Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

Countdown to the U.S. Presidential election

I voted last week.

I haven’t had much time this week to check the news or twitter, here are a few articles that I’ve spotted (that aren’t just about the emails):

The case against Hillary Clinton [link]

President Havoc [link]

Trump will ignite an American economic boom [link]


494 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Notice to Trump haters who are planning to move to Canada if he wins. You can’t just pack up and move to Canada. It is a different country and it does not have open borders. To get costs money and you must either have some skill Canada needs (currently we are very short of electricians, welders, and like tradesmen) or you must have a lot of money and plan on opening your own business. You also have to be in good health. And you have to be prepared to come up with money, hundreds to thousands in assorted fees and other requirements. I bring this up because every election a bunch of my husband’s dingbat relations remember he lives in Canada and contact us tell us they are planning to move to Canada if the Republican candidate gets in. And all of the Republican haters have the same things in common. None have skills Canada wants, most have an arrest record, usually for drugs. They have no savings, and never owned their own home or had a marriage of longer than five years. After earning credentials in things like “Reiki heated stone therapy” and “Victorian House needle point image design”, or announcing they are artists or poets the world does not understand or appreciate, they have drifted from job to job, always having a string of bad luck and ongoing calamity so that they are perpetually in crisis, always broke and wondering where their next meal will come from, and always looking for a handout from us. Now not all of my husband’s relations are Trump haters. He has a large group of relatives, every one of them have good educations, employable skills in Canada, savings, most own their houses, have long term stable marriages, no arrests, and they manage to care for themselves without needing constant rescue and without a single whine about how unfair society is. (Except for how Hilary should be in jail but isn’t. They whine a LOT about that.) All of those ones are voting Trump and won’t leave the USA even if Hilary gets in. I will be SO glad when this election is over.

    • +1000 :_)

    • Thanks for putting a grin on my face that will last until at least Election Day.

    • I haven’t had this much fun since wasting a vote on Eugene McCarthy in ’72.

      • Same here. Best election ever.

      • I have found this election distressing because our country is going down the drain.

        Illegal immigration, cr0 0ks in power, a lackadaisical Supreme Court, good jobs gone, a decay of the family unit (especially among the poor, where it would be a stabilizing force), the purposeful eroding of Western Civilization, the eroding of the Rule of Law, the purposeful erosion of the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms is much infringed), the general disrespect of our Constitution, burdensome regulations … all these things are bad. Hillary will continue this downhill slide.

        Trump has some personal issues, but nothing like Billary, she is three orders of magnitude worse.

        Personally, I’ll be glad when it’s over.

      • Jim2,
        “Illegal immigration, cr0 0ks in power, a lackadaisical Supreme Court, good jobs gone, a decay of the family unit…………”

        A ‘real’ skeptic would look at your list and ask: when did that begin? what caused it? why hasn’t it been stopped? what’s been done to address it and how can it be addressed going forward? and much more.

        It appears there is no good in your world. Maybe that explains your anger and fear. It’s sad.

        “Trump has some personal issues….” You see no evidence of issues in his professional world? Really?

      • The election may be over but everything else you mentioned is just beginning. The age of the computer and artificial intelligence is just starting to adversely affect job growth. No politician wants to touch the question of how to replicate the rates of growth of the 20th century given the inexorable transfer of jobs to the machines. If the markets were anticipating economic conditions with a truly long term view instead of only thinking about how the economy will be after lunch, they would tank immediately.

        And that is not even considering the growth curve of the Debt Held by the Public, which has increased by over 300% since FY2000.

      • I do not share your pessimistic views. Progress is unstoppable, thankfully. Nor has the President much to do with this. Folks are taking the Presidency far too seriously.

      • George W shows what a bad Presidency can do to a country. It is not easy, even though Obama made it look like it. You have to have geopolitical knowledge as a minimum qualification. There are a lot of moving pieces out there, and if you rely on a small cadre of ideological neocons for your advice you get what Bush did.

      • Obummer shows what a bad Presidency can do to a country. He has, with the aid of a flaccid Supreme Court, almost single handedly, sent the US down the dumper.

      • jim2, actually it is in a better state than the one he inherited in 2008. Also less war and terrorism losses than Bush the W had. Stock markets are high, the price of gas is low, homes are selling, low interest rates, more jobs and better health insurance, less crime. Most people are doing fine compared to 2008, much as the Republicans want to say otherwise. This is why Obama has a high approval rating.

      • Right JimD. Just about all the Dimowits approve of Obummer. That’s not exactly news.

      • It is over 50% so it has to include independents and some Republicans too. When polls approve of the president, but say the country is going the wrong way, it is Congress that is to blame, and it is obvious why.

      • After J. Ioannidis explains, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” I think we can turn to common sense to when it comes to polls. Remember, BREXIT?

      • Brexit was a warning that we in the US can learn from.

  2. Gee. Guess I’ll go first.

    “Trump will ignite an American economic boom [link]” Link’s to “President Havoc” article.

    Sorry about this, but it’s about the e-mails an from Steve McIntyre: https://climateaudit.org/2016/11/04/the-destruction-of-huma-abedins-emails-on-the-clinton-server-and-their-surprise-recovery/#comment-771317

    Bet you’ll be glad when I get to go back to work.

    • Better watch out! Trump’ll cut your welfare.

      • I support myself. Never taken a nickle except the Obamacare subsidy that’s allowed. Trump takes what’s allowed. Expect you’ll give me fits for doing what he does. Mine is in the hundreds, not hundreds of millions. TYVM.

      • Danny Thomas | November 4, 2016 at 6:16 pm |
        I support myself. Never taken a nickle except the Obamacare subsidy that’s allowed.
        Hilarious. You’ve never taken a nickel except the hundreds you’ve taken. Many of the rest of us, on the other hand, have not only never taken a nickel, we’ve also supplied the hundreds you’ve taken.

        You are a taker, plain and simple. When you become a contributor let me know. Then I might listen to anything you say. Probably not, but maybe.

      • Ken,
        Well. Ain’t that special. I’ve contributed all my life, taken that which is allowed just like Trump, and I’m an issue? Since I’ve contributed all my life, I’m just getting back a minor fraction of what I put in. Trump does that magnitudes of magnitudes more than I. You take issue? Let’s hear it if you’ve got the stones to take him on. Or do you prefer to ‘bring it’ on little ole me? Courage would be to address your angst his way. Have any?

      • So you take but it’s allowed. Trump takes but it’s not. Because he takes more I guess. So who put you in charge of deciding when it’s allowed and ok and when it’s allowed but bot ok? You’re too funny.

        And I still love that you suppor yourself except you don’t. Funny guy.

      • Oh wise and brave one. “Trump takes but it’s not.” Those are not MY words. Just the opposite in fact (prove me wrong………I’ll provide the napkin you can use to wipe egg off your face.)

        But actually, unless you state otherwise it’s you saying that my ‘taking’ is NOT acceptable and Trumps is. Mistake, hypocrisy, or double standard. Those are your only choices.

        And showing a lack of thinking here:”And I still love that you suppor yourself except you don’t. Funny guy.” Well, if one were to read the words I used (not currently working)……..does that mean I don’t have a job? Income below poverty…………does that mean I don’t support myself?

        You and Jim2 are peas in a pod. You ‘think’ (laughable that) you know about me and you have no idea. I do, and have supported myself since age of about 17. If you have a question. Ask. Or continue to show the internet world your ignorance as well as a lack of courage.

      • If you are taking a subsidy by definition you are not supporting yourself or arrogant one.

      • Ken,
        Is a $917 MILLION DOLLAR DEDUCTION based on other peoples money not a ‘subsidy’? Tax abatements?

        a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.”

        How about property supported by government programs?
        “First, we’d have never heard of Donald Trump if he hadn’t inherited the $250 million fortune his father built off government-subsidized housing. But the Times points out that his first big Manhattan deal was to renovate the Hyatt at Grand Central Station. For that project, he got a forty-year fullproperty-tax incentive, which cost taxpayers $60 million (presumably not adjusted for inflation) in the first ten years alone, according to the paper.

        The LAT details how Trump has also won benefits that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and Florida. If anything, it feels like the paper should have found more examples of sweetheart deals that benefited Trump and his wealthy tenants at the expense of the public. It says up high that “many of his projects remain shielded from view,” but is that really true? I’ve never known a Trump anything to be “shielded from view.” At the least, the Times should have explained what it means here a bit more.

        Trump is undeniably newsworthy right now early in the 2012 race, where he has pulled near 20 percent of GOP primary voters in some early polls and led the race. But he’s always been an irrestistible character for the press—a throwback to the time before the ascendance of public relations, before the ascendance of public relations muted color and tycoons weren’t yet trained in the art of talking to reporters while really saying nothing. This quote, for instance, is simply great copy:

        Referring to how he managed to win a 40-year tax abatement for rebuilding a crumbling hotel at Grand Central Station — a deal that in the first decade cost taxpayers $60 million — Trump said, “Someone said, ‘How come you got 40 years.’ I said, ‘Because I didn’t ask for 50.’ “”

        I could go on but it won’t make any difference. I guess your ‘Opinion’ is Trump doesn’t support himself. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • No. A tax deduction is not the same thing as getting direct funding. Trump was just keeping money he had made. It was his to begin with. You OTOH are simply taking.

      • Jim2,
        Not even wrong: “Property tax abatements, exemptions, and reductions are SUBSIDIES that lower the cost of owning real and personal property by reducing or eliminating the taxes a company pays on it.”


      • Jim2,

        More NOT EVEN WRONG: ” Trump Tower began receiving the subsidy in 2004 as part of New York City’s Industrial & Commercial Incentive Program, which was established “to renovate industrial or commercial properties so you can extend their useful life,” said Jean Carubia, the NYC Department of Finance’s deputy director for commercial exemptions. The exemption, valued at $163.775 million in total on commercial property taxes, began in 2004 and ends in 2016.”

        Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422724/donald-trump-has-mastered-art-tax-break-jillian-kay-melchior

        I can find about a zillion more if you insist.

    • Yes, that link is missing, but signs are that the first thing a Trump win would do would be lead to a stock market drop and possibly a recession, so those who vote Trump because they have it bad, will only see things get worse. Also, Trump is not in any position to know what to do because he is the self-acclaimed King of Debt but who has pledged to reduce the national debt which sounds like becoming the king of austerity, a blow to the already poor.

      • Jim D,
        “pledged to reduce the national debt” is quite different than actually having a plan.

        I’ll bet he’s made other pledges, but words don’t mean a thing. Examples might be ….repayment of loans, wedding vows, you know……………….

      • When I say “pledge”, I mean in the loose Trumpian way, like the pledges to bomb Isis HQ, threaten NATO with withdrawal, build a wall, etc.

      • Gawd, the same nonsense about tanking tock markets and recession as during Brexit, which also never materialized.
        Get a grip Jim

      • The dollar may also sink as in that case.

      • If you are in cash, which given the Central-bank-supported stock markets you should be; a market drop is a buying opportunity. Not a bad thing. Investing 101.

      • People weren’t saying that in 2008, mainly because, yes, rich people can get richer later, but the average joe gets downsized by his bosses (see 2008).

      • Thanks PE.

        Clinton should appoint Trump to a new Czar position as businessperson supreme. Keeps his hands off the triggers and let’s him prove his mettle on the economic side. Win-win?

        Of course that may only happen after she get a pardon from Obama, but details haven’t been all that valued in this election.

    • Danny, you said you support yourself, but here you state your income is below the poverty level.


      That doesn’t seem to comport with supporting oneself.

      • Jim2,

        Are you really that incapable of thinking outside of the boxes in to which you insist people fit? Doesn’t ‘seem’ to comport as you think you have me pegged. You only project and don’t bother to inquire. Perhaps I’m incarcerated but since they pay pennies a day I consider it to be ‘below poverty’ while not ‘taking a thing’. Who knows?

      • You haven’t told me anything, Danny. There is no need for me to think inside or outside any box. I only see what you write here, and you have not definitively said what you do to “support yourself.” You write words, but they communicate nothing. And, BTW, if you are serving a term in prison, you can’t get Obummercare. So, more obfuscation from you. So typical of you.

      • Jim2,
        “You haven’t told me anything, Danny.” You don’t bother to ask. You assume, project and apply. From a perspective of fear, anger, and angst where might that lead? (If that’s not communicative I can’t help ya)

      • DT – why do I have to ask? You are quite capable of posting comments. Again, you produce words, but no meaning.

      • Jim2,
        If this is correct? “Again, you produce words, but no meaning” don’t you have your answer? (See, that’s a question)

  3. “I voted last week.”

    Past tense?

    Never stop voting! Heck, lots of people keep on voting even after they’re dead. Now that’s dedication to Democratic ideals. ^_^

    • In Chicago, Dems vote early and often. As many times as ward heelers and community organizers pay them to do so. Nothing is free in Chicago. It is strictly pay to play. Only a ‘few’ get caught, like Gov. Blagoyavitch selling former Chicago community organizer Obama’s Senate seat when he moved on. 14 years in the slammer. Or the previous Republican governor for selling CDLs when Sec. state. Or Jesse Jackson’s Congressman son. Or the head of Cook County…..

  4. Constitutional crisis in UK
    Parliament vs Prime Minister vs High Court

    So what is this about then?
    MPs who wanted to hand power back to British judges now want to take power away from British judges to stop British judges stopping MPs from handing power back to them.
    Confused ?
    No problem, so is everyone else.
    three cheers for Gina Miller !

    • I’ve been wondering if the Brexiteers have any options to prevent Parliament from short-circuiting the popular vote. (I know you don’t see it that way, but that’s OK.) Can the MPs be voted out with an impromptu election there? How does that work?

      • Hi Jim
        We have to wait for appeal to the Supreme Court, if the High Court ruling is overturned (few believe that would happen) that’s it. In contrary it may be Brexit-light after years of haggling, which will not please either side, or alternatively the PM may call an early General Election.
        PM needs to get 60% of the MPs vote for Parliament’s dissolvement, but it is likely this would be resisted by the Labour Party, many Conservatives, Scottish and some other nationalist parties, while Tory majority is around dozen or so, and the PM may not get an early election.
        If there is an early election, it is worth noting how current MPS voted on Brexit
        Although, many who voted NO are parroting platitudes to ‘the will of the people’, but if they are re-elected are they going to repeat the vote, presumably according to their conscience for what is best for the country, even if their voters don’t like it?
        London, Manchester, Leeds and most of SE of England (economic power centres of UK) + Scotland & N. Ireland have voted NO, only regions mostly with higher rate of unemployment have voted YES. The referendum was a very messy and low-credibility campaign on both sides, while one hope the GE campaign could have more credibility.
        It is likely that the most of current MPs would be re-elected since reselection process is cumbersome and time consuming process, barring a country wide constituencies political earthquake.
        Our Foreign Minister said yesterday that ‘UK government is going to make Titanic success of Brexit’, and I hope they do and sink it on its maiden voyage, else UK may end up the UK-light i.e minus Scotland also the long troubled people of N. Ireland are unhappy too.

      • clarification:
        NO = not leaving EU, Remain
        YES = Leave EU

      • jim

        I fear Vuk is getting carried away. As you can, see remainers are terrible losers.

        The Brexit vote was the largest democratic mandate in the Uk’s very long history. There is no chance that a majority of MP’s will vote against the will of the people who elected them. They have to carry out that democratic mandate. It will be messier if the Mp’s have to get too involved as most are idiots . However they know they are reviled and they will want to keep their jobs.

        If an election is called, which seems unlikely at present, the overwhelming amount of parliamentary constituencies (some 65%) voted for Brexit and they will expect their Mp’s to fall into line.

        The euro crazies are very firmly embedded into the British elite and they don’t want to get off the gravy train they have been on for decades.

        The EU is a basket case with undemocratic bureaucrats presiding over weak economies and sky high jobless total. Why would anyone want freedom of movement when all it brings are millions of economic migrants no one wants?

        Vuk is lined up with Clegg, Tony Blair and Keith Vaz. A trio of unethical losers who wouldn’t know democracy if it hit them in the face. Good luck to him but we are leaving the EU.


      • Many who voted no regretted it the day after because it was just a protest vote against Cameron’s government. A revote would be unlikely to turn up no now that he people are more informed of what the EU is and what Brexit actually does.

      • If I were a Frenchie I would say good riddance. The linked video would express how I feel:

      • jimd

        Once again you fail to understand Brexit. Cameron had only just won the general election and was relatively popular. It makes no sense to use a referendum vote when they could have used the general election to express dissatisfaction.


      • Max

        If I were French I would be saying that with our unemployment rate of 10%, youth unemployment rate of 25% and a positive balance of trade with the UK, we really need to keep trading with the British.

        They are also more Euro sceptic than the British


      • Mr. Brown
        Thank you for clarification..
        Keith Vaz? not kind of a remark I expected from you.
        all the best
        Good bye

      • Vuk

        You do realise that Keith Vaz has just been appointed by Parliament onto another of their committees after being forced to resign from another one because of his antics? As such, in his new position he wields a great deal of power again. He was the Minister for Europe and immediately after the referendum result said this on national TV;

        ‘The former minister for Europe has called the EU referendum result a “terrible day for Britain and a terrible day for Europe” that will have consequences felt around the world..’

        I have no wish to upset or offend you, but Vaz is part of the alliance openly determined to halt Brexit and thwart the will of the British people in the largest democratic mandate ever received.

        I am sure there are some equally dubious characters on ‘my’ side but the three named above have been especially prominent in the last three days and are committed remainers, which is why I referenced them


      • The UK and the US are both bureaucratic quagmires. Too many “elite” hangers-on pulling at the various government teats.

      • Tony

        I don’t know how anyone can lecture the Brits about the wrong choice they made. That implies absolutism in the issue. This is about fundamental views surrounding a civilization’s preference of their values. It would make as much sense if a group of experts came to lecture the citizenry on what their favorite color should be.

        It might have been an unwise decision, but it cannot be said it was a wrong decision.

      • tonyb, Brexit was swung by a protest vote, whether by Labour and UKIP supporters or anti-Europe (anti-Cameron) Conservatives. People were unhappy with their lot in life, especially after the recession, and wanted to smash the system that got them there and throw all the pieces in the air and see where they fall, and that is the current indeterminate situation Britain is in. Same is going on in the US. Unhappy people seem to prefer uncertainty for everyone to their own continuing unhappiness.

      • Jimd

        Your reply to me makes no sense at all and appears to demonstrate that your knowledge of the uk comes from the guardian or huffpo. Who are these anti Europe anti Cameron conservatives?

        Cameron was the first prime minister in 40 Years to promise a referendum if he was elected. He duly won an overall mandate to the surprise of many. The lib dems, the minor coalition party, lost very heavily on the promise of no referendum.

        The time for an anti cameron vote was during the general election. there wasn’t one, quite the reverse.

        The referendum was very clearly about whether or not we wanted to remain in Europe. That was the only question.Remain or leave
        No other option was given.

        People weighed up the arguments and made their decision which the govt said they would implement. None of this nonsense about advisory. Very many of those who voted to leave had voted to stay in the 1975 referendum. I was one of them. Unfortunately over the Years we had come to see the real nature of the beast.

        The decision revolved round numerous related matters which included the anti democratic nature of the organisation, it’s desire for ever closer political union, it’s corrupt and unresponsive bureaucracy who created a silly currency which has caused mass unemployment in many European countries and Anger at the political elite in Europe and Britain who had allowed this monster to grow and were contemptuous of the’little people’ who obviously didn’t understand the issues.

        Stirred in with all this was the unrestrained mass immigration which the British people said time and again they did not want. stir in mrs merkels extraordinary trashing of long standing rules by inviting refugees and economic migrants to descend unrestrained and without paperwork on our content and you have an inevitable result

        The establishment in Britain and Europe were so confident they would get their way that there was no plan b. to have the political elite try to block Brexit or to make it meaningless has incensed us.

        Tell me, why are you so in favour of this political elite who are so contemptuous of the ordinary person and who are so determined to hold on to their gravy train that they are willing to to subvert democracy ? Would you want to belong to an organisation that removes your sovereignty and independence bit by bit in a ‘ lobster’ strategy?


      • Jimd

        When I said ‘little people’ I wasn’t intending to give the impression that anyone in power had said these words. It was meant to signify that the establishment believes many of us are too ill educated or do not understand the issues involved in order to give a correct answer


      • tonyb, the referendum was called by Cameron to appease his anti-Europe faction, and they came back and bit him. He had no idea that the argument would become the UKIP-led nationalist one about droves of refugees taking UK jobs, and not the economic one about maintaining the UK as having a major say as part of the world’s wealthiest trading bloc. Then in the aftermath of Brexit, the “leave” leaders left without trace because they had no plan forwards, which is when the public became suspicious of what this was all for and whether anyone really knew what to do next, and they still don’t. The plan seems to be shifting back to the Norway-style soft exit favored by the parliamentary delegations, which leaves open borders in place but takes the UK away from the EU table on their trade policies.

      • Jimd

        ‘Surveys, however, dent this claim that the anti-EU throng was driven by disdain for foreigners. In a post-vote ComRes poll, only 34 per cent of Leave voters cited concern about immigration as their main reason for voting out (and concern about immigration isn’t necessarily racism). A majority, 53 per cent, said they rejected the EU because they think Britain should make its own laws. So this swath of the country, defamed as a brainless pogrom-in-waiting, was actually voting for democracy.’

        Please stop trying to make out we are all either racist or stupid. Can you please answer my question as to why you are such an EU fan and whether you believe America should also give away it’s freedom, independence, sovereignity, law making and ability to decide who comes into the country?


      • That 34% swung your vote. You can’t ignore it. A lot of the rest were fooled by promises of more money for the NHS which was quickly backed off from after the vote leaving many sadly disappointed and wondering what they had actually voted for. Of course being part of the world’s wealthiest trading bloc is better than being outside and competing with them, and facing new barriers to doing any business in Europe. Global trade is a big fish eating small fish world, and now the UK is one of the small fish.

      • jimd

        Whilst immigration was a main concern for a small minority, it was not the only concern. There were a basket of them. The overwhelming reason was wanting to restore our sovereignity .

        Wanting to somewhat reduce the eye watering levels of immigration that is rapidly changing our society and putting great pressure on our infrastructure does not make you a racist, unless you believe in completely open borders. Presumably you would be happy with no border controls with Mexico?

        Now, how about answering the question I have asked you directly three times. I have repeated it below;

        “Can you please answer my question as to why you are such an EU fan and whether you believe America should also give away it’s freedom, independence, sovereignity, law making and ability to decide who comes into the country? ‘


      • tonyb, America already has a large enough economy to cut itself off that way, and it does. Small economies are better as part of larger ones. That is why the US situation is different. It benefits the US to have agreements with other blocs too as well as with Mexico and Canada. By having US industries manufacturing in Mexico they can keep prices down in the US and compete globally. This only works with a trade agreement with Mexico. Similar advantages of expansion apply to Britain and their EU partners.

      • jimd

        You still didn’t answer.

        Can I assume that in my situation you would think that loss of freedom, independence, sovereignity, law making and the ability to decide who comes into the country is a small price to pay for being (perhaps) marginally more prosperous?


      • tonyb, you are stating the situation contrary to the facts. It is not a loss of sovereignty to be in the EU. It is to gain a say in a larger shared market. It is not having to accept anyone coming into the country. It is to have a wider pool of people to offer your jobs to. For example, if you don’t want to offer a job to a Pole because of his nationality, you don’t have to, as long as you can find someone else to do the job as well for the same pay. Clearly many businesses value the Poles, otherwise they wouldn’t hire them. You want to take that flexibility, which has business sense, away.

      • Jimd

        Once again you illustrate that you know nothing at all about the EU. Of course We can not prevent anyone from the EU coming here should they wish to. If we refused to give a job to a Pole because of their nationality it would be illegal.

        Do you allow everyone from Mexico to come to America should they wish to? Of course not! because you have a trading arrangement not a
        Political one . Australia Japan china new Zealand and many other countries do not belong to a sprawling Politically motivated union and they seem to do ok.

        I gather from your continued non reply that sovereignty, independence, the ability to make your own laws and to control your borders are of no interest to you?


      • tonyb, you keep talking about sovereignty as if trade agreements have anything to do with it. Britain has its own laws and borders, a parliament that can still make laws, a legal system that can still enforce them. If your loss of sovereignty is related to how you make or sell goods for trade with partners, that is not what sovereignty is, and someone sold you a fallacious characterization of it. Give an example of a loss of sovereignty that you care about and affects you because without an example of real hurt, I don’t know what this term refers to.

      • Jim

        a very few examples

        We can not arrange our own trade deals

        We can not remove or impose vat on goods and services

        We can not provide financial assistance or provide other assistance to industries we choose ( recent cample is Nissan, where the EU is investigating their decision to stay in the uK)

        Eu laws have primacy in certain competences. A particular problem as much of Europe uses the napoleonic code whereby you are guilty until proven innocent

        We can not refuse entry to eu citizens nor discriminate on jobs

        We can not Easily deport them if they commit a crime

        A large percentage of our laws are made in Brussels, this is estimated to be from 13 to 62 percent depending on how you Define a law.

        All contracts over a certain low value have to be advertised throughout the EU meaning we can’t favour our own companies even when British taxpayers money is involved?

        With 28 countries The eu has become much too big and encompasses many countries that have undeveloped economies. I would place its high point at around 1995 when it was of a manageable size


      • tonyb, you have to set a very low bar to describe these examples as a “loss of sovereignty”. These are the buzzwords they used to scare people, but what you list are just what is needed to regulate trade among many countries. Loss of sovereignty is what Putin did to Crimea for example. The EU is nothing like that. How about people who were happily exporting and importing with Europe who now have an extra obstacle even if they can stay in business? Or the British citizens who live and work in Europe or are retired there. Were they considered at all? They are the ones that had the tangible loss here. Maybe, with parliament now involved, they go for the soft exit that keeps the barriers out and doesn’t affect all these people, so there is some hope yet.

      • Jimd

        It took me ten seconds to think of those. That you consider them to be a very low bar reinforces my growing opinion that you care more for trade than for self determination and still have no idea of the nature of the organisation. It is not remotely just the trading organisation that you fondly imagine. If it was I would not have voted to leave In 2016 , as in 1975 I voted to stay in what we believed was merely a trading block. It turns out it wasn’t


      • It is rhetorical language like loss of sovereignty, and droves of immigrants, that captured the imagination, but it doesn’t account for the upside, and the remainers had a tough time saying look who will lose out with a Brexit. But many are affected negatively, not just immigrants and ex-pats, and it is hard to find someone affected positively. Britain as a recognized and respected research center in Europe was net gaining research dollars, and those are going.

      • Curious George

        The reaction from the Brussels indicates that Brexit is badly needed.

      • Parliament has chance to make an informed and rational decision on how to define the ‘leave’ conditions, and they represent the people (not May), which is the way it is supposed to work.

      • My Virginia ancestor funded a regiment in the Continental Army, so he voted with uniforms, muskets and bayonets to leave.

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

  6. Trump played the Cuban card in Florida. It seems Obama and Hillary forgot not all “Latinos” liked seeing Obama take his family on vacation in Cuba, nor his smiling poses with the evil dinosaur.

    • Who would have guessed in Nov 2009 that the Climategate emails would led us to a Presidential election with compelling evidence of high-level corruption and possible military intervention in the election process?

      Just a few minor adjustments to the data.”

  7. If Trump wins, political science could end up in the same boat as climate science.

    But none should despair, an unsettled science is a healthy science.

  8. Trump has a lot of momentum but has to turn around a lot of iffy states to win it. Let’s hope the momentum gathers strength in the next few daze.

  9. From the article:

    The Latin American crime network MS-13, noted for machete attacks and schoolyard slayings, is using President Obama’s loose immigration policies to recruit illegal youths across the border and into towns including Washington, D.C., Boston, Miami and San Francisco, according to a new report out Friday.

    Three shocking new details from the Center for Immigration Studies show the problem:

    — 92 percent of MS-13 gang members arrested are in the United States illegally.

    — 80 percent of the tens of thousands of Latin American youths who’ve crossed illegally into the United States and were seized by authorities have subsequently been placed with other illegals, some with ties to the gang.

    “The UACs are often placed with sponsors who are in the United States illegally, with virtually no post-placement oversight by the federal government, exposing both the children and communities to increasingly profound waves of gang violence while perpetuating the illegal immigrant population,” said the CIS report.

    Of the 120,000 illegal youths to cross into the U.S. in the past three years, his report said that “thousands of whom have joined MS-13, either through coercion and threats or voluntarily, for protection.”

    It also noted that the poor system of tracking the illegals is a warning about how the government will keep track of refugees flooding in from terrorist nations like Syria.


  10. “Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment.”

    “Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized Friday for reporting that federal investigators had determined that Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been hacked and that an investigation would lead to an indictment of Clinton after the election.

    In fact, Baier said, after checking with his sources, there is no evidence at this time for either statement.”
    Could not find a link to a Fox news report after quick search so using where I read it first.


    I have to respect the willingness to correct the record.

  11. Bill Clinton’s meeting with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac took care of the Hillary indictment issue.

  12. From the article:

    Doug Schoen: Hillary will produce a ‘constitutional crisis’
    Oct. 31, 2016 – 13:20 – Harris Faulkner’s America: Former pollster for President Clinton explains why he cannot vote for Hillary Clinton and how she can potentially produce a ‘constitutional crisis’

    Break up the URL so it doesn’t slow down the page.

    http://video.foxnews.com /v /5191496078001/? #sp=show-clips

  13. Cognitive dissonance in action. Watch the young lady starting at 1:00 to the end.


    Interestingly, although this quote has been widely attributed to Hillary since February 2016:

    …Both Snopes and Politifact say she never said it.

    The latter also tells us the actual quote:

    Parents bear the first and primary responsibility for their sons and daughters — to feed them, to sing them to sleep, to teach them to ride a bike, to encourage their talents, to help them develop spiritual lives, to make countless daily decisions that determine whom they have the potential to become.

    Politifact also says they searched the book on Google for the incorrect phrase, finding nothing.

    Given how many times I’ve seen questionable stuff from Politifact, I decided to do the search myself, using both the string “secondary role”, which received no hits, then a string from the actual quote: “first and primary responsibility”. The latter got a proper hit on page four.

    I used the first edition of the book, as it was possible the wording had been changed after the book first came out. Here’s the Google URL that brings up three editions:


    So why cognitive dissonance? The young lady in the clip simply refused to consider any answer but “Trump”. She then went into a completely irrelevant rant.

    The only explanation I can see for her behavior is that she actually accepted that the quote was Hillary’s, and went into denial. A more rational approach to some stranger on the street asking you whether H1tler or Hillary was responsible for some phrase would be to say “prove it.” This would be a good skeptical approach.

    If the quote actually came from Hillary’s book as claimed, simply carrying a copy and opening it to page 4 would have been sufficient to prove it. I wonder whether “Joseph A Costello” actually knows the quote is wrong, or if he believes the image shown above.

  14. Was the reports of Russian hacking and 17 intelligence agencies really just a diversion to assist Clinton, or was it real? Are the rumors of Russian plans to affect U.S. elections real?

    “As NBC News reported Thursday, the U.S. government is marshaling resources to combat the threat in a way that is without precedent for a presidential election.”

    “U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia’s electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin’s command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News.”

    It’s a brave new world: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-hackers-ready-hit-back-if-russia-disrupts-election-n677936

    • Sorry, Danny. It’s much more likely the Oath Keepers in US intelligence, who think Billary is the very last person who should be President, hacked into Team Billary’s emails.

  15. Hillary gains by cobbling together a polyglot of groups with desperate interests, much like her political staffer and vice chairwoman who married a politician/pedophile.

  16. Trump surrogates, Christie/Giuliani are a big help. Swamp gets bigger every day and seems to involve both major candidates.

    For those unaware, Christie is supposed to head up transition team. I’d guess that’d be the case unless he’s to busy trying to not get impeached himself.

    “It’s not inconceivable that Christie would spend the year he has left in the governor’s office under impeachment proceedings by the Democratic state legislature, said Brigid Harrison, a political science and law professor at Montclair State University. Even if Republican Donald Trump were to win the White House and Christie — now the head of Trump’s transition team — escapes New Jersey for a high-profile job in D.C., Bridgegate would follow him down I-95.”


    Gotta say. This has to be the ‘hottest election evah’!

    • This sounds like the same ole same ole Dimowit spin. Sorry, no cigar.

      • Yeah. That’s it. Never happens on the ‘right’.

        By the way. Are you familiar with Bridgegate? Actually convictions came down today. That’s different from investigations in case you didn’t know.

        Don’t read this. It’s probably just Democrats spinning completion of a trial by conviction of plaintiffs: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/nyregion/bridgegate-conviction.html

        or it could be a problem with the reporting.

      • Yep, no conviction for Christie. However, he should take responsibility since it happened on his watch. Otherwise, it’s not the career killer made out by the hit piece.

      • Jim2,

        How about some ‘fear and loathing’ from (yet another) Republican since you don’t seem to care for ‘Democrats spin’: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tom-nichols-trump-cost-america-article-1.2858701

        This might sound familiar: ” (And make no mistake: that the Democrats chose Hillary Clinton has done nothing to shore up that faith.)” Think about from whom you might have heard that before.

        So you don’t have to look him up (’cause you probably won’t……narrative and all): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Nichols_(academic)

      • Hmmm … so Nichols sees Billary and coterie’s behavior as “normal??????”

        He needs to take a hard look in the mirror and contemplate the sort of man he’s become.

      • “Hmmm … so Nichols sees Billary and coterie’s behavior as “normal??????””
        Typical Jim2 spin? Cherry picking one word out of context? Thought you had issues with how ‘spin’ was conducted. By appearances apparently not. But I’ll ask. Do you?

        The entirety: “Clinton’s team, of course, emerges from leaked emails and other sources as competitive and ethically dysfunctional partisans. They are not people I’d want to work with, but their behavior is, for want of a better word, normal. If we saw the Trump campaign’s emails (or any other), we’d see similar unappealing behavior. To me, as a former staffer in city, state and national government, Clinton’s emails look like the daily workings of a group of tough and not very appealing professionals.” Nichols says: ethically dysfunctional partisans whom he’d not want to work with. Maybe better word choices would have been ‘typically politician’.

        “He needs to take a hard look in the mirror and contemplate the sort of man he’s become.” Great advice. Think we should all do that. What do you think? (yet another question by the by).

        It’s my hope we’ll do so as a country after this joke of an election is over. Based on what you present on this blog it would appears you won’t look at yourself in the mirror. Again, I could ask……………….

      • So, you’ve shown that Nichols speculates about Trump’s emails. I seriously doubt he has a clue what’s in the Trump team emails. Neither do you. What he wrote amounts to nothing more substantive than hot air. I can see why you latched on to it.

      • You, yourself, stated Trump has ‘personal issues’. I asked (and you ignored) if you see no evidence of ‘professional issues’. Evidence, not speculation. I see plenty. Were he up against a good candidate we (you and I together) could make a serious case against him. Are you compromising your ethics in any way in order to support Trump? (Careful, loaded question).

        But Trump is a politician (self defined, debate 3). He’s had issues within his campaign. He’s had ‘personal’ issues. Are you so confident that there would be NO e-mails in his campaign which might be described as “leaked emails and other sources as competitive and ethically dysfunctional partisans.” Steve Bannon ain’t bashful.

        Is your statement that ‘Trump has issues’ followed by your support (no policy oriented arguments by the way, just NOT HILLARY) characterizable as ‘dysfunctionally partisan’? It’s understandable consider what we have to work with (these two choices) but that you will not specifically criticize Trump is an indicator.

        However you may project about me, you cannot say I’ve not criticized both. (Well you can, but that would be untruthful).

    • In contrast to the phony frightwing stories about Obama cancelling stump appearances for Clinton (and that nonsense about twitter account deletions).


      New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie canceled four New Hampshire campaign stops on behalf of Donald Trump for Saturday after two of Christie’s top aides were convicted by a federal jury in connection with the “Bridgegate” lane closing scandal.



      • Although it’s prolly just a problem with the reporting.

      • It always is except when it’s not.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Just because Obama didn’t stop stumping for Clinton doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have. It just means more of what she did will rub off on him. Maybe he wants her to get elected so bad so he can pardon her now and once she gets in she can pardon him? They both were breaking FOIA laws at a minimum and almost certainly national security laws. Did he hit his head too?

  17. Even if ya don’t care for him, Obama was clearly a class act in this case!

    ““Everybody sit down and be quiet for a second. Everybody sit down and be quiet for a second. Now listen up. I’m serious. Listen up,” Obama said. “You’ve got an older gentleman who is supporting his candidate. He’s not doing nothing. You don’t have to worry about him.””

    ““First of all, we live in a country that respects free speech,” Obama said. “Second of all, it looks like maybe he might have served in our military and we ought to respect that. Third of all, he was elderly and we got to respect our elders. And fourth of all, don’t boo. Vote!””


    • Obummer has always been a good orator. Just a lousy President.

      • Why’s that? Because he speaks like one with actual real live good old American principles? Shame on him.

      • Good Dimowit spin there Danny. You’ve learned by observing some of the best!

    • He was a phucking joke pleading over and over and over again for the crowd to settle down. Not presidential.

      • He should have just asked them to thump him, like Trump does.

      • Interesting that you take issue with one who puts forth good old American values of freedom of speech, respect for a veteran, and respect for an elder.

        Your choice. And certainly not presidential, nor honorable.

    • Danny

      I cant hear the context as the clip starts AFTER the apparent kerfuffle so I have no idea what the Trump supporters said or how the audience then reacted.

      The clip shows Obama initially failing to control the crowd (perhaps they were REALLY riled up?) but then he regains his composure and makes some good points . Its a short clip so I don’t know what then happened.


      • Tony,

        Obama’s approach which some characterize as not being presidential: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFHOxkMqksk

        For comparison I guess this then would be considered so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm2xKkBj2pM

        I’ll be accused of something if I don’t include this: http://nypost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-loses-her-cool-after-heckler-calls-bill-a-rapist/

        Obama gets an A
        Clinton a B-
        Trump is inhumane…..F-

      • Danny

        That was interesting.

        The first link you posted showed Obama not controlling the crowd at first but then recovering and making some good points about the interruption.

        . But the you tube clip you just posted has been heavily edited and doesn’t show Obama floundering at first but shows him making the good points.

        Did you realise that?.

        Context is everything

        I will look at your other two links after dinner but would appreciate your comments about the apparent editing


      • Tony,

        No. I didn’t realize that. Thank you for not assuming mal-intent as so many do and asking!

        I can look for a more complete unedited version, but my take is he ‘lost the crowd’ as they were focused on the ‘heckler’ and as you said it seems he gathered them right back. And he made reminders of values in doing so.

        Let me know your opinions on the other two.

      • Danny

        The other two were truly dreadful. Hillary should know better as she has been in politics for thirty years . I doubt Trump can sound presidential but I assume he has not had the same practice in talking to large crowds as the other two have.

        Having said that he has dialled the volume down the last week or two whilst Hillary has got shriller and shriller. What a choice. Your establishment needs a really good kick up the backside. If you think that, only one of the candidates will deliver it. Mind you it might be possible to wait until the next presidential race but will the same opportunity be there or will the Political elite have closed ranks?


      • Tony,
        ” Your establishment needs a really good kick up the backside. If you think that, only one of the candidates will deliver it. Mind you it might be possible to wait until the next presidential race but will the same opportunity be there or will the Political elite have closed ranks?”

        I agree the backside kicking is due. Question is do I think only one will deliver it. That’s questionable. Trumps value lies (IMO) in his likely destruction of the GOP (Republican) block. If Clinton gets elected and remains in office surely she can see what we (a large assumption) all see that there is a necessity for change and will do similar to the other side. The Republican methodology during it’s control of congress has not brought solutions to Obamacare (one example) just 50+ attempts to repeal it. No substantial improvement proposals. Perhaps backsides have already been kicked and Trump (and Bernie Sanders) did it. And some credit it due Clinton for how NOT to do things. Congressional approval ratings are near 11%. That number is not based on Republicans only, but a cross segment. There’s information there.

        Might Trump generate change towards improvement? Maybe. But based on the evidence embedded in this election has he? Absolutely not. He’s not brought us together and it’s marginal (until Tuesday) in his capability of defeating a blatantly weak opponent. One of the points of proof I refer to is the massive violence issues in Chicago which Trump says he knows how to fix. Had he proven that is there any idea how many would have taken that proof as reason to vote his way? You suggest context is important. I suggest action is and rhetoric is not. If he knew how and has chosen not to ‘until elected’ his morals are such that I don’t want him in office. Some say he can’t ‘fix it’ until office is obtained. Based on what evidence? The answer is no evidence, because he’s not shared his plan. The don’t know just presume. I presume he has no idea or he would have done it or stated the plan. Can’t think of a single reason not to.

        I’ve stayed out of the Brexit issue, but may I ask. Are you greater than 50% certain that the outcome from near term to far term is certain and will be positive in totality?

        Apologies, but if Trump is the ‘Brexit moment’ we in the U.S. have the opportunity to learn from the travails of your circumstance. It’s awful, but an honest perspective.

        I’m not the brightest bulb. But if I were in a position of leadership at a high level and looked about I can’t imagine I’d continue down the same pathway. A responsible leader listens to the voices (not just in their own head), evaluates, and implements change as needed. The CEO of our country can see ‘the profit level’ (faith in government) falling precipitously.

        Trump is not qualified. Clinton is highly qualified but damaged goods. If you need a good surgeon to perform brain surgery you don’t hire an auto mechanic to do it.

        And Trump has about as many years speaking in front of large crowds. And no matter. Please refrain from excusing bad behavior. I don’t apologize for Clinton. I do admire how Obama handled.

      • That’s rich Danny. You criticize Trump, who isn’t President, for not “bringing the country together.” After 8 years of Obummer and the Dimowits, half the country is at the other half’s throat and vice versa. It will be tough, but President Trump will unify the country more so than now.

      • Jim2,

        ” It will be tough, but President Trump will unify the country more so than now.”

        Got proof?

      • Danny

        Will Hillary change? Why should she, for thirty years she has been part of the political establishment who think they know better and see elections merely as an opportunity to move the deck chairs round so sometimes they are blue and sometimes red.

        The west desperately needs leadership. America seems to have abdicated that position over the last 8 years. Will Hillary provide it? Nothing I have seen suggests she either can or wants to. so America and the west will continue their managed decline.

        The window of opportunity to really change thngs is slightly ajar. It might not be in four years time.


      • Tony,
        “Will Hillary change?” Dunno, but I doubt it. But trends are improving economically. If Clinton is dumb enough to not read the tea leaves and respond what makes you think the door will slam shut vs. burst wide open?

        “America seems to have abdicated that position over the last 8 years.” Why 8 years? Did Bush/Cheney do us any favors taking us in to Afghanistan our puppet against the Russians? We fought (still do?) against our own weapons.

        How about Iraq? Was that not the beginning of the vacuum in the Middle East? What is the evidence that this will be improved under Trump?
        (Maybe the article is ‘rigged’?) Derived from Pew who some see as skewed: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2016/06/Pew-Research-Center-Balance-of-Power-Report-FINAL-June-29-2016.pdf
        So let’s toss in Gallup for comparison: http://www.gallup.com/poll/196376/global-image-remains-strong-among-major-world-powers.aspx?g_source=obama%20worldwide%20rating%202016&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

        Decline? Based on? 11 million jobs have been created under Obama. His approval ratings are unlike any lame duck in recent history. Incomes while still low but are improving from the starting point of his administration and recently as high as almost a 6% jump. Is this good? Not hardly. Could it be better? You bet.

        I keep responding but no one likes it. So stopping the same behavior expecting different results I’ll try this. What is the evidence that Trump will do better and not ‘move deck chairs’ and will ‘end the decline’?

        If a window is open, or not, is not pertinent. I see no fire, just a continuing smolder. To put out a fire requires a different approach than to tamp down coals.

        Tony. I respect you. You got on to Jim for not addressing a question posed and sidestepped mine to you about Brexit and certainties.

      • Danny

        To answer your Brexit question I am 100 percent certain that eventually things will turn out better than of we had stayed . it would have been MUCH easier to have accepted the staus quo and voted to remain but that is sweeping the problems under the carpet. The Eu is a ramshackle and undemocratic organisation that is steadily impoverishing
        Large swathes of the continent whilst enriching others. The youth employment rate in some countries is truly shocking.

        It thinks the solution is more Europe not less of it and ultimately the schisms will show. The arrogance of those who make the rules is beyond belief and not helped by a German leader who Appears to have gone mad.

        So we Are best of out of it but the path ahead will be very rocky. However in our very long history the time taken will be the merest blink of an eye.


      • Tony,
        Thank you! I hope (and believe) you are correct. My impression has been that the EU suffered mission creep. I’ll answer your question to Jim D. I would NOT give up “freedom, independence, sovereignty, law making and ability to decide who comes into the country.”

        Having said that: “However in our very long history the time taken will be the merest blink of an eye.” is exactly how I perceive our current circumstances. Trump, IMO, is not the right change agent. IIRC you stated you voted in an earlier ‘opportunity’ to maintain your involvement in EU (based on circumstance at the time) yet you modified that stance at a later date. This is where I am. I can wait 4 years especially since trends are improving.

    • Gotta say on this one that having the ‘right’ change agent would be worthy of a vote. Having the wrong one (as we do now) can lead to carnage (has so far) but might not. It’s not worth the risk.

      If a global warming skeptic looked at the evidence of climate related fear, I think they might agree. Ironically, the ‘real’ skeptics on the politics threads are more alarmist (apologies for the word choice by trying to make a point) on the GW topic. (And I for one, find that quite interesting.)

      Incomes improving, jobs creation improving, the pathway while not stellar is acceptable. My humble opinion. And I didn’t get to partake of any of the wine.

      We can afford to wait 4 more years.

    • Trump isn’t a racist, as the article implies. It’s tough to find the truth anywhere these daze.

    • Thank you for that link! Well worth an attentive read.

    • Not exactly– America used to be a 2-party system and it’s still 2-parties: the Republicrat Party and the Tea Party.

    • Dr. Curry

      I almost went deaf from all the shouting of Paul McGeough. As he languished at Tulu’s on an Autumn day, he but touched upon the history of our nation’s past and then leapfrogged to the here and now.

      Our nation has evolved and withstood tests of character and stamina. Slavery, Civil War, populism, progressivism, a Great Depression, a Japanese sneak attack to start our WW II participation, 911, assassinations, a variety of economic bubbles and…we are still here. There is little under the sun we have not endured with regards to politics and human behavior within that context.

      I find the doom and gloom attitude in this article similar to that of climate change warmists…lame.

      Fixing I find, is a mythical draw to the status quo at best, or a longing for an imagined past, none of which really intrigues me. Change, uncertainty, and always moving onto the next day seems our nation’s lot. Only those who are unable to embrace uncertainty and the mystery of the future are worried, worried about their lives, grandchildren, finances, schools, relationships, environment, even their own death. It’s a mind set. A coping mechanism that I don’t share.

  18. From JC’s RCP link

    Trump has repeatedly and consistently expressed a desire for an alliance with Russia, even after it seized Crimea from Ukraine and intervened to save the murderous regime of dictator Bashar Assad in Syria. Trump often voices his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin — who, according to U.S. intelligence analysts, has deployed an army of internet hackers against the Democratic Party in a shocking and unprecedented attempt to meddle in our election. Trump has done nothing to refute Clinton’s claim that he would be Putin’s “puppet” in the White House.

    I am suspicious of Trump supporters who frequently comment on blogs. I have to wonder if some are on Putin’s payroll.

    • I was in the Marine Corps in the cold war era. Newsflash. We won the cold war with the Soviet Union. 25 years ago. Russia can be an ally. We’re not at war with them any more.

      • “We’re not at war with them any more.” Unless one counts cyberwar as war. Or maybe more aptly described as cybercoldwar.

      • Russia invade parts of Ukraine, and support Assad and Iran. Whose side are you on, Impy?

      • I’m not so sure we should oppose Assad. If he keeps Muslims in check, that is a good thing.

      • jim2, unbelieveable. Assad is single-handedly responsible for the Syrian refugee crisis and indiscriminately killing so many of his own countrymen in Aleppo. He is a deranged person trying to hold onto power in a country he has helped to wreck. His alliance with Iran is with one branch of Muslims over the other. He is promoting their internal religious war, and not helping in any way. The US does not take sides with him and Iran in that war.

      • I have no interest in spending American blood and/or treasure in Middle East Muslim shiitholes like Syria.

        Is that difficult to understand?

      • Impy, well you agree with most Democrats on that one. Where you differ is the adoration and subjugation to Putin’s role in the world.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim D is still arguing for a theocracy in Syria I see. He still knows nothing about Crimea either or he would understand that Ukraine should never have had control of Crimea after the breakup of the Soviet Union. About the only way that could have lasted is if we had kept our word to not extend NATO into the previous Warsaw Pact nations and even then the historical claims Russia has to Crimea makes it doubtful they wouldn’t have ended up with it anyway.

      • stevn, do you agree with Putin on both Syria and Crimea, or do you have your own viewpoint, or perhaps a little criticism of his role in these areas? Not sure where I said anything about a theocracy. You mean like Iran or the Vatican?

      • stevenreincarnated

        You’re the one saying it is horrible what Russia has done and wish to head us back into the cold war. Perhaps you should explain your position on the Crimea and Syria. Why does the Ukraine have a historical right to Crimea instead of Russia? What sort of government do you expect to replace Assad with?

      • Why does the Ukraine have a historical right to Crimea instead of Russia?

        “Historical rights” are a very weak reed. More importantly, Russia desperately needs the Crimea in order to assure access to the Mediterranean.

        When dealing with foreign governments, it is critical to understand their motivations and agendas. Failure to do so will almost certainly lead to war.

        Furthermore, the population of the Crimea is overwhelmingly Russian. It’s amusing to watch the antics of Clinton supporters hiding their realpolitic behind an artificial ethnic nationalism then forgetting all about that principle when it comes to Crimea, or even eastern Ukraine.

        Crimea is on one side of the Strait of Kerch, which is essential to to Russian access to the Mediterranean. This strait links the Sea of Azov, with its access to the Don River, one of the most important shipping routes in the Russian Federation, especially considering its connection to the Volga River and Caspian Sea.

        Bottom line, Russia has included Crimea since before the US had a Constitution. Any attack on Russian possession of Crimea will be considered an attack on Russia at a fundamental economic and military level.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Ukraine has no historical claim to Crimea. It was added to Ukraine as an administrative move in 1954 by the Soviet Union. Russia obtained Crimea in 1783 as a war settlement from the Ottoman Empire.

      • Ak

        When complaining of Russian adventurism It is instructive to look at American aquisitions, annexations and purchases over the centuries. Their hands are hardly clean and nor of course are ours.


        Not to mention sOme slight altercations in places as far afield as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Ukraines right to Crimea is weak and as has been said it was given this piece of land by russia as an administrative matter.

        That does not mean to say that by any stretch of the imagination it was right for Russia to grab it by force. However, Many countries have imperialistic tendencies and try to justify their actions. In Russias case they feel threatened by events happening on their doorsteps as well as believing that through historic association the land belongs to them

        With the US and the west in a weakened state it judged it could grab Crimea without anyone actually doing anything about it. They were right. As one of your presidents I believe said, ‘talk softly and carry a big stck’ that beats muttering and passing worthy resolutions as these rarely work. so I feel this is a fait accompli.

        Will trump or Hillary help the west to reassert themselves and help prevent future land grabs ( the Baltic states feel threatened) I dunno. What is for sure is that someone, perhaps Russia perhaps china, perhaps someone unexpected, will try to gtab more land and take advantage of the power vacuum that appears to exist


      • @climatereason…

        When complaining of Russian adventurism […]

        I wasn’t complaining, I was explaining.
        Geopolitics trumps “moral” issues in cases like this.

        It is instructive to look at American aquisitions, annexations and purchases over the centuries. Their hands are hardly clean and nor of course are ours.

        Yes, a very good analogy is British possession of Gibraltar.

        If you want to talk about the US, there’s Panama. And, of course, Suez (France/Britain).

        With the US and the west in a weakened state it judged it could grab Crimea without anyone actually doing anything about it.

        IMO it wouldn’t have mattered. They’d have done it anyway after the CIA-sponsored revolution in Ukraine.

        What is for sure is that someone, perhaps Russia perhaps china, perhaps someone unexpected, will try to gtab more land and take advantage of the power vacuum that appears to exist

        Russia may have some Baltic interests, but nothing that comes close to their need to control Crimea.

      • AK

        Sorry. I was agreeing with you so I should have said when ‘others are complaining of Russian adventurism…’

        Yes, we can also add Spanish enclaves in North Africa and French overseas territories. The worlds map is rarely static.


    • It is well known that all sceptics are in the pay of big oil so it is logical that many trump supporters would be paid by Russia. Look out for kopecks circulating in your local community.


      • There’s suddenly a lot of Putin apologists here. It is a remarkably noticeable shift since Trump came along. I think it is related to the growth of an authoritarian ideology in this country.

      • The Putin suck-ups show how rotten some of our citizens have become, presuming they are citizens. You never know on the internet.

    • You parrot the Dimowit talking point that Russia hacked the Dimowit emails, but it was more likely the Oath Keepers.

      “Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.”


      • …or it could be the FBI. They have been exposed as partisan and unfit to do an impartial investigation. They should now recuse themselves from investigating Clinton and let someone else have a go.

      • Yep, there are some Oath Keepers in the FBI. They should keep on her until she’s where she belongs – in prison. HILLARY FOR PRISON!!!

      • I think now that Giuliani has outed the FBI for what they are, we need to investigate their investigation in congress.

      • Okay. So maybe it’s not ‘just me’.


        Time to investigate the investigators. Something’s not right! h/t D.S./IB

      • Since Giuliani and others imply that they are leaking all over the place, the FBI investigation should be suspended pending finding out who is doing the leaking and removing them because that is corrupting the investigation beyond repair, and it loses any credibility as being impartial rather than politically motivated. This is not what the FBI should be. Fix it first.

      • Outing krem I nails is not political. It’s their job. Kudos for the great job they are doing.

      • This is not what the FBI should be. Fix it first.

        When the Attorney General is corrupt and interfering in investigations of a political ally, this is exactlywhat the FBI should be.

  19. As a fan of irony, I gotta say this is just great;


    WASHINGTON – Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the country, according to detailed accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents from 20 years ago provided to The Associated Press.


    i guess that Teh Donald’s going to have to deport her.


    • Sparked a lot of replies with that retarded thought, huh?

      • I think he’s finally realized he has lost the RT crown to the likes of Jim D and Danny T.

    • Joshua, before implying Trump is a hypocrite, you should check to see if he even new Melania back at the time she broke our immigration laws. Had Trump known, he might have never gotten involved with her. OK, he probably would have, but we don’t know for sure.

  20. Voting is simple– when you pull the curtain just ask yourself: what would Sarah Palin do?

    • Trump delivers the presidency to the GOP
      Under Budget, Ahead of Schedule

      • Don’t forget in a shambles, divisive as ever, and lacking a plan.

        It’s interesting how you censure yourself.

      • It seems any other Republican could have delivered the presidency. Trump is struggling with his baggage of issues. Wrong choice. At least 10 of the others would have been better, possibly all except Ben Carson.

      • Any other Redimowit indeed. We’ve had two “traditional” Redimowits lose the election. I’m sure you’d like to see a repeat of that. Ha!!

      • Obama ist and 2nd term was a much harder proposition to beat than Hillary, effectively a 3rd term with baggage of her own and not carrying the blacks and young as well as Obama, nor delivering the kind of rhetoric that is his weapon. She was beatable until they served up Trump for her.

      • “She was beatable until they served up Trump for her.” Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep! Any ‘good’ candidate would have walked away with it. Evidence that Trump is not a good candidate.

  21. So Clinton throws a free concert on Friday, which is payday for the many people who can’t afford $100 for regular concerts.

    The people aren’t there for Hillary they’re there for the free concert.

    Now the concert goers spent their disposable income for the week on gas and don’t have any left over to pay for gas to get to the polling place on Tuesday.

    Not smart.

  22. The Clinton scandals will never stop

    Published in Washington Post.

    Et tu, Brute?

    • Promotion of the veracity of an arm of the MSM but only when it suits your narrative. Typical.

      • When a biased news source publishes things that don’t align with their bias it appears more credible to thinking people. I’m not sure how it appears to non-thinking people but you can help me out by explaining how it appears to you. Thanks in advance.

  23. November 5 LA Times/USC poll remains outside error bar @ Trump +5.4%


  24. Bill Maher show tonight on HBO was best one ever. Bill warned the panel he’d had a couple drinks before the show. One of the panel members said “More than couple judging your breath”. He was in a panic, actually compared Trump to Hitler, and I was just frickin’ loving every delicious moment of it. Bill evidently doesn’t know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    • Bill Mahers’ show was good. People should watch it. He also finally got an interview with Barack Obama. David Frum, a Republican, gave his views on Trump and how this marks the destruction of the Republican party, such as it is, with most of the elected members not supporting Trump. Maher also got into Evangelical hypocrisy as they support Trump and gave faint praise for the Mormons for at least holding to their values and not supporting him.

      • That’s BS. Only a small number of Republicans don’t endorse Trump. Fewer still refuse to vote for him. Paul Ryan voted for Trump for instance but refuses to endorse him. He doesn’t quite know which way the political wind is blowing and is trying to play both sides of the fence. No integrity there. He won’t be around a lot longer.

      • The educated ones, which include most of their politicians, don’t endorse him. Frum gave the numbers. They know that would make them look stoopid. Ryan dares not even speak his name.

      • Lyin’ Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is campaigning for Trump in Wisconsin after his constituents in Texas like me piled onto him and said if he doesn’t fulfill his pledge to support the Republican nominee he can kiss his political career in Texas goodbye. I suggested to him that Canada might welcome him back.

      • A favor to Pence. You won’t see any praise of Trump from Cruz.

      • “pledge”

        Why are pledges important at times and not at others?
        Examples. Repaying loans are ‘pledges’. Wedding vows too.

        Double standards everywhere!

        “bias it appears more credible to thinking people” and all that.

  25. If the electors revolt, then Clinton has yet another problem. From the article:

    A Democratic presidential elector in Washington state says he will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

    Former Bernie Sanders delegate Robert Satiacum told ABC News Friday night that the Democratic presidential candidate’s stance on the environment clashed with his Native American heritage. “I will not vote for Hillary Clinton,” he told ABC News. “I will not write her name. I will not. I will not.”

    The member of the Puyallup Tribe in the Evergreen State says he believes Clinton lied about using a private email server, calling it a “heinous act of stupidity.”

    “She has done nothing remarkable as Secretary of State or as the senator of New York,” he continued. “She’s bought and paid for … I just can’t get behind her. There’s no character there.”


    • If the electors revolt, then Clinton has yet another problem. From the article:

      Well, there have been 157 faithless electors. And in the past whole state panels have been faithless.

      If the result is less than a majority for either candidate the Senate decides.

      • PA: “If the result is less than a majority for either candidate the Senate decides.”

        Which Senate makes the decision? The incumbent Senate, or the newly elected one?

      • http://lwv.org/content/who-will-elect-president-electoral-college-system

        Well, it turns out the House selects a president (from the top three) on a vote by state (50 votes) and the Senate selects the Vice President (from the top two) with a vote by each senator..

        Further, the new congress has to count the electorial college votes first. So the new congress selects the president and vice president.

  26. From the article:

    In a final warning to the American people ahead of Tuesday’s election, the nation’s frontline immigration officers are calling upon voters to reject Hillary Clinton and her “radical” open borders vision that will “unleash” violence in American communities and “cause countless preventable deaths.”
    Although the nation’s border emergency goes virtually unreported by “corporate-funded media,” Clinton’s immigration policies would greatly exacerbate the crisis, the officers warn in a statement written by the president of the National ICE Council, which represents the nation’s roughly 5,000 frontline ICE officers, agents, and personnel.

    “Hillary’s pledge for ‘open borders’ will mean disaster for our country, and turn the present border emergency into a cataclysm,” writes ICE Council President Chris Crane. “Hillary’s plan would unleash violent cartels and brutal transnational gangs into US communities and cause countless preventable deaths.”


  27. article clip @jim2 | November 5, 2016 at 11:03 am in moderation

  28. This is a bright spot:

    Donald Trump is on track to double Gov. Mitt Romney’s support among African-American voters, according to a series of state polls.
    In 2012, African-Americans comprised a record 13 percent of all voters. President Barack Obama was reelected with 93 percent of the African-American vote, leaving Gov. Mitt Romney with only 6 percent of the African-American vote. Obama is now campaigning against Trump, and hoping to keep his share of the African-American vote below the 11 percent that George W. Bush won in 2004 during the housing bubble.

    On Friday, a poll of 506 Pennsylvania voters by Harper Polling showed Trump has the support of 18.46 percent of African-Americans. That’s eight points more than Romney’s share of the national vote in 2012, and if it proves true during the ballot, that 18.46 percent African-American support translates into 2 point shift towards Trump. The poll also said another 4.6 percent were undecided.


    • Funny. Springer was on here, cherry-picking the LA Times poll to predict 20% support in the AA community.

      Uh, before it went back down to 4%, of course in that poll, of course.

      What is it with the Trump toadies and cherry-picking polls, anyway?

  29. Curious George

    Winston Churchill about the U.S. democracy: “America always does the right thing – after exhausting all alternatives.” I wonder if we can still afford that luxury.

  30. From the article:

    GOP Outperforming 2012 Early, Absentee Voting Numbers in Florida, Iowa and North Carolina


  31. ***********
    cerescokid | November 5, 2016 at 9:18 am |
    The election may be over but everything else you mentioned is just beginning. The age of the computer and artificial intelligence is just starting to adversely affect job growth.
    I believe you are correct. What options do we have? Could we go back to being tradesmen and barter? That would put the robots out of work. We have to start thinking about how to ensure we have an abundant life and an independent one.

  32. From the article, cleaned up a bit:

    In 2010, Andrew Breitbart recognized Clinton campaign chair John Podesta as one of the biggest, most corrupt figures in Washington, D.C.
    “F*** you, John Podesta,” he told journalist Dave Weigel, who then wrote for Slate. “What’s in your closet, John Podesta? Big Podesta? Big Soros? Do you want us to play these games? Because we’re playing to win.”

    Andrew Breitbart understood that the biggest threats to America were those who pulled the strings behind the scenes to gain enormous personal power, money, and influence.

    Podesta is a creature of Washington, D.C., driving the leftist agenda for decades with his fingers in every pot, since serving in the Bill Clinton White House.

    He served as the president’s chief of staff during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, working tirelessly to thwart investigations around the scandal-plagued administration. The tumultuous events reportedly spawned an alter-ego for Podesta that aides called “Skippy” — the nasty side of the normally mild-mannered operative.

    Podesta also co-founded a massive lobbying firm with his brother, Tony Podesta, but later went on to launch the liberal think tank Center for American Progress and its multi-armed political subsidiaries.

    The Center for American Progress has received more than $5.5 million from liberal billionaire George Soros and millions from top American corporations.

    The leftist operative has remained close to power for decades and has been the subject of many fawning media profiles over the years.

    His lobbyist brother, Tony, has repeatedly reaped the financial rewards of Podesta’s proximity to power, as the pair enjoys unprecedented access to the most powerful people in the world, including questionable ties with Saudi Arabia and Russia.


  33. David L. Hagen

    Joel Richardson now endorses Trump-Pence as best
    After much prayer and soul-searching, I have reluctantly decided to vote for the Trump-Pence ticket. Here’s why.

    The most important is this: Hillary Clinton must never be elected President under any circumstances. She must be stopped. As I have written, she would be an absolute catastrophe for America. Should she be elected and the Democratic Platform enacted, this dynamic would accelerate the country towards divine judgment and implosion.
    Hillary and her advisors may have committed federal crimes. The decision by the Director of the FBI to reopen the criminal investigation put into sharp relief for me the gravity of the situation facing us.
    Electing Hillary could very well lead to a constitutional crisis that could paralyze the federal government and make us vulnerable. These were points made this week by Doug Schoen, a senior Democrat pollster and strategist who once worked for President Bill Clinton. Schoen announced that he – a long-time Hillary supporter – could no longer in good conscience vote for her. This helped persuade me that I could no longer in good conscience avoid casting a vote to stop her.
    Aside from criminality, Hillary is the most corrupt and flawed candidate ever to run on a major party ticket for President. Americans are exhausted by the culture of corruption and scandal that perennially surrounds the Clintons. Four more years would distract us from tackling the serious challenges facing the American people.


    • Joel Richardson, I had to look him up, seems to be an End Times crank. Why should you care what he thinks unless you are also one. His soul-searching I am sure was due to Trump’s completely contrary personal moral code, but he got past that. Good for him.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D Dig deeper. “Joel C. Rosenberg (www.joelrosenberg.com) is a New York Times bestselling author of 11 novels and five nonfiction books, with more than 3 million copies sold.” “The Last Jihad . . was written nine months before the September 11th attacks (a revised edition takes the event into account) and was published in 2002. The Last Jihad spent 11 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list, reaching as high as number seven.” He has the best command of political, cultural and religious trends across the Middle East. e.g. See Inside the Revolution for in depth interviews and analysis of the Islamic, Democratic and Christian revolutions in progress. See Joel Rosenberg official site. Rosenberg’s Blog.Joel Rosenberg at Amazon; Rosenberg at Wikipedia. I recommend studying his writings in depth to catch up on what is happening in the world.

      • OK, I assumed you meant Joel Richardson because that is what you wrote. Anyhow, this is the usual conspiracy stuff. Nothing new to see here.

  34. Class act as always Tim.

    • Hey Tim,
      What’s your definition of balance?

      • I don’t try to define things on a blog.

        And I certainly do not try to pose as balanced and open minded. I state my opinions and let others think as they may. Posing is for losers.

      • Tim,
        “I don’t try to define things on a blog.” Then quite obviously, since it’s not defined, I’m entirely balanced.

        That would make you the poser. I’ll be happy to define if you’d like.

  35. From the article:

    In the speech, Clinton admitted that “there are lots of people in the Democratic Party and lots of working people all over the world who are sick and tired of working their heart out and never getting a pay raise.”

    Clinton then conceded that, “to some extent,” the political system is rigged against the working class.

    “And so they think the political system is rigged against them, which it is to some extent, and they think it doesn’t make any difference anyway, so they want to vote for whoever they think will raise the most hell,” he said.


    • The Dems have the Sanders/Warren wing that care about money in politics, politicians working for funders rather than their constituency, the rich getting richer while the wealth created by the middle class drains up to their bosses, banks operating as self-interested casinos rather than useful lenders. With Clinton, this wing gets a say. With Trump, not so much. He doesn’t even want to reverse or limit Citizens United that allows the super pacs to operate alongside congressional campaigns with unlimited special interest money.

  36. GOP ground operation to reach 17 million door knocks in battleground states up from 11 million in 2012 using sophisticated new web apps on smart phones. Technology junkies should watch.

  37. For me the choice is simple. Mrs. Clinton will be much harder to impeach than Mr. Trump, even with the inevitable indictments. She would likely received an 11th hour pardon from Mr. Obama. It would be a simple matter to muster a 2/3 majority of legislators to impeach Mr. Trump if he gets out of line. The built in constitutional protections should steer even Trump-haters to vote for him rather than voting for the crook.

    • Lesser levels of impeachability. Now that’s an endorsement of our candidates and an indication of to where we’ve come.

      According to some, it’s a given one would be impeached. Outta entertainment value why not go that route? Especially since entertainment has been the major policy discussion this election.

      • Trump has zero chance of being impeached. Hillary is already guilty.

      • First. I didn’t broach the concept. Second, due to your ‘zero’ percent assertion thought why not google. Found this:
        ““Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress. From the right, Washington attorney Bruce Fein puts the odds at 50/50 that a President Trump commits impeachable offenses as president. Liberal Florida Rep. Alan Grayson says Trump’s insistence on building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, if concrete was poured despite Congress’s opposition, could lead down a path toward impeachment. Even the mainstream Republican head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently tossed out the I-word when discussing the civilian backlash if Trump’s trade war with China led to higher prices on everyday items sold at WalMart and Target. On his radio show last month, Rush Limbaugh even put a very brisk timeline on it: “They’ll be talking impeachment on day two, after the first Trump executive order,” he said.

        Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-impeachment-213817#ixzz4PBT3VtTH

        Just to note. I copied and pasted the words. Rush Limbaugh, presumable your heroic icon, said them………among others.

        Google ‘chance that trump will be impeached’ for yourself and let your own lye ing eyes tell you what it says.

        You crack me up!

      • More weasel words. No substance.

      • First, whether or not you broached the subject is irrelevant. You chose to comment on it.

        Second, all you present is a parroting of punditry. Those people have no better clue than anyone else on the subject. Our current President has repeatedly gone around Congress and stretched, if not exceeded, Constitutional limits on the Executive branch. Or have you forgotten his panoply of czars.

        People talking impeachment are giving voice to their fantasies. Trump hasn’t done a thing yet and even Hillary’s odds of facing impeachment are probably less than 20%.

      • “Those people have no better clue than anyone else on the subject. ”

        “Trump hasn’t done a thing yet and even Hillary’s odds of facing impeachment are probably less than 20%.”

        Preach it Timmy. Preach it!

        Are you posing as a pundit?

  38. This is new. Ryan asked by Republican voter how Ryan can possibly justify voting for Trump. Ryan does an outstanding job and questioner looks like a veil had just been lifted away.


    • But, he also needs to hold Florida and North Carolina.

      An uphill battle.

      Of course, maybe there really are the famed “shy Trump voters” or maybe his voters’ enthusiasm will mean higher turnout.

      Personally, I think Nate Silver has it about right: a 1 in 3 chance of Trump winning.

      No one knows: that’s why we actually hold the election.


  39. We need one of these for every 100,000 people in a state. I’m lovin’ it!! From the article:

    Pennsylvania State Police Stage Voter Fraud Sting
    Company allegedly forging registrations in Keystone State also signed up phony voters in Ohio

    by Jim Stinson | Updated 04 Nov 2016 at 10:38 PM
    Pennsylvania state police have raided two offices of a voter registration group, just as the election approaches in what could be a crucial state.

    Police raided the Philadelphia office of FieldWorks LLC’s office on Thursday after raiding another office in Delaware County, Pa., just days earlier.

    What bothers election watchdogs is that in many cases observed in past elections in Cleveland, both the real person and the phony voter both voted.
    According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the police used a warrant seeking forms that could be used to “construct fraudulent voter registration forms” and “completed voter registration forms containing same or similar identifying information of individuals on multiple forms.”

    The Washington-based group has pledged to work with state police, the Inquirer reported.

    Attorney General Bruce Beemer suggested to the Inquirer that the group was employing registrants who were cutting corners to meet quotas. One way to do that is to re-register existing voters with subtle spelling differences in their names.


  40. From the article:

    Nate Silver Goes to War With HuffPost Writer: ‘You Have No F*cking Idea What You’re Talking About’
    by Joe DePaolo | 5:02 pm, November 5th, 2016 771

    PicMonkey Collage – SilverNate Silver rose to prominence in 2012 when, as a writer for The New York Times, he correctly predicted the winner of the Presidential election in all 50 states.

    Now with the ESPN-owned website FiveThirtyEight, Silver is slightly less certain of the election outcome this year, and slightly less certain than any other major poll aggregator of a Hillary Clinton victory. As of this writing, Silver gives Donald Trump a 35.2% chance of winning the election. The Times, by comparison, has Trump’s win probability at 14%.


  41. The final argument

  42. “Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, in a neck-and-neck race to keep his seat in the presidential battleground of Pennsylvania, said Friday he expects Democrat Hillary Clinton will face congressional investigations next year if she becomes president.”

    Hmmm. Why would she face investigations ONLY if she becomes president? No politiks in that, huh?

    Seems that if she did what she’s purported to have done, and the FBI didn’t perform it’s duties and investigation is warranted no matter the elections outcome. But that’s just me.


    • Hmmm. Why would she face investigations ONLY if she becomes president? No politiks in that, huh?

      Excellent demonstration that you’re a clueless troll not worth wasting time on.

      Just in case anybody hadn’t already figured that out.

    • Danny wrote:
      >Why would she face investigations ONLY if she becomes president?

      Hmmm, Danny, I will assume that is a sincere question.

      The point is the word “congressional”: for obvious reasons, Congress is more likely to spend its time investigating a sitting president than a private citizen. E.g. Congress investigated *President* Nixon during Watergate, but did not continue the investigations interminably after he left office.

      Of course, non-congressional investigations (e.g., by the FBI) can continue.

      One of the issues here is that the FBI might obviously be hobbled in investigating Hillary if she is elected president, whereas she could not stop FBI investigations if she loses.

      Note: this is a non-partisan procedural point, applying as well to Nixon as to Hillary.

      Dave Miller in Sacramento

      • IMO you should have left him to figure it out for himself. He might have learned something that way.

      • Hi David,

        Thank you. It indeed is a sincere question. I do recognize the ‘congressional’ aspect. Between the ongoing nature of the investigation, suspicions of perjury, potential contempt, FBI ‘bias’ (both directions), FBI leaks, issues with foundation and potential pay-to-play, and who knows what I would be amazed if the investigation was ended if elected or not.

        Witnessing congressperson’s inquiries in to private individuals on climate issues leads me to expect they can if they chose. I presume they just need the right connection between a set of dots.

      • Danny wrote to me:
        >I would be amazed if the investigation was ended if elected or not.

        Well, my guess is that if Hillary loses, Congress just forgets about the whole thing. I also suspect (call this a wild speculation) that if she loses, then Obama pardons her and all the Clinton scandals just die.

        That would probably make the country happy. (Personally, I’m not real comfortable with the presidential pardon power, but it is part of the Constitution.)

        For the record, I hope Hillary loses. Please note that this is not quite the same thing as hoping that Trump wins. (Philosophers have some technical way of parsing that sort of distinction.)


  43. Only 2 more daze!

  44. From the article:

    Walkerville, MD – An FBI agent believed to be responsible for the latest email leaks “pertinent to the investigation” into Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State, was found dead in an apparent murder-suicide early Saturday morning, according to police.

    Investigators believe FBI agent, Michael Brown, 45, shot and killed his 33-year-old wife, Susan Brown, late Friday night before setting the couple’s home on fire and then turning the gun on himself. Brown was a 12 year veteran of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department before spending the last six years in the FBI.


  45. Something to think about:

    “Lastly, in their efforts to justify the thoroughly unjustifiable Trump candidacy, Republicans say that the Party itself will not survive Trump’s loss to Clinton. Wrong. Trump’s loss to Clinton would be the best thing to ever happen to the GOP, particularly if Trump loses in landslide fashion. That’s the case because the source of future GOP strength will be an historic loss that will most certainly force a cleansing of the know-nothingness that crept into the Party with George W. Bush’s presidency, soared to greater heights with the offense to common sense that was Sarah Palin, and that reached its logically horrid conclusion with the rise of Donald Trump. The Republicans are presently the drunk in dire need of hitting rock bottom so that all that’s wrong can be fixed.”


    • So, the last two losses proved nothing? Trump is doing better than either of those two. That being said, the GOP does need to change.

    • This is flat wrong.

      The Republican establishment represents the urban elite to only a slightly less extent that the Democratic Party.

      Trump represents what the majority of Republicans (and Americans) want. A secure border before any amnesty.

      The majority of his positions are similar. He was elected as a candidate by a majority that was tired of being frustrated by leadership that didn’t represent them.

    • Doug,

      I’d suggest that’s a two sided coin. Thanks for the link.

      On whom will ‘the right’ blame things if Trump is elected and fails? Personal responsibility is not a strong suit.

    • A more interesting question is how should the Dimowit party re-invent itself if Trump wins. How will they rid themselves of the stench of the Clintons, the failure of Obummercare, and the massive threat they brought into the country with their open borders policy (or lack of policy).

      • Unlikely scenario, but they should build on the broad appeal of the message from Sanders and Warren. Hopefully this would at least affect future congressional choices and work up from there. Remember, these people want big money out of government, and the government to work more for the common man in the electorate, so it would be interesting to see if they can get congressional seats under the current Citizens United status quo.

      • JimD wrote:
        >Unlikely scenario, but they [the Dems] should build on the broad appeal of the message from Sanders and Warren.

        Or they could note that Jim Webb would easily have beaten Trump.

        Nah. Why win easily by moving to the middle and actually appealing to the majority?

      • bedeverethewise

        I recall watching the first Democrat primary debate and thinking Jim Webb was a Dem I could support, I think he dropped out the next day. Sanders and Warren are both on my “will never vote for” list, they are both worse than Hillary and Trump, who are also both on my will never vote for list.

    • IMO Trump’s appeal is primarily his unwillingness to be shouted down by the thought police. He has no other redeeming qualities AFAICT.

      • Doug,

        I given him even more credit than that as he’s vocally pointed out many issues which should be addressed. He just doesn’t know how to address them.

        I’d like to see him involved after the election as a ‘business/commerce’ czar. But don’t tell anyone I used the ‘c’ word as blood pressure will rise.

  46. Snopes says the whole site is a fake. When I went to its about page I found just a note about technical difficulties. (Archived here. Earlier archives say “No Comment”.)

    The other sites I found seemed to be rewrites (without credit) of the “Denver Guardian” story.

  47. Let’s see if this one holds water. From the article:

    Criminal President Obama Encourages Illegal Aliens to Vote – Promises No Repercussions (VIDEO)

    When readers first sent this to us we thought, no way, not even Obama would be this lawless.

    But we were wrong.
    Barack Obama openly called on illegal aliens to vote in Tuesday’s election.
    This whole administration is lawless!


  48. Article clip @jim2 | November 6, 2016 at 12:06 pm in moderation

  49. Obummer should be impeached ASAP! From the article:

    President Barack Obama’s Nov. 4 suggestion that voting by illegal aliens in the 2016 presidential election will not be investigated is “absolutely shocking,” says the former Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.
    “Shocking. Absolutely shocking,” Brewer said to TV host Neil Cavuto. Obama “should have absolutely set [the interviewer] straight that if you’re not a citizen, you don’t get to vote. And just because you’re in our country ‘undocumented,’ you’re not a citizen. The [Democrats] want to blur the lines.”

    Obama took time to be interviewed on Friday by a Latino Youtube host. “Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented, um, citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?” asked host Gina Rodriguez on MiTu, a program on Youtube.com and Facebook.

    “Not true,” Obama replied.

    And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself — and there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.


    • johnvonderlin

      “Obummer, should be impeached ASAP!” Jan Brewer, Neil Cavuto, and Breitbart all mentioned in one email, I am impressed. I try not to stereotype people, but you seem to be a classic archetype.
      If you read the actual transcript you’ll see you are being selective in your quoting. Did you miss this part? “Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.”
      As far as Obama extending the word citizen to undocumented, check your dictionary: 1)a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien ).
      2.an inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
      3.an inhabitant, or denizen:
      The deer is a citizen of our woods.
      4.a civilian, as distinguished from a soldier, police officer, etc.
      I’m a citizen of Climate Etc. Get used to it, the door is wide open.
      Have you made plans of what you will do with all your spare time after the election is over and Dr. Curry no longer needs a reason to bleed the political poison from her scientifically-oriented threads by offering this venue? What will be your outlet for your overwhelming angst, bitterness and venom? I’m thinking you could stand on the street corner with a sandwich board reading “The End is Nigh!!,” haranguing passerbys.
      But, if your devotion to unrelenting keyboard pounding, evidenced by your hundreds of posts, also indicates agoraphobia, perhaps prozac and a dark closet might get you through your coming crisis. Best wishes in the healing process.

    • I supplied the link so you could read the entire article. Jan Brewer suggested the President was vague, that’s my reading of it. Odd it inspires the blog equivalent of a novel. Hummmm …

  50. “The F.B.I. informed Congress on Sunday that it has not changed its conclusions about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, removing a dark cloud that has been hanging over her campaign two days before Election Day.

    James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, said in a letter to members of Congress that “based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”


    Which will it be:
    Clinton is still guilty?
    FBI is corrupt?
    FBI is wrong?

    • So she’s still extremely careless and lied a half dozen times in front of congress and they still smashed cell phones with a hammer and still bleached a server after a congressional order to preserve records and so forth. And he didn’t say he closed the investigation and there’s still open investigations into pay for play.

      Got it.

      I’m waiting for another shoe to drop. Maybe more than one. NYPD ostensibly has all the goods and Comey’s still got a stack of resignations on his desk and agents who’d probably like to blow the whistle. If we reset to a week ago before WeinerGate, Comey still had a mutiny on his hands. The agents involved knew there was enough evidence to indict and convict without the pervert’s laptop.

      The other potential shoe is that the Clinton campaign warned of a false Wikileak on its way and don’t pay attention to it. Interesting they didn’t claim any of the previous ones were false only this mysterious new wikileak would be false.

      On a related note I wonder how much workplace productivity has declined a direct result of all the drama?

      • Clinton is/was absolutely reckless. No question.

        But maybe a mutiny would shine a bright light. Bright lights are a good thing as long as they are done legally. If not done legally, they are not better (or worse) than that on which the light shines (IE wikileaks).

        Somebody ought stock up on flashlight batteries: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/03/meet-donald-trump-s-top-fbi-fanboy.html because this stinks both ways.

      • Guilliani being the hatchet man with the FBI is sort of old news. NYPD is in on it too they were investigating Weiner sexting and seized the now infamous laptop. They saw shiit on it and tipped off Guilliani and the FBI. NYPD still has the goods and they’re deplorable. All the non-politicized police, FBI, border patrol, secret services, and military are behind Trump. He’s still the law & order candidate. Guilliani is still the guy who cleaned up New York City too.

      • Danny – people who serve swore to protect and defend the Constitution, not to protect and defend krim I nail behavior of politicians We still have, possibly, more Wikileaks to come and the Clinton Foundation investigation is still ongoing.

        As IB said, Comey stated she broke the law but he wouldn’t prosecute. As she hasn’t had a trial, she can’t claim double jeopardy down the road.

        She’s still slimy.

      • Jim2,

        There are ‘ways’ to go about protecting the constitution. Are you suggesting that the guy with a single stripe should subvert the chain of command and ‘leak’ communication (that in fact changed nothing from the July stance, nor proved ‘prosecutable offense’ to date) in order to have the guy with the gold stars have to take his eyes off the big picture? The single stripe guy much more than likely doesn’t have as much information. They aren’t whistle blowers, they are trouble makers who subverted the chain of command, did damage to the reputation of the FBI as untrustworthy, and changed nothing.

        The convenience of your views is impressive however. Just like equating me as a ‘taker’ while giving Trump a pass for doing exactly the same thing on a much ‘yuger’ scale.

        You really should really sit back and consider that you are not the arbiter in chief. And sometimes it’s best to say, ‘you know…….I goofed on that one Danny’. But it’s your choice.

    • Interesting. She said “whopper of a Wikileaks” but I didn’t catch probably “a fake”. We can interpret Palmieri words to be ‘There may be a true whopper of a wikileak in the next two days’. Very clever use of weasel words by Palmieri “probably false” which also means “possibly true”.


      Clinton camp warns any WikiLeaks whoppers are probably ‘fake’
      By POLITICO STAFF 11/06/16 09:15 AM EST

      “Friends, please remember that if you see a whopper of a Wikileaks in next two days – it’s probably a fake,” Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri wrote on Twitter.

      • It’s scripted. Grande finale. Like the end of a fireworks show.

        The election day surprise is going to be Trump making a clean sweep in the rust and coal belts. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Black turnout is way lower than Dems expected and early voting polls are coming in with Trump getting more black votes (~18%) than any republican got since Nixon.

        Hispanic vote may or may not be up for Clinton but I suspect not because Hispanic voters have jobs and health care premiums like anyone else.

        But it doesn’t really matter because there’s not a lot of Hispanic voters in the rust belt. That’s black and white. The Democrat campaign schedule has them scrambling into states they didn’t think they’d be defending so they don’t have their old school boots-on-the-ground GOTV machine set up there. Trump has a mobile GOTV force. I got invited. All expenses paid trip to any battleground state in return for a shift of knocking on doors as directed by a web app on a cell phone. It’s a pretty sophisticated and fast reaction force. They will be knocking on 17 million micro-targeted doors in battleground states with a patter tailored to the specific voter who lives there according to a CNN segment on it:


      • Michigan has been stuffed with Muslims. All the Dimowits need is the cities in most states. That said, I hope like hell you are right.

    • Danny asked:
      >Which will it be:
      >Clinton is still guilty?
      >FBI is corrupt?
      >FBI is wrong?

      CNN is reporting that the Clinton campaign does not want to talk about Comey’s exoneration because it just reminds voters of the whole email mess. So, maybe even his exoneration hurts her?

      The one clear thing is that Comey’s behavior taken as a whole is unprofessional, even bizarre. Sometimes, people just reach the time when retirement is the only sensible course of action.


      • The one clear thing is that Comey’s behavior taken as a whole is unprofessional, even bizarre.

        Many people’s behavior can appear bizarre or even insane when you don’t understand where they’re coming from.

        Unfortunately, for the past couple decades it’s been common process to give people orders and also order them to keep quiet about it. Courts to it all the time to possibly innocent people.

        So, what orders did AG Lynch give Comey and tell him not to talk about? Can you conceive of orders that might have led to his behavior being the best option a man with integrity could select? Do you know enough about the policies involved (including possibly secret policies) to say there’re no possible orders that could have led to this behavior?

        BTW, AFAIK everybody who knows him says he’s a man of honor and integrity.

      • AK asked me:
        >So, what orders did AG Lynch give Comey and tell him not to talk about? Can you conceive of orders that might have led to his behavior being the best option a man with integrity could select?

        Well… I remember when AG Richardson and Deputy AG Ruckelshaus resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s corrupt orders during Watergate. And, similarly, when Cy Vance resigned as Sec. State when he could no longer support Carter’s policies. I’m not quite old enough to remember when William Jennings Bryan resigned as Wilson’s Sec. State, but I think you get the picture.

        Yeah, it’s conceivable that Comey has an honorable explanation, but I am afraid I very much doubt it.


  51. Has the agency by its last minute announcement thrown Donald Trump under the bus?

    • Probably not. The big reversal began the minute the 2017 Obamacare price & enrollment information was released.

      On October 24th, 2016 the election became a referendum on the Affordable Care Act which is inextricably linked to Democrats including Hillary. Daily tracking polls reacted immediately to it. Comey’s first letter was sent on October 28th and didn’t change the rate at which the race was changing in Trump’s favor.

      We won’t know the result of the second letter today in the polls there’s only one more day of daily tracking polls and daily volatility is large enough so one day can’t tell you if a trend has changed. It can tell you the start or end date of a trend in hindsight with a lag time of a few days.

  52. As much as I wish I could say Trump will win it, I can’t. I don’t trust the polls if for no other reason than they have been so wrong on so many critical issues. 538 is now saying Trump has it. Some professor who has been right in the past is saying the same thing , but still … I can only hope Trump wins.

  53. From the article:

    Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Friday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss voter fraud concerns in the 2016 election.
    “The biggest fear I have right now is that people who aren’t U.S. citizens are going to illegally vote in the election,” said von Spakovsky, who has experience working at the Justice Department on election issues. “We know for a fact, from all kinds of different reports we’ve had and cases, that there are non-citizens registered and voting all over the country.”

    “You probably saw, within the last couple of weeks, a report out of Virginia that showed that there were more than a thousand non-citizens in just eight counties. There’s another 125 counties in the state,” he observed. “And Virginia, as you know, has been considered a purple state. Nobody knows which way it would go.”

    Marlow agreed, citing current polling data that shows a tightening race in Virginia and many other states, making it quite possible that voter fraud could affect the five or six electoral votes that decide the 2016 race.

    “For those who think, well, it can’t be that big of a problem – look, two years ago, three professors – actually from Virginia’s universities – did a study based on congressional survey data, and they estimated that in the 2008 election, when Obama was elected for the first time, they estimated that 6.4 percent of the non-citizens who are in the U.S. illegally voted in that election. 6.4 percent! That was enough, they pointed out, to potentially have swung North Carolina, which Obama won by a very small margin, only 14,000 votes,” von Spakovsky said.


  54. Ha! If the Indians can’t take Brit jobs, they’ll take their marbles and go home, or so they say. From the article:

    Theresa May has been told Britain must ditch its border controls in return for a trade deal with India, with the UK warned by officials that it “needs Indians”.
    Ahead of the Prime Minister’s two-day visit to India, figures have blasted the government’s crackdown on bogus students and colleges, and new rules to stop companies replacement of British IT professionals with much cheaper Indian workers.

    Dinesh Patnaik, India’s High Commissioner in London, said: “Students, tourists and short-term visitors are not migrants under any definition.

    “Post-Brexit, you need Indians. Our tourists… don’t come to Britain due to difficult visa conditions.”

    Spokesman for the Indian government, Vikas Swarup, told the Observer May faces questions over immigration rules upon her arrival in India, where she will be accompanied by 40 business leaders on the trade mission.

    “In the last five years or so, the number of Indian students enrolling in UK universities has gone down by almost 50%; from around 40,000 to about 20,000 now. This has happened because of restrictions on post-study stay in the UK.


  55. The rust belt is determining the winner. Few ethnic hispanic immigrants in the rust belt. Florida will be interesting but Trump has the advantage in Cuban population. Probably not in recent Puerto-Rican immigrants. Black voters are just as important in Florida but can be discounted in NM, AZ, NV, and so forth.

    You can see the desperation in Clinton campaign. All of them going to Philly on Monday is a Hail Mary to keep Pennsylvania. If the Philly transport union worker strike doesn’t end tomorrow then they’re really hosed because voter turnout in the state’s democratic stronghold will be disastrously low. So watch for news on that tomorrow when there’s a court hearing on whether to order the union back to work or not. The court so far has refused to intervene.

      • Probably not. She was still guilty of lying to congress on several occasions, deleting emails she was supposed to preserve, there’s still four open investigations on pay-to-play that are open, and the timing sucked all the early voting took place before the second letter, there’s not enough time left before election day to unwind the negativity, and his October 28 letter probably didn’t have a whole lot of effect in the first place it was the October 24 letters that people got telling them their health care plans had been cancelled and replacements with the same level of coverage and deductibles would cost an average of 40% more. The yuge reversal of campaign fortunes started on the 24th not the 28th.

    • I think a 5% ‘hidden’ brexit vote is now needed to swing this for Trump. This amount of hidden votes seems unlikely so close to the election.


      • At least 30-40% of the vote is already in through early voting. Too late for anything big to happen, and the support percentages are once again diverging since the latest FBI thing fizzled. The New York Post must already be designing its banner headline for Wednesday with a picture of Trump and large letters LOSER next to him.

      • Tony,
        All discussion about ‘hidden’ votes in this election has been ‘favoring’ Trump. Based on a lack of enthusiasm, yard signs, bumper stickers and the like there may be and ‘equal and opposite’ ‘hidden’ vote for Clinton.

  56. There is an intriguing video on the election:


  57. 27% of voters have voted thus far.

  58. Fox is putting the pressure on:

  59. Here’s hoping for some great fishing! Awesome!! From the article:

    With Wikileaks releasing what may have been the final 2,073 Podesta emails in part 32 of its ongoing dump of hacked campaign chairman emails, with the dramatic discoveries over the past week largely overshadowed by the FBI “scandal” which has now fully blown over after Director Comey first zigged, announcing in a cryptic statement he was reopening a probe into Clinton’s email server last Friday, only to zag just 9 days later when the FBI reported it had found nothing material in the 650,000 emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, the whistleblower organization appeared to have run out of steam.

    However moments ago, Wikileaks announced the release of another huge batch of hacked DNC emails, which it dubbed #DNCLeak2, contained some 8,263 previously unseen, hacked DNC emails – a server penetration which had previously been attributed either to the Guccifer 2.0 hacker, or Vladimir Putin, and which over the summer cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her job when it was revealed that the DNC was rigging the primary in HIllary’s favor – going public for the first time.


    • Fairly incompetent how slow they have been dribbling stuff out. You guys need to complain to them. They’ve been no help to you at all. Apparently Assange reads his Twitter. Complain to him on there.

  60. Hmmmm … this is good. Looks like the DNC supplied CNN with some questions for Trump. LSM in all its glory.


  61. More on the slimy Clintons. From the article:

    Chelsea Clinton’s husband used his connections to the Clinton family and their charitable foundation to raise money for his hedge fund, according to an allegation by a longtime Clinton aide made public Sunday in hacked documents released by WikiLeaks.

    Marc Mezvinsky extended invitations to a Clinton Foundation poker event to rich Clinton supporters he was courting as investors in his hedge fund, and he also relied on a billionaire foundation donor to raise money for the fund, according to the WikiLeaks documents. They also assert that he had his wife Chelsea Clinton make calls to set up meetings with potential investors who support her family’s political and charitable endeavors.


    • The horror.

      • The horror for you will be in full bloom about 48 hours from now.

      • As of right now, Nate Silver gives it nearly 70% odds that you’ll be singing about fraudulent and rigged elections in 48 hours, Barry.

      • Nah. Springer says Trump on a landslide. Good enough for me.

        The potential for horrible policies under President Trump is worrisome, but the upside will be watching his sycophants twist themselves into knots defending the Orange one.

      • Btw, noted “skeptic” with a good track record pegs the popular vote at over +5 for Clinton.


        Don’t know how that can happen along with Springer’s electoral College landslide, but both have such a good track record (Springer correctly picked Cruz in a landslide also. How many others got that right? Lol. ) it is obviously a lock.

    • “Eaglevale Partners is a Manhattan-based hedge fund founded by Marc Mezvinsky, the husband of Chelsea Clinton, and two of his Goldman Sachs colleagues. In 2014, Eaglevale Partners opened a Greek-focused fund, Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, during a tumultuous time in the Greek economy (q.v. Greek withdrawal from the eurozone). In May, 2016, the New York Times reported that Eaglevale was closing the Hellenic fund, which Mezvinsky had helped pitch and run, after the fund lost 90% of its value.”

      That’s some good hedging there. I’ve said before, brokers are often not worth what they are paid to pick winners and losers.
      From the peak in 2014 to May of 2016, the Athens Stock Exchange was down about 50%. Do nothing, lose 50%. Follow Mezvinsky, lose 90%.

  62. The overall most accurate poll of the past four elections, in a field of 35 polls, in its final day for 2016 has Trump +2 in popular vote. It’s a daily poll that incorporates early votes so this close to the election with 40% of national votes cast it reflects 40% perfect knowledge which it did not have prior to early voting.


    The fourth most accurate poll (same field of 35) in 2012, also a daily tracking poll with increasingly perfect knowledge, has Trump +4.8%. This poll I believe pulls in the undecideds better than others.


    The end result of the FBI intervention was putting Hillary on the defensive for 10 critical days instead of Trump being on the defensive against the #PussyPosse. Trump nimbly pivoted to the economy, didn’t make any mistakes, stayed presidential with a sense of humor that Hillary totally lacks, and hammered away on health care and jobs especially manufacturing and industrial. It’s really become a referendum on stagnant wages, unaffordable upward spike in cost of health care, and jobs leaving the country that democrats promised would not happen.

  63. https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/795672041366102017

    Lost Florida. Dems in panic trying to hold rust belt firewall. It’s got YUGE cracks in it.

    North Carolina going to Trump due to low black turnout. Probably Colorado going Trump. Nevada maybe not. Michigan going Trump and New Hampshire going Trump. That puts him over. PA, Wisconsin, and Minnesota will be icing on the cake to make it a big electoral win. Black voter turnout is low. Millennials aren’t turning out either across everywhere.

    The rust belt is hurting and Trump captured its heart with visions of closed manufacturing plants being reopened with big employers providing great affordable health insurance through collective bargaining. Making the rust belt great again was a home run message.

  64. Unexpected Trump surge in New Mexico. It’s a toss-up. I didn’t see this one coming.


  65. 2014 Clinton Foundation IRS form 990

    Contributions received $175 M

    Selected Expenses

    Grants $5 M
    Total Compensation and Benefits $34 M
    Office Expenses $2 M
    Info Technology $2 M
    Occupancy $5 M
    Travel $8 M
    Conferences $12 M
    Other Fees $7 M (not described)

    They had a $75 M increase in net worth during 2014.

    They show at least $137 M of buildings and improvements were put on the books since they started the foundation.

    All numbers are rounded. So what does one get for their donation to the Clinton Foundation? About 3% of your money goes out in grants. About 19% get paid out as compensation.

    Here is an explanation:
    “The Clinton Foundation is an operating foundation. The money raised by the Foundation is spent directly on our programs, and not as grants to other charitable organizations.”

    They will send you people, money not so much. I’d say this is not uncommon. They did plant a bunch of trees. That was something tangible. I’d say it’s a foundation that does eduction to try to get it into a category. Think of the Peace Corps.

    • Isn’t that the outfit owned by the liberal newspaper in Florida?

      • Tampa Bay Times. If anything left of all the way to the right and then some is liberal, yeah, that liberal rag.

        Real skeptics might ask where’s the conservative equivalent.

      • Brandon,
        Surely you must know that Politfact got all 19,578,642 of those wrong!
        sarc off

        Ain’t no ‘real skeptics’ to be found around here. I’ve been looking for months.

      • Ain’t no ‘real skeptics’ to be found around here. I’ve been looking for months.

        Says the socialist/SJW troll.

        Of course he hasn’t found any “real skeptics”. He doesn’t have the faintest idea what skepticism is all about. Only confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

      • Well I’d sure look to one totally lacking in character as an arbiter.

        But I’m skeptical.

        You were given the link to prove my case about Exxon/Rico. You ignored the evidence. That makes you a denier, not a ‘real skeptic’.

      • Real skeptics might ask where’s the conservative equivalent.

        Perhaps conservatives know better than to set up a fake “authority” to push their agenda.

      • You were given the link to prove my case about Exxon/Rico. You ignored the evidence. That makes you a denier, not a ‘real skeptic’.

        You said you’d seen no sign of Exxon “punching back”. I didn’t say you hadn’t opposed what was done to Exxon.

        Exxon has been “punching back” for months.

      • AK,
        You may be correct that Exxon has been ‘punching back’ for months.

        Where you are incorrect is that I’ve seen it. I don’t recollect having seen anything like the article to which I linked, and exactly what I said was: “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.”

        Then you attacked due to your own ‘projection’ and ‘cognitive dissonance’ calling me an SJW. You stated you’d posted that Exxon’s been punching back for months. So friggin what? Doesn’t mean I’ve seen it.

        You were and are wrong and lack sufficient character to recognize and admit.
        That makes you a putz and denier. You wouldn’t recognize a ‘real skeptic’ if one wrote a comment addressed to you.

        It’s all right here for the world to see: https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/28/week-in-review-politics-edition-15/#comment-821258

        Stop digging! You’re in the wrong.

      • > Ain’t no ‘real skeptics’ to be found around here.

        … at least not on the political threads, hey Danny? :-)

        I can’t wait for this election to be done so you and I can go back to bashing each other on climate science.

      • I’ll look forward to it. You bashing, me learning. Not sure I’ll be welcome. Seems ‘skepticism’ is a tool of convenience for some and it’s not taken kindly when that’s put under a bright light.

      • > Perhaps conservatives know better than to set up a fake “authority” to push their agenda.

        Well see here’s the thing, AK. I care more about information than I do about “authority”. PolitiFact gives information. With references. That they summarize it is an added bonus.

      • > Seems ‘skepticism’ is a tool of convenience for some and it’s not taken kindly when that’s put under a bright light.

        Nobody’s not biased, Danny T. Except me.

        Stay safe out there tomorrow, I hear there’s a fair to middlin’ chance of armageddon. Hopefully I’ll see you around.

      • PolitiFact gives information. With references. That they summarize it is an added bonus.

        Yes, they give information. Sometimes highly unreliable, and they don’t clearly distinguish their opinions from their “facts”.

        Personally, I never believe anything they say. When they say it, I’ll take it as probable enough to justify going in and researching the item myself.

        But their roll-ups are useless (except for deceiving readers who don’t know better), unless you’re going to actually check out every issue they address. In which case, the effort involved in doing your own roll-up is a minor addition.

    • stevenreincarnated

      Politifact is a waste of time. They grade on a curve where the people they like get a bonus. For instance, to say Trump is the only one to refuse to say he will accept election results is true when others have actually contested election results seems disingenuous to me. If it was Trump that was saying that I’d bet he would get a pants on fire for it. Then they would say, while nobody has actually said they wouldn’t accept them since they actually have refused to accept them we give this a pants on fire rating.

      • Come on, Steve. Why wouldn’t that work for/against everyone they fact check?

      • so, the first vote has been declared with a narrow win for Hillary.

        Why is a small town been allowed to vote AND declare the results before most of the rest of the States has begun? Mind you of course voting has been going on for weeks all over the place for some reason


      • @tony err.. no, traditional 1st three New Hampshire towns went to Trump by a 28% margin.


        Three tiny towns in New Hampshire proudly cast and count the first Election Day ballots, and this year they spilt, with Dixville Notch and Hart’s Location choosing Hillary Clinton and Millsfield strongly backing Donald Trump. Taken all together, Trump won 32 to 25.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Brandon, you don’t see the subjectivity and bias in how they score? It is all a matter of what evidence you wish to bring forward and how you wish to present it. If it were biased equally in the other direction Clinton would have at least 30 liar liar pants on fire from her email server alone.

      • stevenreincarnated,

        > […] you don’t see the subjectivity and bias in how they score?

        I misread your original comment last night. I certainly do see and understand the subjectivity of their scoring system, and the inherent *susceptibility* to bias that entails. The only “bias” which is clearly evident to me is the lopsided nature of the results.

        > If it were biased equally in the other direction Clinton would have at least 30 liar liar pants on fire from her email server alone.

        How is this statement in any way superior to what PolitiFact has done?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Why would it have to be superior? Do you doubt it is possible to get results and support them that would be the opposite of what Politifact has done? If you don’t then why would anyone take them seriously? It’s nothing but a partisan joke just like a page with the opposite bias would be. You can take it seriously if you want but you shouldn’t expect other to.

      • > Why would it have to be superior?

        Something about jokes, perhaps.

        > Do you doubt it is possible to get results and support them that would be the opposite of what Politifact has done? If you don’t then why would anyone take them seriously?

        Because they can actually read the individual ratings.

        > You can take it seriously if you want but you shouldn’t expect other to.

        I don’t ever expect partisans to take seriously any information which contradicts their already held beliefs. Particularly not when the escape hatch is unsubstantiated claims of bias.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I would argue that everyone is biased and I see no way they can prevent their bias from interjecting in their work. So I found one of the 6 questions Gowdy asked Comey (video below) on Clinton’s Politifact page and it was only ranked false. How could Politifact only find 1 out of 6 potential lies that were pointed out in a congressional hearing? In the meantime I found where Trump got a pants on fire ranking for saying he draws bigger crowds than Beyonce. Now at the time he said it I assumed he actually meant larger than Clinton did with the help of Beyonce since it was Clinton that he was making fun of but Politifact didn’t. They compared to full blown Beyonce concerts.


        I don’t think I’m partisan at all for pointing out something that not only isn’t fair but is probably impossible to make fair. I think only a partisan would believe a set up like this could be fair but only if it supported what they wanted to believe.

  66. After using serious amounts of computer time, and averaging the output of the most complicated, politico-pseudo-scientific programs devised by man (not Mann, of course), I can finally state, with better than 95% confidence (near certainty), the outcome of the US presidential election.

    If Trump wins, Clinton loses.

    If Clinton wins, Trump loses.

    If either one wins, there’s a chance that the rest of the US population loses.

    Predictions are difficult, particularly where the future is involved. I reckon I’ve nailed this one, though!

    Donations to keep up the predictive effort gratefully accepted. For a small fee, I’ll predict the weather, the climate, or whether you will be lucky in love! Guaranteed results.


  67. If you want to vote in Chicago, don’t forget to bring your Death Certificate!

  68. From the article:

    WASHINGTON— Hacked emails show that the Open Society Foundations, led by George Soros, has as an objective “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies” in international forums, in part by questioning Israel’s reputation as a democracy.


  69. I’ve been getting WordPress errors – sometimes won’t open a topic link.

  70. Link to election “engineering” by Sore ohhh sus.


    • Didn’t bother to research. But if he’s used legal means it’s manipulative but legal is a key word. However, it’s an argument to reduce the monied influence.

      • Like the Polish MP says, he’s a PEST.

      • Legal is legal. Being a pest isn’t illegal. I’m proof.

        But money is different. How about looking at the other side:
        “There was nothing particularly original or well written about the endorsement. Adelson only gave two reasons to vote for Trump: the fact that he was not a Democrat and therefore did not spell four more years of Obama’s policies; and that, as a CEO of real estate companies, Trump has the “executive experience” desirable in a president. Of course, though, originality or style were not why the Post published the piece.”

        Sometimes big money makes bad investment:
        “Casino mogul Adelson got an op-ed because of his bank account. More accurately, for being the 22nd richest man in the world and 14th richest in the United States, with a net worth of over $25 billion (according to the 2016 Forbes list). He is one of a tiny handful of billionaires who have spent over $100 million on political Super PACs, claiming he is willing to invest this sum in just one election cycle to ensure that a Republican returns to the White House.”

        read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.751683

        If yer gonna call out one for monied influence you gotta call out the other. If ya don’t it’s clearly hypocritical.

        Hypocritical: “behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.”

        So which is it. Both or Hypocrite?

      • Danny Thomas | November 7, 2016 at 8:45 pm |

        “Being a pest isn’t illegal. I’m proof.”

        Unexpectedly frank for Double Deal.

  71. From the article:

    Polish MP Demands ‘Pest’ Soros Is Stripped Of Country’s Highest Honour


  72. How about this?

    Trump wins NC, FL, OH, IA, AZ, NV and gets NH as a pickup.

    At this moment, Trump leads the RCP polling in all of these (though some by razor-thin margins). But if he gets ’em all . . .

    Tie: 269 each.

    Not a terribly unlikely result, actually.

    • There are many close calls and lots of unknowns. Personally, I don’t have a clue who will win this.

      • jim2 wrote:
        >Personally, I don’t have a clue who will win this.

        Let’s be frank: no one else has a clue, either.

        Anyone who claims to know (lots of partisans on both sides) is faking it.


    • Evan wrote,
      >At this moment, Trump leads the RCP polling in all of these (though some by razor-thin margins). But if he gets ’em all . . .
      >Tie: 269 each.

      Evan, I just looked at RCP, and I see them giving NH to Clinton (on their “No Toss Up” map) for a 272 to 266 victory for Clinton. If Trump flips NH, then he wins by one electoral vote: 270 to 268.

      The difference may be due to RCP now giving him one district in Maine and one in Nebraska.

      I still give the edge to Hillary (unfortunately, from my perspective: I’m not thrilled with the Donald, but I think she is a crook). That’s mainly because I think FL, NC, and NV are all a bit dicey for Trump.

      But, we’ll know soon enough. I admit that a tie going to the House would be fun for us history junkies!


    • Not a problem. Ties are broken by a vote in the House of Representatives. Republicans have a 247:188 majority. Trump still wins.

  73. Politifact bias. It’s illustrated by there being only 40 whoppers by Clinton in seems like a hundred years of her in public spotlight. Mostly just a small sampling from the past 10 years. While in the course of 18 months they have 120 whoppers listed for Donald Trump.

    That’s not even close to reality. They both lie a lot but Hillary has been doing it as a public servant for many years. The difference though is Trump hasn’t lied under oath to congress or lied about things he’s done in elected office. There’s a difference in kind in the lies. A huge difference. Hillary’s lies while holding office or testifying before congress should be absolutely intolerable in a public servant. NO EXCEPTIONS.


  74. This came out on the 4th. Should be posted to update the record: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000158-318d-d416-abfe-bbdf51aa0001

    Says dismissed, not withdrawn. Not familiar with the distinction.


  75. It’s amazing that in a country based on freedom and freedom of speech some would wish to see that speech stifled.

    “In a statement on Tuesday, Charles Muñoz, the Trump campaign’s Nevada state director, said officials’ decision to let people vote on Friday “should be troubling to anyone who is interested in free and fair elections.”


      • AK,
        Look at time lines. Trump complaint at 11:11. Judge response at 2:55. Judge says: “In rejecting the request, the judge ruled, at around 2:55pm ET, that the Trump campaign had not exhausted its administrative remedies – and that the candidate should instead lodge his complaints with the Secretary of State.”


        It’s not what you want it to be, but it’s not unprecedented:

        “State law spells out a minimum time frame for early voting polls to be open, but doesn’t lay out specific closing procedures to follow.”
        “Gloria said McDonald and Trump’s complaints were off base. He said what happened Friday night has been the norm in Clark County at least since 1995, when he started working there.

        “Nothing we did on Friday night was out of the ordinary,” Gloria said.”


        It ‘might’ have been in question had it occurred today, but by everything I find for early voting the process was handled appropriately.

        What is Trump scared of? And what are you scared of? Folks having and using their voice? Heck. They ‘may’ have voted for Trump. Would that be okay?

      • AK,
        The actual law:” NRS 293.305  Closing of polls; admission of voters and other persons.
        1.  If at the hour of closing the polls there are any registered voters waiting to vote, the doors of the polling place must be closed after all such voters have been admitted to the polling place. Voting must continue until those voters have voted.
        2.  The deputy sheriff shall allow other persons to enter the polling place after the doors have been closed for the purpose of observing or any other legitimate purpose if there is room within the polling place and such admittance will not interfere unduly with the voting.
        (Added to NRS by 1960, 256; A 1987, 341)

        GIYF. From here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-293.html#NRS293Sec305

      • @Danny Thomas…

        Go back and read the tweet. This is a typical example of your inability to get the details right. The law you quoted was broken.

      • The law says nothing about lines. It says ‘voters waiting to vote’.
        “If at the hour of closing the polls there are any registered voters waiting to vote, the doors of the polling place must be closed after all such voters have been admitted to the polling place. Voting must continue until those voters have voted.”

        Important words: “ANY REGISTERED VOTERS WAITING………….”

        Johnathon Swan is partisan. So are you. You want it to be what you want it to be. Take your own advice: “This is a typical example of your inability to get the details right. The law you quoted was broken.”

        Judge disagrees with you. Take it up with them.

      • AK,
        “Also, county attorneys noted that it is long-standing practice during early voting in Nevada to allow people to vote until the lines are done, no matter what time people joined that line. (The rules are different on Election Day itself, when you have to be in line by the time the polls close to cast your ballot.)”


        I assume you’re aware that folks can wait: in a car, in a bar, in a home, by the phone………………(H/T Cat in the hat).

        Cog/Dis anyone?

      • @Danny Thomas…


        Just too lost in denial to read, I guess. You’re a worthless SJW troll not worth bothering with.

      • And AK,
        If being a ‘Social Justice Warrior’ means I’m for prosecution of voter fraud and against illegitimate disenfranchisement make up the t-shirt and I’ll wear it with pride.

  76. Now Trump is up 24-3 in EVs. This could be even more of a landslide than Springer predicted. The man’s a genius.

  77. Now 33-3. Only remaining question is whether she will break 100

  78. What the Disengenous Dimowits won’t say is that every time an ill eagle votes, or a machine changes a vote, or a drunk gets paid to vote one way, or election “officials” fill out ballots, or they vote twice, or they vote for a dead person, or they vote with someone elses identity – in all these cases, legal citizen voters are disenfranchised.

    But Dimowits don’t want to talk about that.

  79. Stock futures down 3% at the moment as far as I know. The money knows.

  80. Looks like Trump has an excellent shot. May even be the case that Clinton outperforms Obama in many areas but still loses because Trump did indeed get the “hidden white vote” by appealing to the base and killing Rodney’s level of support. Just goes to show that the Dems still haven’t learned the key lesson – to appeal to the base rather than run centrists like Clinton who try to appeal to moderate Republicans. She actually got some moderate Republican support, but there is a reality that the Dems lost the blue collar white voters because of Clintonian “triangulation.”

    Should be an interesting next four years with a president Trump and both houses of Congress. Ryan and the Republicans who were reluctant supporters will roll over. He has a lot of promises to keep. What will happen if he can’t match the expectations he’s built up? How will he spin his way out? Will the Dems learn a lesson and capitalize on their built-in advantages of a shifting demographic?

  81. I can do that. Despite my earlier prediction I don’t know if I will be referring to him with that title.

  82. First job casualty of the new administration. Looks like Nate Silver will be looking for work.

    • SJW troll.

      • Childish! But not unexpected based on the lack of character you exhibit.

        Got my t-shirt ordered for me yet?

      • AK,
        From you link:
        “Well, this is the result of a complex statistical method known as covering your bases. Or your backside.”

        “But Silver is just guessing. And, in the run-up to this election, he made so many guesses that at least one of them has to be correct.”

        Looks like credibility is out the window. But when have you ever cared about credibility?

      • Well, this is the result of a complex statistical method known as covering your bases. Or your backside.

        IOW “sour grapes”

        But when have you ever cared about credibility?

        More SJW slime.

      • “Sour grapes”. Yep. Towards you. You aim it my way you get it right back. I can handle it, but it seems you have an issue. But you usually show issues starting with a lack of character.

        What about my t-shirt? I’ll wear it. Will you wear yours that says “I lack character”?

  83. “…the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.”
    The systems slows. The system shudders. We may or may not jump to a new attractor.

  84. NYTimes says 95% Trump as of 11:19:51 PM ET

    • NOW you like MSM? You lack character and are a hypocrite?

      Shoot for a trifecta?


    • Thank you.

    • 538 is currently giving Trump an 84% chance of winning. I’d say that’s a little on the high side, but I’m not familiar with their models. Much better than the NYTimes at this point.

      • At the start of the night 538 was 78% Clinton as victor.

        Nate Silver (and most of the polling entities) should be looking for new lines of work. Ask TonyB about Brexit and polling.

      • Nate Silver (and most of the polling entities) should be looking for new lines of work.

        Typical SJW behavior. Blame anybody but yourself when things go wrong. (OK, that’s not limited to SJW’s.)

        538’s models (AFAIK) were based on the polls, which were either rigged or badly contaminated with confirmation bias. Of everybody offering odds based on polls, they were the only ones to give Trump a significant chance.

        538 actually did a pretty good job, based on the information they had. Scott Adams predicted Trump with a landslide, but Scott Adams was baking in his ideas WRT “hidden” Trump voters.

        AFAIK, nobody else tried to factor in such things, or the fact that the major polls were in the tank for Hillary and baking their hopes into their process.

      • Danny

        Well, tonyb has got up early (5am here) after listening to this unfold on my radio for the last 2 hours

        I have been mentioning the 4% or so Brexit addition for months. Its still too early to know if this will get Trump over the line but those who live in their own bubble (and we have a number of those on this blog) will be absolutely shocked by this. I am not surprised at all.

        I have just had a quick look at the BBC tv coverage and the talking heads there look as if they might explode.

        As in the UK I see the US election as a vote for people to attempt to get their own country back after a tidal wave of attempts by the poitical elite to erode their identity whilst calling them stupid and racist.

        It would be very interesting to see what the vote would be in other EU countries if the issue was to have a much looser confederation and curtail the power of the elite.

        Lets wait and see what happens as the next few hours will be crucial. I personally don’t like Trump but Clinton is even more obnoxious. Let’s hope that whoever wins is more statesmanlike than their performance to date has indicated.


  85. It seems the US voters have made a decision. I hope it was the RIGHT one. I hope Dear Donald appoints good, sane, highly experienced advisers. I hope they can convince him not to pursue policies that will reduce global security, and raise tensions. I hope he can be persuaded to drive progress towards removing international barriers to global free trade.

    • It’s not really in the bag yet. The NYTimes doesn’t really know how to handle those probabilities. I’d say their 95% might work out to 70%. But it looks more likely than not.

    • Say, Peter, re the open society, I’d say, given what’s come
      out re Clintonses’ behind the scenes activities, Bill ‘n
      Hillary, and future control of votes via IOU -immigrants
      and Gramsci -education * innovations*, this election is
      kinda’ like those movie scenarios where one situation
      is certain death, stand still and cop it, – the other a risky
      possibility, take the leap over the precipice. Evolutionary
      behavior … yer leap. Like BREXIT.

      • I am really hopeful this will put the final nail in the coffin of:

        – PC correctness
        – CAGW scam
        – climate change agenda
        – advocacy for carbon pricing and other mitigation
        – The EPA’s agenda to reduce reliability and increase cost of energy
        – UN regressive policy agendas (by Trump saying what the US’s contributions can and cannot be used for).

        But I also hope he will see the light on the necessity for reducing barriers to trade; otherwise he will exacerbate the global trend to slowing growth and stalled standard of living

    • Agree Peter L. Trump will hopefully be getting some good people to advise him and the establishment can now go off and lick their wounds.

      • Watch them blaming everyone else but the PC crowd on the Australian ABC coverage of it today.

  86. jim2:
    Months ago I said to you something like,
    What a grand adventure this may be. We may not get to mountain but I can see it from here.

    • If Trump pulls this out, I … don’t even have words to describe it. As we speak, the MSM pundits are aghast – dazed and confused.

      Trump had the super rich against him, many vocal and popular celebrities against him, much of the media unabashedly against him. And yet, he has persevered, to much amazement at the time, and defeated 16 Redimowit challengers. Then in the general, he has been out spent by a significant margin.

      The forces against him seemed insurmountable, and yet, here we are.

      This says a lot about what this man can achieve, warts and all. I think we all might be in for a pleasant surprise.

      May it be so.

  87. It won’t be a surprise that I’m pleased so far. I won’t do a happy dance until tomorrow and that only if Trump wins.

    As far as the goings-on here, for me this was never about the sometimes petty arguments and occasional name calling. This has been about my country. I want the best for it and all its people – inclusive.

    My hope is that fewer regulations and other measures can improve the economy for us all, not just the privileged few. Growing the economy, after all, isn’t exactly a socialist idea.

    Good luck and good will to all.

  88. Out of nowhere:

  89. One last thought for the night, Gary Johnson bled off some votes in critical states. And of course, Wikileaks (and the FBI director) took their pound of flesh also.

  90. Megyn Kelly months ago said, hey Republican leadership, support your nominee Trump. What is this talk of undermining the primary voters?
    Nice job you drama queens. The voters seems to have had it right.

  91. I been very busy saving the country. Just dropped in to say, I told you dummies.

  92. Thank you, Professor Curry, and to everyone else here who realized the impossibility of obviously false claims that Earth’s climate is independent of Earth’s heat source!

    Thanks to your courage, the alliance of crooked scientists and crooked politicians has suffered its first major defeat.

  93. America tells The Donald: “You’re hired”

  94. Okay folks, if Trump keeps his promise to hire the Best and Smartest, this may cost us our favorite blog. Do your homework Dr Curry. Confirmation hearings coming soon!

    • Yes. Ad do tell them about there is no basis for belief in CAGW because there is not valid damage function. :)

      Mosher can confirm that. :) :)

  95. Alrighty then. I have some words to say to a few of you. Great words. Terrific words. Believe me.

  96. I can’t imagine this guy with his finger on the nuclear launch button.

    How are you people taking this so calmly! Panic dammit!!!!!!

    • We need to shame the big wigs who said they would leave the country if Trump won. They, for once, need to follow through. (Also, I note Madonna didn’t keep her promise :) )

  97. Judith’s e-salon, say, i luv it so!

  98. Greens just suffered transmutation into pea soup.
    One thing to watch is what’s going to be relation with Putin.
    “NATO puts 300,000 troops on ‘high alert’ in readiness for a confrontation with Russia as fears grow Putin is preparing to attack the West “

  99. So, betting folks. What’s the over/under on the number of indictments that Loretta Lynch will hand out in the next sixty days so that they may all be pardoned by Obama before he leaves office?

    Can someone indict themselves?

    Hmmm….Loretta Lynch, Lois Lerhner, Lex Luther. Coincidence?

  100. Very similar to Brexit. It is clear from the demographics, the white, uneducated, hinterlands are convinced that all their problems are caused by foreigners, whether through immigrants or trade, and there were enough of them to unite with right-wing nationalists and trash the status quo. This applies to both Brexit and Trump. Markets are tanking. Let’s hope they hold. Let’s see whether he keeps his campaign promises, or the one he just stated of unity. This should be interesting.

    • No, Jim, a lot of us would have voted for a decent, honest Democrat (say, Jim Webb) if they had nominated one.

      A lot of us Trump voters were none too thrilled with Trump (look at the exit polls if you won’t take my word for it: CNN has been puzzling over just this issue).

      The Dems lost because Hillary is not a decent, honest person, and a lot of us just could not stomach the stench of corruption. The good news for the Dems is they can come back if they just nominate a decent human being next time.


      • Even under Trump, that prosecution won’t go anywhere because there is nothing there and it was political. You will see, that whole thing will now quietly fade away. You will find that you were duped by that fake outrage.

      • I doubt that the Democrats will come back. Unless there is a very bad economy for the off-year election, which is unlikely as it is pretty much fixed, there will likely be a lot of Democratic congressmen retiring in 2018.

    • I just hope Trump can reverse the immigrant numbers. Obummer was loading the deck and it has had a liberal-leaning impact on the political map. What pisses me off about that is that he and the Dimowits did it knowing full well it will make our everyday life worse with respect to jobs and general quality of life. And I’m using Europe as my guide.

      • And, no, JimD. I don’t think immigrants are the source of all evil. But there are undeniable downsides. The worst of which is they give a boost to lefties. Some have beliefs that go against traditional Western values. The open border is also putting us at risk from ME terrorists and international gangs. Look at the gang problem in Houston for example.

      • Even if he did, it won’t solve the jobs problem of the uneducated who worked in long-gone and dying industries. Restricted trade will also cost business and jobs, and so prepare for a downturn, opposite to what you expected. He has no policies that actually help the economy, and deporting won’t help either. Maybe, just maybe, being self-proclaimed King of Debt, he will do an Obama-style stimulus package, and maybe you’ll appreciate it this time round.

    • Markets are not supposed to be up all the time! This is a fallacy. And a costly one considering the trillions pumped in to QE and other government programs.

      And this just occurred to me. It’s ironic the disenfranchised workers in the rust belt were largely responsible for Trump’s success. This, after the government bailed out GM. Think on that for a while.

      • This, after the government bailed out GM. Think on that for a while.

        I wonder how much of GM’s work has been off-shored.

      • The market drop is not coincidental. Wall Street were wary of Trump simply because they know his policies are bad for business, and no major CEOs supported him either. The people who voted for him will be disappointed that he has no answers outside of ballooning the debt, which he could do as a stop-gap to keep the unemployment rate from starting to trend up again.

    • “It is clear from the demographics, the white, uneducated, hinterlands are convinced that all their problems are caused by foreigners”

      You still don’t get it. A corrupt gov’t which existed for its own sake and served no one but itself was the problem.

    • Poor little yimmy. Heartbroken, bitter, vindictive. And your willful ignorance hasn’t even suffered a dent. You could move to Canada. It’s funny your Trumpophobe type haven’t been threatening to move to Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela. Racism, yimmy?

      • It is easy to predict that this will be an even worse president than George the W. Let’s see in 4 years, if he even gets that far before some form of incompetence removes him.

      • Yes, it is easy to predict. Like you clowns predicted glorious, historic victory for granny. Delusional chumps.

  101. *** HAPPY DANCE ***

  102. Crap like this is going to have to come to an end – one way or another.


  103. This is sweet! From the article:

    After paying out early on a Clinton win, Trump victory costs Irish bookmaker $5 million


  104. Trump has a historic opportunity to make the US work for white, black, and Latino citizens. I hope he grabs the bull by the horns.

  105. Celebrities who vowed to leave the US if Trump won. Don’t let the screen door hit you in the A$$!!


  106. Putin congratulated Trump. A step back from nuclear war!! :)

  107. From the article:

    Expect ‘drilling, drilling and drilling’: Dennis Gartman Expect ‘drilling, drilling and drilling’: Dennis Gartman
    2 Hours Ago | 02:20
    When it comes to the commodities market, copper, steel, coal and gold could be among the winners from the U.S. election, Dennis Gartman, founder and editor of The Gartman Letter, said Wednesday.

    “I think the world was not prepared for Mr. Trump to win this,” Gartman told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” So money is fleeing to safer havens — it’s going to gold, it’s going to the Japanese yen.”
    The U.S. dollar fell 0.6 percent against a basket of currencies on Wednesday, while gold futures were up 2.3 percent in early trading. The precious metal spiked overnight as stock futures tumbled after Donald Trump clinched a surprise victory in the U.S. presidential election.

    Dennis Gartman
    David Orrell | CNBC
    Dennis Gartman
    Many commodity futures are affected by strength in the dollar, in which they are priced. In a research note to clients, Capital Economics revised up its forecast on bullion, expecting it to hit $1400 per ounce by year-end, and $1450 by the end of 2017.

    “I think that we’re going to see the dollar become a good deal stronger because of this,” Gartman said. “I do think that Mr. Trump tends to be somewhat of a trade protectionist. Who’s going to be hurt by that? It’s going to be the Europeans. It’s going to be Germany, that depends so much upon trade exports.”


    Enter Your Email Here
    Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
    Privacy Policy.
    Gartman earlier told CNBC he had voted for Trump, but he was “fearful” of the movement toward trade tariffs.

    “I think the benefit goes to the gold market because of uncertainty,” Gartman said. “I think that’s going to happen rather consistently.”

    Trump ran on a platform of investing in new infrastructure, including “thousands of new jobs in construction, steel manufacturing and other sectors to build the transportation, water, telecommunications and energy infrastructure.” Gartman said that could benefit metals like steel and copper, considered an economic bellwether because of its broad industrial applications.

    “The new president is going to be far more expansionary when it comes to energy,” Gartman said. “That’s going to be helpful to the suppliers of the production of crude. It’s going to be detrimental to the crude’s price itself.”

    During the campaign, President-elect Trump’s energy plan focused on expanding U.S. oil, gas and coal production. That effort comes as the world is still working through a global glut of crude, largely fueled by growing U.S. output, that has caused a two-year oil price downturn.

    U.S. coal consumption has been declining for years as power plants shift to cleaner, cheaper natural gas. Clean air regulations enacted by President Barack Obama hastened the retirement of some coal-fired units.

    “The coal industry itself has been resurrecting on its own, and it’s going to do far better,” Gartman said. “Coal mines will be reopened. New coal production will come on stream. Natural gas … we will be drilling, drilling, drilling for more.”


  108. @Jim D | November 9, 2016 at 10:10 pm |
    The market drop is not coincidental. Wall Street were wary of Trump simply because they know his policies are bad for business,
    If this is the best your crystal ball can do, you should tell it “YOU’RE FIRED!!!”


  109. I think that this is a different blog by Curry