      • If we’re gonna apply competence to ‘the group’ of Hillary’s we must do the same with Trump. See para #1 above.

        People have been trying tar Trump with this, vigorously, but to this point it is just “he works with people who work with questionable people”.

        Trump did run a successful beauty pageant in Russia years ago. Who knows, Putin might have liked the pageant…

      • PA,
        “People have been trying tar Trump with this, vigorously, but to this point it is just “he works with people who work with questionable people”.
        What I tar him with is the vetting process. He purports to apply ‘extreme vetting’ in other concerns yet proved incapable of doing so himself. His itty bitty campaign is far different from a great big country (and world).

      • “If indeed it was via phishing emails, this says negative things about the Hillary group and calls their competence into question.” If we’re gonna apply competence to ‘the group’ of Hillary’s we must do the same with Trump.

        Nobody has demonstrated incompetence in the Trump camp’s security organization.

        Which is not to say that they were any more competent. Piss-poor security just increases the chance that somebody will get in.

        In my professional experience, the biggest problem with security is the idi0t at the keyboard. In this case, as far as I can decode the email string, their tech guy confirmed a phishing email as genuine, and failed to firmly direct the user not to use the compressed URL.

        Somebody used that string, but nobody (AFAIK yet) knows whether a penetration was achieved. It’s not impossible that somebody tried it, saw that it led to bogus URL, and went to the other one.

        Ideally, the tech guy would have tried it, found where it led, and fired back an email telling the user that it was a phishing attempt, that he should update his password, but that he should use the proper URL and not use the wrong one.

        But I also don’t see how an ideal, or even self-respecting, professional would have tolerated working for an outfit like that.

      • AK,
        “Nobody has demonstrated incompetence in the Trump camp’s security organization.” as far as we know. Good old conspiracy theory allows for the lack of evidence to be used as evidence. :) Wikileaks may have ‘it’ on Trump and be choosing not to use it. Maybe Trump, being a billionaire and all, paid a ransom……………after all, there’s a donate function.

        I’ve read the phishing story and yes, if that’s what happens it’s idi0cy at it’s finest. But that does not justify the illegality of the phisherpeople.

        “But I also don’t see how an ideal, or even self-respecting, professional would have tolerated working for an outfit like that.” Money, honey!

      • AK | October 31, 2016 at 3:22 pm |

        Nobody has demonstrated incompetence in the Trump camp’s security organization.

        A well managed mail system flushes phishing emails. Only an idiot clicks on them.

        I’m not aware a comparable competence issue in the Trump camp.

      • “Nobody has demonstrated incompetence in the Trump camp’s security organization.” as far as we know. Good old conspiracy theory allows for the lack of evidence to be used as evidence. :)

        More hallucinations.

        Here’s what I said next (just to save you scrolling up):

        Which is not to say that they were any more competent. Piss-poor security just increases the chance that somebody will get in.

        If you hadn’t been so lost in your cognitive dissonance and persecution complex, you’d almost certainly have seen I was saying that the Trump organization might well have been just as incompetent (or more) and just not have gotten caught.

        I do recall one article saying that the Trump organization used a different system, so the same exact exploit wouldn’t have worked against them.

        Assuming their (Republican) emails actually got leaked, the evidence of the different exploit might not have been left lying around in the email.

        Of course, I’m highly skeptical the punitively Russian penetrations were the source of the leak. IIRC there were some brags attributed to “Anonymous” (the “hacking” group) regarding the DNC, and while I’m sure there are Russian agents associated with that group, I doubt they control it. AFAIK nobody controls it.

        Moreover IMO (some of) the independents associated with Anonymous are likely to be so much better than “Cozy Bear” (much less “Fancy Bear”) that they could probably have stolen copies of the emails from the FSB and leaked them to WikiLeaks without their (or Putin’s) knowledge or approval.

      • AK,
        “If you hadn’t been so lost in your cognitive dissonance and persecution complex” or I coulda just been spinning ya up.

        While I don’t self perceive as having ‘extensive’ cognitive dissonance I do persecute. But at least I persecute them both.

      • While I don’t self perceive as having ‘extensive’ cognitive dissonance I do persecute.

        You don’t even know what a persecution complex is.

        It’s clear to anyone without your cognitive dissonance that you self-identify with the Clinton candidacy, and are suffering from a persecution complex in sympathy with them. Then, on top of that, your claim to be “even-handed” is demonstrably false.

      • “It’s clear to anyone without your cognitive dissonance that you self-identify with the Clinton candidacy.” Nope. Do you know what cognitive dissonance means? It’s defined as: “the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.”
        If I was to ‘self identify’ with one candidate that would be the opposite of dissonance. I voted for Clinton based on experience. If she’s ‘another Obama, well his approval is over 55%. Economy is improving. Folks who want them have jobs and there are lots more out there. I can wait 4 years for the ‘right’ change agent. Trump ain’t it, IMO.

        I’m not a single issue voter. Socially, I’m more aligned with Clinton. Morally, neither. Fiscally I have concerns about both, but see this link I couldn’t get anyone to even respond to after posting twice: https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/28/week-in-review-politics-edition-15/#comment-820477

        Trump is correct about many of the issues he points out as being areas of concern. The problem is that he doesn’t have many solutions. (Expecting you to jump all over that so expect requests for details and analysis). It would be actually a pleasure to discuss policies and issues but nonsense rules the day.

        I rely on actual evidence, not sales pitches. Trump pitches.

        For example, his pitch is only he can fix Chicago. Well if so let’s hear it. If he’s waiting till elected to tell us then MORALLY he’s deplorable: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-weekend-shootings-violence-20161031-story.html, it’s either that or he has no friggin idea and he’s been ly***ing to us.

        Trump’s tax plan has been panned by experts.

        Trump’s immigration plan will cost billions and break up families, and is unrealistic. He can’t even vet his own team (Manafort) and expects me to trust him to vet immigrants?

        He can’t keep his itty bitty foundation legal.

        He says he’s for smaller government yet would require regulation to ‘make’ him use American Steel and Aluminum in his projects (see debate 3). He effectively says he must be ‘legislated’ to “Make America Great Again”. He outsources to international entities for his own products (can you say forked tongue?)

        He can’t decide his own party affiliation. He professes to know more than ‘the generals do’. He and his running mate disagree on serious issues. He talks about transparency yet refuses to be transparent.

        Note: none of this goes to misogyny, racism, xenophobia. I stay away from that kinda stuff. But he did lye about the birther issue (and can’t figure out why), Iraq, and quite a few others.

        I could go on, but I’ll just rest comfortably knowing your ‘cognitive un-dissonance’ won’t allow you to evaluate and discuss honestly.

      • Do you know what cognitive dissonance means? It’s defined as: “the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.”
        If I was to ‘self identify’ with one candidate that would be the opposite of dissonance. I voted for Clinton based on experience.

        Nope.

        You voted for Clinton because you self-identify with her world-view. You’re one with the SJW/climate/Clinton crybullies. You hallucinate persecution of Hillary and her/your party because you need a rationalization, no matter how specious, to hide the fact that you’re in no way “even-handed” or vote and support for any reason beyond tribalism.

        That hiding from yourself is cognitive dissonance. You want to believe (unless you’re a psychopath) considering what you’ve said, that you made a rational judgement of Clinton over Trump.

        But that’s not true. It’s clear from the outside that you’re totally in the tank for her crowd, and just pretending to be even-handed.

      • AK,
        “It’s clear from the outside that you’re totally in the tank for her crowd, and just pretending to be even-handed.” From which cereal box did you get your psychology degree?

        I do support ‘parts’ of her world view. And I support parts of Trumps. Since you didn’t bother to ask I won’t detail. Or maybe I should say Clinton represents parts of my world view as does Trump. I’m a capitalist. I’m for a leg up, not a hand out. (There I go detailing).

        I’ve ‘taken on’ Trumpeteers and Clintonites alike when they approach things with blinders. Maybe you’ve not paid attention, but I’ve been …….let’s just say…..prolific on the politiks threads and maybe I’ve just bored you. But I do take note you take issue with only ONE side (Democrats) and not the other. Does that make me more the problem or you? I don’t see greater divisiveness as an improvement. I’m not so entrenched as to suggest Clinton is a great candidate. She’s not. She is IMO the better candidate. Her resume is outstanding for the job. Her recklessness and questionable judgement is not. Trump has NO resume, his behavior is opposite of his words, and he too is reckless with OUR democracy and he has displayed questionable judgement.

        Instead of telling me, maybe you could ask. But I’ll offer anyhow.

        My hope is that Clinton gets elected OVER Trump. My vote was against Trump. Many are chosing to vote against Clinton. That’s fine. Almost no one is voting FOR a candidate. Once the election is over, my hope is that folks will have paid attention to the value that Trump brought. That value, IMO, is pointing out problems (and had he had solutions would have gained greater support especially from independents). That value includes that people are rightfully pissed off at the status quo. And hopefully that value with allow him to say ‘I told ya so’ (feeding his ego) from the sidelines. I thank him for bringing up concerns and hope he goes away happy.

        I notice you came back at me and didn’t address a single thing I said to support why I voted AGAINST Trump. You bring just more nonsense and noise. You obviously cannot support (or choose to not support) his morals, his policies, his tax plan, so you come after me. There’s a word for that but I’m not a psychologist.

      • “It’s clear from the outside that you’re totally in the tank for her crowd, and just pretending to be even-handed.” From which cereal box did you get your psychology degree?

        All I need is long experience with types like you. You repeatedly hallucinate something completely different from what I say. That (AFAIK) means either an overriding agenda or cognitive dissonance. (Any “gray” area between them is usually “both of the above” in my experience.)

        But I do take note you take issue with only ONE side (Democrats) and not the other. Does that make me more the problem or you?

        You’re the problem.

        I have little use for either side, but when we’re discussing a Clinton f*ckup, where the Trump side didn’t, I seldom give either much credit. But you almost always interpret it as down on Hillary while Giving Trump a bye. That’s an hallucination.

        Take the hacking. The Dems got dinged. Did Trump? Nobody knows. Was his security better? Nobody knows but (IMO) probably not. That was the thrust of my comment above, but you took it as “tak[ing] note you take issue with only ONE side (Democrats) and not the other.

        If it were a one-off it would be different, but what I note is a continual practice of mis-reading what I say. Demonstrating cognitive dissonance, persecution complex, or both.

        I notice you came back at me and didn’t address a single thing I said to support why I voted AGAINST Trump.

        Well, I’ve been more interested in details of the incidents (especially system penetration) than political implications.

        WRT hacking, I don’t see the DNC getting their emails hacked as a big thing. It’s a forensic problem that I’m interested in digging into, but anybody so stupid as to put something in an email that they wouldn’t want to see the next morning on the NYTimes deserves what they get.

        I’d be more critical of Trump, because I’d expect him to have taken more of a lesson from the Target thing last year. But, realistically, I suspect he didn’t get hacked because he was lucky: he was using a different system that didn’t support the penetration methods available.

        But I could be wrong. On to your “thing[s] I said to support why I voted AGAINST Trump.”:

        Fiscally I have concerns about both, but see this link I couldn’t get anyone to even respond to after posting twice: https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/28/week-in-review-politics-edition-15/#comment-820477

        Fiscally, I don’t have any use for what either says. Clinton would certainly continue enriching her donors, giving us more of the same. Trump? Perhaps he’ll be able to innovate. Innovation might work, Clinton won’t

        For example, his pitch is only he can fix Chicago. Well if so let’s hear it.

        I haven’t heard details, but details don’t matter at this point. It’s attitude. He supports police, and will have much more interest in smashing the SJW/BLM types and letting the cops do their jobs. With body cams, etc.

        Trump’s tax plan has been panned by experts.

        Experts” who don’t have the faintest idea what they’re talking about. “Economics” as taught in universities, is more like Astrology than any sort of science. (Yes, even the Chicago School.)

        Trump’s immigration plan will cost billions and break up families, and is unrealistic.

        It’s probably more of a bargaining position and emotional statement than actual plan.

        But it does demonstrate an attitude superior to Clinton. He wants to get rid of open borders, and that’s ESSENTIAL. He isn’t going to bring jobs back from Mexico or overseas because nobody’s going to employ Americans at the wages they’d need to live here. They’ll automate.

        The solution to that problem will have to be much more radical than just closed borders. But closed borders will be an essential prerequisite.

        Clinton? More of the same. More draining the US economy for the sake of people in other countries.

        He can’t even vet his own team (Manafort) and expects me to trust him to vet immigrants?

        Manafort’s a political consultant who’s worked in several countries. He worked for a popularly elected politician in the Ukraine who was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup. Just because he worked for a Slavic politician doesn’t make him a Russian spy.

        While the facts remain to come out, it would appear Manafort was let go shortly after the issue came up. This is precisely how a president should behave: if somebody on his payroll is found to have unsavory ties, the ties should be cut.

        If the FBI (or any other security agency) had evidence of such ties, the proper thing for them to do would be to let the candidate know, and the candidate should have let the person go.

        And guess what! That’s what happened.

        He can’t keep his itty bitty foundation legal.

        You mean he didn’t file some paperwork so the foundation can’t solicit donations in New York? But does it solicit donations anyway? Or is it just something he puts money into?

        He says he’s for smaller government yet would require regulation to ‘make’ him use American Steel and Aluminum in his projects (see debate 3). He effectively says he must be ‘legislated’ to “Make America Great Again”. He outsources to international entities for his own products (can you say forked tongue?)

        This sort of nonsense is an almost perfect tell. You’re a socialist. You don’t understand the first thing about capitalist “free-market” economics.

        He can’t decide his own party affiliation.

        The major US political parties are simply public institutions, like big cities.

        Moving to a different party is like moving to a different city. It’s done for economic or other personal advantage. Neither party has any ideological foundation.

        He professes to know more than ‘the generals do’.

        He doesn’t, of course. But a lot of the stuff they know just ain’t so. Generals are always fighting the last war.

        He and his running mate disagree on serious issues.

        It’s a political party, not a choir.

        He talks about transparency yet refuses to be transparent.

        About what? His taxes? You’re being silly. There’s nothing illegal there, or the corrupt, Democratic IRS would have found it.

        Note: none of this goes to misogyny, racism, xenophobia. I stay away from that kinda stuff.

        Good idea, since they’re all hallucinations induced by MSM fantasies.

        But he did lye about the birther issue (and can’t figure out why), Iraq, and quite a few others.

        AFAIK he didn’t l1e about the birther issue. He picked it up and ran with it, but he didn’t kick it onto the field. That was somebody in Clinton’s ’08 primary organization.

        He clearly didn’t support Iraq, but he doesn’t seem to have been quoted in the MSM that, I’ll note, was supporting it. But when everybody’s in a war fever, saying “I guess so” when asked if he supported the war is clearly not support.

        I’ll just rest comfortably knowing your ‘cognitive un-dissonance’ won’t allow you to evaluate and discuss honestly.

        Whatever.

      • AK,

        About that transparency: “Over the course of decades, Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. These tactics—exposed by a Newsweek review of thousands of pages of court filings, judicial orders and affidavits from an array of court cases—have enraged judges, prosecutors, opposing lawyers and the many ordinary citizens entangled in litigation with Trump. In each instance, Trump and entities he controlled also erected numerous hurdles that made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of money in legal fees as they struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records.” http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html

        And Making America Great: http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00580100/1119574/sd/12

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/31/donald-trump-is-refusing-to-pay-his-campaign-pollster-nearly-three-quarters-of-a-million-dollars/?postshare=7601477933633852&tid=ss_tw

      • Over the course of decades, Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. These tactics—exposed by a Newsweek review […]

        Nothing Newsweek says can be believed. Perhaps, if the documents they link to are genuine, they have a case.

        But the same logic applies here as to getting his shirts made in China: This sort of thing is rampant and until the system is fixed he has as much right as anyone to follow standard procedures.

        In addition, civil rights cases in the ’70’s were a total mess of agenda-driven corrupt prosecution. For the moment, I’m not going to worry about the tactics he used against activists who created “evidence” against him.

        As for the contested polling expense, the WP story is nothing but a mass of garbage about typical disputes between vendors and customers, tied to a single vendor marked as disputed while others have been paid.

        If Trump has had such a record of disputing vendors’ charges, why did the vendors do business with him?

        Fabrizio was an ally of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, […]

        So, on the one hand, the MSM/DNC/Hillbullies claim the FBI is, or should be, investigating Manafort, while OTOH they are trying to get Trump in trouble for disputing the “services” his “ally” provided.

        I don’t see anything here but last-minute garbage the MSM wouldn’t have evern used if they hadn’t been desperate.

      • AK,
        “Nothing Newsweek says can be believed.” Typical armwaving. “Perhaps, if the documents they link to are genuine, they have a case.” Why don’t you check before you pan the messenger?

        ‘Fixing the system.’ Another load of carp. Put up or shut up. Some prefer to buy American out of actual patriotism. Some prefer to cop out due to ‘the system.’ I see who you are. We see right here on this blog folks (including me) who complain when others don’t take personal responsibility for their part in contributing to CO2 emissions. ‘Fixing the system’ is a hypocritical stance.

        Show me your evidence on the Wapo work. In fine detail, including the contract an the payables of the campaign proving ‘all others’ have been paid. I don’t buy the Wapo article either but also don’t buy your blowing smoke.

        “If Trump has had such a record of disputing vendors’ charges, why did the vendors do business with him?” Proof you’ve not looked in to it.

        “I don’t see anything here but last-minute garbage the MSM wouldn’t have evern used if they hadn’t been desperate.” Last minute garbage? Does your trash can include the latest on the Weiner scandal since we don’t know details or is this just another ‘convenience’ of yours?

        I’ve got you Ak. No need to continue. It’s clear who you are in this.

      • AK,
        Since you won’t remove your blinders and obviously think there is only one sinner and only one saint in this campaign:

        “If Trump has had such a record of disputing vendors’ charges, why did the vendors do business with him?” How many vendors DON’T? Again you make assumptions only IN FAVOR of Trump.

        ““Derogatory information, including a tax lien, judgement and collection accounts are affecting the Trump Organization’s credit scores,” Detweiler said. Derogatory information can include things like bankruptcies, but Trump’s bankruptcies did not show up on the report — most likely because they were old or for other businesses he is associated with, Detweiler said.”

        Presume you’ll armwave away Fox now since it doesn’t fit your narrative.

        http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/10/20/trumps-business-credit-score-is-19-out-possible-100.html

        Since Clinton doesn’t have a ‘business’ they provided information on the foundation as comparison.

      • “I know more than the generals do”(Trump)

        “The former dean of the Army War College, retired Army Col. Jeff McCausland, told The New York Times that the candidate’s assessment was off the mark.
        “What this shows is Trump doesn’t know a damn thing about military strategy,” he said.
        Trump fired back Wednesday when asked about McCausland’s remarks on ABC.
        “You can tell your military expert that I’ll sit down and I’ll teach him a couple of things,” he said.

        http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/trump-pentagon-mosul-differ/

      • The former dean of the Army War College, retired Army Col. Jeff McCausland, told The New York Times that the candidate’s assessment was off the mark.

        Who the hell is retired Army Col. Jeff McCausland,?

        Oh. he’s a political academic who “commanded the 3rd Battalion 17th Field Artillery, VII Corps during Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM” but retired as a colonel.

        Like I said, “Generals are always fighting the last war.” Goes double for colonels.

    • OK, here it is:

      FBI Making Inquiry Into Ex-Trump Campaign Manager’s Foreign Ties.

      Old news. Old, stale, news. Nothing “explosive”, just financial ties between a short-term Trump campaign manager and some Russian shenanigans in the Ukraine.

      The Ukraine is a policy issue where Trump has a different opinion from Clinton. It was part of Russia for a long time prior to the Soviet Revolution, and the entire issue is very complex and not really the US’s business.

      If Manafort does have unfortunate ties, well Trump removed him from his campaign, perhaps at the behest of the FBI or other security services.

      As a “tit-for-tat” this is probably going to be another fail for Horrible Hillary and the Hillbullies.

  64. Conspiracies ‘R’ fun! “The problem was, Mook never deleted his tweets, because he had never posted to Twitter, despite joining back in 2015. Not only was Wikileaks wrong, but a whole big slice of anti-Clinton forces dropped the ball on this one too. One thing to remember as a reporter – if the story seems too good to be true, it probably is.”
    http://jamiedupree.blog.wsbradio.com/2016/10/30/wikileaks-releases-more-emails-as-assange-vows-clintons-arrest/

    But send money:
    ““We commence phase 3 of our US election coverage next week. You can contribute: https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate @WLTaskForce” the whistleblower website announced moments ago.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/wikileaks-warns-it-launching-phase-three-its-election-coverage

    • The problem was, Mook never deleted his tweets, because he had never posted to Twitter, despite joining back in 2015.

      Doubtful a reporter would know how to determine whether Mook “never posted to Twitter”.

      And given Twitter’s proven record for shadowbanning, and the strong suspicions that they were doing it for political purposes, nothing they say should be believed without independent confirmation.

      Who knows? Perhaps WikiLeaks has some sort of proof that Mook actually posted tweets to his account. If so, they’re probably holding it back hoping to #killTwitter along with Horrible Hillary and the Hillbullies.

      • The problem was, Mook never deleted his tweets

        Well… this might technically be accurate without being true.

        He could have deleted some embarrassing tweets he received.

        But if his hashtag was known you could search on his hashtag and find if he tweeted anyone. If someone had quoted his tweets there would be a record.. If not… well, it becomes he said, she said.

        The wayback machine doesn’t store tweets so that wasn’t how the reporter knew.

      • The story said he’d never tweeted since setting up his account. I’m highly skeptical any reporter could tell that from his having simply deleted every tweet he made.

        Still, if some tweets had been re-tweeted, it might be possible. Problem is, the folks at Twitter know how their search algorithms work, and could change the data at a much lower level, if they were helping.

        Which can’t be ruled out.

        If Twitter could be trusted, they could go to their back-up copies of their database and say for sure.

      • “If Twitter could be trusted, they could go to their back-up copies of their database and say for sure.”

        Yet you’re willing to distrust them due to ‘political’ behavior and yet you trust wikileaks for behaving politically?

      • AK,

        You’ve got it really bad dontcha? One thing a reporter could do is ask if Mook ever used the account, or find someone who does know how to find out. Any 12 year old would probably do.

        You suggest Twitter is not to be ‘trusted’ since you suspect a history of ‘politically purposed’ behavior. Then you suggest that wikileaks ‘perhaps’ has proof (indicating you trust they do) yet wikileaks has a ‘suspected history of politically purposed’ behavior.

        You’re getting as bad as Jim2.

      • Still, if some tweets had been re-tweeted, it might be possible.

        I’m not a twitter user, however. this question has come up.

        If a tweet is deleted the retweets go too (otherwise deleting a tweet would be meaningless). However if someone quoted it particularly as part of a longer message… The quoted text should still be around unless you have friends at Twiiter.

      • However if someone quoted it particularly as part of a longer message… The quoted text should still be around unless you have friends at Twiiter.

        Well, that’s the problem.

        But even if somebody linked to a tweet from a page (e.g. blog comment) the link would be there, just empty.

        Another possibility would be screen prints that had been loaded to the Internet before the issue came up. All that would be needed would be one item to prove that at least one of his tweets had been deleted. Then Twitter could probably be pressured into making the back-up copies available.

      • @Danny Thomas…

        You’re hallucinating.

        One thing a reporter could do is ask if Mook ever used the account, or find someone who does know how to find out. Any 12 year old would probably do.

        A natural assumption is that that was done.

        But they didn’t provide a source (e.g. “Mook, asked over the telephone, said…”)

        Still, my thought would be that if WikiLeaks is correct, Mook lied. (This would also be stupid, since many people would come forward to accuse him.)

        Then you suggest that wikileaks ‘perhaps’ has proof (indicating you trust they do) yet wikileaks has a ‘suspected history of politically purposed’ behavior.

        The fact that you can’t see the distinction here just demonstrates what a mole you are.

        The proper thing for WikiLeaks to have done was to find proof of some sort that Mook had actually had live tweats before last week.

        It’s certainly plausible that they just looked, found no activity, and succumbed to confirmation bias. I would consider this the default assumption for some “journalistic” site on the Web, but I would expect higher standards from somebody like WikiLeaks.

        But that doesn’t rule out a mistake on their part. Especially if they were in a hurry to be first with the story. Adding to that probability is that a more honest way of putting it would have been the Mook appears to have deleted all his tweets, and they were working to confirm that speculation.

        I can see only two plausible reasons for making the absolute statement: they (negligently) didn’t think to confirm it, or they actually have what they consider “proof” and are waiting for the right moment to drop it.

        Contrast that with my distrust of Twitter, which entirely rests on motivation: they certainly have backups, they could certainly consult them and discover the truth for themselves. The question is whether they could be trusted to tell the truth, given their apparent l1es regarding political shadow-banning.

        WikiLeaks, if they lied, did so stupidly, since they would be sure to be found out. Are they that stupid? Highly doubtful.

  65. CE popular author Mark Steyn on Assange and Comey

    http://www.steynonline.com/7573/the-questions-that-were-never-put-in-public

    The 6′ 8″ gummi worm who runs the FBI has been shamed by some guy holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London into reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

    –more at link

    • David,

      Now wait just a minute. What you’ve done here is prostituted yourself to the MSM. And you’ve done so openly.

      Unless you’re suggesting that because it suits your narrative the MSM is a viable and trustworthy source.

      So which is it? (I see a pretzel forming).

      • Unless you’re suggesting that because it suits your narrative the MSM is a viable and trustworthy source.

        The MSM can be “trusted” to pursue the agenda of their controllers.

        If the power blocks who were behind Hillary have decided to throw her under the bus, this sort of stuff would be expected from the MSM.

        I doubt they love Horrible Hillary for her wonderful personality.

  66. Clinton lead falls under margin of error on both 2-way and 4-way RCP aggregate polls:

    Ubik seems awfully quiet lately. LOL

  67. Chicago Tribune: Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside

    If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:

    They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place.

    Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea.

  68. Chicago Tribune: Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside

    If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:

    They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place.

    Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new crimina1 investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea.

    • “If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:”

      Speaking for the independents, since we’re talking of ‘high moral standards’ I’d agree to the replacement of BOTH candidates (not just one).

      Would you?

      • No way I’d want Trump to step down.

        Trump isn’t being being investigated by the FBI for criminal espionage.

        After all the corruption I’ve seen exposed by Wikileaks it becomes evident that Washington and the current establishment is irredeemably corrupt and serving big money special interests.

        #DrainTheSwamp needs to happen and there’s probably nobody else so ideally suited to do it as Donald Trump nor will there be again for a very long time if ever.

      • No way I’d want Trump to step down.

        Trump isn’t being being investigated by the FBI for crimina1 espionage.

        After all the corruption I’ve seen exposed by Wikileaks it becomes evident that Washington and the current establishment is irredeemably corrupt and serving big money special interests.

        #DrainTheSwamp needs to happen and there’s probably nobody else so ideally suited to do it as Donald Trump nor will there be again for a very long time if ever.

      • David,
        But you transitioned from using a link supporting an argument based on ‘morals’. So you must be backing away from that argument. Surely you wouldn’t wish to apply separate standards just to support a narrative. Tell me it’s not so.

      • I was clear that I didn’t believe Trump had done anything that warrants him stepping down.

      • What would it take?

      • “What would it take?”

        Maybe perjury, or obstruction of justice.

        But since not even that/i> warrants Clinton to step down according to her supporters, maybe not even that is enough.
        Murder then?

      • wijnand2015,

        Just to be clear, this subthread relates to ‘high moral standards’ until David switched it.

        I’m there were both of these candidates but curious as to what it takes for the Trump supporters to be there too. Is murder still your answer?

      • Dancing Thomas

        “What would it take”

        Convincing evidence that he’s committed a fel0ny and there’s an active FBI investigation into it to build a case.

        I am convinced that Clinton was using that email server to avoid preservation and surrender of her communications while serving as Secretary of Defense.

        That’s a fel0ny. She signed a statement saying she had taken the required training and understood her responsibilities under the law with regard to preservation of email.

        I took the preservation class and signed the same statement within 90 days of being sworn into an elected office. Taking that class was required by law. Many if not most of my elected peers blew it off since there was no enforcement. The fact that I did it is a testament to my good character. I scrupulously followed the law in preserving my communications by using a government email address and surrendering my password whenever required so that it could be searched for responsive items in duly submitted Freedom of Information Act requests. That fact that Clinton willfully dodged those requirements speaks to her character.

        Thanks for asking.

      • Dancing Thomas

        Secretary of Defense State

      • Dancing Thomas

        Double Deal you confuse high moral standards with high legal standards. I don’t really give a sh*t what anyone’s “moral standards” are so long as they don’t break the law. Our country doesn’t operate on subjective moral standards. It’s a nation of laws that embody minimal standards of behavior with an objective interpretation.

        Neither Trump or Clinton have what I’d deem to be high moral standards in all respects but that’s subjective. One of them has an objectively high legal standard and the other is under a criminal investigation by the FBI.

        Thanks for asking!

      • We get this from the person who lacks honor to self discipline? Really?

        “One of them has an objectively high legal standard and the other is under a criminal investigation by the FBI.”
        Keep telling yourself Trump is the better: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/federal-judge-orders-hearing-in-donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-case/

        Thanks for asking!

      • Dancing Thomas

        Double Deal you confuse high moral standards with high legal standards. I don’t really give a sh*t what anyone’s “moral standards” are so long as they don’t break the law. Our country doesn’t operate on subjective moral standards. It’s a nation of laws that embody minimal standards of behavior with an objective interpretation.

        Neither Trump or Clinton have what I’d deem to be high moral standards in all respects but that’s subjective. One of them has an objectively high legal standard and the other is under a crimina1 investigation by the FBI.

        Thanks for asking!

      • I don’t confuse a thing. You started this subthread with a comment associated with “high moral standards”. Look up. It’s there. Your behavior here makes it clear you have zero regard sok pupet ing and PURPOSEFULLY dishonoring & disrespecting Dr. Curry.

        I could care less about your ‘subjective’ view of anyone.

        Write that down.

      • Did you stomp your foot when you wrote “purposely” in all caps?

        I’m living rent-free inside your head, huh?

  69. Under what scenario does someone hide emails on the computer of a spouse who is himself under investigation? I am not sure I follow the conspiracy theorists’ thinking on this one. Doesn’t add up. Perhaps someone who delved into the depths of the conspiracy sites can enlighten us.

    • You want to understand the pervert? Try CYA…

      http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Inhabit/2016/1027/How-a-president-Trump-could-scuttle-US-role-in-climate-accord

      Besides you don’t need to worry your head about that my friend, we are all in the oil business.

    • Well, there were 640,000 emails on the computer (that’s from memory – don’t quote me).

      Assuming it had the pro version of windows and multiple user accounts it is possible she occasionally used his computer without being aware of what he was up. As a non-administrator she wouldn’t have access to his user tree.

      And she may overlooked that she had used his computer occasionally (who is going to search on your pervert exhusband’s computer anyway?)., or more likely, the computer was in FBI hands and there wasn’t anything she could do about it.

      • The Clinton and the Dems want what was found to be released on Monday. No footdragging there. Not the act of a group with anything to hide. Let’s hope they can put this to rest on Monday.

      • My guess is that he surreptitiously was downloading files to be used as his ‘get-out-of-jail-Free’ card, since he is sick of his wife and must hate Herc.

      • Jim D, you think Herc should get special attention when everyone in the world knows that is impossible since this is now an ‘Ongoing Investigation’. I am sorry but justice yadda, yadda.

      • Well, there were 640,000 emails on the computer (that’s from memory – don’t quote me).

        IIRC it was “over 650,000”. I remember that especially since it occurred to me that a reporter might have gotten a decimal wrong, and it was actually something slightly over 65,000. Which, in turn, might mean that the actual number they were originally looking at might have been -1.

        Depending on how computer-savvy the agent(s) looking at the stuff were, and how low-level their utility was, all sorts of accidental mis-information might have found its way into what they were talking about. Or perhaps “accidental”.

      • Sounds like you would prefer not to see them before the election. Deep inside you know they are nothing.

      • Well, I put an account on my machine for my daughter and she was basically sandboxed to her account.

        So there are a number of options for how the emails got there.

        The demand for release is a joke and is just window dressing. So far the FBI have (as far as I know) just browsed the metadata and would be weeks from getting redacted versions by someone with proper clearances.

        There are only a couple of thousand emails that are said to be hers.

        Don’t know what is really going on. Don’t think we will find out until after the election..

      • I would be happy to see them used as evidence in a federal courthouse.
        Matt Laurer, could be a character witness from what I read.

      • If there is no evidence of wrongdoing so far, they can announce that too, otherwise some people just make unfounded assumptions that there has to be and might even use it politically in the election.

      • Jim D | October 31, 2016 at 10:33 am |
        Sounds like you would prefer not to see them before the election. Deep inside you know they are nothing.

        Huh? After reading through the process they had to follow for Hillary’s emails (which took about 5 months – they were talking about it in March and released them in August) the claim these emails could/will be released in a week appears extremely dubious.

        This would make the call for release superficial grandstanding.

        I have found treating everything the Hillary campaign says as self-serving propaganda intended to distract, a useful guide to interpreting it..

      • Great! Now proponents of both sides are using Soviet tactics:

        Famed Democratic strategist James Carville may be the first Clinton surrogate to have officially lost his mind over the FBI’s decision to reopen its investigation into Clinton’s private email server.

        He’s not crazy. He may have had a meltdown and a “nervous breakdown, but he’s not crazy.

        Calling people crazy is a Democratic/Soviet trick.

      • They need to put Carville on a Quaalude IV and stick him in a closet until this is over.

    • It was a shared laptop. For some unknown value of “shared”.

      I’ve been thinking about that number though, over 600,000. They might have been keeping an archive. Perhaps.

      IMO a better explanation is that they were using it to drive a networked printer, and the huge trove of emails is from a never-purged spool file. Just guesswork of course, since I don’t even know what OS it was running.

      • The problem is that the MSM never gets technical stories straight.

        A thread on Slashdot might actually have an accurate explanation. But it won’t come from the MSM.

        The MSM spelled email and laptop correctly and that is the best you can hope for.

      • A thread on Slashdot might actually have an accurate explanation. But it won’t come from the MSM.

        Well, even Slashdot is iffy. Especially if all they’re working off of is the MSM.

        A report from the FBI might be better, but even there my own (corporate) experience would suggest that once you get more than a step away from the technical person involved the details get fuzzy. Management agendas just don’t include complete precision in technical details.

        This especially if, as I suspect, what happened first is that somebody went looking on the drive with a low-level utility when they (technically) weren’t supposed to, then escalated when they found “classified” headers. Management would do some arm-waving trying to hide the fact that somebody was looking without permission, and wouldn’t be able to get an airtight description of the details.

        And even if they had competent technical help, they’d probably mess up the details putting it into the report.

      • Well they got a search warrant yesterday and have plenty of experts with security clearances to go through it. They only need one smoking gun. There’s probably 10,000 smoking guns. I’d guess they already have it and there are negotiations going on at the highest levels of government about what the phuck to do about it.

        I’d give it at least a one-in-three chance that Hillary steps down and in return Obama pardons her.

        Let’s call it a given that rank and file FBI agents are ready, willing, and able to leak the shiit if there’s any hint of a cover-up at the top so they have to somehow come clean and not create a constitutional crisis in the process.

      • Well they got a search warrant yesterday and have plenty of experts with security clearances to go through it. They only need one smoking gun. There’s probably 10,000 smoking guns. I’d guess they already have it and there are negotiations going on at the highest levels of government about what the phuck to do about it.

        I’d give it at least a one-in-three chance that Hillary steps down and in return Obama pardons her.

        Let’s call it a given that rank and file FBI agents are ready, willing, and able to leak the shiit if there’s any hint of a cover-up at the top so they have to somehow come clean and not create a constitutional crissis in the process.

      • “Let’s call it a given that rank and file FBI agents…………” Why in the world would anyone suggest that as a ‘given’?

      • Let’s call it a given because Fox reported today from “unnamed sources within the FBI” that there was a revolt against Comey by current and former FBI.

        I trust Fox enough to believe they wouldn’t lie about a source. I trust you’ll rush to shoot the messenger so I couched it with a “for the sake argument” let’s call it a given.

      • David,
        “I trust you’ll rush to shoot the messenger “. Nope, not even wrong. You seem to have confused me with those who ‘shoot the messenger’ when that messenger is MSM. I prefer to look at the message. Searching ‘the google’ for evidence of some sort of large scale mutiny in the rank and file of the FBI I can find only a Daily Mail article which references an unnamed source who’s been a friend of Comey’s for a couple of decade and who attends Mass with him ‘every week’. While I doubt ‘every week’ to a nitpicky extent, I cannot otherwise confirm. Since you provide nothing but your assumption I have to guess based on your propensities of ‘single dealing’ towards your Saint Trump that you desire to ‘call it a given’ is self serving.

      • Evidence of an FBI rank&file rebellion:

        Report: Clinton aides’ laptops not destroyed Mutiny at FBI? Agents reportedly refused to follow Justice Department orders

        DiGenova, appearing on The David Webb Show on SiriusXM Friday night, revealed that the laptops belonging to Mills and Samuelson had not been destroyed, the Daily Caller reported.

        “According to the agreement reached with the attorneys who handed over their laptops, the laptops were to be destroyed per the agreement after the testimony was given – the interviews were given – by the attorneys. The bureau and the department agreed to that,” DiGenova said.

        “However the laptops, contrary to published reports, were not destroyed, and the reason is the agents who are tasked with destroying them refused to do so. And by the way, the laptops are at the FBI for inspection by Congress or federal courts.”

        I haven’t been able to track down a video of this interview, and no source I’ve found is reliable (IMO).

        But I’m guessing (for the moment) it’s true.

      • AK,
        From your link.

        “They know that Comey is a dirty cop and they are disgusted.”

        and
        ““Comey thought this was going to go away. It is not. People inside the agency are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel they are being led by a hack. But, more than that, they think he’s a crook. They think he’s fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau, inside, right now … is a mess.”

        How exactly does that jive with your Adams link about Comey’s integrity?

        Speculation abounds. Sources unnamed. Rumors. Conspiracy theories. And Adams thrown in just for fun.

        It may not be cognitive, but it is dissonant.

        Believe what you chose to. I’ll wait for more concrete evidence. Guess I’m just skeptical.

      • stevenreincarnated

        They were filed under life insurance. I think it was getting thrown under the bus insurance.

      • Life insurance? Seriously? That kind of makes sense. Weiner was probably afraid that Huma could ask Hillary, in a moment of passion if you know what I mean, and to have Weiner killed and he’d be another suicide who shot himself three times in the back. So Weiner swipes the data off Huma’s computer.

        Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!

    • I’m sure we won’t be left hanging much longer. The FBI got a legal warrant to start searching the text of the emails. It won’t take very long to find a smoking gun if one’s there. Comey has no choice about going public with it ASAP because if he doesn’t the rank and file are going to leak it. They’ve had it. There’s a mutiny happening at the FBI. Comey’s desk was getting a big stack of resignations on it. For the FBI their reputation if not their continued existence is on the line.

      Probably Huma was doing something totally stupid like sending classified emails from state.gov to her laptop, stripping the classified header off it, then forwarding to Hillary’s server. She probably got a new laptop at some point and gave the old one to Weiner and she didn’t use BleachBit or CleanSweep or anything like that to delete incriminating evidence.

      That’s what extremely careless people do with classified information and we already know Hillary was at least extremely careless, right?

      Such a delightful development. I’m so happy. :-)

      • If she follows the script she must know by now what it means.
        …and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
        Soon to be tainted evidence from the “the fruit of the poisonous tree,”
        Nothing new under the Sun.

      • I think Comey had the smoking gun before he sent the letter to congress.

        Furthermore I think there’s a come-to-Jesus meeting happening right now with Comey, Obama, Lynch, and some members of congress house and senate judiciary committees.

        The meeting is figuring out how to bring the election to an end without causing a civil war. In other words there’s a huge shiit sandwich in Washington and they’re all going to have take a bite of it.

  70. May I have your attention please.

    LAT/USC poll update for today came out hours late. I suspected it may have changed by so much they wanted to recheck the results. Sure enough it’s now showing Trump with a 4 point lead 47:43.

    47:43 win for Trump was my prediction for the popular vote made last week.

    Not all the polls are there yet but I’m feeling good about that being the result on November 8th.

  71. See the laugh on the reporter’s face? MIne too.

  72. There was a discussion whether an American system, sometimes producing candidates like Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald J Trump, is better or worse than a European system, producing personalities like Martin Schulz or Jean-Claude Juncker.

    Both systems are horrible. Do we prefer a revolution or an evolution?

    • curious George

      juncker was formerly the head of the mighty nation of Luxemburg. Both characters were elected to their high position as President, only by the has beens that constitute the European parliament. so both got in with a few hundred votes from MEP’s. Juncker was bitterly opposed by the UK because basically he is a wasted space.

      the system bears no relation to the vote for the US president other, I suppose, than the curious system whereby millions of votes cast for a candidate by American voters are distilled into the few hundred serving the electoral college.

      Hmm. So perhaps the EU system is not that different to the US one.

      The EU system stinks to high heaven which was a prime reason for the Brexit vote.

      tonyb

  73. CNN cut ties with Donna Brazill over tip-off’s to Democrats.

    Live just a few minutes ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OttppxjrWr4

  74. George W. Bush’s Ethics Lawyer Files Complaint Against FBI Director James Comey

    The man who spent two and half years as the ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush has filed a Hatch Act complaint against FBI Director James Comey.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/30/george-w-bushs-ethics-lawyer-files-complaint-fbi-director-james-comey.html

    • I’m actually enthused. Comey’s getting it from: Democrats, Ex-Bush representatives, Reid, Holder, Judge Jeanine, Bill Weld Libertarian VP candidate, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Newt, and a few others: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/31/meet-the-republicans-defending-hillary-clinton-from-fbi-chief-james-comey/

      • Reid, Holder, Weld I have already seen and those do indeed have their panties in a bunch. Newt only asked for more information.

        Judge Jeanine was interesting. She was running for some office in 2006 and the FBI opened an investigation on her that she believes cost her the election.

        That certainly explains why she’s a loopy loud cartoonish imitation of a judge on FOX.

      • Okay. So you addressed 5 of them. What about the rest? Any reason you left them out? Maybe it’s part of election rigging.

      • “”We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official— Republican or Democrat—has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new,” they wrote.

        The nearly 100 former DOJ officials who signed on to the letter, wrote that Comey’s letter to Congress was inconsistent with prevailing department policy and that it broke with longstanding practices followed during past elections.” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/attorney-general-holder-doj-officials-pen-letter-criticizing/story?id=43182627

        Wording from the above referenced letter in here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/30/prosecutors-justice-officials-sign-letter-criticizing-comey-decision/93037670/

        And apparently there are 46 (according to reports) of ‘our nations top law enforcement’ officials who have signed on to another letter complaining about Comey’s handling.

      • ==> Judge Jeanine ==>

        That was actually pretty impressive. It’s rare to see anyone on TV show that level of consistency across the political divide. Also interesting were Obama’s statements about Comey’s integrity.

        Contrary to the amazing conspiracies being promoted in these pages, (as much as I see it, I’m still always impressed by the total lack of skepticism among some “skeptics”), All these highly confident conclusions about Comey’s motivations are pretty funny. Personally, I tend to trust that professionals like Comey generally take their responsibilities seriously. That doesn’t mean that they can’t make errors in judgement, however.

      • Dancing Thomas

        I didn’t recognize the rest of them and frankly Scarlett I don’t give a damn. In this toxic political environment if people on both sides of the partisan establishment are against you then you’re doing something right.

    • If he really has something he can’t sit on it isn’t partisan politics it’s doing his job. Comey is an attorney. He knows what he’s doing with regard to his actions and the Hatch Act.

  75. Medford Police Patrolmen’s Association Posts Photo Of Officers ‘Arresting’ Hillary Clinton

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/10/30/medford-police-patrolmens-association-posts-photo-of-officers-arresting-hillary-clinton/

    Also has a picture of them arm over shoulder with Donald Trump with everyone smiling.

    Funny stuff. Cops don’t like Hillary.

  76. It’s been a AWESOME day in the neighborhood!!

  77. From the article:

    A real-time demo of the most devastating election theft mechanism yet found, with context and explanation. Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions.

    Guest Author: Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.: [Updated July 20 to include full detail report] It has been widely noted that the unadjusted CNN exit polls for the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, in many states, are at variance with the official results.

    Guest Author – Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.: Ohio citizens conducted, under my direction, a genuine audit of the 2004 presidential election. This was no mere “spot check” of randomly selected precincts, and no mere “recount” of the same ballots previously run through the electronic tabulators.

    1 – Summary – This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application

    2 — Totals dropping mid-count; poll tapes don’t match; missing single-votes like round-off errors; e-mails from programmers; and voters being personally “weighted” for unequal value —

    6 – Middlemen, Inside Access and Manipulation – A fractional voting framework is treacherous because it can be scaled to run across multiple jurisdictions very quickly. False results precisely mimic known patterns to appear plausible.

    5 – Precision control to weight results – Using the GEMS “double” configuration, users can control election results using amazingly accurate vote percentages. We demonstrate this by assigning vote percentages using a children’s letter-number cipher. A=1, B=2, C=3, etc. For example, H=8 and A=1 so 81.8181% is “hahaha.”

    http://blackboxvoting.org/

    • Influential reporting by Black Box Voting is referenced worldwide. Here is a link to a free copy of the book, Black Box Voting: HERE. Author Bev Harris became known for groundbreaking work on electronic voting machines, which can remove transparency of the vote count; other important reporting pertains to voter lists, election chain of custody, transparency problems with absentee voting, election industry corporate governance, and financial accountability in elections.

      Opaque, non-transparent voting can afflict voter lists, poll lists,vote counting and chain of custody; political finance can also be “black box.” The road to better transparency begins with knowledge and public, grassroots dedication. I am glad you are here!

    • Maybe these GEMS, will also disprove the old saying about people who always complain about the weather… & don’t do anything about it?

  78. From the article:

    “These individuals no longer have any relationship with the DNC. They’ve never had a relationship with the Clinton campaign,” Mook said on CNN on Oct. 23. “And my understanding is that the events that are referenced happened in February of last year, they did not have a contract with the DNC until June. But putting all that aside, this was again, a video that was leaked out for the purpose of damaging the campaign.”

    But Lux’s email would appear to call most of that statement into question. Mook stated Democracy Partners didn’t “have a contract with the DNC until June [2016],” though Lux clearly asserts Creamer is “consulting for the DNC” as of December 2015. Lux’s characterization of Mook and Creamer as “close,” and Creamer’s own boast in one video of getting a directive from Clinton, also raise questions about Mook’s response.

    Asked about any relationship between Creamer and Mook, Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin told FoxNews.com in an email that the Clinton camp was not authenticating individual emails from the Podesta hack. Instead, Caplin blasted Trump for not standing up to Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose government many intelligence analysts blame for the email theft.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/31/controversial-dem-operative-close-to-clinton-campaign-boss-email-claims.html

  79. Why did Comey do it?

    It was the X-Files:

    “To himself, as Fox Mulder, looking in the mirror. Holds up FBI badge, practicing.] FBI. (slowly, exaggerated) F. … B. … I. FBI. (puts badge away; dramatically) You lookin’ at me? There ain’t nobody else here, you must be lookin’ at me. You want a piece of this? (practices getting out his gun quickly; drops the clip as he does so; awkwardly puts it away again; sighs) You’re a damn good lookin’ man.”

    As I recall Mulder had switched bodies with another guy.

  80. The Podesta emails are the gift that keeps on giving. Meet the DOJ man assigned to look at Huma’s emails … from the article:

    Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-31/doj-tells-congress-it-will-work-expeditiously-review-abedin-emails-there-just-one-pr

    • The barrage is two things; “but Russia” and “but Taxes”. These were tried already and didn’t stick.

      Now maybe if you try something like

      “Trump hires illegal Russian immigrant at Trump Hotel without paying her payroll taxes then grabs her pussy without permission.”

      That’s about the only way libtard jagoffs can work Russia and taxes into something that might move the needle.

  81. The Dam is About to Break – Interview with Jimmy Carter’s pollster

  82. Trump is so dumb he can’t tell the “Post Tweet” button on his iPad apart from the “Launch Missiles” button on the nuclear football.

    Incredibly, that’s the libtard story and they are sticking with it. LOL

  83. http://ijr.com/2016/10/724439-while-humas-lawyers-negotiate-with-doj-anthony-weiner-is-said-to-be-cooperating-with-fbi/

    I hope that bus has big wheels so it doesn’t bog down with so many bodies thrown under it. Krooked Klintons aren’t going down alone.

  84. Damn! This is unexpected.

    ABC News Poll now has Trump +1. On October 24, just one week ago, this same poll had Clinton +12.

    Clinton lost 13 points in one week!!!! ONE WEEK!!!!

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-leads-clinton-point-poll-enthusiasm-declines/story?id=43199459

    #DrainTheSwamp #TrumpTrain

    • This huge swing is interesting from a technical point of view. I seriously doubt that the electorate is that volatile. My bet is that the poll is doing a lousy job of randomizing, so it is highly sensitive to each sampling. In this case it looks like the “likely to vote” category is sensitive. This may be due to the Trump enthusiasm factor, which looms large. Accurate polling in this election may be impossible.

      • Dancing Thomas

        David I like the LAT/USC poll for the way it measures indecision. It asks for a number from 0 to 100 on how likely you are to vote for a) Trump b) Clinton c) other or not voting.

        I think that’s a brilliant way to measure the electorate. According to Nate Silver’s calculations It was the 4th best performer in 2012 election among a field of 35 polls. As the race narrows this year other polls have been converging towards LAT/USC not the other way around.

        http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

  85. Cummy needs to resign. He’s lost control.

    Looks like this is going to be blowout for Hillary. Democrats will take the Senate and close the gap in the House.

    Repubicants will try to regroup but the Trump media empire will suck away about half of them.

  86. You know you’re doing it right when James Carvelle gets so laughably flustered and every sentence he utters has “KGB” in it. Calm down James you’re going to pop a blood vessel!

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/carville-melts-asserts-fbi-gop-kgb-cahoots/

  87. OhJoyRegistrationTurnedOffAgain

    Let the fun begin!!!

  88. I’m such a douche bag.

  89. Judging by the polls Clinton’s vaunted ground game is getting out more Trump votes than Clinton votes.

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

  90. The slide continues.

  91. Trump surges in Texas amidst a record number of early voters.

    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/11/01/donald-trump-surges-to-12-point-lead-in-texas/

  92. Time’s brand ain’t what it used to be.

    Hillary Clinton’s Emailgate Is an Attack on Women

    http://time.com/4551711/hillary-clinton-emailgate/?xid=homepage

  93. Without registration enabled there’s no over-posting control. Using different names/email addresses you can post up to the over-posting limit with each individual one and the moderator has no tools to measure groups of names or emails.

    Just sayin’

    • You seem to think that it is somehow the moderator’s job to ensure you follow the rules. No personal responsibility whatsoever. Remarkable. If this were my blog I would ban you for that reason alone. I am pretty sure Professor Curry has better things to do than to deal with your inconsideration.

      • Dancing Thomas

        Small problem. She can’t ban anyone with registration turned off.

      • “She can’t ban anyone with registration turned off.” She shouldn’t have to. Most Marines I know have the honor to self discipline. Maybe you’re an exception.

  94. Great Rant by Rick Santorum on CNN today. He’s really fired up.

  95. So WTF happened to Glenn “Windbag” Stehl?

  96. stevenreincarnated

    It seems there is a rumor spreading through the NYPD that the new emails contain information about Weiner, Epstein, Clinton, and a child sex trafficking ring. Rumor also has it that the powerful and connected in DC are dropping their following of Clinton on Twitter.

    http://sentinel.ht/2016/11/01/obamas-drop-hillary-clinton-off-twitter/

    • Prompted by your post I googled: “clinton child sex trafficking ring in haiti”

      5th item down dating from May: http://www.dailywire.com/news/5749/both-trump-and-clinton-went-jeffrey-epsteins-sex-amanda-prestigiacomo#modal

      Looking at dates for the most current, found this (WARNING….it’s NOT a pretty read): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html

      And finally and also not pretty: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2921127-Complaint.html

      I’ve not found any filings against B.Clinton. Frankly, I’m done looking.

      You can google: status of jane doe vs. trump for latest. More links and this would get modded.

      Asking again. How did we wind up with these two?

      Sigh.

      • Disgusting pig Bill Clinton likes underage black girls which gives this a kernal of truth at the core.

      • Given the Dimowit’s tactics to create the appearance of moral turpitude in Trump, I don’t believe the bit about Trump is true. I will have to see evidence outside of mere allegations. OTOH, I believe the bits about Bill Clinton.

      • “Asking again. How did we wind up with these two?”
        The Republican establishment lost control of its primaries to the voters. The Democrat establishment did not. Reform is suggested to both the parties and electoral process they gave us.

      • Ragnaar,
        I’m comfortable with that. Out of this ‘ordeal’ of an election it is my hope that the value of Trump and the value of Sanders as well as the devalue of Clinton will be remembered.

      • Looks like the Redimowit primary voters did a much better job than the Dimowit establishment.

    • stevenreincarnated

      I’m familiar with the charges against Trump. They have been linked here before as have the connection between Epstein and Bill. This is something new. Claims of emails and even photos found on Weiner’s computer.

      • Can’t find any references to the Weiner claims and/or rumors to which you refer. Any suggestions for links?

        (Found this before posting but even it says unconfirmed and when I look behind disclose.tv wouldn’t say it’s anywhere near a credible source: http://www.disclose.tv/)

        Might this be about this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/10/31/digital-transition-how-presidential-transition-works-social-media-age

        President Obama’s tweets aren’t going away, though. Instead, they’ll be transferred to a new account with the handle @POTUS44. This new account will be maintained by the National Archives and Records Association (NARA) and will serve as an archive for the tweets Obama sent while in office. http://www.slashgear.com/heres-how-the-white-house-will-transfer-potus-social-media-accounts-01462379/

        Did you click thru to Snopes in your initial link?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Yes I saw Snopes. since I was looking around to see what I could find. I did a search on “NYPD Huma’s email child sex ring” and found it in tons of places. That doesn’t make it true of course but people are claiming several different sources.

      • Sources like this: “She also knew that the evidence wasn’t limited to her husband’s sick sexual preferences. The newly discovered emails document Hillary and Bill Clinton’s sexual predation involving minor children according to initial reports coming from those who discovered the emails and have completed an initial review of them.”

        And preceeding that statement this: “More than four months ago we connected the dots and concluded that top Clinton aide/advisor Huma Abedin is a Saudi spy. Now, with the discovery of 650,000 emails secreted away on her husband’s laptop it’s clear that we were right.

        The contents of a significant portion of these newly found emails have implicated Hillary Clinton’s direct involvement in a multitude of illegal activities, pay-to-play arrangements with foreign governments and, the vilest of adult perversions – child sex trafficking.”http://viralliberty.com/nypd-just-raided-hillarys-property-found-will-ruin-life/

        And it contains the same David Goldberg rumor about NYPD as the disclose.tv.

        When/how did NYPD gain access to the FBI evidence?

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’m sure you can think of questions I can’t answer or have no inclination to answer since I did state it as rumor, but some you should be able to answer fairly easily on your own.

        http://nypost.com/2016/09/22/nypd-investigating-weiners-sexting-relationship-with-teen/

        I am inclined to believe the story because they are getting the major pieces right. Epstein claimed to have been a cofounder of the Clinton Foundation. Epstein gave funds to the Clinton Foundation. Epstein and Clinton are known to be buddies. Epstein is a known child sex trafficker.

        We shall know soon enough. I think the Twitter unfollows are a sign of things to come.

      • Steven,
        “I’m sure you can think of questions I can’t answer or have no inclination to answer since I did state it as rumor, but some you should be able to answer fairly easily on your own.”

        It was never my intention to pin this story on you in any fashion. It’s acknowledged you stated it as rumor. The questions posed were ‘thinking out loud’. The NY Post story dates to 9/22, over a month ago.

        It’s interesting the caliber of ‘the sources’ spreading the rumor and the timing. Especially since all of the ‘knowns’ to which you refer have been ‘known’ for a long time. And it’s additionally interesting that Trump’s rumored involvement was ‘conveniently’ omitted by those ‘sources’, don’t you think?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Obama is still on Twitter. It shows him following 72 people. Since I’m not on Twitter I can’t see who they are. People all over are saying Clinton was taken off the list. I wouldn’t know if she is on the list or if not if she ever was. I just know a lot of people in a lot of different places are saying she was and now isn’t. A link saying he will change his Twitter name when he hasn’t yet means what to me?

      • Steven,
        I’m not on Twitter either. “A link saying he will change his Twitter name when he hasn’t yet means what to me?” Nothing specific, just interesting timing and worthy of being in the conversation as a possible cause. Don’t think that’s unreasonable, but I’m uneducated twitter-wise. It’s also interesting that he’s following ‘only’ 72 considering who he is.

        As you said. It’s a rumor. Time will tell. And if true and if Trump’s also involved either ‘new’ president might be impeached before swearing in.

        Just more of the mess surrounding this election.

        Obama still on her schedule of events: https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/

      • I’ll admit I don’t understand the significance of the unfollows on Twitter but assuming there is something there it is interesting that Obama chose not to pile on Comey like many others. I wonder if there is a back channel communication between Obama and Comey and both Comey and Obama know more than either is admitting.

        The intrigue rivals Watergate.

      • Comey and even Obama may be getting cold feet seeing as how Trump has threatened to see Hillary off to jail. Sweet! We could see the entire Administration go to jail they are all so cr00ked!

      • stevenreincarnated

        They would still go even if they were done with Clinton. They still have down ballot people to consider. What they say would be more telling then they were there to say it.

      • Steven,
        First one’s tomorrow. See the story was picked up by Nasdaq. Update states: ‘might be dubious’.

        http://www.nasdaq.com/article/michelle-obama-reportedly-clears-out-mentions-of-hillary-clinton-on-twitter-accounts-cm701847

      • Dated 11/2/16

        ““I trust her,’’ he said. “I know her. And I wouldn’t be supporting her if I didn’t have absolute confidence in her integrity and her interest in making sure that young people have a better future.’’” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/us/politics/obama-james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

      • stevenreincarnated

        If they have the kind of list that Epstein’s phone book indicates they may have then there could be a whole lot of people heading off to jail. I hope they get them all and no, I don’t care who they are.

      • Steven,
        I’m with ya if it’s true. I’ll dig the hole and you can toss in the keys. Deal?

      • stevenreincarnated

        I read an interesting opinion piece from a few days ago although I’d have to search to find the link and it was only opinion. They were predicting the Huma emails had something to do with pedophilia. The reason they were predicting it is because the search warrant against Weiner would have been to locate child pornography. If the search terms they would use for that took them to the Huma emails that would be the most likely if not only way they would find the emails in the life insurance folder. It sounds like a pretty good hypothesis to me based on my limited knowledge of how these things work.

      • I don’t know if anybody else noticed, but the “court document” “Danny Thomas” linked to is dated June (“06/20/16”) of this year.

        So we need to ask: why didn’t the Clinton campaign use these allegations against Trump? Some possibilities:

        •       They aren’t true and the Clinton campaign knew it.

        •       They are true, but so many other people, including Bill and Hillary, are also guilty, that even Horrible Hillary was scared to wake that sleeping dog.

        •       Epstein has such criminal connections that anybody raising the issue could expect to be killed, even Hillary.

        •       Any other ideas?

      • Lectures by AK on Cognitive Dissonance. Sign up here.

        So, AK, curious as to why you left out the possibility that:
        ‘just Trump is guilty’ as a stand alone argument.

        Judge thinks it merits at least a hearing according to: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/federal-judge-orders-hearing-in-donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-case/

        So you don’t have to look: “A status conference is a court-ordered meeting with a judge (or under some circumstances an authorized counsel) where they decide the date of the trial. If a party does not attend the status conference, that party’s requests for scheduling changes will be ignored.”

        A conspiracy theorist might wonder why the ‘right wing’ MSM hasn’t picked up on this in addition to the ‘left wing’ MSM. Interesting that the ‘left wing’ biased MSM is reporting regularly on Comey/FBI/E-mails.

        But the first step…………..”The first step is to see through your own cognitive dissonance and admit they’re real. Some of them.”

        It makes me wonder so…………………..

      • So, AK, curious as to why you left out the possibility that:
        ‘just Trump is guilty’ as a stand alone argument.

        Because it doesn’t stand alone. It can’t.

        In the real world, independent of delusions and hallucinations due to cognitive dissonance, there has to be a reason the Clinton campaign hasn’t been shouting this from the rooftops since June. Things in the real world connect to other things. You can argue the strength of the connection, but pretending it isn’t there is denial.

        It ain’t just a river in Egypt.

      • A conspiracy theorist might wonder why the ‘right wing’ MSM hasn’t picked up on this in addition to the ‘left wing’ MSM.

        I do wonder. And I have some speculations in that regard.

        From my surfing through unreliable “journalistic” sites, I’ve seen claims that Hillary, and especially Bill, are far deeper into this thing than the single toe-dip into the water Trump is charged with.

        But the “right wing” media such as Fox and even Breitbart have been as quiet about that as the entirely left-wing MSM has about Trump. (Except for some extreme sites.)

        I’m afraid the most plausible speculation I’ve come up with is just too horrible to document. But, tying it into the way the entire MSM, even Fox, and many Republicans opposed Trump, it’s possible almost all of our country’s power structure is badly compromised, with Trump only partially so.

      • “single toe-dip” That’s how you characterize an alleged rape of a 13 year old?

        ” it’s possible almost all of our country’s power structure is badly compromised, with Trump only partially so.”

        Two points. First, I’d be very interested to know of a source for the ‘scale of compromisation’ and the associated questionnaire and adjudicator.
        If Clinton is messed up due to involvement with Epstein, based Trump’s one words Trump is too.*******

        Secondly, a thanks for just the acknowledgement that Trump (based on evidence) is ‘also’ ‘partially’ (your choice of characterization, not mine) damaged goods.

        *******”Epstein likes to tell people that he’s a loner, a man who’s never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

        ******http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/ (original source for quote from which Snopes apparently acquired)

      • “Because it doesn’t stand alone. It can’t.” No Clinton is named in the suit.

        I thought about the possibility that neither was tossing that grenade due to mutual involvement but that makes zero sense. It’s out there. If, as some suggest, Clinton’s paid to have the suit filed doesn’t Trump profess to have a greater personal resources? Anything…….I mean ANYTHING at all that leads you to ‘believe’ that Trump wouldn’t use it……….unless of course he’s the guilty party (see how that C.D. thingy works as a matter of convenience?)

        Think, and stop your own hallucinations that I’m the one hallucinating.

        Denial and all that.

      • “single toe-dip” That’s how you characterize an alleged rape of a 13 year old?

        In the scenario I’m talking about, compared to most members of the power structure, yes. Especially the Clintons.

        The thing is, if Trump is as badly compromised as everybody else, why would they have such a universal negative reaction to him? Speculation could provide some answers, but the possibility that “they” just don’t have that much on him can’t be ruled out.

        Question is: does Epstein have tapes of him like he (speculatively) does of the Clintons?

        Two points. First, I’d be very interested to know of a source for the ‘scale of compromisation’ and the associated questionnaire and adjudicator.

        If I had one I’d certainly not be talking about such things in public. This is speculation trying to explain mysterious behavior, not accusations.

        Secondly, a thanks for just the acknowledgement that Trump (based on evidence) is ‘also’ ‘partially’ (your choice of characterization, not mine) damaged goods.

        Nope.

        I named it as a speculative scenario. There are others. For instance, the event charged might have taken place, but somebody else was guilty of what Trump is charged with, and the plaintiff was persuaded to lie by offering her and her family protection from Epstein. Another possibility is that Trump was drugged and has some way to prove it.

        Of course, it’s also possible that Trump did it, allowing Epstein to make tapes (or whatever) in order to be able to interact with a power structure that simply wouldn’t do business with somebody they didn’t have something on.

        OTOH, given the expression I’ve seen on his face in many published photos, I wouldn’t rule it out that he gets off on that sort of activity just as the Clintons do. (But again, in this case, why the universal opposition?)

      • “Because it doesn’t stand alone. It can’t.” No Clinton is named in the suit.

        Still mired in your cognitive dissonance I see.

        I clearly explained that what “it doesn’t stand alone” from is the Clinton campaign’s failure to make a really big deal about it. The only possible explanation I can see for you not understanding this is denial.

      • AK,
        “The only possible explanation I can see for you not understanding this is denial.”

        Or that it ‘cannot stand alone’ might fit the same description, since you choose to not see any alternative possibility. You may not be wrong, but you may not be correct.

        River in Egypt and all!

      • Or that it ‘cannot stand alone’ might fit the same description, since you choose to not see any alternative possibility.

        There is no “alternative possibility”. The court documents were filed in June. From June to October, the MSM didn’t mention them (AFAIK), certainly didn’t make a big issue. Stipulated?

        While it’s certainly possible that Trump is guilty of the charge, that possibility cannot stand alone from the fact that the MSM didn’t make a big deal of it.

        Would you consider it plausible that the MSM would have ignored that heavily disqualifying information without a good reason? In fact, I never suggested that Trump was guilty as a stand-alone, because that wouldn’t have mattered to the MSM. Not without some overriding reason to sweep it under the rug.

        Consider the fuss they made about Trump’s bragging about consensual fondling as soon as the tape came out. They l1ed straight out, calling it “sexual harassment” when it clearly wasn’t. He said “they let me”.

        If they simply hadn’t known whether or not Trump was guilty of the June charge, they would have had every reason to act as they did with the “Access Hollywood” tape.

        But they didn’t.

        Later, when all sorts of harpies start yelling about things Trump has done, the MSM gave them massive coverage. The June charge? Still crickets.

        Why?

      • Stipulated? Well, do you consider Huffpo as MSM? Dated June, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

        I have not idea why ‘the MSM’ does what it does. Some portrayals of MSM vary from others so what ‘MSM’ even is, is in question. It seems to be a handy tool to blanket that which doesn’t support one’s narrative. The content is what’s important not the container. But when I search I see many more references since a meeting to establish a court date is now expected. Don’t count your chickens.

        “Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances”. This pertains to ‘the tape’ with Billy Bush. What was intended in Trumps comments is subjective. And ‘they let him’ is subjective if he did what he suggested w/o asking first and a shocked recipient didn’t have him arrested instantly does not mean his behavior (if it actually occurred and he wasn’t just talking crap) was ‘welcome’. You’ll have to admit that no matter how much you trust them (or not) many have come forward since. Ask women’s opinion, you may not care for their thoughts on the matter. For that matter, are you willing to allow your ‘hot’ daughter/wife/sister/mother to take an unchaperoned week long vaca with him? And ask them if they’d care to go.

        I’m not suggesting Trump ‘did it’. I’m not suggesting he didn’t. I have no idea and leave resolution up to the legal system. Having said that, considering the sheer volume of ‘incidents’ are an indication of something. And that carries no more and no less weight than unproven allegations against others.

        Is it plausible that Clinton kept this story in her pocket ‘just in case’ and plans to highlight it as close to the election as possible? There goes the “There is no “alternative possibility”.”

        Did the ‘Bill Clinton’ is a (fill in the blank) story come about organically, or because it was promoted by the Trump campaign leading to heavy ‘MSM’ coverage?

        CNBC:”After Conway brought up that Clinton could face legal trouble if she makes it to the White House, Sorkin cited the aforementioned rape lawsuit. “If Donald Trump is the president, he’s got the child rape case that’s going to happen that was just given a date,” Sorkin said.”

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-accused-underage-rape-lawsuit-a7352976.html

        How long did it take for the Bill Cosby case to build?

        You’re obviously unwilling to consider that which you’ve not considered.

      • Don’t assume all the arrows are out of the quiver: ”

        The video was given to Yahoo News by a confidential source who discovered it in the online archives of World Wrestling Entertainment, the sponsor of “WrestleMania.”
        Confidential source? Hmmm.

        https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-shows-trump-with-mob-figure-he-denied-knowing-090025964.html

        There are still a few days till the formal election date.

      • stevenreincarnated

        If I remember right the complaint was originally filed in April, then dropped I think due to filing errors, and then refiled. I don’t know if the case against Trump is real or not. There are reasons to believe both ways. It is possible it was to keep Trump from bringing it up. The case against Bill is very strong circumstantially. Former presidents don’t dump their Secret Service protection before trips for no reason at all and 26 trips on the Lolita Express is pretty damning.

      • I view the allegations concerning Trump and the teen with deep skepticism. The skepticism is justified due to the shenanigans promulgated by the Dimowits so far in this election. They will do or say anything to get elected.

      • “• Any other ideas?”

        Sure. Epstein and Trump have very deep pockets and might settle out of court regardless of whether there’s any basis for suit. The timing of the suit, right after Trump won the primary, is the tell.

        Alternatively it’s just a negative publicity stunt paid for by Clinton operatives.

        Chances of it having any merit and winning in court approximates zero.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Yes, he is still stumping for her and that would seem more important then if he is or is not following on twitter.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’m not too impressed with his criticism of Comey. He came out and said she had no intent long before the initial investigation was over. Pot meet kettle.

  97. FBI strikes again. Majority of article is about Marc Rich/Clinton.
    “The FBI gave the Hillary Clinton campaign another unpleasant surprise Tuesday, this time releasing 129 pages of documents from a 2001 investigation into Bill Clinton’s controversial presidential pardon of fugitive Marc Rich.”

    This was interesting (not the part about Fred Trump, but the date account was last used). “The FBI actually did release a file on Donald Trump’s father, Fred, on Oct. 8. The bureau also tweeted a link to those documents, along with links to files from 20 other cases — including the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server — from its Records Vault account on Sunday. Prior to that, the last tweet from that account was in October of 2015.”
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/01/fbi-marc-rich-pardon-files/93136458/

    FBI account not used since Oct. 2015 releasing ‘files’ a week before an election.

    How does one gain membership in the conspiracy theory club? ;)

    • WUWT? “It’s also possible the FBI or prosecutors elected not to demand all the Clinton aides’ computers and other electronics because doing so might have triggered a legal battle that could have slowed the probe.”

      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/fbi-hillary-clinton-devices-230592
      Even I have issue with this. Doing a half assed job in order to not ‘slow the probe’?

      I have to put faith in some institution. Comey, a Republican and purportedly with integrity allowed this? Maybe integrity is not the best choice of descriptors. What would Scott Adams say?

      How does one gain membership in the conspiracy theory club? ;)

      • How does one gain membership in the conspiracy theory club?

        I told you. Any human (or chimpanzee/bonobo) society is a network of interlocking “conspiracies”. (Sensu latu, not necessarily in violation of any rule(s)). The human primate mind has evolved for over 50,000,000 years to detect signs of such things, where false positives are less dangerous than false negatives.

        The big problem is figuring out which of the “conspiracies” you think you see are really there. But you can be sure some fraction are.

        The first step is to see through your own cognitive dissonance and admit they’re real. Some of them.

    • I hope Soro’s pays time and a half and double on holidays, for your sake, Danny.

      • I’m sure my compensation package doesn’t come near what Trump/Brietbart/Mercer pay you. What’dya get? Stock options on the new ‘Trump’ network? Man. I shoulda waited for your deal. Guess that proves just how much smarter than me you are!

    • Newsflash:

      Trump Pays All Taxes Owed Confirmed by 50 years of IRS Audits

      Film at 11.

  98. From the article:

    “You can’t trust them to investigate anything that doesn’t have a political impact, in a way that doesn’t try to benefit the Left or their political friends,” he asserted.

    “I was on Fox this morning, and I was talking about how this Justice Department had actually reached out to the IRS to figure out ways to prosecute the Tea Party groups the IRS is suppressing,” Fitton recounted. “The very same unit in the Justice Department, the Public Integrity unit, Public Integrity section – believe it or not, there is a Public Integrity section in the Justice Department! – they were actually also telling the FBI to stand down or to stop investigating the Clinton Foundation. They didn’t want to give them grand jury opportunities, they didn’t want to give them witness interviews, they didn’t want to give them subpoenas.”

    “So if they can think up creative ways to put people like us in jail, yet they don’t want to look at the in-your-face corruption that’s out there on the Clinton Foundation, that tells you how this Justice Department operates,” he said.

    http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/01/tom-fitton-the-same-doj-that-wanted-to-prosecute-tea-party-groups-told-the-fbi-to-stop-investigating-the-clinton-foundation/

  99. From the article:

    There’s a new, more powerful Internet-of-things botnet in town, and it has managed to infect almost 3,500 devices in just five days, according to a recently published report.

    FURTHER READING
    Guerilla researcher created epic botnet to scan billions of IP addresses
    Linux/IRCTelnet, as the underlying malware has been named, borrows code from several existing malicious IoT applications. Most notably, it lifts entire sections of source code from Aidra, one of the earliest known IoT bot packages. Aidra was discovered infecting more than 30,000 embedded Linux devices in an audacious and ethically questionable research project that infected more than 420,000 Internet-connected devices in an attempt to measure the security of the global network. As reported by the anonymous researcher, Aidra forced infected devices to carry out a variety of distributed denial-of-service attacks but worked on a limited number of devices.
    FURTHER READING
    Brace yourselves—source code powering potent IoT DDoSes just went public
    Linux/IRCTelnet also borrows telnet-scanning logic from a newer IoT bot known as Bashlight. It further lifts a list of some 60 widely used username-password combinations built into Mirai, a different IoT bot app whose source code was recently published on the Internet. It goes on to add code for attacking sites that run the next-generation Internet protocol known as IPv6.

    http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/11/new-iot-botnet-that-borrows-from-notorious-mirai-infects-3500-devices/

  100. Election is over, guys

    William and Mary polling of early voters in Florida

    28% of Registered republicans voted for Clinton.

    Obviously, trump destroyed his chances by reason of his rhetoric towards the hispanic community. Also, the news of his dealings with Cuba couldn’t have helped with the older Cuban voters.

    It’s finished. trump can not win without Florida.

  101. Last 3 polls on RCP:
    IBD/TIPP Tracking 44 44 Tie
    ABC/Wash Post Tracking 48 47 Clinton +1
    LA Times/USC Tracking 42 48 Trump +6

  102. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

  103. Obummer has opened the flood gates for illegal aliens. I personally believe his agenda is to make the US less “white.” He is a rac*st, in spite of his mixed genes. We need to deal with this. From the article:

    The Scandinavian country is facing an existential crisis with on average three police officers handing in their resignations a day.

    If the alarming trend continues, and police officers continue to resign more than 1,000 officers will have quit the service by New Years.

    Since the migrant crisis began last summer, Sweden has been hit by a series of brutal crimes and violent incidents.

    In 2015 alone Sweden, with a population of 9.5million, received over 160,000 asylum applications and the country is expected to take as many as 190,000 refugees, or two per cent of the population, by the end of 2016.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/727574/Sweden-chaos-Police-pushed-breaking-point-unprecedented-violence-crime

  104. From article @jim2 | November 2, 2016 at 7:42 am (in moderation):

    The Scandinavian country is facing an existential crisis with on average three police officers handing in their resignations a day.

    If the alarming trend continues, and police officers continue to resign more than 1,000 officers will have quit the service by New Years.

  105. Article clip @jim2 | November 2, 2016 at 7:43 am in moderation.

  106. All that BS about Texas going Blue was just that: BS. From the article:

    Donald Trump Surges To 12 Point Lead In Texas

    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/11/01/donald-trump-surges-to-12-point-lead-in-texas/

  107. From the article:

    And as result, the thrice-married, acid-tongued Trump is doing just as well among women as squeaky-clean Mitt Romney was doing at this point in the Oct. 28, 2012, IBD/TIPP tracking poll, when Romney also got 39% of the female vote. (Hurricane Sandy interrupted daily updates to the tracking poll after that date.)

    It’s worth noting that the 2012 poll asked only about Romney and Obama, while this year’s results include Libertarian Gary Johnson (who is getting 4% of the female vote) and Green Party candidate Jill Stein (3%).

    http://www.investors.com/politics/trumps-women-problem-disappears-ibdtipp-poll/

    • Women are picking a president not looking for a date.

      Spiraling health care premiums combined with deductibles so high it’s nothing more than disaster insurance turned out to be an issue of some concern even to single college educated women.

      Go figure, eh?

  108. Thank you Dr. Curry for turning on registration again.

  109. More Dirty Dimowit Tricks:

    Campaign finance issues are a touchy subject at the best of times, but for Boston-based personal injury law firm Thornton Law Firm it has become another hot-button issue in the most bizarre election campaign ever in the United States
    The issue at stake is the revelation that Thornton Law Firm’s records show paybacks to partners who had contributed to the Democrat campaign, reportedly disguised as bonuses.

    And that just could contravene campaign finance laws which reject the reimbursement of people for political donations, which can conceal the source of political donations. In some cases, such as Massachusetts actually render donations from partnerships like Thorntons illegal.

    http://www.lawfuel.com/blog/lawyers-hot-water-democrat-donations/

  110. It looks to me like the 2016 election is turning out to be a referendum on the Affordable Care Act two years into it.

    Not security, immigration, law and order, terrorism, globalism or gropers.

    Who knew?

    Stick a fork in the Democrats, they’re done.

    • “Trump’s Health Plan: Pay Your Own Medical Bills Using Money You Saved”

      http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/health-suspense/506144/

      While there is merit to personal responsibility there is merit to group buying power.

      As I’ve said before that Trump is great about outlining problems he just stinks at policy to repair.

      And some think he’s a great salesman. Based on his status in the polls vs. what can only be described as a ‘weak’ candidate, that obviously untrue.

      But I’m skeptical.

      Ya’ll just crack me up.

      • You think maybe, just an outside chance, that Trump is getting any advice on how to un-f*ck ACA from, say, about a million conservative experts in every conceivable field?

        Which makes more sense.

        1) Trump scribbles a plan to repeal and replace ACA on the back of a napkin and congress passes it the next day or

        2) A bevy of experts in conservative circles have a range of plans they’ve been working on for years and Trump will make a judgement call on which is the best way to proceed.

        I dunno Double Deal, that’s such a hard choice. What do you think, equal odds of each? /sarc

      • You are so star struck you can’t even think for yourself.

        ‘getting advise from’ “about a million conservative experts in every conceivable field?” Means squat when you consider that you’re referring to the guy who:
        ‘knows more than the generals do’
        ‘is the only one who can fix Chicago’
        ‘has to be me’
        and so on.

        Both candidates ‘get advice’. Getting advice is not the same as using it. Considering the actual behavior of the candidate I’d say #1 is the answer, but it would make more sense to consider #2. Or maybe you’re suggesting Trumps plan is a ‘bargaining position’ and he doesn’t mean a word of it.

        Obamacare has the basis of a good plan. In current form it NEEDS improvement. But improvement does not equal repeal & replace with a napkin plan. Did you bother to read the article? What did Trump/Pence and the group of docs promote? HSA’s mostly. Trumps website goes further but does it make ‘Merika grate agin’? https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
        He has some nuggets, there are existing nuggest, the repeal/replace is pandering and you know it.

        “Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.”

        Looks like promotion of international not national business. How to determine ‘safe & dependable’ w/o regulation. But Trump wants to reduce regulation except he will require regulation to make builders like himself to use American products in construction (Debate 3, Steel & Aluminum).

        How can you not see the dichotomies in what he puts forth? I don’t care for whom you vote. It’s your voice. This man is not qualified. Clinton is, but she’s damaged goods. I buy damaged goods when possible (at a discount—–4 years) vs. buying one that’s defective before it goes in to the box.

        Thanks for asking Mr. totally lacking honor to self discipline.

      • Heywood Jiblomy

        “This man is not qualified.”

        You decided that a year ago, Double Deal. That’s why I gave you the nick Double Deal. You’ve just pretended to be amenable to change of heart but the pretense was poorly executed. I don’t think you fooled a single person.

      • “This man is not qualified.”

        You decided that a year ago, Double Deal. That’s why I gave you the nick Double Deal. You’ve just pretended to be amenable to change of heart but the pretense was poorly executed. I don’t think you fooled a single person.

      • “You decided that a year ago, Double Deal.” Yep. And every opportunity was provided for a case to be made otherwise. The only case made has been because folks think Clinton is not. Clinton is qualified, but damaged goods. There’s a distinction.

      • Unfortunately for you Trump is as qualifed as he needs to be. Over 35 years of age, born in the US, and lived here 14 years or more.

        There’s a president Trump in your near future, Double Deal. Deal with *that*. LOL

      • If those are your only standards David, there might be a president Thomas in your future. And I know I’m not qualified, but my standards are obviously higher than yours. Think about that!

        But if there is a ‘President Trump’ I will respect that decision of the electorate and work based on his performance either for his re-election or his replacement as is warranted. But I’m an honorable man. Since you don’t seem to have that in your character I’m guessing you won’t say the same about a President Hillary Clinton.

        Thanks for asking.

      • Danny

        Don’t forget that ‘Impeach Barry’ was violently anti Trump six months ago so evidently he saw enough in the man to change his mind AND publicly admit to it

        tonyb

      • Tony,
        Trust me when I say there is no way I could reconsider a vote for Trump based on evidence. However, I might have to say my choice of Clinton I might regret pending further evidence. And I will state publicly. You can hold me to that. From what I’ve seen to date, there is no comparison between Trump and Hillary. But Trump and Bill might have been a tighter race to the bottom. Ironically, Bill was a reasonably good president and that may be what Trumpeteers are banking on. However, Hillary may be damaged goods but she’s qualified based on resume`. That’s head and shoulders above Trump when I look at his words, behavior, and platform.

        David’s (IB’s) lack of respect towards others (Dr. Curry) is an indication of his standards IMO.

        I’ll be respectful of the choice of the electorate, Either way. Our country needs to come together after the election.

        I can wait four years.

      • Double Deal For President!!!!

        Go for it, buddy. It’s your constitutional**** right.

        ***I’ll be wanting to see your birth certificate of course. ;-)

      • I have copies from a couple of countries. Which one makes your narrative most conspiratorial? But beware, when I get in office I’ll socialistically take all your money and have you arrested for corruption. The last part is the new trend in the job.

      • “violently”

        That’s a stretch. He wasn’t my first pick. Come to think of it he was my last pick. But #NeverHillary I’ve been living with that horrible Clinton crime family since forever. I’d rather have Double Deal than Hillary that’s for sure. I’d rather have Double Deal than Tim Kaine too. I don’t believe Double Deal is anywhere near as good at Double Dealing as the professionals. He’s redeemable.

      • “David’s (IB’s) lack of respect towards others (Dr. Curry) is an indication of his standards IMO.”

        This is a blog, Double Deal. I don’t take blogs seriously. It’s a playground. My antics don’t cause people to die. No national treasure is consumed.

        Could you possibly figure out how to more ridiculous? I don’t think so but you never cease to amaze me.

      • “This is a blog, Double Deal. I don’t take blogs seriously. It’s a playground.”
        Yes, it’s a blog and yes it’s a very entertaining playground. But in any game there are ‘rules’ which are adhered to out of respect for the host. Your blog, your rules. You forget, it’s not ‘your’ blog.

        Maybe when folks invite you over you take advantage of their hospitality. My mother raised me better. I bring wine and offer to do dishes. Your choice is to peek in the medicine cabinet and take what you want.

        You find mine ridiculous? That’s how I find yours.

      • “have you arrested for corruption”

        Alright! That should qualify me for a cabinet position in your administration! I’m thinking Secretary of Global Warming. What do you think?

      • Absolutely not! You’re behind the times. It’s climate change. You’re less qualified than Trump.

      • What’s on my computer screen belongs to me to do with what I wish.

        That’s how I view blogs. You don’t like it go pound sand. :-)

  111. Alicia Machado, a beauty contest winner, in introducing Hillary at a rally in Florida, accused Trump of judging women by their looks.

    Wait… what?

  112. I appears lefties lie no matter where they lie. From the article:

    But never mind, just blame Brexit. And don’t worry because the BBC has got your back in promoting this garbage too.

    The truth, for anyone who cares to try and find it, is that the “surge in hate crime” was perpetuated by Remain campaigners via a Facebook group called “Worrying Signs” which encouraged en masse reporting on “hate crimes” – many of which turned out to be nonsense. How do we know this?

    Well, take this incident where a “hate crime” was reported which turned out to be a book delivery.

    Or consider the fact that Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton, whose national role it is to track hate crime all over Britain, admitted: “there have been no major spikes in tensions reported”.

    Finally, consider the fact that prosecutions for “hate crimes” fell by almost 10 per cent in England and Wales last year despite a rise in the number of reported incidents.

    It all speaks to the dirty truth: the hate crime narrative is being perpetuated by the Left. And in doing so, not only are they arming real racists – many in their own ranks, no doubt – and causing them to believe they are in a growing movement, but they are also wasting police time and resources that could be used solving murders, stopping rapes, and generally doing what police are supposed to do.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/02/surge-hate-crime-lefts-insistence-sovereignty-racist/

    • jim2

      It is highly instructive to investigate these figures, whereby the ‘spike’ in ‘hate crime’; in the UK (which can be defined as a hurtful look) is compared to the astonishing rise in violent incidents other countries (pre Brexit so we were not responsible)

      Amongst the highest spikes are Germany and Sweden, but no one mentions those. They are mostly recorded as locals against migrants but it is easy to see it is a two way street but migrant figures are not always reported (unless they become big news) Sweden does not report crime by ethnicity and is said to downplay violence by migrants.

      There I scope here for a good objective academic study to see what is really going on.

      tonyb.

  113. From the article:

    German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière has called for tough action on the migrants who committed the Cologne New Year’s Eve sex attacks, recommending that they should be deported.
    Christian Democratic Union (CDU) politician de Maizière appeared in the Düsseldorf parliament as a witness on Monday at the inquiry committee for the New Year’s Eve sex attacks. Despite the challenges in prosecuting the attackers, he said many should be deported from Germany, reports Die Welt.

    Most of the attackers were migrants from the Middle East and North Africa. Mr. de Maizière stated that until the federal government designates Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia as “safe countries” – to which migrants can be automatically returned – the perpetrators will continue to live in Germany as asylum seekers.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/02/german-interior-minister-nye-sex-attackers-forced-leave-germany/

  114. Brexit in the UK, Trump in the US, the lady from Oz Joanne Nova has been writing some good summaries of the prime problem. From the article:

    Who are Trump’s loyal army asks Michael Goldfarb of the BBCMedia Bias, voting behaviour of journalists.
    America is so divided in 2016 that one half of the electorate can barely understand the other. Comprehending the Donald Trump phenomenon has become the dominant theme of US election coverage…

    Dear BBC et al, half the electorate is mocked, reviled, and otherwise ignored. No wonder the other half are clueless… The divided electorates throughout the West don’t understand each other because there is no national conversation to understand. When was the last time the BBC (or ABC) employed a show host that was a skeptic, Brexit-fan, or UKIP voter? Count the years. How about a whole panel? A series? A doco? When was the last government grant awarded to someone to explain the dangers of big-creeping-government?

    It’s practically BBC official policy not to even interview people who disagree with certain views, even if that includes 62% of the British public. This is a good way to divide the electorate and create ignorance and misunderstanding, yes? It’s not that the skeptical half can’t get half the evening news, they can’t even get a 10 second, heavily edited sentence in. Greenpeace, on the other hand, get invited to high level seminars where they decide what the BBC policy will be.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/11/intolerant-closeted-media-sell-hate-and-silence-cant-figure-why-electorate-is-so-divided/

  115. Contest is over. FBI just sunk Clinton and is going to take Obumbles legacy with it.

  116. Obumbles needs to get out in front of this pronto and address the nation to salvage something of his legacy.

  117. Reposted comment from Bishop Hill ;

    ‘I’ll make it easy for you to understand the US election. Trump
    is a nationalist, not an internationalist. He’s played by the rules
    for his entire career rather than with them, as Hillary has done,
    bending and breaking them much as a willful child. She
    harnessed the State Department in service to her criminality,
    including gun-running and murder(‘We came, we saw, he died’,
    as she spoke of Khadaffi), and worse. If you want a microcosmic
    view, look to Haiti, where the Clinton Foundation engaged in
    unspeakable behaviour to a helpless nation.

    It isn’t just Assange doing the leaking, and probably Russian
    involvement is minimal if at all. These latest leaks are from
    bureaucratic whistleblowers, they whom Clinton thought she
    had permanently cowed.

    A humourous anecdote is Secretary of State John Kerry
    intimidating the Ecuadorians into shutting off Assange’s
    internet connection. That is building a sand castle way down
    the beach as the waters recede for the incoming tsunami.

    That said, it’s going to be a close election. Many have
    already voted, before the tide turned, and one party is rife
    with election fraud. This is a barnburning cliffhanger, soon
    to be snuffed by the great ocean of the electorate.’
    ========================
    Nov 2, 2016 at 10:36 PM | Unregistered Commenter kim.

    • Kim’s comments were always insightful and excellent. Always contributed so much. What a pity he/she stopped commenting at CE.

  118. Sweet! One more state to go. Will prolly take several more by Nov 8th. Clinton drowning in bad news between Unaffordable Care and FBI. Stick a fork in her, she’s done.

  119. When both the FBI and KGB are in agreement about Clinton not fit to be president you gotta wonder what they both know that we don’t, right?

  120. HIP HIP HOORAY HIP HIP HOORAY HIP HIP HOORAY !!!!!

    BRITISH PARLIAMENT TO DECIDE ON THE ARTICLE 50 !!!!
    HIP HIP HOORAY HIP HIP HOORAY HIP HIP HOORAY !!!!!

  121. Brexit:
    Like I said, the Oligarchs will never allow it:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785

  122. Curious as to how deeply ingrained the ‘tribalism’ is. Many rail against voter fraud. Some have laughed at my suggestion that voter disenfranchisement receive equal levels of criminal prosecution to that of voter fraud.

    Ran across this one today so posting for feedback: “FWIW, spreading misinformation about voting or polling places is not a violation of Federal election law.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/03/no-you-cant-text-your-vote-but-these-ads-tell-clinton-supporters-to-do-just-that/

    • Stupid emails and such reminding people to get out to vote November 9th (or whatever is one day too late) have been circulated as long as email has been around. Did you fall for it once or something?

    • Don’t you socialist SJW’s hate it when your victims start using your methods against you?

      • AK,
        Ad homs? How quaint and childish.

        I am against voter fraud, for ID’s and equally against disenfranchisement.
        But I’m an American.

      • I am against voter fraud, for ID’s and equally against disenfranchisement.

        Yeah, sure. But if your side is doing it, you refuse to see it till it’s “proven in court”.

        Nobody’s proven in court that this stuff is happening. It’s only a bunch of newspaper articles. Either way.

        For the record, I’m against anybody doing that sort of stuff, on either side. But there’s no question in my mind that the MSM’s been doing it first, and most, and while that doesn’t justify the other side trying to even the honors, it explains it.

        But I’m an American.

        Nope.

        You’re clearly an internationalist pretending to be an American. You may be fooling yourself, but you don’t fool me.

      • AK,
        You very own LAUGHABLE cognitive dissonance?

        AK says to me in rebuttal: “Yeah, sure. But if your side is doing it, you refuse to see it till it’s “proven in court”.

        Then AK says to me: “Nobody’s PROVEN IN COURT that this stuff is happening.It’s only a bunch of newspaper articles. Either way.”
        Proof is in the articles with screenshots of the Tweets.

        Now that’s funny!

        For your edification:
        “dou·ble stand·ard
        noun
        a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.”

        ROFLMAO!
        It’s okay if you wish to ask mods to delete your associated posts. Everyone would understand.

      • Proof is in the articles with screenshots of the Tweets.

        Only when they make Trump look bad. Horrible Hillary? You demand a court conviction.

  123. Here we go. Trump passes 50% of definite voters in Rasmussen Survey.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_nov3

    The win is in the tank. Polls are at leas a few days behind and Trump has the momentum. If the dam breaks this weekend it’s landslide Trump.

    Say goodbye to Climate Change nonsense and hello to an energy independent revitalized US economy!

    #TrumpPence16
    #DrainTheSwamp

    • Say goodbye to Climate Change nonsense and hello to an energy independent revitalized US economy!

      I’d support that. but that protectionist, anti-trade, anti-globalisation agenda is really bad policy. That will reduce wealth in US and everywhere. it will slow US and global growth. US needs to compete on its strengths and trade to improve its and world economic growth. Strongly growing world economies also reduce tensions between states and reduce the risk of conflicts.

      Protectionism is really bad policy!!!

      • But Trump isn’t a protectionist. He is merely staking out a negotiating position by advocating 40% tariffs and punishing companies for moving jobs to low wage countries, blaming the wide-scale changes in our manufacturing economy on bill Clinton and China and Mexico. Americans have been losers because our leaders have been stupid and corrupt.

        It is merely a negotiating position. We shouldn’t take anything that he says at face value. He doesn’t actually mean what he says. What he actually means is what we want him to mean and coincidentally think is the best policy. That’s what straight shooting looks like.

        He’s a straight shooter who says what he really thinks except when he talks about his views, in which case he is not saying what he thinks but merely saying things to fool people so that he can actually do what I think he should do. You see, he a winner except when he loses, which is actually him being a winner.

      • Assange is the same. Ya gotta trust what he says and he says ‘it’s over……actually it never began’: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3904816/Julian-Assange-says-Trump-won-t-allowed-win-accuses-Clinton-donors-backing-rise-ISIS.html

        You know. ‘Cause:
        Not a child rapist.
        Emails all real.
        Not Russia.
        Clinton = Isis.
        Trump won’t be ‘allowed’ to win.

        Stuff like that.

        Sad to think how many electrons have been sacrificed.

      • Don’t fret too much over things that haven’t happened.

  124. This must be what’s called a pregnant silence.

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

  125. I’m going to try to jump the shark.

    “The theory suggests that the system is pushed past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. It produces extremes of weather at phase transitions that Didier Sornette has called dragon-kings. Climate in this theory is an emergent property of the shift in global energies as the system settles down into a new climate state.” – Ellison

    Things can be linear and predictable. Things haven’t been so much during this campaign. As much as it has been tried to make the political climate obey the rules I’d argue that that just makes attraction to the new climate state stronger. Sensitivity rises when alternatives to the often enforced status quo are diminished. People may wish for the past but it is our past that brought us here. However if their wishes came true, we’d be stuck on the same political attractor indefinitely. Does another political attractor exist? Many of them exist and if Trump wins we don’t know many things about what the new attractor will look like. If Clinton wins, we may not stay on the old attractor but make a leap more sideways with a weakened Presidency accompanied with further anti-establishment drift of the attractor. A reason for the drift would be Trump with his demonstration of what works pretty well, his nationalist anti-establishment approach. A Sornette diagram using the power law shows exponential growth dragon-kings. Exponential growth is almost always unsustainable. The system shudders. It collapses into a new state. As a stand in for what are we measuring here. Trump media coverage. What happens when the pundits doubt Trump? The response from the voters might just be the opposite of what happens under normal rules. The feedbacks in this case are not well understood.

    What can collapse in the next 6 days?
    Trump’s momentum.
    Clinton’s future.

    I am predicting it will be Clinton’s future as she loses to Trump.

  126. This went viral a month ago but I didn’t see it until just now. It explains a lot about what’s happening to Hillary. Black turnout is way down from Obama. He’s out campaigning for her and trying to play the race card (what else is new) and black people aren’t buying it. He didn’t do shiit for them and that nasty white woman who shouts and points her finger at everyone sure as hell won’t do any better.

    This is going to give the rust belt, Pennsylvania, and Virginia to Trump and most certainly help a lot in Florida. Blue collar blacks have been left behind even more than blue collar whites. Trump will help both of these broad groups rise and rejoin the middle class. And we’ll stop playing these terrible identity politics that the Democrats have used for so long.

  127. The Oath Keepers are saving us, at least they are giving it a good shot. From the article:

    The FBI is “Trumplandia,” according to an agent who spoke anonymously to The Guardian newspaper.

    In a report published Thursday, multiple sources within the FBI say that deep antipathy toward Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and anger that FBI Director James Comey did not bring charges against her this summer have motivated leaks that could damage her presidential campaign.

    One agent told The Guardian that many at the bureau view Clinton as the “antichrist” and are supportive of Trump.

    “That’s the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump,” the FBI agent told The Guardian.

    http://thehill.com/regulation/304225-agent-fbi-is-trumplandia

  128. From the article:

    The conservative group Heritage Action is pushing Republican senators to keep the Supreme Court at eight justices if Democrat Hillary Clinton is elected president.

    In a Thursday morning briefing at the Heritage Foundation’s Washington headquarters on Capitol Hill, the group said Republicans should embrace the idea of leaving the Supreme Court without its ninth justice, perhaps for as long as five years.

    Dan Holler, Heritage Action’s vice president of communications and government relations, signaled that this year’s Republican blockade of President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, is just the beginning of a fight that could last the entire first term of a Clinton presidency.
    “You’ve seen John McCain and others talk about the need to not confirm any liberal nominated to the Supreme Court,” Holler said. “That’s exactly the right position to have.”

    It’s “unacceptable,” he added, for moderate Republican senators to roll over and allow a President Clinton to shift the court radically to the left.

    Holler said the obstruction of any Clinton Supreme Court appointee is going to require “an immense amount of willpower” from Senate Republicans.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/304231-heritage-calling-for-supreme-court-blockade-if-clinton-wins

    • Great! As long as there’s no complaint if any nominees by a Republican President are treated equally.

      • Who’s going to do that? Trump isn’t a real Republican, but he’s certainly not a Clinton Democrat. He’ll be able to negotiate. As long as he nominates actually honest judges with centrist opinions. If the Democrats get ugly, Trump can nominate right-wing honest judges, and get confirmations.

        Bottom line, Clinton will probably nominate either socialists or “centrists” that she knows are compromised (“pedophile”) and subject to blackmail. Best thing for anybody who cares about our country’s survival to do is refuse to confirm anybody she nominates.

      • AK,
        “probably nominate”? First, she’s put out a list: http://ijr.com/2016/07/662707-clinton-insiders-list-potential-supreme-court-nominees-the-top-pick-will-make-obama-very-happy/
        so you don’t have to guess.
        Second, Obama’s nominee is not ‘socialist’ and would be hard to describe as ‘centrist’. He’s pretty conservative. IMO it’s a gamble (and dereliction) not to handle the processing of the nominee, but whatever.

        I’d be too much fun for her to nominate Obama.

        Trump has put out a list also: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-releases-list-of-names-of-potential-united-states-supreme-c

        As far as “Who’s going to do that?” it appears you have issue if the Democrats decide to behave as the Republican’s do. That’s what my comment said.

        Ya’ll do realize we have a system in place. No one has to vote for a particular nominee but threatening to stomp their feet and hold their breath till they turn blue because they don’t like the results of a presidential election is a poor reflection on those doing so.

      • As far as “Who’s going to do that?” it appears you have issue if the Democrats decide to behave as the Republican’s do.

        Not if they follow the legal procedures.

        But they probably won’t even have a close enough minority to keep it up.

        And, in any case, if Trump wins Hillary and her henchmen will go to prison, and the Democratic Senators (the ones who aren’t in prison) will be too scared of getting investigated to even try something like that.

        According to Hillary, if Trump wins they’ll “all hang from nooses”. I’m not sure just how metaphorical that statement was, but I’ll guess that plenty of Democratic Senators will either leave office to go to prison (and good riddance), or end up terrified of that possibility.

      • AK,
        When one tosses out bait one never knows what one will catch.

        You obviously do have a problem if Dems act like Reps. It’s the Reps proposing the delay of processing nominees and all I said was ‘okay, as long as there is no complaining if the Dems act equally’.

        “Not if they follow the legal procedures.”, you profess above, yet here: “if Trump wins Hillary and her henchmen will go to prison” you state as a given and show no leaning towards due process. Dissonance?

        Maybe Trump and Clinton can be roomies.

        I’ll live via the moniker ‘double deal’. Whatever you are isn’t close to being an American.

      • Your principle of fairness is weak compared to the preservation and protection of the Constitution. We need justices that strictly interpret the Constitution. It is the basis of our Country and we need it to be enforced. Therefore IF the Dimowits (or Redimowits) nominate a loose-construction nominee, that nominee should be rejected. That principle is much stronger and more noble than some nebulous sense of “fairness.”

      • Jim2,
        “Your principle of fairness is weak compared to the preservation and protection of the Constitution. We need justices that strictly interpret the Constitution.”

        You don’t even recognize your own arguments against ‘strict interpretation’.

        The constitution itself is silent on ‘interpretation’. And in FACT the bill of rights is a modification of the constitution. And your own support of at least one of those amendments (let me know if you need a definition of amendment) tells others of your support for a less than ‘strict interpretation’.

        Your fallacious argument is laughable.

      • Jim2,
        For your further edification as IIRC you’re a fan of the late Honorable Justice Scalia: ” I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description “strict.” I do believe, however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.”

      • I note your opinion. I stick to what I said.

      • And I’ll continue with mine. If one party is allowed to conduct themselves in a certain fashion it’s hypocritical to complain when the other party conducts themselves in exactly the same manner. Please note, this applies both directions.

        If it’s your choice to support a hypocritical stance that’s fine. We’re in America. I’m not aware that’s illegal nor unconstitutional. I think you can even have the word hypocrite tattooed on your forehead if you like.

    • Not politics, justice. Of course, a clueless SJW like you doesn’t know what that word means.

      But when the subpoenas arrive, if they’ve destroyed those documents, they’ll be liable to contempt of court decisions.

      • AK,

        Okay, now you’re just being a putz. And you’ve made an incorrect assumption. I’m all for Exxon seeking justice as from what I’ve read they have been inappropriately maligned. The New York AG, IMO, colluded against them improperly, but I’m no legal expert. If you’ll bother to check associated threads on which I’ve commented you’ll see that’s the case.

        Stop being a putz and ask friggin questions. I made no comment with the post other than ‘politics in everything’. If you read the article it suggests the investigation has been politically motivated. “”We have no choice but to defend ourselves against politically motivated investigations that are biased, in bad faith and without legal merit.”

        This is the first article I’ve seen about Exxon ‘punching back’ and if they are able to prove their case in court those who’ve done wrong should pay.

        It’s kinda fun to toss out bait and see what kind of fish you catch. In this case I’ll toss you back as a ‘trash’ fish. Unless you choose to apologize for your wrong assumptions. But you don’t seem like the type.

      • Okay, now you’re just being a putz. And you’ve made an incorrect assumption.

        Nope.

        It’s not an assumption. It’s a conclusion. From lots of evidence right here ate Climate, Etc.

        I’m all for Exxon seeking justice as from what I’ve read they have been inappropriately maligned.

        I’ll take that with a gazillion grains of salt. Looks to me like you’re just pretending to do that, so people who clearly see that fact won’t dismiss you as the troll you are.

        Stop being a putz and ask friggin questions.

        Nope.

        I’m over wasting my time on socialist SJW trolls like you. I went through the motions of giving you the benefit of the doubt until you thoroughly convinced me you’re a troll. No more.

        I made no comment with the post other than ‘politics in everything’. If you read the article it suggests the investigation has been politically motivated. “”We have no choice but to defend ourselves against politically motivated investigations that are biased, in bad faith and without legal merit.”

        Yet another example that proves your cognitive dissonance. It’s clear from the statement you quoted that they were acting for justice against politically motivated investigations that are biased, in bad faith and without legal merit. Political motivation is cheating. That’s what they’re responding to.

        This is the first article I’ve seen about Exxon ‘punching back’ […]

        “There’s none so blind as those who will not see.”

        It’s kinda fun to toss out bait and see what kind of fish you catch.

        Ane if there were any significant chance that that statement was honest, you might get some action.

        In this case I’ll toss you back as a ‘trash’ fish. Unless you choose to apologize for your wrong assumptions.

        Nope.

        No “wrong assumptions” here.

        But you don’t seem like the type.

        I’m the “type” to give socialist trolls or any other sort of scum enough rope to hang themselves. After that, you’re lost any claim to consideration.

      • Okay. Remaining a putz it is!

        And you’re the type who won’t bother to look for the evidence of what I said about Exxon. You’d rather just spew your un-American vitriol and attempted ad hom while proving incapable of admission of an error. You’re such a big, big person. You tell me though. You go girl.

        Social Justice Warrior? To fit that description I’d have to be trying to ‘make point’s’ and ‘gain friends’. For me to use my AMERICAN right to freedom of speech HERE cannot lead to that goal. That you cannot bother to comprehend the definition is not a surprise.

        You are wrong in so many ways. I don’t care about ‘your consideration’. What I care about is folks not dealing with political issues with blinders. Your’s are obviously permanent. And because there are folks like you that’s why we’re where we are. The problem exists on both sides and most choose to not see it in themselves.

        “There’s none so blind as those who will not see.”

        Have a wonderful night. Buh-bye.

      • And you’re the type who won’t bother to look for the evidence of what I said about Exxon.

        You didn’t say anything about Exxon. You just said stuff about yourself.

        Exxon’s been “punching back” for months. I’ve posted links to some of it. You never saw it because of your cognitive dissonance.

        You’d rather just spew your un-American vitriol and attempted ad hom […]

        Nothing “un-American” about it. Especially when dealing with an anti-American internationalist socialist.

        Social Justice Warrior? To fit that description I’d have to be trying to ‘make point’s’ and ‘gain friends’.

        Straw man.

        What I care about is folks not dealing with political issues with blinders.

        Perhaps you should worry about the 2×4 in your own eye before trying to pick out the speck of sawdust in anybody else’s. Oh, I forgot (not), you won’t recognize the Biblical reference, or respect it if you did.

        And because there are folks like you that’s why we’re where we are.

        Project much?

      • AK,
        Using the ‘find’ feature you’ll see my name 53 times (but 5 are from the ‘current postings’ section).

        Evidence of where I stand on Exxon and the RICO case.

        Project much?

        Putz!

  129. Pennsylvania becomes toss-up in RCP electoral map.

    • The hemorrhaging isn’t going to stop in the next 4 days.

      FBI and Wikileaks continue to open fresh wounds. Health care sticker shock is still piling up and that is Trump’s top issue in stump speech. Trump closed the gender gap to same as Romney. Black voters aren’t coming out to vote in anywhere near the needed numbers. Obama’s pleas are falling on deaf ears because he didn’t do anything for the black community except make things worse.

      Trump is disciplined, on message, not drifting off teleprompter. He’s happy and even self-deprecating on the stump. Beaming. Confident. A winner. And like the energizer bunny he’s doing 4 rallies per day across 11 states between now and election day. God only knows how many stops by Pence, Ivanka, Donald Jr., Eric, etc. Hillary has resorted to being introduced by a stripper. She’s angry, ugly, pointing and shaking her finger at the very people she’s addressing. Scolding and petulant. Buchannen said tonight the race is between Trump and a Grump.

      I know I made a prediction two weeks ago of a 47:43 Trump win but I think it’s going to be closer to 53:43 now. Landslide Trump with a Republican congress.

    • When objecting to the gas industry’s claims about how many people in PA work in fracking, the Democrats in Pennsylvania argued that the total is “only” about 90,000.
      In one state, in one industry that the party officially hates and wants to kill. And they thought PA was “safe” because they figured they’d get Obama-sized turnouts in Philly and it’s ‘burbs and ground-game support from the unions in Pittsburgh (where low-cost gas could help revive steel).
      If PA goes red – heck if it’s even close – this will make serious people in the Democratic Party seriously rethink their alliance with greens. 2020 is coming.

      • Yup. Unexpectedly and highly unusual the Democrats are all converging on Philadelphia Monday. There’s trouble brewing. They know if they lose PA they lose the election.

  130. From the article:

    A charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation failed to reveal the identities of its 1,100 donors, creating a broad exception to the foundation’s promise to disclose funding sources as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration.

    The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.

    Details of the organization’s fundraising were disclosed this week by a spokeswoman for the Canadian group’s founder, mining magnate Frank Giustra.

    The Canadian group has received attention in recent days as a potential avenue for anonymous Clinton Foundation donations from foreign business executives, including some who had interests before the U.S. government while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state.

    The partnership, named in part for Bill Clinton, sends much of its money to the New York-based Clinton Foundation. Two of the partnership’s known donors — Giustra and another mining executive, Ian Telfer — are featured in the soon-to-be-released book “Clinton Cash” for their roles in a series of deals that resulted in Russia controlling many uranium deposits around the world and in the United States.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/1100-donors-to-a-canadian-charity-tied-to-clinton-foundation-remain-secret/2015/04/28/c3c0f374-edbc-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

  131. From the article:

    “Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

    “They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

    “The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

    “I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said.

    http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/04/erik-prince-nypd-ready-make-arrests-weiner-case/

    • Yup. From twitter.

      1) Weiner and Bill Clinton both involved in pedophilia taking many trips (Bill 26 times, Hillary 6 times) on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” to sex-slave island

      2) Hillary Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin (Weiner’s wife) knew about it and said nothing effectively making them co-conspirators.

      3) Weiner and Abedin have both turned states evidence to avoid long prison terms.

      4) Obama DOJ seeking to stop NYPD from issuing arrest warrants.

      5) NYPD was agency which first discovered classified emails on Weiner’s laptop and forced Comey’s hand.

      6) Just for hilarity purposes a retired NYPD officer living in Florida with 65,000 Twitter followers wrote: “Having arrested guys like Mr. Abedin-Weiner, I can tell you that prison terrifies them more than women over 25.”

      —Developing

      https://twitter.com/search?q=nypd%20weiner&src=typd

      • Much to the amazement, this was omitted:
        “3. Trump has allegedly flown on Epstein’s private plane — a hot spot for under-age sex orgies.

        “Mark Epstein, Jeffrey’s brother, testified in 2009 that Trump flew on Jeffrey’s private jet at least once,” reports VICE News. “Meanwhile, message pads [see below] from Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion that were seized by investigators and obtained by VICE News indicate that Trump called Epstein twice in November of 2004.”

        Epstein’s private Boeing 727, according to one of his alleged victims, Virginia Roberts, was nicknamed the “Lolita Express.” Roberts recalled “unsavoury” sex orgies on the private plane when she was just 15 years of age with Epstein and his friends. ”

        and this:
        “7. Trump was subpoenaed in 2009 for his connection to Epstein’s under-age sex slave rings. Trump has denied ever being served.

        In 2009, Trump was subpoenaed in a case against Epstein concerning victim Virginia Roberts. Trump’s attorney Alan Garten said that the subpoena “never happened.”

        “There is no debate over what happened,” said one of Roberts’ attorneys. “I served Mr. Trump with a subpoena for deposition in 2009. He talked to me voluntarily, and consequently we withdrew the subpoena in light of his voluntarily providing information…. I can’t imagine there being any dispute of any of this.”

        Additionally, Garten told VICE News in January that Mr. Trump has “no relationship” with Epstein other than the Democratic donor frequenting Trump’s Mar-A-Lago. “A lot of people hung out there, including Jeffrey Epstein,” said Garten. “That is the only connection.”

        According to the evidence, however, the connections with Epstein appear to go a lot deeper than that.”

        http://www.dailywire.com/news/5556/7-things-you-need-know-about-trump-and-sex-slave-amanda-prestigiacomo#

        There’s more if you BOTHER to look: “Three days after denying the subpoena, Garten emailed VICE News.

        “Brad [Edwards] called me to let me know that you had reached out to him,” Garten said. “I looked back at my records and saw that Mr. Trump was subpoenaed.”

        https://news.vice.com/article/the-salacious-ammo-even-donald-trump-wont-use-in-a-fight-against-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton

      • David Springer

        My emphasis: “Trump has allegedly flown on Epstein’s private plane”

        Baseless smear. [yawn]

    • Trump campaign plans to expose it with huge ad buys in battleground states in November surprise. Been preparing for months. New York City division of FBI and NYPD leaked the Weiner server info to top Trump surrogate, the law & order New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani.

      Lots of bombshell fun still waiting in these final few days!

      And the irony, don’t forget the irony. Hillary tried to smother Trump with pussy but in the end she was impaled by a weiner.

  132. Looks like someone has hacked DirecTV and has blocked Fox News and CNN. On a related note; The average IQ of 20 million DTV customers jumped 10 points!
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/4/directv-blackout-fox-news-cnn-spurs-allegations-ce/

  133. Voter fraud vs. voter disenfranchisement (via intimidation). For those who suggest there’s ‘no evidence’ of ‘no court has found’……..at least one court has decided there is sufficient evidence to implement a TRO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-federal-judge-hears-voter-intimidation-arguments/2016/11/04/a9e8bf7e-a29f-11e6-8864-6f892cad0865_story.html

    All that is being requested is that both issues be treated with an even hand.

  134. Darn…

  135. I got lucky. Heard this live b4 changing channel. BHO lost control of crowd to an old military veteran. Too funny!

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/obama-snaps-hillary-crowd-everybody-sit-quiet/

  136. Rick Santorum: Hillary Clinton Is A “Deceitful, Horrible Human Being”

    Donald Trump “can and will win Pennsylvania,” former Sen. Rick Santorum said.

  137. Surging in Wisconsin. Lastest poll, November 2nd, shows Clinton +2 throwing it into toss-up category.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/wisconsin/

  138. Wikileaks: Clinton campaign, in AUGUST 2015, suspected that server emails would leak out of FBI

  139. So who here picked the right polls to believe?

    Yeah that’s right. Me.

    Ubik, wherever you are, I take it you won’t be back using that name.

    And where is J0shua hiding? And Max. And the other usual suspects?

  140. i may have sent you this one

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s