The Trumpocene

by Judith Curry

Finding common ground in the Age of Trump.

Alan Longhurst sent an interesting article (in French) that was recently published in LeMonde (english translation year-1-of-the-trumpocene).

Here is what caught my attention:

At a time when most scientists think that the Earth has entered a new geological epoch – the anthropocene – characterised by the influence of a single species (ours) on the major biogeochemical cycles, perhaps we should consider a new terminology?  So, welcome to the ‘trumpocene‘ where the future depends not on the decisions of a single species, but on a single member of that species: Donald Trump. Unless, of course, this new chapter turns out to be just a sub-period of the anthropocene (a ‘stage’ as the geologists have it). In which case, it will be better to talk of the ‘trumpenian“.

The author Stephan Foucart voices the following concerns about Trump:

The “Trumpocene” will leave other footprints, too. Environmental policies are based on scientific knowledge, notably acquired by institutions such as NASA, NOAA and particularly the EPA: one of the primary preoccupation of the Trump administration will be to constrain as far as possible the acquisition of that knowledge.

And that this is going to happen is not in doubt. In his transition team, Mr Trump has handed the destiny of EPA to Myron Ebel who has had connections to Philip Morris and is also associated with the Comparative Enterprise Institute – one of the think-tanks that has contributed most to the attack on environmental science, and to drafting and distributing climatosceptic propaganda.

Placing the federal scientific establishments in the hands of such a person makes it perfectly clear that Trump’s ambition is to transform them as far as possible into institutions charged with fabricating facts, and selecting or changing them according to the wishes of the director.

So the war on the environment declared by Mr Trump risks not only aggrevating climate change: the “trumpocene” signals the start of an Orwellian distopia. 

In my opinion, Foucart is overly alarmed about the Age of Trump.

From ClimateChangeNewsLast year Trump’s pick to either lead or play a key role in dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency, Myron Ebell, told Climate Home he hoped the next president would “not rip up” the Paris Agreement. “I hope he or she will submit it to the US senate for its advice and consent,” he said.

Submitting the Paris Agreement to the Senate for a vote is exactly the right thing to do.

In terms of how much harm/good one individual as President can actually do, well we have some idea of this from President Obama, who amassed more power in the Presidency than anyone in recent history, particularly with regards to climate change and environmental regulations.  Now we are seeing how quickly all those executive orders might come undone in the Trump administration.

So whether we will have a Trumpocene, with long term impact, versus a 4-8 year trumpenium, depends on the extent that Trump can build broad political will for his proposals (as opposed to executive orders).

Finding common ground

There are some strong objections to Trump, that go well beyond his policies: some regard him as  autocratic, bigoted, vulgar, ignorant etc.

Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute wrote a provocative article What is to be done? Trump and Ecomodernism. This article is receiving a lot of buzz in the twitosphere, and it speaks to the dilemma faced by people that not only disagree with Trump’s policies, but are concerned whether he is fully committed to democratic norms.

Trumpism, in any event, is likely to redraw the fault lines of American politics in ways that are difficult to anticipate. And so for ecomodernists, and fellow travelers, this moment offers opportunity and peril.

Are we taking pragmatic actions to encourage the best impulses of the new administration or are we legitimizing something much darker? The choice is not one that will be presented to us all at once or that we will make only once. Rather, we will be presented with it over and over again.

However we make those choices, it will be incumbent upon us all to do everything that we can to strengthen civil society, to fight for democratic norms and resist their erosion while simultaneously finding ways to turn down the rhetoric that has rendered so much of our civic life increasingly contentious and irreconcilable. We will also need to ask some hard questions of our own agendas and political commitments.

Here is hoping that we all make those choices well and that together, we can find new possibilities for social, economic, and environmental progress in this moment of fear and uncertainty.

The New York Times has an article along similar lines:   Senate Democrats’ Surprising Strategy: Trying to Align With Trump.  Excerpt:

Congressional Democrats, divided and struggling for a path from the electoral wilderness, are constructing an agenda to align with many proposals of President-elect Donald J. Trump that put him at odds with his own party.

On infrastructure spending, child tax credits, paid maternity leave and dismantling trade agreements, Democrats are looking for ways they can work with Mr. Trump and force Republican leaders to choose between their new president and their small-government, free-market principles. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, elected Wednesday as the new Democratic minority leader, has spoken with Mr. Trump several times, and Democrats in coming weeks plan to announce populist economic and ethics initiatives they think Mr. Trump might like.

Democrats, who lost the White House and made only nominal gains in the House and Senate, face a profound decision after last week’s stunning defeat: Make common cause where they can with Mr. Trump to try to win back the white, working-class voters he took from them, or resist at every turn, trying to rally their disparate coalition in hopes that discontent with an ineffectual new president will benefit them in 2018.

JC reflections

I honestly don’t know what to expect from a Trump administration, and it may be that Trump doesn’t know either.

Ted Nordhaus poses a question that is profoundly important for those who find Trump appalling to consider:

Are we taking pragmatic actions to encourage the best impulses of the new administration or are we legitimizing something much darker?

The only rational option is to take pragmatic actions to encourage the best impulses of the new administration.  President Trump deserves a chance to succeed.  The onus is on those who wish to influence policy to find some common ground on policies that will move the country forward.

Lets see how this plays out.  Better yet, lets try to find some constructive ways to make the Trump administration a successful one in terms of making America better.  4-8 years is too long for half of the population to just keep throwing tantrums — lets try to help  the Trumpenium work.

 

 

1,169 responses to “The Trumpocene

  1. The proposed federal budgets from the new administration will be the clearest signal of what’s to come. Keep an eye on what is cut and what is increased. Can’t do anything without a budget.

    • Related: Lie Swarms

      “If you get your “information” through Twitter, mainline print/online publications, or the netwits, you probably think that Trump’s newly appointed chief strategist Steve Bannon is the love child of Nathan Bedford Forrest* and Leni Riefenstahl. Racist. Anti-Semite. Master propagandist.

      “One should always be suspicious of such tendentious portraits, and that suspicion is especially warranted here. Spengler (David P. Goldman) wrote a furious and effective rebuttal of the attacks on Bannon which is worth a read, but do yourself a favor and read the man in his own words–and not the clip quotes attributed to him by his enemies on the left and among the #NeverTrump right. (One should be doubly suspicious when such disparate groups unite in an attack.)

      “In that 2014 speech and interview, Bannon comes off as bright, thoughtful, and articulate. Certainly he has strong views, but they are not the noxious brew that his attackers attribute to him. His main sensibility is religious. As for anti-Semitism, note that he stresses the Judeo-Christian tradition. He believes in capitalism, but he is not a “hard” libertarian or Objectivist. His brand of capitalism is of the Smith-Hayek-Friedman variety. He decries the devolution of capitalism in corporatism and crony capitalism. He attacks bailouts. He is stridently anti-jihadist. He is also a believer in national and cultural identity, and obviously a critic of globalism.”

      http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10254

      • It’s an interesting “coincidence” that a bunch of “alt-right” powerhouses were just thrown off Twitter.

      • I’m still trying to figure out where’s the “Judeo-Christian tradition”. There’s a huge difference between Reform and Ultraorthodox Jews. There’s an even larger difference between the way a NY Rabbi thinks today, and what a Temple priest thought in 35 CE.

        Christians are the same. Is this tradition Catholic as advocated by the Red Pope? Anglican? USA Evangelical?

        I think it’s safe to call me an atheist who studies religion to figure out where it fits into politics, and to help me survive as I have moved from country to country (it’s never a good idea to mess with the local customs). I conclude there’s no such thing as a “Judeo Christian” tradition. That seems to be a term coined to make sure Jews don’t feel excluded, or to somehow lump Christians and Jews into a single identity, which in turn leads to exclusion of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.

        I suggest Americans get over this by simply usng the term “American tradition”, which, whether some like it or not, includes individualism, a belief in freedom and the right of people to choose leaders, a sense of being unique (to the point of arrogance), a willingness to help those who are weak, and a fairly widespread belief that men and women should have equal rights. Some of you extend that to “minorities”, and some don’t. But I assure you, Ameicans treat minorities better than the French, Russians, Japanese, Congolese, etc. and that’s got little to do with an imaginary “Judeo-Christian tradition” which includes maxims such as “give unto Cesar what is Cesar”, separates women from men during worship services, and me runs nothing about the right of the individual to free speech, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms, etc, etc.

        So, let’s just say Americans are not really unique, other than they lucked into being born in the USA. What is unique is the American tradition. And that tradition goes way way beyond any religious texts, beliefs, or dogma.

    • Very interesting read.

      Another piece of the puzzle I didn’t understand, yet I knew was important.

    • The Bannon article is awesome. I had been reading a bit about him due to the flap over him allegedly being racist and anti-Semetic. Turns out that was just more lefty bilge. He appears to be an awesome guy.

      • I’ve read some of his speeches and he comes off as extremely bright and capable of seeing the world in a long term historical perspective understanding Western civilization and the challenges for and to capitalism.

      • You do know, of course, that Bannon bears a striking resemblance to Mosher…

      • Awesome perhaps – but his final comment – “I am Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors” – is surprising. Is he comparing Trump to Henry VIII? And, in any case, remember what happened to Thomas Cromwell.

      • Lighten up, Robin. I’m sure his analogy was general.

      • Robin

        That may be an astute comment by Bannon.

        Firstly, Thomas and Oliver Cromwell were not directly related as you know, in case some reading this are assuming this link. This from Wiki;

        “Elton (a historian) portrayed Cromwell as the presiding genius, much more so than the king, handling the break with Rome and creating the laws and administrative procedures that reshaped post-Reformation England. Elton wrote that Cromwell had been responsible for translating royal supremacy into parliamentary terms, creating powerful new organs of government to take charge of Church lands, and largely removing the medieval features of central government. Subsequent historians have agreed with Elton as to Cromwell’s importance, though not with his claims of “revolution”.[4][5][6] Leithead (2004) wrote, “Against significant opposition he secured acceptance of the king’s new powers, created a more united and more easily governable kingdom, and provided the crown, at least temporarily, with a very significant landed endowment.”[7]

        So, does Bannon consider himself the power behind the throne and someone able to really change the status quo?

        I know nothing at all of Bannon or his background so will read some of the links others have provided.

        tonyb

      • Tony

        Read Breitbart for a decidedly pro Bannon view which may counteract much of the unsubstantiated slime from the usual leftist narrative manipulators.

        I had never heard of him until a couple of weeks ago. If I relied only on the MSM, my reaction to him would have been to put Bannon in the devil reincarnate category. Luckily I followed my usual pattern of doing independent research and gained a more balanced perspective of the guy.

        While I’m at it, the pervasive view by the NYT lock step crew is that the Breitbart website is monopolized by a bunch of knuckle dragging skinheads. A reading of a cross section of the comments lead me to believe the commonality of the website users is disdain for whining liberals, not unlike here and anywhere else that adults express their opinions.

  2. Judith Curry writes:

    Ted Nordhaus poses a question that is profoundly important for those who find Trump appalling to consider:

    Are we taking pragmatic actions to encourage the best impulses of the new administration or are we legitimizing something much darker?

    The only rational option is to take pragmatic actions to encourage the best impulses of the new administration. President Trump deserves a chance to succeed. The onus is on us to find some common ground on policies that will move the country forward.

    I could not disagree more. It is not the people’s responsibility to find common ground with the President. The President is, for better or worse, the leader of the country. He should be concerned with what all people think, feel and want. He should look for common ground with people and search for ways to unite with them. Claiming the “only rational option” is to work with a person who may actively attack the civil liberties of many people is ludicrous.

    If Trump tries to work with the people then the people should try to work with him. If Trump chooses to simply dismiss, deride and denigrate a large portion of the people (as he has done thus far), then it is in no way their responsibility to try to find common ground with him. Saying:

    Lets see how this plays out. Better yet, lets try to find some constructive ways to make the Trump administration a successful one in terms of making America better. 4-8 years is to long for half of the population to just keep throwing tantrums — lets try to help the Trumpenium work.

    Why in the world should people go around trying to find ways to make Trump’s administration successful? It’s his administration. It’s his administration. He should try to find ways to make it successful. People can support his efforts to make his administration successful, but they still need to be his efforts.

    As for claiming “half of the population” just keeps “throwing tantrums,” you might try to remember Trump is a man who has gone on a national stage to mock people for their physical disabilities, boasted about sexually harassing (underage) women by forcing them to let him see them naked and oh, repeatedly lied about all sorts of things such as having seen American Muslims celebrating the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.

    I’m not sure I’d call people pointing out those things and many other are disgusting and even evil “throwing tantrums.”

    • “may actively attack the civil liberties” ????? Where do you get that from? Probably from the same place you got the nonsense that he attacked people with disabilities, boasted about sexually harassing women and lied about some Muslims celebrating on 9-11. You did to broaden your news sources if you actually believe all that. Until you do, you are just throwing a temper tantrum.

      • Excuse me you “need to broaden”

      • Donald Trump and his staff have repeatedly said things which suggest they would be open to attacking people’s civil liberties. For one simple example, everyone should (but likely will not) remember Trump called for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States this last July. Prior to that, Trump had proposed creating a database listing all Muslim in the United States. Trump and his staff have recently been discussing a similar idea. The current discussion isn’t about something that would necessarily be unconstitutional, but it is certainly reasonable for people to worry about what it might turn out to be given Trump’s previous calls for unconstitutional attacks on the civil liberties of Muslim people.

        This is just one of many potential examples. I get you may be completely unaware of simple facts like those I referred to in my comment, but that you may choose to remain ignorant of basic details anyone can verify with a minimal amount of effort does not make them stop being true. You can dismiss what I say as “just throwing a temper tantrum,” but the reality is every factual statement I’ve made can be easily verified.

      • Like I said you need to broaden your news source. I saw him and heard every minute of that first speech and many of his subsequent ones. He was talking about radical Islamic terorrism. He said he wanted to limit radical Islamic terrorism from countries with a problem with radical Islam terrorism UNTIL the US can figure things out. He also said very specifically and very clearly that it was not ALL Muslims in the world. He said he has Muslim friend and employees. Of course CNN, NYT WaPo eat didn’t report that part of his speech.

        As for Muslims from outside of the USA, people, any people outside the USA, Muslim or non Muslim, do not have civil rights in the USA while they are outside of the USA. Specifically moving to the USA is not a “right” people are entitled to, it is a privilege. Denying someone something that is a privilege is not denying them their civil rights. Denying the entry of people who are a potential danger to US society is exactly what the President is supposed to be doing. And monitoring Muslims who might be a danger to the USA under provisions of lawfully enacted security rules is not violating their rights either.

        You are the one who has refused to search basic details and limited yourself to anti Trump news sources that reinforce your personal bias against him.

      • And I can provide the same background and context to the false charges he is racist, sexist, homophobic, and antiSemitic because while I do watch CNN, BBC, CBC, MSNBC and I read WaPo and NTY and even Huffingtonpost on occasion, they are not my only source of information.

      • “Donald Trump and his staff have repeatedly said things which suggest they would be open to attacking people’s civil liberties.
        For one simple example, everyone should (but likely will not) remember Trump called for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States this last July. Prior to that, Trump had proposed creating a database listing all Muslim in the United States. Trump and his staff have recently been discussing a similar idea. The current discussion isn’t about something that would necessarily be unconstitutional, but it is certainly reasonable for people to worry about what it might turn out to be given Trump’s previous calls for unconstitutional attacks on the civil liberties of Muslim people.”

        1. There is no CIVIL liberty to immigrate to the US. legal immigration is not a right. People are not free to immigrate. Immigration rules are determined by the citizens and their government. There is simply no civil liberty to immigrate to the US.

        2. he never proposed a database for all muslims in the US. The current discussions center around RE INSTITUTING the program we had in place from 2002 -2011.. a program focused on REGISTERING ALL IMMIGRANTS from 25 named countries ( 24 muslim plus north korea). The registration program required immigrants from these countries to register and check in every 6 months

      • The “database”

        http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN13B05C?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

        “Kobach told Reuters last Friday that the immigration group had discussed drafting executive orders for the president-elect’s review “so that Trump and the Department of Homeland Security hit the ground running.”

        To implement Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” of some Muslim immigrants, Kobach said the immigration policy group could recommend the reinstatement of a national registry of immigrants and visitors who enter the United States on visas from countries where extremist organizations are active.

        Kobach helped design the program, known as the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, while serving in Republican President George W. Bush’s Department of Justice after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States by al Qaeda militants.

        Under NSEERS, people from countries deemed “higher risk” were required to undergo interrogations and fingerprinting on entering the United States. Some non-citizen male U.S. residents over the age of 16 from countries with active militant threats were required to register in person at government offices and periodically check in.

        NSEERS was abandoned in 2011 after it was deemed redundant by the Department of Homeland Security and criticized by civil rights groups for unfairly targeting immigrants from Muslim- majority nations.

        Kobach said the immigration advisers were also looking at how the Homeland Security Department could move rapidly on border wall construction without approval from Congress by reappropriating existing funds in the current budget. He acknowledged “that future fiscal years will require additional appropriations.”

      • Okay, since you want to dispute basic facts, I’ll go with the one that’s easiest to prove. Donald Trump boasting about how he forced women to let him see them naked. If we can come to terms on that very simple issue, maybe there is hope for more complicated matters. On that issue, this is what Trump had to say in 2005:

        You know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it… Is everyone OK? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that … I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else.

        Women had accused Trump of intentionally walking in on them while they were undressed at his beauty pageants in 1997, 2000 and 2001. They all did so years prior to Trump boasting about it on a radio show (another accused him of such in 2006, after the show was broadcast). Given Trump was accused of this behavior multiple times followed by Trump going on a nationally broadcasted radio show and boasting about engaging in this very behavior, I think we should all be able to agree Trump did in fact engage in this behavior.

        And again, this behavior was using his position as owner of a beauty pageant to get away with intentionally walking in on women while they were undressed, women who were in many cases teenagers.

        If we can all acknowledge did in fact sexually harass women in this way, then maybe we can find common ground on which to discuss what to expect of him and his administration. If we can’t all agree he did do the very thing he was accused of and boasted about doing, then I doubt there will be any common ground.

      • Brandon, What does this have to do with policy or the Trump administration? You don’t like Trump and seem intent on looking for evidence to support your prejudice that he will be a bad president. John F. Kennedy was a well known womanizer with hundreds of different ones. And he had a serious autoimmune disease. Was he a good president? Personal failings are not always disqualifying as any adult knows.

      • Plus for every woman paid to come forward by the likes of the NYT to say horrible things about trump there were ten who said great things about Trump or totally denied the truth of the charges against him but they never got interviewed by the media unless it was on FOX. I recall one 1980s era female CEO who said “Yeah, he was a bastard to me, but he was a bastard to everyone. And he hired me even though I was a woman because I could do the job and he paid me like a man.” Wow what a sexist he is. NOT. Of course she didn’t get interviewed by the NYT either.

      • David Young:

        Brandon, What does this have to do with policy or the Trump administration? You don’t like Trump and seem intent on looking for evidence to support your prejudice that he will be a bad president. John F. Kennedy was a well known womanizer with hundreds of different ones. And he had a serious autoimmune disease. Was he a good president? Personal failings are not always disqualifying as any adult knows.

        Kennedy was a bad president, but that has nothing to do with any of this. Despite your portrayal, I have not suggested this behavior indicates Donald Trump will be a bad president.* I haven’t suggested it has anything to do with his politics or policies. I simply discussed it in response to Judith Curry saying Trump’s critics are throwing temper tantrums.

        My point was simple. A person who engages in many different types of distateful and even evil behavior, such as sexually harassing women, has been elected as President. Many people are complaining, quite loudly, about this. I do not think that should be described as throwing temper tantrums.

        That said, if you insist upon me drawing a connection to concerns about civil liberties, that seems easy enough to do. Women can reasonably fear their civil liberties will suffer under the administration of a man who boasts about sexually harassing women.

        *Unless you think being a bad person inherently makes you a bad president.

      • tumbleweedstumbling, I see you are refusing to acknowledge Trump did the very things he said he did. I think that makes it clear why we will never find any common ground. You simply won’t acknowledge things about Trump that are inconvenient, even when they come from his own mouth. I’m also pretty sure you just fabricated that quote.

        You can rant and rave about how people need to do whatever, but the simple reality is when a man is repeatedly accused of sexually harassing women then goes no a nationally broadcasted radio show boasting about how he did exactly what he was accused of, most reasonable people will conclude he sexually harassed women.

        The people who won’t accept that’s a reasonable conclusion are unlikely to ever be able to hold useful discussions with those who do.

      • I am not the one ranting and raving nonsense here. Tell me what news services do you follow? Do you follow even one single news service that the Wikileaks did not reveal as being part of Campaign Clinton?

      • Brandon, we all know Trump owns some less-than-stellar actions. But he is a saint compared to Cr00ked Billary!! The campaign is over, get used to it.

        Trump will do great things. You will see, but you probably won’t stop the flow of BS.

      • Brandon – are you actually silly enough to believe foreigners have some sort of “civil right” to migrate to the US?? Where is that law written down, Brandon. What a crock!!

      • jim2:

        Brandon, we all know Trump owns some less-than-stellar actions. But he is a saint compared to Cr00ked Billary!! The campaign is over, get used to it.

        You may feel Hillary Clinton is far worse than a person who openly boasts about sexually harassing women in a criminal manner. I disagree.

        Trump will do great things. You will see, but you probably won’t stop the flow of BS.

        I don’t think there’s a person on this site who could give even remotely accurate predictions of what Donald Trump will do. I doubt there’s a person in the world who could, including Trump himself. Given that, I find it remarkable people are so certain Trump will do… well, anything.

        Brandon – are you actually silly enough to believe foreigners have some sort of “civil right” to migrate to the US?? Where is that law written down, Brandon. What a crock!!

        Are you actually silly enough to read my comment as indicating everything I mentioned was an attack on civil rights? Apparently so. I hope most people do better. I’d like to think most people here can understand giving examples of things that might make a person worry an administration will attack people’s civil liberties does not require giving examples of attacking or stating one plans to attack civil liberties.

      • There is video of him making fun of a disabled reporter. Do you dispute that? If so, you are truly delusional.

      • LOL! Yep! The desperation is hilarious!

        Did you watch the whole video? Or just the snippet with the over talk? Watch the whole video. That one was debunked months ago! Turns out it is just another Rathergate!

      • There is video of him making fun of a disabled reporter.

        No there isn’t.

        Do you dispute that?

        It’s not true, but I’m not going to waste my time disputing a hallucination.

        If so, you are truly delusional.

        No, you’re totally ign0rant. And credulous.

      • He did not. 1) The person everyone claims he mocked does not make any of the flailing movements due to his disability that Trump made supposedly mocking him. 2) Catholics 4 Trump has 4 videos from as far back as 2005 in which Trump impersonates everyone from Sen. Ted Cruz to making fun of himself with the same, flailing mannerisms/goofy speech. 3) Trump himself stated he did not mock the disabled.

      • “You can rant and rave about how people need to do whatever, but the simple reality is when a man is repeatedly accused of sexually harassing women then goes no a nationally broadcasted radio show boasting about how he did exactly what he was accused of, most reasonable people will conclude he sexually harassed women.”

        This is nothing more than virtue signaling bordering on libel and is no less offensive than Trumps sexual signaling bordering on sexual harassment. You do no favors to women who have been sexually harassed by playing fast and loose with the term.

        Sexual harassment, as a point of law and matter of fact is unlawful. While the legislation regarding sexual harassment varies by jurisdiction, it does not impose any general civility code (ONCALE v. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, et al., (1998)) The case law in regards to this matter is, as case law tends to be, murky at best. Even case law that favors a plaintiff (in this case it would someone suing over sexual harassment) the Court will make holdings that are big caveats. Take, for example, Harris v Forklift (1993);

        While the Supreme Court held in favor of the plaintiff they also held this:

        “This standard, which we reaffirm today, takes a middle path between making actionable any conduct that is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to cause a tangible psychological injury. As we pointed out in Meritor, “mere utterance of an . . . epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a employee,” ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted) does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII. Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment–an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive–is beyond Title VII’s purview. Likewise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation.”

        This standard set by the Supreme Court is what informs the lower courts in subsequent rulings and so cases such as Bolwing v Shinseki (2014) the plaintiff lost because:

        “In the case at bar, even drawing all inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiff has failed to show that she had any belief that her employer was engaging in severe or pervasive sexual harassment when the complaint was made, let alone a reasonable, good faith belief. Even assuming Bennett was Plaintiff’s supervisor and could thus expose Defendant to liability, it is clear that Plaintiff did not take offense to the comments until after Bennett’s wife sent a threatening text message, which coincidentally marked the end of all personal messages.”

        Whether Trumps actions and comments rise to the level of actionable cause is best worked out through actual courts – which requires an actual victim – of jurisdiction instead of kangaroo courts of public opinion where the priest class may preach their sermons and signal their sanctimony.

      • Brandon.

        “y point was simple. A person who engages in many different types of distateful and even evil behavior, such as sexually harassing women, has been elected as President. Many people are complaining, quite loudly, about this. I do not think that should be described as throwing temper tantrums.”

        Another useless semantic dispute. Do u have something true useful and of substance to say
        If not go correct my spelling.

      • Steven Mosher, that someone dismisses what other people say, even valid criticisms and complaints, as “temper tantrums” is far more than a semantic matter. It is always possible to use rhetoric like that to deride criticisms. Pointing out when such rhetoric is misused to dismiss valid concerns is a useful thing to do that involves far more than just semantics.

        But please, feel free to continue taking every opportunity you can to tell people how much I suck. I’m sure the people you haven’t convinced by doing things like calling me liar and comparing me to a Holocaust denier will find one of these other comments of yours compelling.

      • Brandon

        ‘Steven Mosher, that someone dismisses what other people say, even valid criticisms and complaints, as “temper tantrums” is far more than a semantic matter. It is always possible to use rhetoric like that to deride criticisms. Pointing out when such rhetoric is misused to dismiss valid concerns is a useful thing to do that involves far more than just semantics.”

        The only problem is you defended the outrage of people by pointing at FALSE CHARGES about violating civil liberties.
        AND you refuse to own your mistake, Which makes you liar.
        Do I really need to parade out all your past attacks on people
        for minor mistakes? and your past demands that they correct the record in precisely the way you want the record corrected

        1. You made a mistake
        2. Your mistake accusing trump of violating civil liberties
        is WORSE than any pussy grabbing comment he could ever make
        3. You need to own your mistake, admit it here an now.. or go back to you moms basement

      • Steven –

        ==> 3. You need to own your mistake, admit it here an now.. or go back to you moms basement ==>

        Funny. I suggest you revisit Lucia’s blog from some threads back…right around when you wound up in the hospital. Consider what happened between you and Brandon then, in light of your thoughts here about his obligation to account for errors.

      • Steven –

        Or consider Willis’ comments here:

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/18/the-trumpocene/#comment-825031

        W/r/t accountability for errors. Have at it.

    • If Trump tries to work with the people then the people should try to work with him. If Trump chooses to simply dismiss, deride and denigrate a large portion of the people (as he has done thus far), then it is in no way their responsibility to try to find common ground with him. Saying:

      The dems did dismiss, deride and denigrate a large portion of the people for 8 years, that is why our new president will be Trump.

      What ever is done is always against what a large number of people want. We won this time and we expect Trump to do the things we elected him to do. Trump will bring jobs back to the US, he will throw less money away at useless windmills and solar. The Coal business will survive. Trump will find common ground with enough people to get the job done. That is how he won the election. He knows what he is doing and he knows who can help him do a good job.

      • In other words, “elections have consequences” (trump won)…

      • Trump dismissed a large segment of the population – yes, that would be the Establishment (political and press). And if he is to succeed, he should continue to do so. Embracing them is the sure death that did not get him elected.

    • I felt the same as you for nearly eight years – substituting “Obama” for “Trump”, of course.

    • I could not disagree more. It is not the people’s responsibility to find common ground with the President. The President is, for better or worse, the leader of the country. He should be concerned with what all people think, feel and want. He should look for common ground with people and search for ways to unite with them. Claiming the “only rational option” is to work with a person who may actively attack the civil liberties of many people is ludicrous.

      AFAIK the paragraphs you’re objecting to were written by an agenda-driven special interest, to agenda-driven special interests. With that perspective it makes much more sense.

      Special interests don’t have “civil liberties” (qua “special interests”, obviously they do as citizens). These special interests are associated with the losing Clinton campaign, and if they want to advance their agendas they need to find a way to work with the President, within the scope of his idea of the needs of the people who elected him.

    • Again Brandon I went and got the full transcript of entire ultra shocking tape you are talking about. The “pussy grabbing” comment distasteful as it was, was within the context of women letting him do it because he was rich, as in it was consensual. As far the beauty pageant stuff goes several women came forward and said it was not true he had not done that. Trump himself admitted he was mouthing off and showing off using locker room talk to the reporter encouraging him. I won’t debate Trump is a gross boor because I think that is correct assessment of him. But there is not one shred of evidence he ever raped anyone, or used his position to seduce young women under his control unlike Bill Clinton who was supported by his ever loving wife while all her supporters looked the other way. If what Trump did makes him unfit for the Whitehouse then what Bill Clinton did certainly makes him unfit to be First Lady in the Whitehouse. And even if he did look at naked beauty pageant contestants, if you are choosing to classify sneaking peeks at beautiful naked women as making him some kind of sexual monster, then by your standard, 99% of normal red blooded heterosexual males in the USA are evil sexual harassers including my husband, my sons, my brothers and even my grandsons. If you think Hilary was okay on that score but Trump a terrible monster then you are living a grotesque double standard.

      • The Informed Consumer

        Trump is, as you point out a boor (I think that term comes from from the Boer War era, outspoken Dutch-descended Afrikaners who appeared rude, happy to be corrected) but the Clintons remind me of Fred and Rose West. A couple who spent a lifetime, as completely normal, respectable neighbours, but who had a peculiar shared sexual proclivity.

        The Clintons make me shudder.

      • I absolutely agree! I could not believe that pair were trying to get back in the Whitehouse and that so many people were willing to help them do it! And that was before the Wikileaks came out.

      • tumbleweedstumbling, this is silly. You say:

        Again Brandon I went and got the full transcript of entire ultra shocking tape you are talking about. The “pussy grabbing” comment distasteful as it was, was within the context of women letting him do it because he was rich, as in it was consensual.

        Yet what you describe wasn’t even mentioned in the radio broadcast I discussed. You’ve apparently gone out and looked at something I haven’t even mentioned and claimed to find proof I am wrong. Then you go on to say things like:

        Trump himself admitted he was mouthing off and showing off using locker room talk to the reporter encouraging him.

        Yet there was no reporter encouraging him to say anything. He was on a radio show. He was talking to a shock jock. You’ve clearly not even looked at what Trump said, despite the fact I quoted it for you. I would have even provided a link if I had known you’d need further help finding it.

        I’m done. You’ve fabricated quotes, misquoted me, looked at video material which clearly wasn’t what I referred to as proof what I said about a radio broadcast was wrong and have pretty much shown a complete disregard for the truth or anything else which might contradict your personal views.

        I could tolerate all that except you then go on to make the horrible comparison of saying Donald Trump forcing women to let him see them naked is no worse than what every male in your family would do. I hope with all my heart that isn’t true. Either you are sacrificing your family’s reputation at the alter of expediency or your family is filled with sexual predators.

      • I was referring to both the radio show and to the infamous Billy Bush 2005 appearance on Access Hollywood. Accusing my family of being full of sexual predators because you disagree with me is exactly the kind of low life scumbag attack I have come to expect from people on the left. Shame on you.

      • tumbleweedstumbling,

        Maybe BS is a Warmist. They claim superior mind reading abilities, and the psychic ability of clairvoyance. Redefinitions are their specialty.

        I wonder how BS established your family makeup. Merriam Webster provides the following definition of sexual predator –

        “a person who has committed a sexually violent offense and especially one who is likely to commit more sexual offenses.”

        For all I know, BS will fall back on the tired Warmist excuses that you didn’t understand what he said, or he didn’t really mean it, or he didn’t get enough participation certificates and emotional support as a small child.

        If BS has evidence to support his serious accusations, he should contact the police with the evidence, I suppose. If BS is a Warmist, he has no evidence, of course. He probably hasn’t got a clue either!

        Cheers.

      • Please presume it’s a given Clinton(s) were unworthy. Consider it stipulated.

        Now can it be discussed that a higher standard than a little better than Clinton(s) is less than what America should demand. Or is it now that we should just settle for ‘a little bit better than that’?

      • I stipulate the Clintons were unworthy. Problem is the choice was Clinton or Trump. So Trump won. He may or may not be a good President in spite of his many and obvious failings. I hope so!

      • Tumble,
        Thank you.

        It’s time for wailing and gnashing of teeth to end. But it’s also time for the ‘he can’t be worse than Clinton’ meme to end.

        I demand better, including personal behavior and inclusivity. Please join and bring others.

      • So stipulated. But then on November 7, who would you pick?

        In other words, it is just a day shy of 2 months until we have a President Trump, so at this point, he can do NOTHING. And has done NOTHING. And you just want to trash him for doing just that.

      • Phil,
        “And has done NOTHING.” That’s not accurate. He has indeed done ‘many’ things throughout the campaign. I’m referring to his actions and behavior. Surely you can see them as well as I.

      • He breathes, he lives, he eats (which some take offense to apparently), and he sleeps. Just as you do. Just as I have done. However, he still has not done a THING as president. He has signed no laws, written no executive actions, signed no treaties.

        So once again, your ignorance is noted. He has done nothing. Except live. And yes, I can see that some resent that. The multitude of death threats attest to that.

      • As you’re obviously the local expert on “ignorance”.

        You equate zero value to the ‘bully pulpit’? https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-says-ready-modernize-nafta-trump-181527988.html

        “Canada and Mexico agreed Thursday to US President-elect Donald Trump’s demand to have a fresh look at their tripartite 22-year-old free trade pact, fearing they could be shut out of the US market.”

        Even you’re not that ignorant (hopefully). Or maybe you’re just giving me credit for their willingness to renegotiate since according to you “He “(Trump)” has done nothing.”

        It would really be best there Phillykins if you’d just read more and comment less.

      • Ah,Danny! Still having problems reading! I said nothing about the bully pulpit. I said DO. He has no authority to DO anything yet! Not for another 50 days!

        Seriously, get that reading problem of yours looked at! It is almost impossible to have a discussion with you when you cannot read basic English!

      • Not ‘doing’ anything:”Trump’s strategy secured an early victory this week when the president-elect persuaded air-conditioning manufacturer Carrier not to move up to 1,000 jobs from Indiana to Mexico. ”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-nominees-map-out-plans-for-tax-cuts-trade-and-carrier-style-negotiations/2016/11/30/54cfca98-b73d-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?utm_term=.172bfaded324

      • And what did The Donald DO. Did he talk? yes. Did he tell them how things WOULD BE (note the tense)? Yes. Did he DO anything? Not yet! But he promised he would.

        And because of said promises and resultant actions, Danny is mad! See his little stompy feet! He wants those jobs GONE! How dare The Donald actually tell someone what he will DO (again note the tense)! How dare he allow a company to believe he will keep a promise! How dare a company decide not to move jobs out of the country!

        And there in a nut shell we see the reason The Donald won. Workers (those who subsidize the leeches) trust him. But the left hates the workers! They should be on welfare! let the state take care of them!

        Oh the irony is so delicious! The left arguing against jobs. Show us more Danny! Show us how you hate people working! Show us how you hate people who keep promises!

        But most of all, show us what is being done NOW. Actions, not words. The Donald has no power of action for another 49 days. But he can tell folks he will keep {SHOCK} his promises! LOL

      • > the Clintons remind me of Fred and Rose West

        Fascinating:

        Frederick Walter Stephen “Fred” West (29 September 1941[1] – 1 January 1995) was an English serial killer known to have committed a minimum of 12 murders between 1967 and 1987 in Gloucestershire, England, the majority of which were committed with his second wife, Rosemary West.

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

        You read it first at Judy’s.

      • Mike Flynn:

        Maybe BS is a Warmist. They claim superior mind reading abilities, and the psychic ability of clairvoyance. Redefinitions are their specialty.

        As always, I request people not refer to me by my initials due to the unfortunate connotation they have.

        I would also suggest not assuming every person who criticizes Trump must be a Warmist. Doing so will likely make it appear you guilty of the very sorts of biases you accuse people of. This is particularly true when you target people whose name and views are not unheard of.

      • Mike Flynn:

        BS (feel free to feel as offended as you desire – my care factor is a number indistinguishable from zero),

        You are free to choose to call people you talk to things you know they find offensive or annoying, but I wouldn’t expect anyone to think well of you if you do. As for this:

        Ah, The unspecified “people”. Who might these people be, and why should I care if their names and views are not unheard of?

        If you cannot bring yourself to name these “people”, it is not unlikely that their names and views will continue to be largely unknown, without resorting to telepathy, or other forms of ESP, to ferret out their names and views.

        Something like the missing heat, or the falsifiable GHE hypothesis. Not unheard of, but certainly non existent.

        I suppose you were trying to make a point, but maybe you haven’t mastered the art of pointmaking just yet. Or maybe I’m just too thick to appreciate the subtlety of your not unheard of names and views?

        Please let me know.

        I think most people would understand my remark about it perhaps being unwise to target “people whose name and views are not unheard of” with assumptions about what their views are was a not-so-subtle reference to the fact I am not an unknown entity in the global warming debate, but rather, have been an active participant who is known to many. I would wager most denizens of this site know who I am and know fully well I am nothing resembling a “warmist.”

        I suspect you would have understood that if you were not so close-minded and hostile to people who say things you disagree with.

      • Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos): “I suspect you would have understood that if you were not so close-minded and hostile to people who say things you disagree with.”

        Wow! Just WOW!

      • David Springer

        Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos) | November 18, 2016 at 8:58 pm |
        tumbleweedstumbling, this is silly. You say:

        “I’m done.”

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Brandon,
      Maybe you should first ask yourself if Clinton offered more opportunity for citizens to have their wishes heard.
      The dominance of the elites seemed to cause primary concern to many voters.
      Geoff

      • Geoff, I think the excuse of, “Clinton would have been worse!” that has been repeated by so many people is in many cases disingenuous. There were over 15 Republican candidates. Any number of people could have been chosen over Trump to be the Republican candidate. Any number of people could have been chosen over Trump or Clinton to be president. Instead, people chose Trump.

        Will Trump be better for citizens than Clinton? I can’t say. I don’t think anyone knows what Trump will do so I think it foolish for anyone to say things will be better with him than her. Maybe, by some fluke, Trump will do a good job. There’s nothing in his past to suggest he will, but who knows?

        But as far caliber of person, there is simply no doubt Trump is a terrible person to elect as leader of a country. When “sexual predator” is one of the least damning traits a person can be fairly described as possessing, they really shouldn’t be promoted to the head of a major country. That people are upset one has been doesn’t mean they’re throwing “temper tantrums.”

      • There were 16 other republican candidates (do not forget Jim Gilmore). And it was the democrats who chose Trump. Only Trump had the temerity to hit back as hard as he got. And that kept Clinton off balance as she had never been in a real fight (just a sycophantic one where what she says is gospel, and never questioned).

        Trump was elected because he fought back. Which is not kosher in politics. But then no one claimed he was a politician. He has said some things that make me cringe, but I like the fact he is not afraid to say them. it is about time.

        When the left ever gets honest with itself, and stops lying for the sake of lying, perhaps we can nominate a saint from the other side. Until then, they will merely call everyone who opposes them a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. And they will lose again because of that.

        People can disagree without being what the hateful left want to stereotype them as. But the left has shown they are not interested in free speech or open debate. Just toe their line, and do not question their crimes.

      • “Only Trump had the temerity to hit back as hard as he got.” Hence, my choice to respond with Juvenile names. You defend when it’s Trump and chastise when it’s me. And no matter how you wish to spin that, it’s a double standard.

        Unaware much?

      • Yes you are unaware! You take offense if someone tells you hello, and lash out like a wounded animal. Your ignorance is what is on display here. As well as your feigned “slight”.

        If you are going to co-opt a famous name, at least have the intelligence to know who you are co-opting!

        Owned yourself again! LOL

      • Phillykins, (please take as complimentary)

        What was I thinking? You’ve been ever so complimentary to me. How could I have mistaken your ‘boy’ as belittling?

        Yes. Most assuredly an own goal. Hanging my head in shame.

      • Yet you continue with your childish behavior, not just with me, but with others who have never made the connection between Marlo’s dad and his theme song.

        I do not have to wonder why no one puts any stock into your childish rants.

      • Danny Thomas, I agree with that comment of yours. I think Hillary Clinton would have been a mediocre president, but many people who voted for Trump seem to be saying she would have been terrible. They then say Trump is better than her.

        That should be considered damning with faint praise. Are Trump supporters saying the best anyone could come up with as a presidential nominee was “better than terrible”? I hope not. On the other hand, I know a few people who voted for Trump that say that was their only reason.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Brandon,
        I specifically asked about getting the wishes of people heard. Not about personalities, histories, etc.
        From afar, the dominant emerging theme was a distaste of more of the (unwanted?) sameness of “do what I tell you to do.”
        We face a similar schism here in Oz.
        Geoff

      • Geoff, you responded to a comment. I tried to answer your question in context of that comment. If you wished for me to answer that question absent the context of the discussion you asked it in, you chose the wrong spot to ask me. I am always happy to answer questions, but when questions are asked in the middle of a discussion, I am going to assume they are connected to that discussion.

        I’ll try to offer a more direct answer though. There is absolutely no reason to believe Donald Trump offers citizens more opportunity to have their voices heard than Clinton would have. There may reason for some groups of citizens to believe that, but in general, no.

        The reality is Clinton is a consummate politician, meaning she cares a great deal about what people think. She cares because of practical reasons. If people want their voices heard, all they have to do is band together and get enough people to share their views so that Clinton would have reason to care about them. That’s how most politicians behave. Trump has shown little interest in doing the same.

        Of course, people who are generally too lazy or apathetic to take any role in shaping their nation’s governing system outside of a single vote every four years (if that) won’t hold the attention of politicians for long. To those people, someone like Trump may be good because they feel he understands them, so even if they don’t do anything, they think he’ll do what they want.

        But that’s not Trump listening to people. That’s just people voting for Trump because they like what he says.

      • “The reality is Clinton is a consummate politician, meaning she cares a great deal about what people think.”

        Wrong. it means that as a consummate politician she is adept at appearing to care a great deal about what people think. That is not the same at all.

        In reality, she couldn’t care less. People are less to Clinton than something unpleasant stuck to the sole of her shoe.

        All Clinton cares about is Clinton. And that – as they say – is that.

      • There is a LOT of evidence that Trump will hear the common folks, (those will less than a million dollars) that Hillary. It is called the Clinton Foundation.

      • “The reality is Clinton is a consummate politician, meaning she cares a great deal about what people think. She cares because of practical reasons. If people want their voices heard, all they have to do is band together and get enough people to share their views so that Clinton would have reason to care about them. That’s how most politicians behave. Trump has shown little interest in doing the same”

        what kind of clown are you?
        she lost precisely because she didnt care what certain people thought.
        She was given advice by her betters and she ignored the advice.
        She sidelined the real genius in the whole operation and got beat.

        As Bill told Mook and Podesta Hillary was TONE DEAF to the concerns of the democrats he won.

        So who’s analysis am I going to believe? Yours? or Bill Clintons?

        simple.

        I’m with Him

      • Hillary was a terrible politician, not a consummate politician. She barely beat a doddering radical socialist and then lost to Donald Trump. She did not even care enough what people think to use follow basic e-mail security protocols.

        Trump is an awful person who is totally unfit to be President, but so are most people who seek the office, including his opponent. If he saves the Supreme Court and doesn’t nuke anyone, he’ll probably be better than Hillary.

        This is true mainly because the GOP controls Congress right now and while Donald is a populist, the party he joined last year is conservative. Senate and House leaders are already rolling their eyes at large parts of his stated agenda, so nothing too awful will likely ever see the floor.

    • Brandon

      He should be concerned with what all people think, feel and want. He should look for common ground with people and search for ways to unite with them.

      Trump did this. That’s why he was elected. Consider that Hillary had the press on her side, the president in her corner, massive donors supporting her (check out opensecrets.org if you are interested), and as we know the corrupt Democrat political machine cheating for her. She lost.

      Given that many positions divide the country, what should Trump do? Should he tell those who elected him “Just kidding, folks,” and implement policy those who voted for Hillary like? My best guess is look at what Trump has said historically, and those things will be big pushes. Other things he will lead on, such as infrastructure spending, and change minds. And he will reward those who voted for him.

      In any event, I suspect Trump will get his way a lot more than people think. He is a great negotiator, he isn’t stupid, and is surrounding himself with smart people, and so won’t be tricked. So, watch the US change, and watch the world change. I suspect it is going to be a pretty fun ride.

      • I think that we are going to see Trump getting some of what he wants and not everything that he has said he wants.

        That’s how negotiations work.

        It will be interesting to watch how this is covered. We are already seeing “trump is backtracking” reports when he says that there are things in Obomacare that are good.

        Frankly, given what some people are claiming that Trump wants to do, anything that happens is going to be backtracking (rounding up gays and putting them in concentration camps??????? really, who is making this stuff up?)

      • david:

        Trump getting some of what he wants and not everything that he has said he wants.

        Agreed. With the exception of the historical comments, it is hard to know what Trump wants. All of those point to an America with a strong economy. I suspect he will do quite a bit to strengthen America’s economy.

        Hopefully that will involve a great energy policy, that will stick through whatever next administration comes along.

    • Willis Eschenbach

      Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos) | November 18, 2016 at 3:28 pm

      Judith Curry writes:

      Ted Nordhaus poses a question that is profoundly important for those who find Trump appalling to consider:

      Are we taking pragmatic actions to encourage the best impulses of the new administration or are we legitimizing something much darker?

      The only rational option is to take pragmatic actions to encourage the best impulses of the new administration. President Trump deserves a chance to succeed. The onus is on us to find some common ground on policies that will move the country forward.

      I could not disagree more. It is not the people’s responsibility to find common ground with the President. The President is, for better or worse, the leader of the country. He should be concerned with what all people think, feel and want. He should look for common ground with people and search for ways to unite with them.

      Oh, you mean like Obama tried to find common ground with me by throwing my friends in jail?

      Brandon, I don’t know who you are, so I’ll make my usual assumption with people using an alias, which is that you are a fifteen-year-old living in Mom’s basement. I find that if I do that, I’m not as amazed by some of the grandmaster-level-foolish claims that people with aliases often make.

      Any President, currently Obama, is elected based on what is called a “party platform”. He comes in saying he’s going to do things spelled out in that platform. Implicitly, of course, that generally means that he/she is NOT going to implement his/her opponent’s platform.

      The curious idea that once elected the new President should NOT implement his platform, but instead should anger his supporters by implementing what his opponents want to see happen, is why I’m assuming you are fifteen. US politics doesn’t work like that. As Obama famously said, “Elections have consequences”.

      And one of the consequences of this election is that for perhaps the first time in history a President MIGHT ACTUALLY DO SOME OF WHAT HE SAID HE’D DO. I know this is a shock, college students have needed comfort puppies and safe spaces when hearing this bad news, so I’ll give you a minute to collect yourself …

      If this is not clear, read a good textbook on the US political system ,,, or you could just ask Mom to explain it to you.

      w.

      • Willis –

        ==> … for perhaps the first time in history a President MIGHT ACTUALLY DO SOME OF WHAT HE SAID HE’D DO. ==>

        For perhaps the first time in history? I don’t know you Willlis, but I assume that only someone 15 years old and living in his mom’s basement could write something with such total confidence that is so obviously wrong and in contrast to easily available evidence.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Joshua | November 19, 2016 at 12:58 pm |

        Willis –

        ==> … for perhaps the first time in history a President MIGHT ACTUALLY DO SOME OF WHAT HE SAID HE’D DO. ==>

        For perhaps the first time in history? I don’t know you Willlis, but I assume that only someone 15 years old and living in his mom’s basement could write something with such total confidence that is so obviously wrong and in contrast to easily available evidence.

        I should have known you’d miss the point and focus on the meaningless, Joshua. You almost never disappoint me in your foolish predictability. As usual, your insane desire to object to anything and everything I say has led you wrong …

        w.

      • Willis Eschenbach: Brandon, I don’t know who you are, so I’ll make my usual assumption with people using an alias, which is that you are a fifteen-year-old living in Mom’s basement.

        People have diverse good reasons for remaining anonymous on the web. That does not, imo, discredit their opinions. The “Federalist”, to take a classic example, published good work. In this case, I think Brandon S. took umbrage at the many misspellings of his family name.

      • Willis –

        BTW, Brandon S? is your old friend Brandon Shollenberger (sp?). Consider for a minute why Steven and others have responded so personally and angrily to Brandon’s expression of his political views. There are multiple reasons, of course…some perhaps more specific to this particular context, and some more generally related to how identity orientation and views on climate change are associated.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        matthewrmarler | November 19, 2016 at 1:16 pm |

        Willis Eschenbach:

        Brandon, I don’t know who you are, so I’ll make my usual assumption with people using an alias, which is that you are a fifteen-year-old living in Mom’s basement.

        People have diverse good reasons for remaining anonymous on the web. That does not, imo, discredit their opinions. The “Federalist”, to take a classic example, published good work. In this case, I think Brandon S. took umbrage at the many misspellings of his family name.

        Thanks, Matt. You’re correct that people sometimes have good reasons for anonymity on the web. I still assume that the anonymoids are 15-year-olds, because that is the assumption that best fits the group and does the best job explaining the majority of anonymous posts. It also keeps me from getting all upset with the idea that an adult human could actually believe some of the stuff I see posted …

        (The most common reason I see given for anonymity on the climate sites is that they would be harassed or even lose their jobs if they admitted they didn’t buy the climate party line … and therein lies the true measure of the colossal joke that we call “mainstream climate science” … )

        w.

      • Willis –

        Well now, that there’s some kind of accountability. You wander heavily into obviously overwrought and emotionally labile hyperbole, and insult me because I point it out. I think that neither your original error nor your response to me pointing it out are meaningless.

        And so then you double down. I don’t object to anything and everything you write, Willis. I sometimes (a small % of the times it happens) point out where you allow your emotional attachment to issues to influence your reasoning, just as I do with others. No doubt, I do the same, also, and I find it useful when others point it out when I have done so, or when commenters engage with others to help them hold themselves accountable for such commonly found tendencies.

        It is entirely your choice to do with my observations what you think fit.

      • Willis –

        ==> I still assume that the anonymoids are 15-year-olds, because that is the assumption that best fits the group and does the best job explaining the majority of anonymous posts.) ==>

        Another example. Complete confidence in an assertion for which you offer no evidence, and which is, in my opinion, obviously wrong (no only in that you used your rule of thumb wrongly in this case). . I highly doubt that the majority of anonymous posts of any sort are written by 15 year olds in their mom’s basement,be it here, at WUWT, or anywhere else in the blogosphere. More likely, IMO, is that you resorted to a cheap and common ad-hom to defend an error rather than hold yourself accountable for erroneous reasoning behind an erroneous “assumption.” At any rate, have a good rest of your day.

      • And one of the consequences of this election is that for perhaps the first time in history a President MIGHT ACTUALLY DO SOME OF WHAT HE SAID HE’D DO.

        Willis, that is what has the liberals so scared. Bush did not do what he promised, and they figured they could just elect another patsy (or their own).

    • Brandon S: I could not disagree more. It is not the people’s responsibility to find common ground with the President. The President is, for better or worse, the leader of the country.

      This is not an either/or. The Pres has an obligation to try to implement what he promised to implement and in other ways to try to do what he thinks best (with the votes of the Houses of course), and we all have some opportunity/responsibility to push our elected officials according to what we think best.

      ’m not sure I’d call people pointing out those things and many other are disgusting and even evil “throwing tantrums.”

      Some of the people are assembling peaceably to redress grievances, whereas others are obstructing the public on public property, assaulting people, destroying property and generally having tantrums. It’s pretty irrational to burn or stomp upon symbols of the US such as the flag, because the candidate you didn’t prefer won the election under the rules of the Constitution.

      • matthewrmarler, there are certainly people who could reasonably be described as throwing temper tantrums. However, our hostess didn’t refer to some people. She said:

        4-8 years is too long for half of the population to just keep throwing tantrums

        The people engaging in behavior like you describe makes up a tiny portion of the nation’s population. Most people who are unhappy with Trump being elected have not behaved in a manner anything like that. Most of them haven’t done anything that could reasonably be described as “throwing tantrums.”

        If Curry wanted to refer to a small portion of the population as being unreasonable, she could have. She didn’t. Instead, she referred to half the nation as throwing tantrums. I believe it is reasonable to disagree with that characterization.

      • Someone call the Wambulance!

    • Your complaints are so yesterday Brandon.

      When evaluating President Trump against candidate Trump, try considering this: Reality TV is anything but real. It is edited and scripted so that it attracts and keeps the largest number of viewers. Which is exactly what a political campaign strives for.

      The tv show is done for the season. We are looking at a different sort of primetime now. I expect we will see a different sort of Trump.

  3. He won the election. Trump is President Elect. Some people need to get over that, stop whining, and start accepting.

    • “Stop whining” – right on. The blogs are replete with denialism and disbelief. I would agree that things look pretty grim for agw mavens and liberals, but becoming yet another class of deniers will get them nowhere.

      Andy Revkin takes a more adult approach, but his commenters are stuck.

      I have mixed feelings but I’m enjoying the image of Trump jerking John Holdren’s face out of the government trough. Guess he’ll return to academia where he’ll continue to terrify the gullible

    • + 1000

      and to Brandon – your arguments against Trump are exactly that, whining over the fact a candidate you clearly don’t like won. I have always respected your comments on the science here. You are burning through that respect at a fast clip with the poor quality arguments – basically an attack on “straw man” Trump – you have been putting up. Here is a good sign you are off base, you have Josh and Danny in your corner.

      • timg56, I am sure if your political views were reversed, you wouldn’t lose any respect for me over anything I’ve said on this page. The sad reality is this is nothing more than me saying things you dislike and you being unhappy about it.

        Our hostess talks about this sort of thing all the time. It’s called tribalism.

      • Brandon,

        That would be the anonymous CHIEF TimG56, just to be accurate. Surely someone will come along and call him on it.

        Heck, I’m climate skeptical (Luke actually) yet due to my socially liberal leanings (and distaste for Trump) I’m now a pariah. Shifting sands……..

      • If the sky were purple, if Clinton had won, if Unicorns pooped Ice Cream … NOT!

      • So, is adding nicknames your latest little trick Danny?

        News flash Danny, how some here view you has nothing to do with your political leanings. It has every thing to do with your fake balance narrative and how you pose as someone just wanting to learn. I’ll pass on something I learned back when I was in school – if you are interested in learning you spend more time listening than talking.

        Brandon, I voted in two elections where the candidate I voted for lost. I didn’t go out and riot, I didn’t whine about how unfair it was, nor did I attack the winner. So you are talking out your butt when you claim I’d act the same way if the situation were reversed. Lacking respect for whining has nothing to do with political affiliation, unless one believes progressives exhibit a higher propensity to whine.

        I don’t see you as one of those poor snowflakes who needs a coloring book to help deal with your distraught over Hillary losing. But I would expect you to use that God given intelligence of yours to re-evaluate this image you have of Trump. Try asking yourself where it came from.

      • Tim,
        Added nicknames are in response to the nicknames others have addressed my way. Juvenile. You bet. Entertaining. Yeah, what the heck. It’s what I’ve ‘learned’ as to how the game is played.

        My ‘fake’ balance narrative is not fake. It’s how things used to be done. And IMO the only way things will improve. Something for all, but not all for only some. If you appreciate it or not matters not to me. My political leanings I’ve stated clearly. I’m socially quite liberal and moderate fiscally. I don’t trust Trump based on HIS words vs. HIS actions. Clinton is damaged goods, but experience wise head and shoulders above Trump. But Trump is MY president elect. I’ll deal with it and give him his due. But when he’s off base from MY leanings I’ll vocalize and you can respond or ignore. Your choice.

        This is politics. Politics is not an area where I need or desire your extreme positions nor those of many others on both sides. Where I need to learn is on the science end. If you cannot figure out the distinction is on you.

        You know nothing of the conversations I have with my extreme left whom I’ve tried to talk back from the cliff. You obviously don’t recall where I’ve posted anti Clinton, pro (portions) of Trumps supposed proposals.

        It’s not a black and white world, except maybe on whatever planet you live.
        And I’m still a lukewarmer skeptical of the ‘extreme’ AGW positions.

        Get over yourself.

        Signed,
        Danny ‘boy’, Double Deal, SJW, ‘leftist’, Soros empathizer, Snowflake, (and too many other to recall).

      • Here’s your dishonesty in action Danny – “Added nicknames are in response to the nicknames others have addressed my way”

        Fine, except I haven’t used any nicknames when responding to you.

      • Indirectly is the same as directly when it comes to false and ‘juvenile’ representations.

        You’ve painted me as ‘fake’, grouped me as ‘you guys’, IIRC used ‘leftists’. I’ll not bother to find others. One should be sufficient. Take it up an notch and I’ll commit to same.

        And to be clear, oh guilty of grouping one, this was never my approach: “When you all get tired of the Trump’s a bigot, racist, homophobe argument,”
        Direct challenge to prove otherwise, or alternatively, walk it back.

        I give as I get.

      • WOW! Danny does not know the difference between labels and juvenile name calling! No wonder half his posts are unintelligible!

  4. “In my opinion, Foucart is overly alarmed about the Age of Trump.”

    That’s an understatement. When Foucart complains:

    “So, welcome to the ‘trumpocene‘ where the future depends not on the decisions of a single species, but on a single member of that species: Donald Trump.”

    It becomes painfully clear cogent arguments are probably not within his wheelhouse. If the strategy to save the world from really scary climate change hinges upon a single presidency of a single nation, this is a strategy doomed for failure. If the preferred method for saving the world from really scary climate change remains histrionics then I suppose more silly strategies will follow.

  5. You sure that was not filed on the Onion? LOL!!! It gets better every day.

    The only difference between 1980 and 2016 is the Internet. A president back then was supposed to end the world in a hail of nuclear missiles (versus Trump and a hail of anti-science).

    And what happened 36 years ago after all that doom and gloom? The Iron curtain fell. The world’s largest economy went from stagflation and malaise to a 20+ year period of unparalleled expansion.

    Yet even today, the chicken littles still wail and whine about how “evil” he was and how “terrible” he was.

    For us old farts who remember the first “cene” era, we are no longer concerned about it. The Earth will abide. And perhaps some chicken (littles) will find themselves in the pot instead of smoking it.

  6. To understand how the future may evolve, and how citizens may help shape a new order under a Trump Presidency, we might pause a moment to assess whether or not we have sufficient facts to help make such determinations. I honestly don’t think we do.

    A question has nagged at me since election night: why did Trump believe that Hillary’s so called “firewall” states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin were still in play even at the 11th hour such that he held a rally in Grand Rapids Michigan at 1 AM Tuesday morning whereby 31,000+ people attended. ALL of the mainstream media NYT, WaPo, CBS, LaTimes, CNN, USA Today, etc etc had these firewall states in Hillary’s column. The news medial were all wrong, yet Trump knew something that most others didn’t. We know why Hillary lost. What we don’t know is what did Trump know and acted on?

    This uncertainty about how and what kind of information Trump is receiving has resulted in the obvious, we are missing some important pieces to Trump’s thinking and likely deal making for the near term and later.

    As Judith’s denizens have contributed possible scenarios for EPA under a Trump administration, we might consider that the EPA will be a shadow of its former self. Small on regulations, small as in small government, and small in budget. Getting there may include some actions immediately with “pen and phone.” More long term, assessing and proposing which regulatory statutes that need to be dismantled, that have accumulated since the Clean Air Act. One might see a complete rewrite of the CAA, fixing some regulatory freedoms assumed by the present EPA, as well as enshrining the anti-pollution intent of Mid 20th Century. The EPA has played fast and loose with climate science so a reconstituted EPA must have provisions to re-evaluate science as issues become clarified. EPA, in its new clothing, will need to be able to adapt to a changing science scene.

    As for Mr. Stephen Foucart’s expository, he has no more clue of what the future might hold than the NYTs had of why the firewall states were in play. Mr. Trump may tip his hand come his inaugural January 20, 2017, yet, I don’t think so. He plays his cards close to the vest, and keeping the mainstream media at arms length may keep questions from being asked directly and we will continue to receive media expert speculations about Trump’s every move. A lot of good that did for us.

    The Clean Power Plan is toast now. The Water… regulations are part of a colorful history of what can and does go amuck. The Endangerment Finding will take a much longer time to undo.

    • It was worse than that. ALL of the mainstream media NYT, WaPo, CBS, LaTimes, CNN, USA Today, Huffington Post were actively working FOR the Hillary campaign instead of being journalists. The Wikileaks of Podesta’s account showed an absolutely shocking, but hardly surprising, collusion with the Hilary Clinton campaign to first bring down Sanders and then to destroy Trump by any means possible, including outright lying. Some so called journalists even boasted that because Trump was so beyond the pale, they didn’t need to even pretend to abide by the normal rules of unbiased journalism. Instead they decided they had a duty to protect people from Trump by lying, misrepresenting and taking out of context everything he said because they knew better what was good for us. The press were arrogant, condescending, and just plain mean. Trump went right around them and spoke directly to the individuals in the country and he listened to them.
      When the people who came to the Trump rallies were chanting at the press “DO YOUR JOB!” they whined about how Trump was encouraging abuse of them instead of asking themselves why people were so upset with them. And the press are still bewildered, wondering how did all those blue collar white males they so disparagingly mocked, manage to turn out in such large numbers that this monstrous joke of a candidate got elected in spite of them.
      It remains to be seen if Trump has just committed the greatest film flam job of any election or if he will make good on what he says he will. I dread the former but hope for the latter.

    • Mark Twain wrote, if you don’t read the news, you are uninformed, if you do read the news, you are misinformed. WOW, he wrote that more than a hundred years ago.

      • Most people consider history to be a boring topic they were subjected to in school. Which explains why journalists and pundits acted as if this was the most contentious and nasty campaign on record.

        In addition to math and hard science courses being optional in a journalism degree, history courses apparently are as well.

        Except maybe those with gender, race or sexuality in the course title.

    • Unfortunately I do not see much happening it terms of dismantling regulatory statuettes. Laws, once written tend to stay written.

      I’ll be happy with a down sized EPA, with new leadership focused on enforcing existing regulations and dealing with existing problems, not one trying to create new ones to justify its existence.

  7. Relax. Since the president-elect can’t run his business, may not be allowed to fly on his plane or use his twiter account, most likely he will do the business of the presidency from the nearest golf course.

    • He will merge Trump inc with the United States government and out do Britain, as he has already beat France.

    • most likely he will do the business of the presidency from the nearest golf course.

      So, you think he will be much like Obama.

      • According to the CBS news Obama played more than 300 rounds during his presidency. He might not beat that in the first 100 days, but you never can tell …

      • Well he has a couple of princesses and a trio of dukes to do the government’s work while he plays golf.

        300 rounds in 4 years is only a round and a half a week, hardly gets him out of duffer status.

    • “most likely he will do the business of the presidency from the nearest golf course”

      Couldn’t be more wrong. Didn’t you follow the last few weeks of the campaign? He was everywhere and kept very long days. Trump is a workaholic. If he plays golf he will be doing it for a specific purpose, most likely to butter up some important contact.

    • You mean he’ll follow the example of the outgoing President?

    • vukcevic ignorantly writes: “Since the president-elect can’t run his business, may not be allowed to fly on his plane or use his twiter account”

      Actually he can do all of those things, dummy.

  8. Willis Eschenbach

    The part that I like best was the accusation that someone was creating “climatosceptic propaganda” … it’s such a lovely misuse of English.

    w.

    • Come on Willis, it’s well known you were under contract to supply A regular stream of climatoscetic propaganda. Good grief, I Have grown Rch on the funds they have been flinging at us, so you must be a multi millionaire on the proceeds of their largesse.

      It’s a relief that we can now come out into the open instead of pretending we never got funded.

      ( ps you have been to Britain so I don’t need to put the tag’sarc off’)

      Tonyb

  9. “I honestly don’t know what to expect from a Trump administration, and it may be that Trump doesn’t know either.”

    It’s true. Trump doesn’t know what to expect, because he hasn’t negotiated any deals yet!

    If you want to understand Trump, read his book, or listen to him talk about his business life. He is a deal-maker, a negotiator. All of the extreme positions he mentioned in the campaign – build a wall, keep out Muslims, send illegals back – are opening negotiating positions. The are NOT policy positions. This is a typical and successful negotiating ploy, start with an extreme position so that the opposition will panic and then be more likely to agree with your somewhat less extreme position. This is exactly what is happening.

    Trump has started to schmooze with Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney and others. This is also a negotiating tactic. Get the guys you are going to need to help you to be your friends. Butter them up.

    It amazes me that so many people find Trump incomprehensible. He is a typical CEO, although more crude and bombastic than most.

    Trump will make a deal on just about anything. He will do some things to look strong on immigration, but the policies will come from negotiating with his Republican colleagues and even a few Donkeys.

    • bigterguy:

      If you want to understand Trump, read his book,

      I’m not sure which book you have in mind as Donald Trump has “written” a number of them. He didn’t really write them though. He had other people ghost-write them. This is no secret. Trump even lists the real authors on the covers of his books as co-authors. From what some of those co-authors say, I wouldn’t even assume Trump has read his own books.

      For what it’s worth, and I make no claims of knowing how accurate what he says is, the ghost writer for The Art of the Deal said:

      “I helped to paint Trump as a vastly more appealing human being than he actually is. And I have no pride about that. … I did it for the money. It’s certainly weighed on me over the years,”

      • I was thinking of The Art of the Deal. He lives for making deals. He says think big, as big as possible. He comes right out and says do whatever you can within the law. And he is all about getting leverage. That’s what his outrageous proposals are about. He gets leverage because the others are thinking how awful it sounds and are happy to settle for something less outrageous, something that they would NEVER have considered at the start.

      • Well, you’re referring people to a book Donald Trump didn’t write, but rather, was written by a person who says he deceived people to make Trump look better. I hope people will take that in to account when considering whether or not to read the book.

      • “Well, you’re referring people to a book Donald Trump didn’t write, but rather, was written by a person who says he deceived people to make Trump look better.”

        Literary critic Leon Edel encouraged biographers to be as imaginative as they please so long as they do not imagine the facts. James Clifford, in recognizing that biographies do not fit so tidily into clear and recognizable sub genres, suggested they are more like a continuum proposing five distinct types, one of which he calls the “artistic-scholarly biography” where the biographer plays more of a “imaginative creative artist, presenting the details in the liveliest and most interesting manner possible”, categorizing his own biography ‘Young Sam Johnson’ in this category.

        It is folly to assume biographies are paragons of facts and ghostwriters should be treated with even less credence.

        “Metaphors are much more tenacious than facts.”

        ~Paul De Man~

      • Grow up Brandon. “He didn’t even write them.” Ignoring for the moment that ghost writing has been with us probably as long as writing has, there is the tiny fact that Trump lists his writers. Not every one does.

    • I seem to recall and old Cold War adage, “What is mine is mine. What is yours, we will negotiate.”

  10. Of course, the quotes in the main post are from members of the media and other elite. So far, I see three main threads from the left:

    1. They are going to whine and protest until everyone else vomits and tunes them out.
    2. They will continue to mischaracterize Trump and the people around him.
    3. They will complain that Trump’s picks for his administration aren’t the one’s Dimowits want.

    You lost. Get over it.

    • Ooops! 4 things:

      4. They are very unhappy they can’t control conversations on the internet. The thing is, most of the negative things said about the Dimowits and Billary in particular were true. Get over it.

      • They will also point out things like Donald Trump and his staff are making references to the illegal and immoral internment of Japanese people during World War II as precedent for policies they are considering regarding Muslim people. Maybe you feel that’s unreasonable, but I think it is newsworthy.

      • Maybe you could shed a few tears. That would make you more believable.

      • The reference to the internments of the Japanese in WW2 are simply to make any proposal Trump comes up with seem much less awful by comparison. He is working the refs.

      • jim2, you may not care, but given there are people living today who lived in internment camps, it is likely to offend at least some people that Donald Trump and/or his staff are using those internment camps as part of the rhetoric they use to justify their potential policies regarding Muslim people.

        Some people may not mind it. Some people may even call it a smart ploy. Personally, I think it is disgusting. The idea a president’s staff would discuss the internment of Japanese people as anything other than a terrible and shameful moment in United States history that should never be replicated to any extent worries me.

      • People need to be a little less sensitive. Denying housing or a job to someone of another race is deplorable. Hurting someones feelings, not so much.

        And you didn’t even supply a link to back up your allegations about this Japanese internment thing. Where did you read that?

      • jim2, there’s a difference between “hurting someones feelings” and “Suggesting immoral and illegal actions taken in the past should be used as precedent for plans of the future.” That people will be offended by the latter doesn’t mean it’s just about their feelings getting hurt.

        As for where this was said, I saw it come up on television recently, but it’s nothing new. People talked about how Trump cited the Japanese internment as precedent last year, back when he called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims” entering the country. That statement of his garnered a lot of attention, and Trump cited the Japanese interment in his responses to it. You can see some of it discussed here.

        As you’ll see, Trump doesn’t call for or support interment camps, but he cites them as precedent for his ideas. Presumably, this means his ideas wouldn’t go as far as actually rounding people up, confiscating everything they own and putting them in prisons for years on end without any due process. Just how far short his ideas would fall is an open question.

      • It’s very questionable Trump or his team said anything to do with Japanese internment. So, until you provide proof, I don’t have anything to say.

        The desire to ban Muslims and seal the border is absolutely a rational thing to do. He said we ban them until we can sort the violent from the benign, ones who can conform to Western values and those who can’t. I’m all for it. It’s not racist and it’s not xenophobic. It’s just good sense.

      • jim2:

        It’s very questionable Trump or his team said anything to do with Japanese internment. So, until you provide proof, I don’t have anything to say.

        And apparently you have nothing to say even after I provide two links in which Donald Trump himself talked about Japanese internment. I’m not sure if that means you don ‘t consider the links proof or if you just can’t be bothered to acknowledge the links people provide.

        The desire to ban Muslims and seal the border is absolutely a rational thing to do.

        I think you and I will have to disagree on this one, especially since you say:

        He said we ban them until we can sort the violent from the benign, ones who can conform to Western values and those who can’t. I’m all for it. It’s not racist and it’s not xenophobic.

        You can never tell what is in people’s hearts. The goal you describe is literally impossible, whether it be applied to immigrants or people who have been citizens their entire life. Moreover, any implementation of it would likely make matters worse by encouraging the very behavior the plan is supposed to prevent.

        But hey, you said you’re not racist or xenophobic, so I guess everything’s okay…?

      • Brandon partial quotes out of context are not nice. Trump did not say…”“a total and complete shutdown of Muslims”. Donald J. Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” And that within the context of previous sentences placing his use of the term Muslim in the context of Muslims from countries where radical Islamic terrorism is rampant and the official government position on the USA is blind hatred. You are as bad as CNN representing what he said. Shame on you!

      • tumbleweedstumbling, you just truncated my sentence by saying:

        Brandon partial quotes out of context are not nice. Trump did not say…”“a total and complete shutdown of Muslims”.

        When I clearly went on to say more. My sentence would not have made any sense if I ended it where you claim. It’s like you can unplug Muslim or flip an off-switch to put them in “shutdown” mode. Rather than making ridiculous remarks:

        You are as bad as CNN representing what he said. Shame on you!

        Why don’t you try actually quoting what people say? And I don’t mean posting fabricated quotes like what you posted upthread. Misquoting people and fabricating quotes serves no legitimate purpose.

      • You are so full of crap Brandon. The link to Trump’s web site said nothing about Japanese internment. The second one mentions it as hearsay.

        You don’t have anything other than hot air. You are wasting our time with your lefty BS.

      • jim2, it is interesting you label a news organization directly quoting what a person says as “hearsay.” Under that standard, newspapers have been publishing “hearsay” for hundreds of years since they rarely provide original sources. I hope that was not your intended meaning.

        You are right, however, to point out Trump did not mention the Japanese internment in the first link I provided. I misspoke in my last comment. The first link only covered the statement Trump made which led to him talking about the Japanese internment. I should not have conflated the two things.

        By the way, it is good to know I am spouting “lefty BS.” Apparently we’ve reached the point where any disagreement on this site must be due to nothing more than partisanship.

      • It is hearsay. Ask any lawyer. It works both ways. In this age of camera phones, if you do not have it recorded, it does not exist. Just ask Hillary.

      • Brandon – cut and paste from the Castro article where Trump said he wants to set up internment for Muslims. It’s not in there.

      • jim2:

        Brandon – cut and paste from the Castro article where Trump said he wants to set up internment for Muslims. It’s not in there.

        Breaking news everybody. An article doesn’t say something nobody ever claimed it says! Hat tip to jim2 for pointing out this incredible development! Please ignore the fact the comment this article was provided in said:

        As you’ll see, Trump doesn’t call for or support interment camps, but he cites them as precedent for his ideas. Presumably, this means his ideas wouldn’t go as far as actually rounding people up, confiscating everything they own and putting them in prisons for years on end without any due process. Just how far short his ideas would fall is an open question.

        You should ignore that the comment specifically points out Trump doesn’t call for internment camps. Otherwise you might be baffled by jim2 saying an article cited in the comment does not show Trump calling for internment camps.

      • So somewhere, out of thin air apparently, you have associated Japanese internment camps with Trump. OK, Brandon. Brilliant as usual.

      • I followed your link Brandon. You are losing it. You have a claim initiated by a Democratic Representative during an election campaign that even the dubious source Politfact rates as half true at best. But go ahead. Keep viewing what Trump says literally, rather than seriously weighing all of the possible connotations. I don’t mind you looking foolish if you don’t.

      • David Springer

        Brandon what did the Japanese do with Americans in Japan during WWII?

        How are Christians treated in Muslim countries?

      • “How are Christians treated in Muslim countries?”

        But Mommy! They do it!!!!!!

      • David Springer

        rec·i·proc·i·ty
        ˌresəˈpräsədē/
        noun
        the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one country or organization to another.

        —————————————————-

        We should treat Muslims in the US exactly like Christians are treated in Muslim countries. It’s only fair.

      • “We should treat Muslims in the US exactly like Christians are treated in Muslim countries.”

        val·ue
        ˈvalyo͞o/Submit
        noun
        plural noun: values
        1.
        the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
        2.
        a person’s principles or standards of behavior; one’s judgment of what is important in life.

        Don’t hold yourself to a high standard there little fella.

    • Jim2, to put it more succinctly, Elections have consequences.

  11. Just when I thought the political rhetoric couldn’t get any more ridiculous.

  12. Surpringly, I didn’t have to walk miles to get clean water this morning, nor did I have to spend the day gathering fuel to keep warm or cook food. Maybe that’s the future that climate change sees. That’s one way to separate the would be rulers from the seething masses. Who cares, you don’t have time to worry about a sheet of ice slipping off into the sea. And if it does, you don’t have the resources to do anything about.
    Where people have hopes and dreams, the countries are rich, prosperous, and strong. Where they are ruled by fear, fantasy, and magic, they are poor, weak and stagnant. I see climate change as a giant step backwards.

    • The Informed Consumer

      @rishrac

      Possibly the most bizarre distortion of human progression I think I have ever seen.

      Were it not for fossil fuel derived energy, we westerners would be walking miles for dirty water and cooking food over scavenged wood fires, in mud huts, that kill prematurely because of fume inhalation.

      Indeed the very people we deprive of fossil fuel energy because of the western world’s desire to make even more money from the poor, are still suffering the fate of death from poverty.

      Whilst you undoubtedly bemoan the future of your kids at the hands of GW, millions of peasants are dying, right now, today, as I type this!

      For what? An entirely unproven theory that CO2 causes global temperature rise? Find the proof for that simple premise and you will be a very wealthy individual because there is none. Yet you condemn people to death because of your imagined intellectual and social superiority.

      I implore you to read the following and understand that the debate is no longer scientific, nor political, it’s financial. Whilst peasants die, people profit. You might fall into one or other camp in the very near future. http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

      • TIC,

        I might be wrong, but I think rishrac was being ironically sarcastic, or maybe sarcastically ironic.

        Simply, I assume rishrac agrees with you. I hope I’m correct!

        Cheers.

      • ” .. your imagined intellectual and social superiority.. ”

        My remarks were and are scarcatist towards the global warming people. At the enormous good that has come from using fossil fuels. It is a comparison and contrast between people who use fossil fuels and those that don’t.

  13. From the article:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ confidence in the U.S. economy increased sharply after the election, moving from a slightly negative evaluation (-10) to a slightly positive one (+3). Gallup’s U.S. Economic Confidence Index had been consistently negative throughout the year leading up to the election.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/197474/economic-confidence-surges-election.aspx?g_source=WWWV7HP&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

  14. From the article:

    PRINCETON, N.J. — Donald Trump’s favorable rating has improved from 34% to 42% after his election as president. While a majority in the U.S. still have an unfavorable view of him, his image is the best it has been since March 2011 when 43% viewed him positively.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/197576/trump-favorability-trails-presidents-elect.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

  15. The onus is on those who wish to influence policy to find some common ground on policies that will move the country forward.

    Here, here to hat!

  16. Fixing Obama’s mess is a big job
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/donald-trumps-job-is-to-fix-barack-obamas-mess/news-story/1fadf780688e3eb37034f3acd5769325

    “Twenty years from now, Americans may look back on Tuesday November 8, 2016, as the day they voted to reject their continuing slide into mediocrity and set out to make their nation great again.

    This US presidential election exposed what author Ayn Rand ominously foretold 70 years ago: “When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods but in favours — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your ­society is doomed.”

    Generations of Americans have taken for granted that their system’s checks and balances would protect them from such a fate. They took pride in what ­author Samuel Huntington calls the “American Creed”, from which flows equality before the law, equality of opportunity, freedom of speech and association, self-reliance, limited government, free markets, and decentralised and devolved public authority.

    When freedom’s flame was flickering elsewhere, this creed enabled a diverse cultural melting pot to become an assimilated superpower, home to half the world’s gross domestic product.

    That was before a succession of Robin Hood presidents imposed their glib socialist ideals on a gullible and unsuspecting public.

    Unsurprisingly, an enthusiastic Barack Obama was one of them. By his own account, he was a radical student who, “to avoid being mistaken for a sellout”, mixed with “politically active black students, foreign students, Marxist professors and structural feminists”.

    He is what political commentator Mark Steyn calls, “the first invented American president”.

    In office, Obama seems happier campaigning than governing.

    Social issues rather than economic reforms occupy his mind. In the interminable culture wars being waged by the Left, he lends presidential authority to achieve “progressive” outcomes.

    Most recently, he opened a new front with his advocacy for gay and transgender rights. His support of affirmative action and the Black Lives Matter movement upsets Middle America, which resents the relentless attack on its traditional values.

    Obama is responsible for more executive orders than any other president. His environmental, wage and social policies are economically harmful. The cost of his administration’s regulations alone is estimated to be $US1.9 trillion ($2.53 trillion). His universal healthcare scheme has left millions of people facing skyrocketing premiums and fewer choices.

    Despite his upbeat rhetoric, 45 million Americans are on food stamps and 94 million have left the workforce. Food, energy, health and housing inflation has reduced today’s wage earners’ buying power to below what it was 30 years ago.

    In contrast, Obama’s insiders have prospered. They have used influence and access to extract extra­ordinary windfall gains.

    This is the America that president-elect Donald Trump inherits. It is deeply divided. It is run by elites and big government. Its economy is ailing and distorted. It is over-leveraged and suffers an income gap that has widened more under Obama than any other president.

    Trump’s victory owes nothing to the Republican Party, many of whose leaders deserted him, or Wall Street, which eagerly supported Hillary Clinton, Hollywood celebrities and pop stars, whose ringing Clinton endorsements counted for nothing, let alone a media establishment that is now apologising for its biased campaign coverage.

    Nevertheless, Trump must keep faith with his supporters.

    He must create jobs, drain the Washington swamp, champion the repeal of burdensome regulations, simplify the tax code and make budget cuts that a structurally challenged economy needs.

    He will need to rein in the Federal Reserve and abandon the US commitment to the UN’s COP 21 agreement. He also is obligated to overhaul Obama’s affordable care act.

    But other than promise tax cuts and to restrict free trade, Trump has yet to present a coherent economic plan. He gives no clues as to how he intends to tackle the budget cuts necessary to finance lower taxes. He may attack the Federal Reserve for its recklessness but gives no insights as to how he will rein it in. The Fed should be reined in. Former Office of Management and Budget head David Stockman estimates it takes $US4 of debt to create $US1 of economic growth.

    But he warns the debt already created is well beyond what any likely income and wages growth can support. He believes, one way or another, $US30 trillion of debt will have to be cut. “Last time such a reversion occurred, the period was known as the Great Depression,” he says.

    Depression or not, Trump can’t ignore the danger.

    The next financial crisis may be more prolonged and hit Middle America harder than the last. Without economic restructure, conventional remedies can provide only temporary relief.

    Risks are more concentrated than in 2008 and confidence in governments and central banks is already badly shaken. That said, despite a Trump White House and a Republican House of Representatives and Senate, the amount of political boat-rocking required for legislated change could still see courage take flight. Already Trump is hedging on the Mexican wall, will keep aspects of Obama­care and has “not thought about” a special prosecutor to look into Clinton’s alleged indiscretions.

    Meanwhile, the widespread post-election anti-Trump protests continue in a desperate attempt to hang on to the Obama legacy.

    At heart, the Obama establishment is authoritarian and will resort to undemocratic means if necessary. Draining the swamp will reveal many alligators.

    The Donald has been under­estimated many times before. With the support of the US people, he may prove the pundits wrong, yet again. Or will he?”

    • “Obama seems happier campaigning than governing.”

      Obama is a self-righteous scold. On the campaign trail he can get on his high horse and tell people how to behave. With Congress et al, not so much.

    • “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”
      GK Chesterton– ILN, 4/19/24
      Some things seem to never change, even when you hope for it.

  17. Progressives believe the caricature of Trump just like they believe the caricature of the climate issue.

    I personally know five people with post graduate educations that actually believe Trump sturm troopers may come with trucks and take them away.

    The anti-depressants do not appear to be working.

    • I personally know five people with post graduate educations that actually believe Trump sturm troopers may come with trucks and take them away.

      When people mentate like that I always wonder whether perhaps, deep down, they believe they deserve to be treated like that.

    • Five people

      Wow, just wow. Goes to show high levels of education don’t guarantee critical thinking skills or common sense.

    • That’s the problem with this idea we shouldn’t hurt feelings. First, you never know if it’s just a load of BS from a lefty claiming his/her feelings were hurt. And even if feelings are hurt, it could be for irrational reasons.

      Given these considerations, I don’t take ownership of your feelings – you do.

    • I personally know five people with post graduate educations that actually believe Trump sturm troopers may come with trucks and take them away.

      Unfortunately that is just wishful thinking and won’t happen.

      However if someone does see a recruitment link for Trump Storm Troopers please pass it along. Being a Trump Storm Trooper would rock.

    • What exactly makes you a progressive?

  18. Relevant article in yesterday’s Australian

    Fixing Obama’s mess is a big job
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/donald-trumps-job-is-to-fix-barack-obamas-mess/news-story/1fadf780688e3eb37034f3acd5769325

    “Twenty years from now, Americans may look back on Tuesday November 8, 2016, as the day they voted to reject their continuing slide into mediocrity and set out to make their nation great again.

    This US presidential election exposed what author Ayn Rand ominously foretold 70 years ago: “When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods but in favours — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your ­society is doomed.”

    Generations of Americans have taken for granted that their system’s checks and balances would protect them from such a fate. They took pride in what ­author Samuel Huntington calls the “American Creed”, from which flows equality before the law, equality of opportunity, freedom of speech and association, self-reliance, limited government, free markets, and decentralised and devolved public authority.

    When freedom’s flame was flickering elsewhere, this creed enabled a diverse cultural melting pot to become an assimilated superpower, home to half the world’s gross domestic product.

    That was before a succession of Robin Hood presidents imposed their glib socialist ideals on a gullible and unsuspecting public.

    Unsurprisingly, an enthusiastic Barack Obama was one of them. By his own account, he was a radical student who, “to avoid being mistaken for a sellout”, mixed with “politically active black students, foreign students, Marxist professors and structural feminists”.

    He is what political commentator Mark Steyn calls, “the first invented American president”. ”

    cont…

    • … cont

      “In office, Obama seems happier campaigning than governing.

      Social issues rather than economic reforms occupy his mind. In the interminable culture wars being waged by the Left, he lends presidential authority to achieve “progressive” outcomes.

      Most recently, he opened a new front with his advocacy for gay and transgender rights. His support of affirmative action and the Black Lives Matter movement upsets Middle America, which resents the relentless attack on its traditional values.

      Obama is responsible for more executive orders than any other president. His environmental, wage and social policies are economically harmful. The cost of his administration’s regulations alone is estimated to be $US1.9 trillion ($2.53 trillion). His universal healthcare scheme has left millions of people facing skyrocketing premiums and fewer choices.

      Despite his upbeat rhetoric, 45 million Americans are on food stamps and 94 million have left the workforce. Food, energy, health and housing inflation has reduced today’s wage earners’ buying power to below what it was 30 years ago.

      In contrast, Obama’s insiders have prospered. They have used influence and access to extract extra­ordinary windfall gains.

      This is the America that president-elect Donald Trump inherits. It is deeply divided. It is run by elites and big government. Its economy is ailing and distorted. It is over-leveraged and suffers an income gap that has widened more under Obama than any other president.

      Trump’s victory owes nothing to the Republican Party, many of whose leaders deserted him, or Wall Street, which eagerly supported Hillary Clinton, Hollywood celebrities and pop stars, whose ringing Clinton endorsements counted for nothing, let alone a media establishment that is now apologising for its biased campaign coverage. ”

      cont …

      • … cont

        “Nevertheless, Trump must keep faith with his supporters.

        He must create jobs, drain the Washington swamp, champion the repeal of burdensome regulations, simplify the tax code and make budget cuts that a structurally challenged economy needs.

        He will need to rein in the Federal Reserve and abandon the US commitment to the UN’s COP 21 agreement. He also is obligated to overhaul Obama’s affordable care act.

        But other than promise tax cuts and to restrict free trade, Trump has yet to present a coherent economic plan. He gives no clues as to how he intends to tackle the budget cuts necessary to finance lower taxes. He may attack the Federal Reserve for its recklessness but gives no insights as to how he will rein it in. The Fed should be reined in. Former Office of Management and Budget head David Stockman estimates it takes $US4 of debt to create $US1 of economic growth.

        But he warns the debt already created is well beyond what any likely income and wages growth can support. He believes, one way or another, $US30 trillion of debt will have to be cut. “Last time such a reversion occurred, the period was known as the Great Depression,” he says.

        Depression or not, Trump can’t ignore the danger.

        The next financial crisis may be more prolonged and hit Middle America harder than the last. Without economic restructure, conventional remedies can provide only temporary relief.

        Risks are more concentrated than in 2008 and confidence in governments and central banks is already badly shaken. That said, despite a Trump White House and a Republican House of Representatives and Senate, the amount of political boat-rocking required for legislated change could still see courage take flight. Already Trump is hedging on the Mexican wall, will keep aspects of Obama­care and has “not thought about” a special prosecutor to look into Clinton’s alleged indiscretions.

        Meanwhile, the widespread post-election anti-Trump protests continue in a desperate attempt to hang on to the Obama legacy.

        At heart, the Obama establishment is authoritarian and will resort to undemocratic means if necessary. Draining the swamp will reveal many alligators.

        The Donald has been under­estimated many times before. With the support of the US people, he may prove the pundits wrong, yet again. Or will he? ”

        By Maurice Newman in the Australian: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/donald-trumps-job-is-to-fix-barack-obamas-mess/news-story/1fadf780688e3eb37034f3acd5769325

      • David Springer

        Lessee… who should I believe about Trump’s economic message:

        1) a dipshiit blog commenter from Australia with no economic credentials whatsoever

        2) investors on Wall Street driving the DJIA to an all time record high immediately following Trump’s election

        Tough choice. /sarc

      • I’d trust Maurice Newman over troll Springer any day:

        Maurice Lionel Newman AC* until March 2012 was the Chairperson of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation,[2] as well as former chair of the board of the Australian Stock Exchange. He was Chancellor of Macquarie University until 2008. On 31 March 2012, he stood down as Chair of the ABC …. Newman was appointed to the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council in September 2013. His term on the council expired in September 2015.

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

        * AC = Companion of the Order of Australia
        [i.e. he is recognised for his substantial contribution to Australia]

      • David Springer

        Try trusting your eyes, dopey. DOW immediately set a new record high November 9th, doubled down on it November 10th, and is still at the new record high on November 21. This is people with skin in the game voting with their wallets. Write that down.

      • Wow! That’s all Trump! We’re all gonna be rich! Rich, I say! It was all Trump and had nothing to do with anything prior to the confirmation that the savior has arrived!

        Rich!

        (Um, wonder why it was so ‘near’ an all time high?)

      • Phil,
        “Quantitative Easing.” Okay. Follow that squirrel. First QE therefore (according to you) was the only reason for support fiscally and discussion wise confirming nearness to the all time high. Then based on Springer’s contention folks musta been voting ‘for’ QE with their wallets. Doesn’t that them make it ‘a good thing’?

      • There is no squirrel to follow. You asked a question, I answered it. It is not a debate. It is not a “first” or a “then”. It is an answer to a question. Period.

        You are free to disagree with the answer, but then you would have to do actual research to find out what you are talking about.

        Perhaps you should learn to ask questions. Follow your own squirrel.

    • ‘…This US presidential election exposed what author
      Ayn Rand ominously foretold 70 years ago: “When you
      see that in order to produce, you need to obtain
      permission from men who produce nothing — when you
      see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods
      but in favours — when you see that men get richer by
      graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t
      protect you against them — when you see corruption
      being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice
      — you may know that your ­society is doomed.”

      … Ain’t it the truth.

  19. Enforce the Information Quality Act on NASA/NOAA with complete transparency

    Per the Information Quality Act, the US OMB provides Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies
    These:

    “(2) require that each Federal agency to which the guidelines apply-
    “(A) issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by the agency, by not later than 1 year after the date of issuance of the guidelines under subsection (a);
    “(B) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines issued under subsection (a);

    One of the greatest contributions Trump could make would be to appoint a person who will apply this together with the high standard of scientific integrity described by Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman in Cargo Cult Science.

    • Well, all he really needs is to create a red team to rigorously review every single climate study used to justify government action. Only studies that pass review would be eligible for agency consideration.

      Any fraud, misconduct, or gross incompetence found in the studies would result in debarments.

  20. The “Trumpocene” will leave other footprints, too. Environmental policies are based on scientific knowledge, notably acquired by institutions such as NASA, NOAA and particularly the EPA: one of the primary preoccupation of the Trump administration will be to constrain as far as possible the acquisition of that knowledge.

    And that this is going to happen is not in doubt. In his transition team, Mr Trump has handed the destiny of EPA to Myron Ebel who has had connections to Philip Morris and is also associated with the Comparative Enterprise Institute – one of the think-tanks that has contributed most to the attack on environmental science, and to drafting and distributing climatosceptic propaganda.

    This is why I voted for Trump. I don’t see the problem with this. We have had 8 years of “CO2 is bad” studies, we should have 8 years of “CO2 is good” studies.

  21. The Informed Consumer

    If I might butt in on an American debate; a comment from a Brit. Firstly, the concept of Trump being an abusive womaniser based on his wandering round a beauty pageants dressing room.

    1. It seems it was a regular occurrence, so why did girls keep turning up to the pageants?
    2. The guys a billionaire, he could employ legions of women to walk around naked daily. If we imagine the guy wastes his intellectual energy on naked women and still made billions we are deluded.
    3. He may be a boorish Alpha male but at least he’s not a paedophile. Perhaps wearing his masculinity on his sleeve is not such a bad thing.
    4. For a bit of fame, and perhaps even some cash, some people will do, and say anything. Have any of the accusations levelled at Trump been proven? If not, then they are worthless.
    5. I was in the Police Force and I can assure you that Trumps ‘locker room banter’ was the norm, indeed, ours was an awful lot worse, frequently provoked by Policewomen. However, it never influenced the way we treated the public and in my experience, those most repugnant privately were frequently the ones most sensitive to the unfortunate plight of others.
    6. Believe it or not, successful businessmen don’t exist because they are unpopular, on the contrary, they are usually charming, clever, personable people who recognise that if a deal isn’t good for both parties, it’s not a good deal. That does not mean they are not ruthless when they need to be, but I would be prepared to bet that 80% of Trumps, employees with regular personal contact with him, find him a pleasure to work for. And I’ll bet the people who are prepared to work as hard as he, are rewarded handsomely.

    As for Judith’s original article (sorry to have digressed) It appears to me that America was burdened with the same problems as the UK; dragged into a left-wing, moralist, hand-wringing, micro-managing, control-freak, politically correct society, that craved the opportunity to make up its own mind what it did; not find itself manipulated into satisfying the will of a government.

    The two party politics in both country’s, branded left and right, give voters little choice. But we in the UK have absolutely no idea what right wing politics are, Americ style, as people in the US have no idea what left wing politics, British style, are like. Right wing Americans (even moderates) expect people to stand on their own two feet, pay for their healthcare, education and housing etc. whilst the left in the UK expect all that, and more, to be paid for by the state. Far right politics in the UK is nearer to lukewarm left in the US.

    So these comments coming from a French commentator are utterly irrelevant as they operate on an entirely different level to both the US and the UK. Double standards are just a way of life in France as far as I can gather, they just don’t realise they adopt it, and likely never will. They seem more entrenched in playing the game than expecting a result.

    Now I come to the inevitable Brexit/Trump phenomenon. Why either of them happened will be analysed ad nauseam for generations to come by the naval gazers who imagine they can find the E=MC2 equation to predict the next monumental, life changing event. Sadly, those with better things to do with their time often get dragged into wasting their time discussing it. Which includes people on scientific forums (ahem).

    What’s our future with Donald Trump and Theresa May? I’m hopeful we might be pleasantly surprised, but then I’m an optimist who believes that change is more often good than bad. May is beginning to struggle politically and could do with some moral support. I suspect she and Trump will get on well as one is as bloody-mindedly determined as the other. “a bloody difficult woman” I think the quote was from one of her close associates. She managed to get a radical Muslim Cleric, who was required to live in the UK for years at taxpayer expense by the EU, deported to Jordan to be tried for terrorism and murder. I understand (although I’m not an expert) the EU court of human rights stopped the UK government from deporting him because he might be tortured in the country in which he committed his offences. In the meantime, he spread his hateful radicalism in the UK (We could use some help here America!). By one msm account, May virtually escorted him to the plane herself before yet another appeal could be mounted. I expect Trump will respect her determination, as do I.

    Do either of them need to seek the support of the public? I sincerely hope not, other than by getting results which, I believe, was the failing of three successive Prime Ministers, Blair, Brown and Cameron. Their obsession with appearing ‘nice chaps’ in the PR merry go round, diverted them from the objective of ensuring the UK is a prosperous, well defended, fair and just society. Having said that, the EU bureaucratic machine imposed impossible demands on their member states. It is an impossible experiment in nation building based on unproven theories dictated by unelected bureaucrats. If ever there were a prelude to another European war, the EU is it. Would the US be dragged in, once again? Yer darned tootin’.

    The real big question as far as we, on this, and other AGW sceptical forums, are concerned is will Trump follow through with our belief/hope that he’ll crush the maniacal campaign to save the world.

    Now, this really does worry me, a lot. I’m sure you are all aware of the global influence carbon trading has on the financial markets but if you don’t (and even if you think you do), read this short description, from JoNova’s site in Australia. The numbers involved are staggering and make it almost impossible to unravel the AGW myth, even if it’s exposed as such because the financial world is now so entrenched in it. http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

    In my belief, the AGW battleground has shifted far beyond our reach without us even realising it. It’s no longer a scientific, nor a political issue, it’s a global financial imperative.

    Will Trump succeed in bringing the GW myth to heel? Frankly, I don’t care if the guy f**ks pigs in his spare time, I hope he does succeed. But I suspect it’s beyond anyone now.

    Signed,
    An Optimist.

    • Nice summary!

    • The Informed Consumer,

      Are naval gazers related to train spotters?

      Sorry. I’m not trying to ruin your worthwhile comment. The Devil makes me do it!

      Cheers.

      • The Informed Consumer

        Train spotters are far more worthwhile than naval gazers. Theirs is a hobby that documents a microcosm of history. Naval gazers examine fluff. At least trains go Coo Choo :)

      • TIC,

        Naval gazers ships probably go Coo Coo Ka Choo!

        Apologies again. I like an inadvertent typo. I like your comment, too.

        Cheers.

    • Oh I like that. I think I will use it to.Well said.

    • The Informed Consumer? Isn’t your species extinct?

    • I would place free healthcare at least at the same level as a free school education, and it is probably even more fundamentally needed. A civilized society does both for all its citizens regardless of income.

      • Jimd

        Agree on both counts

        The only caveat I would put on free healthcare is that it becomes very elastic and all sorts of things get treated which arguably are not core issues. So limits need to be set on what sort of things should not be treated free, else the budget will run away
        Tonyb

      • With the best will in the world, medical conditions have nothing to do with a successful ‘free’ healthcare system.

      • Free healthcare is nice, we have had it in the UK for generations. But in an increasing globalised world when open borders are encouraged, virtually everyone in the UK is concerned that we become the free healthcare capital of Europe. It is one of the major problems with immigration, which also includes free housing and generous welfare provision for the unemployed.

        We don’t want to lose these benefits for people who have worked hard and contributed to our community, but when healthcare tourists and immigrants attracted to an ‘easy life’ are threatening to overload the system, Brexit happens.

        Can we be universally kind? I expect every citizen in the UK would say yes, but when you are left carrying the financial can for the rest of the world, it becomes very difficult to afford.

      • How about free guns? Or what about free printing presses for anyone who wants to go into media, or free amplifiers and microphones, or at the very least megaphones to facilitate the right to speech? What level would you place free convention centers to facilitate the right to peaceable assembly? And free churches? Why stop with healthcare and education if you’re going to stick with this “free” fantasy?

      • What problem does free guns solve?

      • Up to a point, all the things you mention are virtually free in the UK.

        We are allowed weapons, the cost is negligible but the access is controlled. Megaphones and amplifiers e.g. the internet are low cost, our local town halls are extraordinarily cheap to rent out for assembly, churches equally.

        I really don’t know where you’re going with this, you just seem to be picking fights.

        What’s your problem?

      • “What problem does free guns solve?”

        Show me how this so called “free education” has “solved” problems.

      • Show me a country without free education, and we can take a look.

      • “virtually free”

        Virtually free is not free and there is nothing that is free and running around equating wealth redistribution with free stuff is tantamount to picking fights…so what’s your problem?

      • “Show me a country without free education, and we can take a look.”

        If tax supported education solves problems there is demonstrable evidence to support this. If you cannot find this evidence Jim, what makes you so sure tax supported education is worth the cost?

      • You seem opposed to free education? Every country sees the value of investing in their future through providing a basic education. The problems of illiteracy and innumeracy are solved by this. Countries with higher rates of these are considered backwards. The lowest rates are found in Africa and Afghanistan. These would not be your model countries.

      • I don’t think there is any disagreement that some free education is good.

        But I think there is a lot of disagreement as to the idea that ‘more is better’. The idea that Obama was floating that college should be free seems to be rather questionable to many.

        There’s also the problem that an improperly managed school system can turn into political brainwashing (which many argue has happened in many parts of the US)

      • That is a way of addressing the new reality that unskilled jobs are in less demand, being normally done more cheaply in other countries, and America’s role in the world now goes more towards skilled and tech jobs that require education beyond high school. It is a recognition of a trend in job skills. It is always framed in these terms.

      • A quirk of man. That which you work hardest for, you treasure more. The problem with “free College” is that almost everyone would take it (to avoid responsibility) but only a few would actually do anything (or graduate) with it. Public education is mandatory, yet that does not stop a significant percentage (upwards of 70% in some schools) to never graduate. To them it is not a valued thing, and neither would college be.

      • “You seem opposed to free education?”

        You seem opposed to honesty? If your cause is so just JIm, you don’t need to twist the truth. It is okay to call it what it is if it is just. Tax supported education is not “free”.

        “Every country sees the value of investing…”

        Investors expect a return on their investment and mixing your metaphors is not helping your case.

        “The problems of illiteracy and innumeracy are solved by this.”

        Roughly 32 million adults are considered to be illiterate in the U.S. according to the Department of Education in a 2009 report. To confound that matter is the problem of defining “literacy”. There are, to be kind, methodological issues with determining the literacy rate. The U.S. Census Bureau counts as part of the “literate” those people who merely say they can read and write. How many of those people are the same people who use acronyms like tl;dr, I wonder?

        Also, the Census Bureaus reliance on written forms to determine illiteracy rates necessarily excludes those people who didn’t fill out the forms because they are…well, illiterate.

        Ya get what ya pay for.

      • Like I said, if you oppose free education, make the case. You attach to words I use like ‘free’ or ‘solving problems’ or now ‘literacy’, and go on tirades rather than saying why healthcare and education should not be free, and we just drift off the original subject. I am not falling for it.

      • Jean had a very good comment that basically showed the shallowness of your strawman. No one can answer a question built from the delusions of your mind.

        If you cannot read his response, perhaps you are part of the problem. If you can read his response and chose not to, you are lazy and deserve no answer. And if you have read his response, then your insistence on going back to a nonsensical question is both dishonest and deceitful.

        Once you decide which of the 3 you are, we can work to resolve your problems and get you help.

      • The point is that if school education is not free, it is also voluntary. If it is voluntary, the illiteracy rate goes up. This does not happen in western countries. Why is this even a discussion?

      • No, the point is it is not free. Period. And it is voluntary. As you can make them go to the building, but there is no way to make them learn (as evidenced by the high illiteracy rates among students, especially in democrat areas).

        Learn what words MEAN. Until you do, you will be wrong consistently.

      • @Jim,

        I disagree with the idea that there are no jobs that don’t require a college degree, even in the tech industry (I’ve had a 20 year career so far without a degree for example)

        I’ll also point you at Mike Rowe http://www.educationandcareernews.com/career-development/mike-rowe-what-does-a-good-job-look-like-anyway for lots of examples of high paying jobs out there (most of which MUST be done locally, so cannot be offshored) that do not require a degree.

        Part of the reason there are so few entry level jobs available in many parts of the US is that people have somehow gotten the mindset that minimum wage should be enough for someone to support a family, which leaves no room for the teenager to get their first job and work up from there. California (where I live) is especially bad, mandating that minimum wage climb to $15/hour

        I can say from direct experience that there is little that’s more demoralizing and demotivating than working to get a better job with a raise, only to see minimum wage increase and wipe out the difference between you and those who are little more than ‘warm bodies’ doing the minimum amount of work.

      • Minimum wage should mean that a 40-hour week gets you out of the poverty level. To me that is a moral value. Even if you are flipping burgers for 40 hours a week, that is hard work and a service and deserves a fare wage.

      • Ah, so NOW you are trying to impose your arbitrary morals on the whole world. Just curious who made you dictator for life? And where is that moral of yours demanding everyone have freedom of choice? It seems the only freedom you allow is for everyone to submit to your “morals”.

      • A person working 40 hours a week should not be below the poverty level. I just define this as a fair living wage in a civilized country. It prevents exploitation of workers.

      • It is definitely not “fair”. Why should I pay someone $100 for producing $20 worth of goods? Again, fair is not an objective term. And there is no “should be”. There is reality, and delusions. Should be belongs in the latter.

        Minimum wage was NEVER about a “living wage” which is a very recent talking point). And very few who actually have ANY work experience are working at minimum wage (and then usually in PT jobs). So until you can learn the meaning of the words, learn the history of the subject you are pontificating on, and then learn what you are talking about, you will continue to act the clown.

        And no one can force you not to.

      • “Like I said, if you oppose free education, make the case.”

        Like I said, if you oppose telling the truth, make the case. Education or healthcare will never be free no matter how many times you or how long you insist it is. Educators and healthcare practitioners get paid for their services, someone is paying for the overhead and equipment it takes to operate either industry.

        Taking money from one person in order to pay for stuff for another is not creating free stuff. If the cause is just the truth will be sufficient.

      • By free, I mean you get them regardless of your income level, just to be clear.

      • What you mean to say then is that it is available to all, regardless of income. As Jean stated, it is not free. Nor has he said he was against it. What he did contend was your misappropriation of the word “free”. Clearly you have no concept of the definition of the word.

      • Yes, it is one of the things a responsible government should do, schools, along with police, fire/rescue, hospitals, military, roads, etc. These are shared benefits that our taxes give us back. You don’t want to call it “free”. Fine.

      • It is not an issue of “wants”. It is an issue of hard code definitions. You do not get to redefine words based upon your ignorance. And none of the services you list are “free”. They all cost. And in many cases, the services are contracted out to private companies! But alas not with education. It is the one area where government has failed miserably, and failed those that need it the most, and liberals applaud it because that is their goal. To keep the population ignorant and at their mercy.

        And you cheer it. And intentionally mis-characterize words in order to perpetuate a myth that only serves your purpose, not the purpose of those who are in need of it. Very liberal of you.

      • And that is exactly the mindset that eliminates so many entry-level jobs.

        An entry level job should be something that is suitable for a teenager to make some extra money, to try different things, and to learn how to work. It should not be something that people expect to continue working on and move out on their own (let alone support a family)

        as for invoking “Morality”, I think it’s less moral to eliminate all the jobs and pay people to not work rather than having them work low paying jobs.

        It’s a lot easier to get a better paying job if you are working (especially when the person offering you the job can see the work you are doing) then when you are not. It’s also easier for the person trying to get the better job as they have the habit of working.

      • They don’t usually work full time. Minimum wage historically has been above the poverty level, but it has fallen behind. This is just a correction to the way it was. It is being enacted locally anyway, and in those places they don’t lose jobs, and they have less people living off food stamps and other government subsidies.

      • Minimum wage has NEVER been above the poverty level. It was INTENDED (when passed in the 1930s by a liberal) to disenfranchise blacks, and protect unions.

      • It is now relatively lower than it has been in decades. Poverty level is defined by family size. You should not be getting food stamps if you have a full time job, perhaps unless you have a large family to support. If that is necessary, there is something deeply wrong because the government (and the people via tax) is subsidizing people who are just not paid enough.

      • Wrong again. Poverty level is dictated by the bell curve. Government has mandated that so many are going to be poor, so many in the middle class, and so many “rich”. So they move the bar until that number of folks fall below the level. Poverty? Cell Phones, TVs, Cars, stereos, computers – that is “poverty” level in this country. Real poverty is what Obama’s brother lives on in Kenya. America does not know real poverty.

        So now you see the catch-22. Raising the minimum wage will not bring anyone out of poverty as the same percentage will remain in it. And raising the price of labor will merely cause inflation (ever heard of the helicopter scenario?).

        But all that is secondary to the basic fact you are wrong again. You claimed minimum wage was supposed to be a “living” wage when it was NEVER designed that way, and has NEVER been that way. So you are wrong again!

      • “By free, I mean you get them regardless of your income level, just to be clear.”

        In other words, you don’t mean “free” by any standard definition of the word. If you want to be clear it is best to use words as they are properly defined. If tax supported education is just it doesn’t need any euphemism to sell it.

      • No, I mean what I said. Read it again. Even if you are not currently paying tax, you get healthcare and education. This is free in the true sense of the word.

      • Wrong again. As Jean Paul said, it is not free in any sense of the word since there is a COST. You are merely saying that some are paying less. But since the lions share of education is paid at the state and local level, and funded by property taxes (included in rents) and sales taxes, even the poor are paying it.

        You do not get to redefine terms because you have no concept of them.

      • “No, I mean what I said. Read it again. Even if you are not currently paying tax, you get healthcare and education. This is free in the true sense of the word.”

        No it isn’t. The adverbal use of the word free is defined by Merriam Webster as:

        “10: Not costing or charging anything.”

        Cambridge Dictionary defines the same adverb as such:

        “Costing nothing; not needing to be paid for”

        You might make a case for your definition by relying upon Oxford Dictionary’s definition:

        “Given or available without charge”

        But only because they use “free healthcare” as an example for that definition. Simple investigation into that matter reveals that healthcare is not given without charge.

        You cannot possibly hope to mean what you say until you come to understand what you are saying actually means.

      • More diversion.

      • If you think that raising labor costs 50% doesn’t cost any jobs, you are dreaming.

        McDonalds is already deploying robots to replace people (filling drinks at the take-out window). Increasing the cost of people will make automation more attractive.

        As for the argument that it doesn’t matter because local areas were already increasing it, go back and look at the results, every time it was increased in one area, jobs in that area went away, partly to nearby areas, but also partly just disappeared.

      • That is a myth that is unsupported by facts. McDonalds need only to raise their prices by a small amount per burger meal to absorb the cost because their revenue is many times the total salary of the low-paid staff.

      • NO, it is supported by facts. Compare the workforce in a typical McDonald’s today versus 30 years ago. Today you may have a half dozen folks behind the counter. 30 years ago you had twice that.

        I not only saw the same thing in a major retailer, I was responsible for cutting the work force by 40% over a 15 year period (more automation) at that retailer. Why? See the Minimum wage increases in the 1980s.

        You have no facts. But perhaps that is just another word you have no clue on the meaning of.

      • “More diversion”

        Yep. That is precisely what you are doing when you advocate wealth redistribution by calling it free stuff. You are diverting people away from the reality that the costs to the stuff still exist, and too often – given the nature of government- it is a diversion from the fact that the “free stuff” has wound up costing more than it did before it was “free”.

      • Most civilized countries do this already. It is part of what the Constitution calls the General Welfare.

      • Wrong again (and consistently so).

        The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals – rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths – would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

      • Specifically that taxes were for the general welfare, not to benefit particular classes. Now we have loopholes favoring the wealthy that may be considered not in this spirit.

      • Wrong again! Actually it is just the opposite! The deductions the middle class takes are not available to the rich as they are phased out!

        How can one be so consistently wrong by accident? Do you know ANYTHING at all?

      • “McDonalds need only to raise their prices by a small amount per burger meal to absorb the cost because their revenue is many times the total salary of the low-paid staff.”

        In 2014, McDonald’s profits had fallen by 30%, continuing into the following year it dropped yet another 13% and the sales bleed continued into the next year. By 2015 McDonald’s was actively attempting to turnaround their business but the efforts have not produced much profit.

        Further, McDonald’s is somewhat buffered from minimum wage hikes in the U.S. because they have franchised most of their restaurants. The company’s health, however, is reliant on the health of its franchises. In fairness to your argument, Jim, McDonald’s is one industry that benefits from an increased minimum wage as this translates into more disposable, but it is not as simple as passing the cost along to the customer when your customer base is hemorrhaging.

      • You say that labor is only a small part of McDonald’s cost, are you including the fact that all the suppliers in their supply chain (down to the people in the fields or herding the cattle) also will have their labor costs go up 50%?

        those increased costs make money run out a lot faster.

        I spent a year in the bay area (moving from Los Angeles). I got a $14K raise for the move. It felt like I took a pay cut when I looked at what I could afford to buy.

      • The minimum-wage part of the labor is only a small part of the total cost. I guess the bulk goes to those other things and management, which is why raising minimum wage has such a small effect on the cost of the final meal.

      • Untrue again! In ANY retail operation, Labor is the LARGEST controllable cost by far. It far outweighs all other costs. Period. It is not minor, and that is why there is an entire INDUSTRY devoted to optimizing labor costs! I guess you have never heard of Industrial Engineering?

      • Which is why I said the minimum wage part of the labor. Management pay and feeding back to the franchise probably takes an enormous cut of the cost.

      • It does not work that way! Here’s an example.

        10 employees, 3 just hired, 3 there 1 year, 3 5 years and the old timer at 10 years.

        They make: $7.25, $8.00, $10.00 and $15.00 per hour.

        You would then pay them ALL $15.00 an hour. Even though 7 of them are way more productive than the new hires, and the tenth is training them all!

        Yea, that would really work! NOT!

        You would have to give them ALL raises. So ALL the labor costs go up!

        It is apparent you have never held a job.

        How can someone be so wrong so often so badly. If you devoted half of the effort you do to being wrong, to learning, you would be a genius by now!

      • Jim D, once again you haven’t a clue about what you are talking about. Seattle was one of the first jurisdictions to mandate a $15 hour minimum wage. You saying it hasn’t resulted in lost jobs and that food stamp usage and poverty are down is made up BS. They don’t really know what the impacts are, as a year is nowhere near enough time for trends to show. About all you can conclude is that perhaps fears over immediate job loss may have been over blown.

      • Jim D: “I would place free healthcare at least at the same level as a free school education”

        Neither of which is actually free though, is it?

        If I had paid as much into my medical insurance as I have handed over in NI contributions, my healthcare would be infinitely better than what I am supplied with by the NHS.

        And what about if I prefer to have my children properly educated – you know, like virtually all Socialist politicians such as Diane Abbott? Shouldn’t I be paid back the portion of my taxes that would have gone to pay for their education in the Government-run rubbish?

      • You have the option of supplementing both your basic education and healthcare with extra payments if you wish to do so.

      • Jim D: “You have the option of supplementing both your basic education and healthcare with extra payments if you wish to do so.”

        Totally missing the point, as usual.

        If I pay for my own medical care and my children’s education out of my own pocket, why do I not get some of my NI and tax contributions returned?

        If my children are at private school, that is more places for children whose families cannot afford it.

      • I am sure the government can subsidize your payments if that is what you are asking for, or at least you can deduct the tax on it. But, yes, government should help with these payments, especially if you have trouble affording them in the first place.

      • Jim D: “I am sure the government can subsidize your payments if that is what you are asking for, or at least you can deduct the tax on it.”

        Wrong again.

      • You want to give up all NI benefits like the retirement and unemployment pay it provides you and your family members. Not that easy to figure out, I think.

      • Jim D: “You want to give up all NI benefits…”

        No Jimbo, that is not even close to what I said.

        Why is it you can’t resist telling porky pies?

      • How do you separate the part you pay for insurance from the part you pay for other people including your family? Remember this is insurance. When you buy home insurance, you are paying for other people’s houses that burned down in most cases. It’s like that.

      • No, you are paying for your own home burning down. Insurance is betting against yourself. The rates are based upon statistics (I can see why that would confuse you) and assigned risks. The Insurance company is actually betting on YOU. If you win, the insurance company wins. If you lose, you win and the insurance company loses.

        But you are not paying for other’s house burning down any more than you are paying for others house to get flooded. You are paying based upon risks.

      • Insurance money goes into a common pool, and after that is not identifiable with who payed it. You can’t ask for it back if that is what you are suggesting, but I really don’t follow.

      • No, you do not get it. Jean Paul said it very well. You have already told us you have no clue who,what, where, or when you are talking about.

        Insurance is betting you are going to lose. It is the same as the insurance bet in Black Jack. IN the end, even if you win, you lose.

      • DOUBLE payments. There goes Jim telling us he hates freedom of choice again.

      • @catweazle666

        This is why a lot of Republicans have been pushing for the school voucher idea. Even if you only get a voucher for 1/2 what would go to the public school, it would pay for many private schools entirely.

        why should only those with money have the ability to opt out of public schools?

        Of course the Democrats have been bitterly opposed to this.

      • Republicans are generally opposed to government hand-outs, but as with their medical add-ons, the idea is for the vouchers to direct government money to private companies, which is an inefficient way to improve education rather than just giving the money directly to the schools. Their idea of infrastructure spending may also follow this model. Supplement the for-profit businesses to build roads and bridges rather than build them themselves.

      • You say that giving government money to private schools is less efficient at providing a good education than giving money to public schools

        the last 50 years show that you are incorrect. The per-student costs of good private schools is far less than the per-student cost of bad public schools.

        The Voucher idea of giving 50% of the per-student money to let someone go to a private school would not make any sense (and no parents would make use of it) if it wasn’t for the fact that the private schools can do a better job with half the money.

        If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

        Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

        Things have only gone downhill since then.

        Similar things can be said for private industry building infrastructure. This isn’t some pie in the sky theory, it’s observation of the last century of inspecting the efficiency of public vs private projects.

      • Parents who are paying extra for school are more likely to take the education of their children seriously and that is fine by me. There are parts of society where education is not a priority, and that isn’t because the government isn’t trying. It is more related to the backgrounds of the children and their neighborhoods. Attempts at increasing the quality of teaching by scoring them have met unjustified resistance from teachers’ unions. Other countries succeed best by paying the teachers more and requiring higher qualifications, which I think is the best model to follow.

      • And yet you would then give “college” for free after you just said what the problem was! The liberal mind is an enigma. It sees a problem, and it can even see the solution, yet if the solution is not politically correct and “fair”, it rejects it even when the empirical evidence shows it to be true.

        Here we have a liberal mind admit that when you “pay” for something, you put more value in it than when it is “given” to you. Yet they still want to “give” a college education to everyone, and expect somehow that truism to change.

        And people wonder why government does not work.

      • I came through a free university education system in the UK. In fact the local government gave me subsistence living expenses as a student. That has changed now, but I really appreciate it.

      • That explains it! You get what you pay for.

      • David Springer

        Education:

        Texts, examinations, and certificates of achievement should be online and free for anything that doesn’t require lab work.

        This will have the immense benefit of eliminating progressive political indoctrination that occurs in physical schools to say nothing getting students a quality education without drowning them in debt.

      • Seems like an easy system to play.

      • David Springer

        As easy as sitting for a bar exam is easy to play, dummy. You can learn however the phuck you want. You sit for the exams in a controlled environment where you are positively identified and supervised. Lots of exams are done this way. Pilots, professional engineers, lawyers, yada, yada, yada…

        Try again.

      • You said online examinations.

      • There’s a huge difference between:

        1. tests available online

        and

        2. You sit for the exams in a controlled environment where you are
        positively identified and supervised

        The first is relatively cheap, but not free. The second is rather expensive (have you ever had to pay for testing in this sort of environment? I have)

        Still probably a good idea, but far from being cheap.

      • David Springer

        Okay, let’s use an example.

        http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/drivers-permits.php

        Taking the DMV Written California Permit Test

        The DMV written permit test contains written questions about California traffic laws, road signs, and rules of safe driving. There are 46 questions on the exam. A passing score is at least 38 correct answers.

        You will have 3 chances to pass. If you fail the exam, the DMV requires you to wait 7 days before taking the permit test again.

        Once you pass the written permit test and pay $33, you’ll earn your provisional permit. The $33 fee covers a total of 3 exams within a 12 months period and pays for your provisional learner’s permit and driver’s license. However, if all requirements are not met within a period of 12 months, the application is considered void and you must repeat all steps mentioned above.

        So California can administer 3 tests plus issue a photo ID for a total of $33. Doesn’t sound very expensive to me. I suppose if that’s too great a burden subsidies for students living in poverty can be applied.

        Any more stupid objections you want me to shoot down like clay pigeons or will that be enough?

      • Are you nieve enough to thin that the $33 covers all the costs of the tests? you do realize that the DMV has a very large budget to run it’s offices.

        You used the examples of Pilots, Engineers, Lawyers, etc who take various supervised tests.

        I’ve taken a few of those, as well as private certification tests in the same facilities. Those tests are FAR more expensive. Even the ones that aren’t private certifications (where you are paying for the company to certify you) tend to run ~$100/hour of test time. The private certifications can be several times that.

        Those sorts of tests work for some things, but it’s not something that you would want to try and use in Elementary School. They are appropriate for many Adult classes, but I’d question them for most people even at High School ages. Prior to that they are _really_ iffy.

      • David Springer

        “nieve”

        See if school were less expensive you might be able to spell simple words correctly instead of phonetically. Spell checkers can only go so far. But hey, at least I learnt a new word:

        Definition of nieve
        plural -s
        1 chiefly dialectal : a person’s hand
        2 chiefly dialectal : fist

      • David Springer

        “run it’s offices”

        Its not its. Did you pass any of those really expensive tests in the unlikely event you really sat for them? LOL

        Probably time for you to shut up and change your name.

      • Actually, I have passed the tests, every one I’ve sat for. And they have spanned several different fields.

        But don’t let me stop you from attacking my spelling to distract from the fact that my message is valid.

      • David Springer

        Yeah, sure you did.

      • Just one little problem. It is called money. Neither is free. One is time limited to 13 years. The other is not time limited. It would be nice if we had all the money in the world. But alas that would not even be enough.

        Where do you intend to find $60 trillion for your free healthcare?

      • There are many countries in Europe who have solved this in various ways. It is not impossible. They have better national health statistics too, and national health services are valued. Medicare-for-all would be more like their systems, but currently we limit its access.

      • Really? Show me which countries are spending $18,667 per person per year on health care. Again, take your time! I would love to see you list.

      • European countries have found out that by cutting out the insurance middleman, you can get a more efficient healthcare service.

      • More efficient? Oh, you mean like waiting for routine surgery for YEARS? http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.html That is efficient? I would hate to see your idea of ideal – maybe that is when everyone dies before they get any treatment, right? LOL

        But it is also irrelevant. OBAMACARE is FORCING everyone to BUY Insurance! That is your national health care. Obama took the worst parts of the european health care and made it worse!

        And you think it is great! LOL! Owned yourself again.

      • @jimD

        > A person working 40 hours a week should not be below the poverty level.

        how do you define the poverty level?

        the Poverty level in a community where there are no houses worth less than $10M is vastly different than the poverty level where there are no houses worth more than $30K

        or if you want to look at larger areas, the poverty level in San Francisco, CA is far higher than the poverty level in Deerfield, MI

        when large numbers of people in “poverty” are fat, something is wrong with your definition.

        > It prevents exploitation of workers.

        only by eliminating the jobs that are not worth much to the employers.

        It may come as a shock to you (since you’ve never had to run a business), but businesses aren’t made of money, they can’t just pay people an arbitrary amount more for the same work.

        besides, who is holding a gun to people’s heads and making them work the jobs with such low pay? they are taking these jobs voluntarily, which means that to the employee, these jobs provide enough money to be worth the time they spend doing them.

      • They take these jobs because those are all that are on offer, and those are at exploitative wages aimed at people who have little choice. At least they get healthcare out of it if they work for franchises. You can work out that raising the minimum wage at a McDonalds would raise the price of a burger by maybe 25 cents, if they have a majority of workers on minimum wage.

      • So how do they make sure they get “more offers”? How about if they have a skill or even better, experience? And how do they get the experience?

        The mission of any business is not to create a welfare state for their employees. It is to make a profit. Period. You want to change the mission.

        So what is your company name? It seems that you have lots of ideas of what to do with OPM, but are not willing to put up your own.

      • Good points. But I will add that “exploitation” of workers can only occur when the government is the enforcer. In a free society, people are free to move to other jobs, or create their own business. it is only when government steps in and prevents that, do businesses have the ability to “exploit” the workers.

        So the ones ranting about “exploiting” workers are then calling for the enforcers of the exploitation to “do something” about it. I wish I could create a problem and then sell the solution!

      • @jimD

        > You can work out that raising the minimum wage at a McDonalds would raise the price of a burger by maybe 25 cents, if they have a
        majority of workers on minimum wage.

        so many things wrong with this statement.

        start with raising the minimum wage to what? if you raise it to $1000/hour, it’s going to raise the cost of the burger by more than $0.25 no matter how you do the math.

        you assume that the people making more than minimum wage will get no raises, which means that as costs go up everywhere, their effective wages decrease

        which burger would be raised $0.25, the plain hamburger which costs 25% increase?

        You are also assuming that none of the McDonald’s suppliers need to raise prices, but the reality is that a hike in the minimum wage results in inflation because everybody’s costs go up, so everybody ends up (over time) getting a raise, so everybody needs to charge more.

      • I was taking it to be a doubling from $7.50 to $15. It won’t break the bank, and cities that have already done this have not seen lost jobs or unaffordable burgers. It is just making a federal minimum wage instead of having states and cities act alone which they may do anyway.

      • @jimD

        > Poverty level is defined by family size

        > You should not be getting food stamps if you have a full time job, perhaps
        unless you have a large family to support.

        how large a family should you be able to support on a single income at minimum wage?

        why should where you live have no effect on how poverty level is defined?

        The Left likes to complain about inequality by pointing out the people who live on incomes of less than $1/day, but they fail to point out that in those places, the prices of essentials is lower.

        In San Francisco, you cannot buy food enough to live on for one person for $1/day (without handouts, scavenging, etc you would literally starve to death), but in the places where an average person lives on that, they not only buy food at that price, but also everything else they need to stay alive and not naked. I’m not saying it’s a comfortable life, but when a large population is at that level, they aren’t all starving to death.

        While $15/hour is considered a poverty wage in San Francisco, in other parts of the US, that’s what a full-time truck driver earns. In other parts of the world, that’s what a college graduate programmer earns.

      • Defined poverty levels also depend on state, but it makes no sense for a poor person to live in lower Manhattan, for example. They should move to low-rent areas.

      • off-topic, how do you reply to a particular comment at this point,I have to go waaay up to find a post with a reply button

        @jimD

        > I was taking it to be a doubling from $7.50 to $15. It won’t break the bank, and cities that have already done this have not seen lost jobs or unaffordable burgers.

        Once again you are wrong about your facts.

        San Franciso raised it’s minimum wage and then there were a lot of stories about bookstores closing and similar (lost jobs), there were also a bunch of stories about companies moving out of San Francisco to adjacent cities that hadn’t raised the minimum wage, and a lot of stories about how businesses in adjacent cities were seeing significant increases in their business.

        Now, the idiots in the Califorinia government ‘fixed’ this by passing a bill to raise the minimum wage across California to match San Francisco’s $15/hour.

        but as I said earlier, $15/hour is a poverty level wage in San Francisco (they are already talking about raising it higher), but it’s a good middle-class income in most of ‘flyover country’

      • I only get to reply like that to threads I have access to via the WordPress panel, which is limited to ones I start or make an early response to. It is a pain to jump into other people’s threads, because then I have to go to the top of it to reply.
        The idea of a federal $15 was a final value, and it was to be ramped up over many years. Sanders led that and Hillary initially was only on board for $12, but had pressure to increase it.

      • “Insurance is betting against yourself.”

        This is a nice and concise nut shell description of insurance. This is the insurance game and it is truly a morbid game. The insurer is the house, the insured are betting against the house. For life insurance the insured are betting against the house and it is actually the house that is counting on the insured to live longer than the insured is betting on. For health insurance the insured are betting against the house and the house – once upon a time, before Obamacare – bets the insured will stay healthy longer than the insured are betting on.

        Unlike Vegas, however, what happens with insurance is reported to all kinds of government agencies.

  22. I don’t think a “Trumpocene” is any more appropriate than an “Obamacene”, or a “Bushocene”.

    If we assume the ratio between Internet years and calendar years is ~4.7, as Eric Reiss calculated, a two-term president supervises a length of business cycles equivalent to about 40 years in the 20th century.

    Dramatic change looks much more impressive close-up. And dramatic, and very rapid, change are typical of this century. The world has already undergone as much transformation in social technology in this century as it did in the entire 20th century. Perhaps the 19th and 20th together.

  23. If all he does us force the enviros justify their positions, we’ll be ahead.t Gore won’t. Even if they admit the Uncertainty Principle, not observation, drives them, we’ll be ahead.

    Many warmists are well meaning but base their positions on what authority figures say. They truly don’t understand either the science (or modeling) behind AGW, or its uncertainty. They would be shocked and feel betrayed if they did.

  24. From the tweet:

    [Defraud Donald] University has a 98% approval rating. I could have settled but won’t out of principle!

  25. The forthcoming years are likely to produce increasing recognition of a new random process, as unpredictable as a “drunkard’s walk,” but with far-more- volatile, wholly uncorrelated increments. Empirically based upon the prognostications of political pundits, it will become known as a “trumpestation.”

    • Random processes, drunkard’s walk. A coupla examples:

      1. The Electoral College is a travesty. We need to have a revolution to prevent the candidate with the higher proportion of the popular vote from losing the election.

      1a. The Electoral College system is genius, genius I say.

      2. I won’t settle this case out of principle.
      2a. I will pay 25 million to settle this case.

      ——————-

      These examples in and of themselves are trivial. However, I would love to see one of my much beloved “skeptics” explain how such walking is random or drunken, as opposed to displaying a pattern of blatant disregard for accountability.

      • Joshua,

        From Winston Churchill-

        “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, madam?”

        Fools and fanatics believe that nothing changes. Rational people adjust their behaviour according to changed circumstances, I suspect.

        Maybe the President elect is prepared to chance his stance, based on new information. Wouldn’t you?

        Cheers.

      • Mike what is the new information that led Trump to change his mind on those issues, do you suppose?

        Seems to me that he “changed his stance” not on anything related to more information,but merely because of personal interest. As typical politicians are likely to do.

        He based his first stance on the lawsuit on the basis of principle. What about those principles changed based on new information?

        He based his first stance on the issue of the EC vs. popular vote on the basis of a perceived unfairness when he thought that Romney won the popular vote but lost the EC. What new information do you think he learned that modified his stance?

        Of course we’re all subject to change our views on the basis of our “motivated reasoning.” I don’t suggest that Trump is even remotely unique in that regard. My point is the way that “skeptics” reason to explainable what Trump does. Like suggesting that he changes on these issues is because if “new information” as opposed to self-interest.

      • I’m not privy to Donald Trump’s thoughts. I assume he changed his mind for a reason which seemed rational to him.

        Maybe you could ask Donald Trump, if you really wanted to know his reasons. It seems pointless asking me.

        I’m not sure why you think it’s somehow immoral for someone to change their stance based on perceived self interest. I assume most people prefer happiness to misery, and make decisions to assist the achievement of a preferable personal state.

        Even a masochist seeks pain in order to achieve happiness. All a bit strange, I know, but people tend to strangeness. Maybe Donald Trump does what he thinks is best at the time.

        By the way, I’m not a “skeptic”. The climate has been changing since the atmosphere first formed. The GHE is just complete nonsense – not even a falsifiable hypothesis to provide even a veneer of scientific respectability. A delusionary gaggle of self proclaimed climatologists are led by a so-so mathematician presumably interested in continuing his government handouts. This is your idea of science? Good luck with that.

        Cheers.

      • Mike –

        That was a very interesting response. So after telling me that rational people change their minds upon getting new information, when asked what new information might have changed Trump’s mind, respectively with regard to the principle and fairness of the issues I raised, you don’t describe any new information. So why did you bother responding?

        You go on to wrongly make assumptions about what I think after explaining that you have no idea what is in Trump’s mind (when I never asked you to read his mind, only to explain what “new infirmatiom” you were referring to when strongly suggesting that the reason Trump changed his mind on principles and fairness was because of “new information”).

        And to top it off, you go on to explain that you’re not a “skeptic” after answering a challenge I presented to “skeptics.”

        Ok. We’re done. You have just demonstrated precisely the kind of lack of accountability I was pointing to in Trump. I am thus satisfied that you will not likely ever acknowledge Trump’s lack of accountability. Let’s just move on to see if a ” skeptic” steps up to the task, shall we?

      • The vote allocation in the EC, like the Senate and House makeup were a deliberate action to protect the small population states from being dominated by the large population states.

        At the time of the Revolution, Virginia and the Southern states had far more population than the Northern states, and there was a fear that straight power based on population (even ignoring the horrid 3/5 slave clause) would result in the small states having no say in the running of the country.

        In terms of eliminating the EC, good luck in convincing 3/4 of the states to vote to reduce their influence in the presidential elections for all time going forward. IT would require a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate it.

        If the people who were calling for the elimination of the EC actually cared about the people’s wishes being represented better, they would convert their states to allocate EC votes like Main and Nebraska where they don’t give all their EC votes to one party, but rather allocate them by who won each congressional district, plus two votes for whoever won the popular vote in the state.

        Unfortunately, I don’t see the Democrats ever allowing this to happen (in the states they control, as this would be a per-state thing), because they would loose the influence that they currently have where small islands of blue are able to allocate the larger islands of red (the EC votes would end up looking very similar to the House + Senate makeup, which would still have resulted in a Trump win)

      • Good points DL. I thing the EC is working as planned. Wise men, our Founders.

      • David Springer

        Joshua | November 19, 2016 at 5:06 am |

        “So after telling me that rational people change their minds upon getting new information, when asked what new information might have changed Trump’s mind”

        The new information is that he is now President-elect and has less than 3 months to build a federal government management team consisting of 4,200 appointments before assuming the office.

        So he found that:

        1) electoral-college system does indeed work as the founders intended in making sure that the nation doesn’t become dominated by a few states with huge populations & monolithic politics that cater to their specific needs and wants.

        2) screwing around ‘on principle’ with a petty lawsuit that he could end with a petty cash settlement was no worth the compromise in being to get the far more important work of transforming his life from private corporate CEO to leader of the free world

        I’m not sure you’re capable of understanding these simple things. Are you ?

      • David Springer

        J0shua | November 19, 2016 at 5:06 am |

        “So after telling me that rational people change their minds upon getting new information, when asked what new information might have changed Trump’s mind”

        The new information is that he is now President-elect and has less than 3 months to build a federal government management team consisting of 4,200 appointments before assuming the office.

        So he found that:

        1) electoral-college system does indeed work as the founders intended in making sure that the nation doesn’t become dominated by a few states with huge populations & monolithic politics that cater to their specific needs and wants.

        2) screwing around ‘on principle’ with a petty lawsuit that he could end with a petty cash settlement was no worth the compromise in being to get the far more important work of transforming his life from private corporate CEO to leader of the free world

        I’m not sure you’re capable of understanding these simple things. Are you ?

      • Simple understanding. Musta got past ya David: “transforming his life from private corporate CEO to leader of the free world”………..You wish!

        “President-elect Donald Trump reportedly met this week at Trump Tower with three Indian business partners, raising fresh questions about a separation between the Trump’s business and future work in the White House.”

        http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306917-trump-meets-with-indian-business-partners-after-he-vowed-to

        How much longer do you plan to keep fooling yourself. Don’t think others are fooled with you……..but maybe.

        Something, something, not president yet, something, something…….but transforming, something….

      • David Springer

        There is no law prohibiting a sitting US president from operating a business or promoting his own interests.

        https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/08/trump-could-president-and-still-run-his-businesses/mA49sxxm7YNJCddUL7AoKL/story.html

        The office of POTUS is unique. Obama didn’t have to get a security clearance from the FBI for example. It automatically comes with the office. Just like Trump doesn’t have to give up running his business which is another privilege of the office.

        Only the voters can stop him and they have to wait 4 years to do it. They can bitch, yell, scream, stomp their feet, and hold their breath but they can’t legally stop a sitting president from having a business and using the office to advance it.

      • A.) That’s not what you said he was doing.

        B.) Paraphrasing: ‘I’m gonna reduce regulations’

        C.) Paraphrasing: ‘you didn’t pass regulations requiring ME to use American steel and aluminum in my buildings’.

        D.) ‘Make’ America Great something,something, something

        make (force?)
        māk
        verb
        cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about.

        Cause it to happen but not be willing to do it oneself.

        “There is no law prohibiting a sitting US president from operating a business or promoting his own interests.” Gotta be a ‘law’ for everything in your world?

        Some took issue with intermingling of potential conflicts of interests between foundations and high office. Maybe my memory is foggy.

      • David Springer

        POTUS is the only elected office that may operate a business without conflict of interest. I didn’t make the rules I just know what they are in this particular case.

      • “may operate a business without conflict of interest.” Wrong. Law may allow the POTUS to operate a business. This in no way implies there will not be a conflict of interest.

        con·flict of in·ter·est
        noun
        a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible.
        “the conflict of interest between elected officials and corporate lobbyists”
        a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.

      • No, any elected federal official can – and that is part of the problem. Congress is also exempt from insider trading laws.

        It is not illegal for any congressman to operate a business. Although ethics would dictate they separate their government duties from their private ones. The intent of the founders was to have citizen civil servants. SO they had to have a business to go back to. It has not worked out that way.

      • There’s a failure to recognize here that the prognostications of political pundits in the last few days alone are proof positive of virulent trumpestation by the mainstream media.

      • David Springer

        J0shua is an accomplished expert on the drunkard’s walk with thousands of miles of on-the-job experience.

  26. Methinks that “trumpocene” is a euphemism for…well, you decide:

    –snip–

    (CNN)Sen. Jeff Sessions said Thursday that Donald Trump’s 1989 campaign to bring back the death penalty for the “Central Park Five” shows the Republican nominee is serious about “law and order,” though all five of the men convicted in that crime were eventually exonerated.

    “Trump has always been this way,” Sessions told WAPI radio in Alabama.

    “People say he wasn’t a conservative, but he bought an ad 20 years ago in The New York Times calling for the death penalty. How many people in New York, that liberal bastion, were willing to do something like that?”

    Better known then as a construction magnate and socialite, Trump bought space in multiple New York City newspapers calling for the execution of the five black and Hispanic teens accused of raping a jogger in Central Park. The full page ads read, “Bring Back The Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!”

    The men, all between the ages of 14 and 16 at the time of the attack, were convicted in a pair of trials in 1990.

    But more than a decade later, serial rapist and murderer Matias Reyes came forward and confessed to the crime.

    An examination of the evidence, including DNA samples, confirmed that he had acted alone. The “Central Park Five” were exonerated and in 2014, awarded a $41 million settlement.

    –snip–

    Remarkable.

    • > The “Central Park Five” were exonerated and in 2014, awarded a $41 million settlement.

      As Sessions might have said, OK until I found out they smoked pot.

      • David Springer

        They’re guilty. Two of them confessed. That someone else with nothing to lose, a serial rapist and murderer, came along and “confessed” means nothing. He’s a serial rapist and murderer fercrisakes his word means less than nothing. Too bad the five thugs weren’t put to death the world would be a better place without such predators in it.

      • >That someone else with nothing to lose, a serial rapist and murderer, came along and “confessed” means nothing.

        Nice try:

        Three of the convicted young men had finished their prison terms, one was on parole and the fifth was in jail on an unrelated offense when Matias Reyes, a serial rapist and murderer in 2002 confessed to the crime and said he had acted alone.
        DNA analysis later determined that Reyes did rape the jogger and that hair evidence used in the boys’ trials did not match.

        http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/05/justice/new-york-central-park-five/

        Better luck next time.

      • Springer doesn’t need luck. He’s got narrative!

      • David Springer

        Better luck at putting the scumbags down next time like rabid dogs? Thanks! I appreciate that.

  27. In San Francisco, where 84 percent of voters supported Hillary Clinton for president, district officials widely distributed a strongly opinionated, optional lesson plan to help students process the Trump win.

    “Let us please not sidestep the fact that a racist and sexist man has become the president of our country by pandering to a huge racist and sexist base,” wrote Fakrah Shah, a Mission High School teacher, in the introduction to her lesson plan. “DO NOT: Tell (students) that we have LOST and that we have to accept this.”

  28. This is sweet. From the article:

    A federal judge in Texas has ordered the attorney general of Massachusetts to appear for deposition next month in a lawsuit Exxon Mobil Corp. filed as part of an attempt to block investigations into what the company knew about climate change.

    U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade ruled yesterday that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) should appear in Dallas on Dec. 13. The judge will enter a second order regarding Schneiderman’s deposition after he files an answer in the case.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/18/dont-mess-with-texas-exxonknew-ags-to-be-hauled-into-court/

  29. From the article:

    “How can you take anything seriously from a media apparatus—paid the amount of money you people are paid—that systematically missed something that was so obvious, that missed Brexit, that missed the Trump revolution? You’d have thought they’d have learned their lesson on November 8.”

    “I was the one who said we are going to Flint, Michigan, we are going to black churches in Cleveland, because the thrust of this movement is that we are going to bring capitalism to the inner cities.”

    Why does he think that leftists are so fixated on him? “They were ready to coronateHillary Clinton. That didn’t happen, and I’m one of the reasons why. So, by the way, I wear these attacks as an emblem of pride.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/18/the-wall-street-journal-steve-bannon-on-politics-as-war/

    • I’m more than one of the reasons why. I donated generously to Trump’s campaign and timed the donations to within minutes of major milestones like winning debates, hiring Conway, and pivoting away from personal vendettas to talking about issues.

      I also worked the intertubes tirelessly, 18 hours/day 7 days/week for the final 60 days of his campaign on Twitter, Facebook, and blog comments trending up his positive messages, refuting lies, and so forth. That was why I largely disappeared from here for a few months.

      Hell I even kept my TV tuned to Fox Cable News 24/7 but I’d change the channel to CNN and/or MSNBC if they were talking about Trump to reward them with ratings. If they had Hillary or Obama showing, even Fox, I’d tune to Discovery Channel to punish them for not focusing on Trump.

      It was quite well worth the effort.

      • David Springer

        Oh, I forgot to mention working google. Very important to repeatedly search for certain things at certain times to get advantageous memes trending. Digital warfare. This is one of those times I’m glad I invented the internet. 😜

  30. From the tweet:

    I should have easily won the [Defraud Donald] University case on summary judgement but have a judge, Gonzalo Curiel, who is totally biased against me.

    • And he may be right.

      • Poor little snowflake.

        A president-elect settles in a fraud case.

        Let that sink in.

        Welcome to the new normal.

      • Willard: “A president-elect settles in a fraud case.”

        So what?

        That’s SOP, isn’t it?

        Have you never forked out to settle a claim because it wasn’t worth the aggravation? Or taken a lower payout for exactly the same reason.

        Ah, sorry, you don’t actually get out into the real world much, do you?

        I forgot.

      • > I forgot.

        You mostly forgot that your JAQing off contains at least one question we can answer, Cat Weazle.

        DonaldU’s worse in context:

        If anyone still has any doubt about the troubling nature of [DonaldU]’s record, he or she should be obliged to read the affidavit of Ronald Schnackenberg, a former salesman for [DonaldU]. […]

        Schnackenberg, who worked in Trump’s office at 40 Wall Street, testified that “while [DonaldU] claimed it wanted to help consumers make money in real estate, in fact [DonaldU] was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could.” The affidavit concludes, “Based upon my personal experience and employment, I believe that [DonaldU] was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.

        That teh Donald settles in a fraud case on the second week indicates a fantastic circus coming up.

        So what indeed.

      • Willard has taught us 2 things!

        #1 – Businesses are in the business to make money. ANd that is evil!!!
        #2 – He has no concept of numbers. Not realizing that $25 million is pocket change to a billionaire.

        And he has also shown why socialism fails. They bite the hand that feeds them. They seek to neuter all business, yet still bleed them dry for the OPM.

        The non-workings of the liberal mind are amusing, and sad. It is a great example of how to destroy societies and impoverish people.

      • WOW! A president obeying the law! Yea, I guess it has been about 8 years since we had that.

      • This may come as a surprise to you, but for decades settling in a nuisance suit hasn’t been an admission of guilt.

        And nobody really believes the MSM when they trumpet it. Or anything else. Everybody knows it’s just a smear job.

        Even the leftists who repeat it know it’s just name calling. Those who even know the difference.

      • > settling in a nuisance suit hasn’t been an admission of guilt.

        Settling certainly isn’t a declaration of non culpability either.

        Settling is just settling.

        But when a settlement comes with dollar million penalty for violating education laws, is indeed an admission that education laws have been violated.

        Please, do continue with the excuses: but the MSM, but leftists, etc.

        As if it’ll erase the evidence.

      • @Willard

        The Trump U lawsuit was not a criminal suit, it was a civil suit, so you can’t say that the settlement included penalties for breaking any laws.

        remember that the basis for the suit was the claim that Trump didn’t personally pick the instructors and so it was false advertising.

      • > you can’t say that the settlement included penalties for breaking any laws.

        Here’s my source, DavidE:

        I am pleased that under the terms of this settlement, every victim will receive restitution and that Donald Trump will pay up to $1 million in penalties to the State of New York for violating state education laws.

        http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/statement-ag-schneiderman-25-million-settlement-agreement-reached-trump-university

        Welcome aboard, and next time keep the chin up.

      • ==> Everybody knows it’s just a smear job. ==>

        Beautiful. Everyone knows it’s just a smear job. But outside of what everyone knows (i. e., ad populum fallacy) , what evidence do YOU have that the charges have no merit?

      • David Springer

        Willard | November 20, 2016 at 6:40 pm |

        “Settling is just settling.”

        That’s phucking deep. It usually takes an Ivy League education to be that sharp, right?

      • It only something like constructive logics, Big Dave.

        Thanks for asking.

      • David Springer

        If you’d made a small effort to use different words for the same thing we could call it a tautology. But since you equated one word with the exact same word we call it imbecilic instead.

      • “But a rose isn’t a rose until the peer reviewed people say it is.”

        A rose is a rose prior to peer review but smells all the sweeter after passing that review…until other’s attempt reproducing that rose, then the stench turns bitter.

      • From the same peer review, the C word:

        The vast majority of “certified” class actions settle with good reason. Legal defense costs are exorbitant and if the defendants lose the case, the verdict can be catastrophically high.

  31. He absolutely surprised me by winning.

    Might be asking too much for him to lead and succeed. I’ve heard his son make more sense on one visit to This Week than the Donald did in the entire campaign.

    Still – he’s going to have to be pretty gosh-awful to match Obama.

  32. From the article:

    MILO on Channel 4: ‘I Am A Gay Jew And Steve Bannon Made Me Into A Star’

    http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/11/18/milo-channel-4-gay-jew-steve-bannon-made-star/

  33. From the article:

    Man Admits Lying About ‘Trump Country Lynching’ Hate Crime Report

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/18/man-admits-lying-trump-country-lynching-hate-crime-report/

  34. From the article:

    Political analyst Pat Caddell told Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM on Friday, “They just call everybody a racist,” referring to CNN. Caddell called the network “outrageous.”
    Caddell said, “What they have not admitted is their complicity in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, or their unbelievable bias, and worse, their smearing of people, including Steve Bannon and others so that they could make some political points.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/18/pat-caddell-cnn-smearing-trump-supporters-they-call-everybody-racist/

  35. Like the Castro brothers, Western Academia would prefer the Maocene.

  36. Stephen Foucart and the like are absolutely frothing at the mouth to think of what a Trump administration in the Whitehouse might do to their cosy little world of climate alarmism! If he (Trump) lives up to expectations then Foucart and his cronies are in for a rough ride!!
    GeoffW

  37. The Informed Consumer

    @Mike Flynn | November 18, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    Whoops! :)

  38. Whenever some claqademic tries to convince us that we’ve entered the post-truth age where facts don’t matter to anyone, it’s hilarious the way they’re tacitly saying “…except to me.”

    All Cretans are liars. Take it from me: I am one.

  39. From the article:

    As Facebook and Google revise their algorithms to target fake news sites, let’s hope our information overlords dedicate equal vigor to screening out fake narratives from mainstream media outlets.
    They can start with the half-million web hits defaming Stephen K. Bannon as anti-Semitic.

    First, the obligatory disclaimer clearing a good man being defamed. I have known Steve Bannon for nearly two decades. During that time, we have enjoyed frank dinnertime conversations about public policy and political philosophy. He’s never uttered a single word that would suggest any racist or anti-Semitic views.

    The mainstream media would know this if they bothered with some real reporting.

    “I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News,”attests Joel Pollak, Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. “I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/19/steve-bannons-real-crime-providing-deplorables-news-alternative/

  40. Here’s a good example of the maudlin, self-absorbed left. OK, I acknowledge your hurt feelings. Now shut up and get over it already!!! From the article:

    He added, “One of the things I’m seeing, and I don’t know if you’re seeing this, but if you look at social media or media in general, I see a lot of people who are scared, and a lot of people who are resentful and focused on their own hurt feelings. Both Trump supporters and Trump opponents. It almost seems as though people are not even willing to acknowledge the hurt feelings of the people on the other side.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/11/18/cnns-tapper-trump-tower-bubble-may-not-understand-how-scared-a-lot-of-americans-are/

    • Some on the left find it a convenient political tool to conflate the bad behavior of a few Trump enthusiasts with Trump himself. Same phenomenon with Bannon and Breitbart News.

      WRT the Jews, I’ve wondered why they tend to vote Dimowit. I haven’t seen an analysis of how they voted this time, however, but it seems they would reject Dimowits due to the sorry treatment of Israel by Obummer.

      As to Israel itself, I have mixed feelings. The US helped set it up, so is IMO obligated to keep its people safe. OTOH, it’s not a commitment I relish, especially when it comes to defending it with blood. We would be better served to move the entire Israeli population back to the US, I think.

      • Wow! The temerity: “Some on the left find it a convenient political tool to conflate the bad behavior of a few Trump enthusiasts with Trump himself. Same phenomenon with Bannon and Breitbart News.”

        So says the user of Soros, and ‘leftists’.

        You can’t make this stuff up. Imagination isn’t that expansive.

        Mirror, mirror……………

      • @jim2…

        Some on the left find it a convenient political tool to conflate the bad behavior of a few Trump enthusiasts with Trump himself. Same phenomenon with Bannon and Breitbart News.

        The left, especially the MSM, are going all-out to smear Bannon.

        For instance, consider the reference to describing a conservative Republican as a “renegade Jew”. Truth is, the writer of that article (and headline) is himself a conservative Jew, which means it’s by no means anti-Semitism. At best, a family feud. (Also consider the meaning of the word “renegade”.)

        I find it surprising that an editorial in a Jewish newspaper would leave out that fact.

        WRT the Jews, I’ve wondered why they tend to vote Dimowit. [… I]t seems they would reject Dimowits due to the sorry treatment of Israel by Obummer.

        There are many Jews in the US who disapprove of the creation of Israel. Some of them quite strongly.

        Of those who fully support Israel, there are many who oppose the colonial efforts on the West Bank. (Both here and in Israel.)

        Look at it this way: when you talk about “Jews”, they’re no more a monolithic block than “Christians”.

        As to Israel itself, I have mixed feelings. The US helped set it up, so is IMO obligated to keep its people safe.

        There is a very large and wealthy lobby of tax-paying, voting American Jews who favor that support.

        Also, The USSR had as much to do with setting Israel up as the US. After that, there was a transition to Western affiliation that wasn’t complete till 1956.

        Finally, there are many Fundamentalist Christians who strongly support Israel and US military aid for it. There are prophetic implications.

        We would be better served to move the entire Israeli population back to the US, I think.

        Many of them came from other lands, and most of them don’t want to come to the US.

      • AK: “There are many Jews in the US who disapprove of the creation of Israel. “

        So what?

        I believe there are many USAians in the USA who disapprove of the creation of the USA.

      • There is a difference between having a policy difference and working for genocide. Those are the 2 sides in the struggle at this time. Obama has taken the genocide position. I have heard of self hating Jews. I am glad I have never met one.

      • AK – yep, Jews aren’t a monolithic group. I don’t have much argument with what you point out here. I realize many in Israel wouldn’t want to move back to the US. I’m just not enthused about spilling US blood to keep them safe there.

      • ‘leftists’ aren’t either. Consider your own words.

        Mirror, mirror…………

      • ‘leftists’ aren’t either. Consider your own words.

        I don’t believe you have the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

      • In fact Breitbart is “staffed almost entirely by Jews” according to Milo who works for them and should know. This might explain their anti-Muslim stance.

      • Jim D: “This might explain their anti-Muslim stance.”

        Most non-Muslims who have extensive experience of Muslims end up having an anti-Muslim stance.

        There is a plethora of reasons for that.

      • Muslims living in your community would probably also have some negative experiences with your type of person.

      • Jim D: “Muslims living in your community would probably also have some negative experiences with your type of person”

        There are no Muslims living in my community. Jimbo. There’s a Sri Lankan couple run the corner shop, a Chinese couple who run the restaurant, a Nigerian who passes at intervals and drops in for a chat and a cup of tea, and a Romanian family with whom my wife and I dine occasionally, and they with us, and who do a good line in Central European moonshine that would strip paint.

        There are a couple of Bangladeshi restaurants, one much better than the other – obviously that’s the one that gets my custom. The staff of both commute from Leeds or Bradford daily.

        I am on first name terms with all of the above, and they with me.

        The nearest resident Muslims are about 15 miles away, and the big concentrations about thirty.

        And, as it happens. they have no negative experiences of me at all, nor I of them.

        You really haven’t the first idea about me, my life, my lifestyle, my relationships with my neighbours or where I live, or the United Kingdom in general. You live in your tiny bubble, and you just can’t handle the fact that in the real world, very few people conform to your extremely distorted, uncharitable stereotypes.

      • OK that sounds like a bubble you live in. It might explain your attitude to the unknown.

      • Jim D: “OK that sounds like a bubble you live in. It might explain your attitude to the unknown.”

        The unknown, you ignorant, patronising, condescending, callow little boy?

        Over the last seven decades or so, I have spent a great deal of my existence living and working in a variety of towns and cities such as Bradford, Leeds, London and even some in Europe – particularly France and Spain, so I know a great deal about such things, I am certain vastly more than you know – or ever will know. Many/most of those towns had and still have a considerable immigrant population.

        Now, in my retirement, I live in a small town in the country.

        It is very clearly you that lives in a bubble – like a great many Americans of a certain type – do you actually own a passport? I doubt it.

      • …and I keep asking what you want to do to the Muslims that live peacefully in your community, but this is not getting any answer except vitriol. It is not a hard question to answer, surely.

      • Jim D: “…and I keep asking what you want to do to the Muslims that live peacefully in your community”

        Such as these Muslims?

        “JAILED: Mitcham couple Mohammed and Nazimabee Golamaully with ‘extremist beliefs’ who sent money to jihadi nephew fighting for Islamic State in Syria

        Summing up, Judge Anuja Dhir QC described the messages and viewing of websites as showing “a sustained and very real sympathy for the objectives of Islamic State in Syria and their methods.

        “These methods including killing innocent people in acts of terrorism.

        “The material found shows your extremist beliefs before and after the payment was made. The payment has to be seen in the context of your own personal extremist views at the time.”

        Speaking to Mohammed, Judge Dhir said: “It is a worrying feature of this case that an intelligent and well-respected family man, who was regarded as a good neighbour, a compassionate work-colleague and a loving parent, can behave in this way, and hold the views that you undoubtedly had at the time of this offence.

        http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/14920208.JAILED___Extremist__Mitcham_couple_sent_money_to_jihadi_nephew_fighting_for_ISIS/

        Or how about these Muslims?

        The 2007 Glasgow Airport attack was a terrorist ramming attack which occurred on 30 June 2007, at 15:11 BST, when a dark green Jeep Cherokee loaded with propane canisters was driven into the glass doors of the Glasgow Airport terminal and set ablaze.

        Police identified the two men as Bilal Abdullah, a British-born, Muslim doctor of Iraqi descent working at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, and Kafeel Ahmed, also known as Khalid Ahmed, an engineer and the driver

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_Airport_attack

        How many more examples would you like, Jimbo?

        I assure you, I have hundreds – and those are only the tip of the iceberg.

      • Then again it may be the WTC, The Pentagon, Spain Trains, London Underground, Pulse Nightclub, San Bernadino, Paris, Charlie Hebdo, etc. – and the lack of outrage and condemnation from the Muslim communities.

      • If you count the people responsible versus the Muslim population, it makes no sense to condemn them all. Do you condemn the jihadists every time this happens, or just all Muslims in general? Do you even distinguish these from each other?

      • Reading is still not your strong point. Show me where I condemned all. The only place is where I condemned all TERRORISTS!

        Logic 101 – If all A is in B, that does not mean that all B are in A.

        Almost all terrorists of late are Muslims. So why do you keep assuming that all muslims are terrorists? That is extremely bigoted of you.

      • I think we agree that more than 99% of Muslims are not terrorists, and I have said that from the start. It is absolute idiocy to say otherwise, and it is bigoted generalize so that when you see a Muslim you feel they are inclined towards terrorism.

      • I have not said what percent of Muslims are terrorists as I have not seen any numbers on that. The only one claiming all muslims are terrorists are you.

        So I will not agree with your numbers as I have no basis for a “belief”. I only know that in the past 20 years, 99% of all terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims. So I do not worry about a 90 year old Hindu Grandmother.

      • This might explain their anti-Muslim stance.

        What “anti-Muslim stance”?

        Of course, an “anti-Muslim stance” might well explain accusations of anti-Semiticism. Arabs are (on average) more Semitic than Jews. Of course, not all Muslims are Arabs…

      • AK: “Arabs are (on average) more Semitic than Jews.”

        The term ‘antisemitism‘ has a specific meaning, ie hatred of Jews. Check that in any on-line dictionary.

      • It’s not Breitbart’s top priority in hate, but it is there and needs to be called out.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-anti-muslim-hate-trump_us_582df18ae4b058ce7aa9b17f

      • Given your sympathy for the subject, and willingness to brandish all muslims as terrorists, I am surprised you have not jumped on board with him.

        Or perhaps, that is just another lie from the left.

      • That was what you were doing, and I was trying to stop you from generalizing about Muslims, but now it looks like I have succeeded and you agree. Yes, generalization is foolish and simplistic thinking.

      • Blaming others for YOUR sins now. Show me where I ever said that.

        And take your time. The silence will be the smartest thing you have done here.

        Then when you have failed, we will show how YOU equated terrorists with all Muslims!

      • You have equated terrorists with Muslims, and it is good that you are now happy that most Muslims are not terrorists. I think this one is settled.

      • Logic fail again. I have NOT equated Muslims with terrorists, I HAVE equated terrorists with Muslims.

        YOU are the only one that has equated Muslims with Terrorists!

        Once again for the free educationers – If all A are in B, it does NOT follow that all B are in A!

      • More Josh like every day Danny.

        Did you come up with that mirror, mirror line on your own or did someone suggest it to you.

      • Two points.
        First, you were no longer wishing to communicate with me.

        Substance?

      • Jim D, opinions you don’t agree with is not the definition of hate.

      • Yes, I don’t agree with ‘hate’ opinions specifically.

      • More Josh like every day Danny.

        Sock puppet. I’m surprised you hadn’t figured that out.

      • David Springer

        “WRT the Jews, I’ve wondered why they tend to vote Dimowit. I haven’t seen an analysis of how they voted this time”

        72% for Clinton

      • I didn’t know that AK. At least it explains the resemblance.

      • Jim2: ” We would be better served to move the entire Israeli population back to the US”

        Why would you want to do that when many of them have family roots in Israel dating back to the time of Christ and beyond and have preserved those roots despite the best efforts of aggressors and occupying powers from the Romans to the Ottomans and now the “Palestinians”?

        Jerusalem has been the capital city of the Jews for around 3,000 years, it is the “Palestinians” – most of whom were kicked out of Jordan for attempting to overthrow the Hashemites that are the ones who don’t belong there.

      • “Semitic people or Semitic cultures (from the biblical “Shem”, Hebrew: שם‎‎) was a term for people or cultures who speak or spoke the Semitic languages. The terminology was first used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, who derived the name from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis.[2] The term “Semitic”, together with the parallel terms Hamitic and Japhetic, is now largely obsolete outside of linguistics.[3][4][5] However, in archaeology, the term is sometimes used informally as “a kind of shorthand” for ancient Semitic-speaking peoples.[5]”

        So how do I figure out if someone is antiSemitic, or antiSemitic? And what difference does it make?

        Or does antiSemitic really mean opposed to Judaism, or critical of Israel? Or maybe individual Israelis. or people who happen to be nominally Jewish?

        Almost sounds like a dialect of Climatese, with apparent redefinitions of words in an attempt to induce a feeling of guilt in others. Gee, someone might take offence! Boo hoo, poor precious petal! Like I care!

        It can be a tough world.

        Cheers.

      • David Springer

        Yeah well I’ve known plenty of Muslim men but no Muslim women. The men are all sexist pigs to the very last one. The reason I ran into so many of the men is they were Iranian refugees (they prefer to call themselves “Persian”) who came to the states in the 1970’s and settled in large number in California where I worked with them in the computer industry. The reason I ran into so few women is they didn’t allow women out into the workforce which is part and parcel of being sexist pigs.

        Thanks for asking.

      • @philjourdan
        > Given your sympathy for the subject, and willingness to brandish all muslims as terrorists, I am surprised you have not jumped on board with him.

        > Or perhaps, that is just another lie from the left.

        Yes, that is just another lie from the left. Nobody on the right is trying to paint all Muslims as terrorists. All we are doing is pointing out that almost all terrorists (at lest those attacking us currently) are Muslims

        This is not nearly the same thing.

        But it does meant that when looking for Terrorists, it’s FAR more effective to look for them within the Muslim communities than it is to look for them in the Catholic communities

        And just like Catholic and Protestant preachers in the early 1600’s (or Ireland in the 1980’s for that matter) were likely to be the cause of attacks on others, currently the words and actions of the Islamic preachers are likely to cause grief. t

        The Freedom of Religion in the US requires that all Religions accept the right of the others to exist as well. The left likes to use the phrase that it’s good to be “Intolerant of Intolerance”, except when it is aimed at Islam (specifically the radical branches of it)

        Eventually, the more moderate Muslims are going to have to stand up and fight back against their radical co-religionists if they want to eliminate the stigma that is quite rightly developing.

        Look at it this way. When there is a food contamination outbreak in a fast-food chain, people don’t say “well, it’s only a few places that have problems”, instead they will avoid the chain everywhere until it can make a good case that it has eliminated the problem.

        Right now, too much of the Muslim community is silent and/or passively supporting the radical branches. In part, this is because they are afraid of them as well, but they need to realize that if they make it impossible to tell the radicals apart from the peaceful folks from the outside, it means that they all have to be treated as a threat until proven otherwise.

      • I think we can agree Europe is totally screwed over due to Muslims.

      • Muslims are the cork screw – the leaders like merkel are wielding it.

  41. I’m looking forward to Breitbart Cable News Network. BCNN.

  42. From the article:

    The National Border Patrol Council has high hopes for President-elect Trump’s border security policies.

    The union’s president, Brandon Judd, has been advising the Trump transition team. The union has encouraged the building of a border wall and changing enforcement policies put in place in the past four years.

    San Diego-based Shawn Moran, vice president of the union, said a wall on the border would be a “vital tool,” and it’s difficult to say exactly where along the border a wall is needed.

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sd-me-cbp-union-20161117-story.html

  43. Foucart’s statement that environmental policy is based on scientific research is missing a word or two. It currently is based on the spinning of scientific research.

    Why is it we see all these whiny losers warning of doom and gloom?

  44. Apple is looking into moving iPhone manufacturing to the US because of the possibility of a 45% tariff which may make it competitive to make them in the US for the US market. However, hopefully they can also keep manufacturing in China to sell them cheap to the rest of the world, while the US enjoys its more expensive home-made version. Not sure Trump has thought that one through.

    • I’m thinking what with the huge profit margin Apple enjoys, not all the money has to come from consumers.

      • Circumstances would force them to cut back their profit margin to pay their US workers more. This is a sure way to reduce growth and lose investors.

      • Jim D,

        You are aware that a large number of foreign manufacturers operate plants in the US, right?

        The auto industry comes to mind. Wonder why that is.

      • The US operates plants overseas for the same reason.

      • Your point Jim?

      • I have nothing against businesses operating in other countries whichever way around it is. Most often they do it for pragmatic reasons.

      • Jim D, try to stay on topic. After all it is your topic. You remember, the topic of how businesses returning to the US will see reduced profit and growth, leading to investors bailing.

      • That was the case of Apple with their iPhones. It’s only the possibility of Trump’s punitive tariff that makes it even a consideration to move production back to be able to keeping selling in the US. Maybe other industries would be in a similar situation, but they have not said.

      • David Springer

        Jim D you’re so consistently wrong that if you say Apple will lose investors by bring manufacturing back to the states it’s a sure bet they will gain investors by doing so. You should bottle your prognostications and sell them as contrary indicators.

    • Circumstances would force them to cut back their profit margin to pay their US workers more.

      Better than having to cut their prices to below cost so non-workers in the US could afford to buy them at all.

      • Trump can subsidize them. He’s rich.

      • Seems the left cannot make up its mind. First they try to convince us Trump is busted. NOw they want us to believe Trump is richer than Gates, Buffet and Slim combined!

        I can see why people are worried about the fake news. The left cornered the market on it.

      • His voters think he is rich so I was kidding. Most other rich people put their money to humanitarian used, but not Trump, probably because he only has a tenth of, for example, Bloomberg, who is self-made and more modest about it, and a far superior person on that basis alone.

      • The confusion of the left demonstrated by Jim in just 2 posts! In the first, he claims Trump is richer than all the rich in the world! And in the second he claims Trump is really poor!

        This is just a bonus of Trump winning. But I am having a great time watching liberal pretzels!

      • He seems to have debts to Russian oligarchs, but won’t detail the numbers on that, so in some ways he is poor. It is not good for a President to owe money overseas, especially to such people as he does. He needs to liquidate enough to pay that off as a first step towards divesting himself of outside interests. What would the Republicans be saying if Obama owed money to Russians?

      • Are you talking about the man who got millions from the Russians? Whose wife turned over 20% of the Uranium in the US to Russian control? The Clintons? LOL

        Or are you talking about another fake news story? Yea, I know you read about it on Huffpo. As if they even know what news is!

    • Easy: the iPhone manufactured in China will carry two price tags: $100 for the U.S. market, and $145 for everybody else (multiply the numbers by five). Let’s get to stuff for grown-ups.

      • OK, then they lose the competition with Samsung with that own goal. This same thing happens with any manufacturing industry they want to bring home inside a large tariff wall. Only Americans get the higher prices. The rest of the world trade with each other as normal.

      • As with most subjects you offer opinion on Jim D, what you know about manufacturing or the global marketplace would fit in a thimble.

      • I put this up to see the rebuff, and maybe learn something. Nothing forthcoming so far.

      • Sorry Jim, but I don’t consider it my job to provide you with basic education. I will recommend you look up the Junior Achievement program and see if you can sit in on some of the sessions they offer.

        Once you grasp the basics, then perhaps we can move on to discuss more complex issues, like how the cost of goods are not driven solely by the cost of labor. Or how productivity is often a function of how much labor is paid.

        You do know whose labor force is the most productive, right?

      • You can also wonder why China opposes Trump in his opposing TPP.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-state-media-warn-trump_us_583062d1e4b030997bbfaf19
        To me it looks like a double bluff. There is nothing they would like more than to have their own Chinese version of the TPP having been excluded from the American version.

      • I put this up to see the rebuff, and maybe learn something. Nothing forthcoming so far.

        If you really want to learn something, you’ve got to pay attention to what people say, rather than phony up straw man arguments trying to shut them down.

      • David Springer

        Competition with Samsung in what, BBQ fire starters?

    • So what, they are too expensive for me anyway…let the rich people signal at twice the price!

    • Or Apple may be looking at the Corporate tax rate cut that will be even more effective, and move their money back to the US as well. I bet Trump HAS thought of that.

      • The cheap labor is in Asia. If they want to compete globally they need to manufacture there. However, being out of the TPP probably means they have given up on exports unless they can get the dollar to plunge.

      • How much labor (versus machines) go into making an iPhone? There are still (in a perfect world) transportation costs – both of the finished product to market and for the raw materials to the factory.

        Labor is cheaper in China. But labor is NOT the major cost of the iPhone.

        You failed Econ 101 again.

      • Tell Apple where to make their iPhones cheaper. They chose China.

      • I am not telling anyone ANYTHING. I asked you a question. Do you know how to recognize a question? It has that funny mark at the end of a sentence – oddly enough called a QUESTION mark – ? – It looks like a shepherds crook with a point.

        Want to answer the question?

  45. Ate those who lost the American presidential election even worse losers than those who lost the Brexit referendum? Discuss

    http://www.politico.eu/article/barack-obama-loyalists-plot-donald-trump-resistance/

    Tonyb

    • tony –

      What constitutes a “worse loser?” How is that differentiated from someone who opposes an electoral outcome (say, when the Republicans said that opposing Obama’s electoral victory was their main objective, or who complained throughout his presidency about “tyranny,” such as when he instituted a policy that was previously supported by mainstream Republicans (a mandate to have health insurance?)

      BTW –

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shy-voters-probably-arent-why-the-polls-missed-trump/

      • Joshua

        I will see your ambivalent ‘probably’ fivethirtyeight and raise you a shy voter

        http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/11/shy-voters-help-explain-why-so-few-predicted-a-trump-win.html

        Tonyb

      • So which analysis do you find more plausible? Don’t be shy about it. If you think it is the Nymag article, how do you explain why the candidates did better than the polling not in areas where they were in the minority, but where they were in the majority. Why would they be “shy to express popular views I their community ? Why wouldn’t Clinton voters have been” shy” about their support for an historically unpopular candidate who was labeled a criminal by so many? Why would the online polling not reflect the” shy voters?” why would the primary polling not have shown the same effect? How do you dismiss the likelihood that the error in the polling (for the most part in the margin of error) could have been because of problems with “likely voter” screening, not shyness?

      • The Analysis of the EC is more plausible. The rest is just sour grapes.

        Want some cheese with that whine?

      • And BTW, is your assessment of the validity of an analysis more confident when an analysist doesn’t acknowlwedge uncertainty?

      • What’s wrong Josh, your inability to understand how government works when the Executive and Legislate branches are controlled by opposing parties confusing you?

        Probably not. More likely you just being you – a putz incapable of honest dialogue.

      • David Springer

        Search my name in the comments on 538. I made hundreds of them. Rude, crude, socially unacceptable but ultimately quite correct.

        Nate and the other millienial dimwits behing the site are clutching at straws trying to explain their errors.

      • David Springer

        If they could poll me and those like me they would find out why the polls failed. Conservatives are less likely to answer phone calls from unrecognized numbers. They don’t know this because they can’t poll me and those like me to find out. That explains why conservative senators outperformed the polls along with Trump. I can only imagine it’s much more pronounced in battleground states where people with more important things to do are drowned in unsolicited election crappola.

      • David Springer

        Trump overperformed the most among working married women. The reason is the same. They have too much crap to do juggling work and kids to answer phone calls from unrecognized numbers.

      • Phone poll results are biased toward non conservatives for sure. Agree with David S on this one, for a change!

      • David Springer

        Peter M. Davies made a good choice, for a change.

      • What you might be missing is the effect of bullying by Clinton supporters, as well as the perfectly rational suspicion that the polls aren’t anonymous despite what they promise.

        Personally, I suspect there was a strong tendency among supporters of Trump, and Republican candidates, not only to avoid (or lie to) the polls, but to avoid voting in states where they knew their vote wouldn’t change anything.

        Also worrying is the way many Clintonistas took pictures of their ballot and posted them online. Could there have been threats of bullying against people who voted but didn’t post pictures of their ballot?

        Perhaps by 2020 2018 it would be good if every voting booth was set up so voters could take a picture of their ballot, then change it before submitting it. Along with posted instructions how to do that.

        Right now would be the time to start pushing for it, along with widespread attention to Leftist bullying, and a campaign to force unions and other such organizations to use a similarly secret ballot.

      • Peter –

        ==> Phone poll results are biased toward non conservatives for sure. ==>

        What evidence do you use to formulate your 100% confident assertion? The evidence I have seen do not show what you are saying. For example, discrepancies between online polling and phone polling don’t show Trump getting a higher total in the online polling, but instead a drop on Clinton’s numbers. How do you explain that with your theory.

        Anyway, are you going with a Springer-like argument by assertion? I would be surprised by that. Please link to your evidence.

      • The Evidence? Try the election.

    • There is an organized community of losers. Read Karl Marx.

    • Yes. The rabid, hate speech rants and clumsy protests continue. Please don’t tell anybody, I want them to keep on losing. So far, since 2009, the dems have lost:

      (to the melody of the song “The Twelve Days of Christmas)
      Since the year 2009 the dems did give to us
      900 state representatives
      69 congressional seats
      13 senators
      12 Governors
      and a Pre-si-dent in a white house…

    • Tony Blair looking at a comeback to help with Brexit and Labour Party. “May is a total lightweight” he says.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tony-blair-jeremy-corbyn-nutter_uk_5831a2ace4b0b8f770113ee7?utm_hp_ref=uk

      • jimd

        Yes, great news! He is greatly reviled over here and now joins the equally detested Nick Clegg and Keith Vaz. Blair joining the remoaners is a further nail in their undemocratic coffin

        tonyb

      • Is May considered weak, as he implies?

      • Jimd

        Blair is thoroughly disliked and few care what he thinks. Don’t forget he is trying to make a comeback and May comes from different party to his.

        I think May is a ditherer. As to whether she is weak or not, I think to have climbed up the very greasy pole to Prime Minister suggests she has some steel to her. She has a lot of problems on her plate after a tempestuous period so we shall see over the next few months how she deals with them

        tonyb

    • Word length?
      Time limit? )

  46. As a Brit I’m astonished at the amount of political debate, on a climate blog, between people, speculating what their not yet installed President, may or may not do.

    Judith’s blog is, if not the most informed and valuable sceptics resource across the planet, is certainly one of the very best and is watched by everyone. That includes politicians, money people, the general public (like me) and every other climate blogger on the internet. And that is right now.

    If you are to do anything for the sceptics cause, please lay off the speculation, political intrigue, petty debates and personal points scoring. No one on earth will know if you are a hero on here for winning your argument as we are largely anonymous commentators.

    Save your digits and the planets valuable, scarce and very expensive ‘clean’ electrons for debate on the science as there is no solution to politics. Never has been, never will be. If an inoculation for the political disease were possible, surely it would have been found by now.

    • Wait! Are you a true Scotsman?

    • “Why would that be relevant?”

      It is relevant to your attempt to protect a universal generalization (climate change is about the science) from counterexamples (or climate change is all about the politics).

      • Because I am, am not, or profess to be a Scotsman? Are you mad? Or are you racist?

      • “Because I am, am not, or profess to be a Scotsman? Are you mad? Or are you racist?”

        I am educated. Try it, you might discover it holds more weight than childish rants:

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

      • You raised the subject of nationality, not me. It isn’t relevant to anything so anything you say following it is as worthless as your initial response.

        Clearly, your education is limited to your egotistical demands.

      • “You raised the subject of nationality, not me.”

        This is a lie. The first sentence of your original post begins:

        “As a Brit I’m astonished at the amount of political debate…”

        Further, I was Jim2 who referenced the true Scotsman fallacy and all I did was explain its relevance to your argument, but go ahead and deflect and pretend like you’re not being political right now.

        You obviously needed the fallacy explained to you and instead of graciousness you’ve doubled downed on your political entrenchment. The racist accusation makes clear what your politics are and it sure as hell ain’t about the science.

      • I’m sorry but you have a condition I’m unable to help you with. You should see a doctor about anger management.

        I’ll disengage from this ‘discussion’ until you access some rationality.

        Nor am I being sarcastic or am I trying to ‘score points’. I’m commenting in your best interests.

      • Sorry HotScot, Jean Paul does not have an anger issue. He was correct to point out that it was Jim2 that brought up your nationality. And Jim2 was just doing so as tongue in cheek for the “No true Scot” argument. Jean Paul pointed that out. And you then jumped on him. At no time did anyone even insinuate that Scots were in any way inferior or defective, except you.

      • “Nor am I being sarcastic or am I trying to ‘score points’. I’m commenting in your best interests.”

        It is political strategies exactly like yours that got Trump elected. It is not advisable for fake doctors to venture unsolicited diagnosis lest they risk discovering the value the diagnosed place upon that phony diagnosis. (h/t Ayn Rand).

      • David Springer

        HotScot | November 19, 2016 at 6:07 pm |

        I’ll disengage from this ‘discussion’ until you access some rationality.

        ———————————————————

        Oh ouch. That’s a stinging loss. /sarc

      • @philjourdan

        >Scot is a race?

        more so than Muslim is

      • Muslim is a race??? (I should use /sarc tags).

      • @philjourdan

        > Muslim is a race??? (I should use /sarc tags).

        That’s my point. People who are opposed to unlimited Muslim immigration, are accused of being racist.

      • Yes, probably the same folks that think CO2 heats up the atmosphere.

        As Jean Paul said, words mean things, And sadly some do not know how to use words and then expect everyone to understand their new meaning of them.

  47. Escape to Nz !!
    Richard Dawkins: NZ could be Trump-era ‘Athens’

    A world-famous thinker says New Zealand could be the “Athens of the modern world” in a post-election love letter urging our country to gobble up the globe’s brightest minds amid fallout from the US election and Brexit.
    Writing for Scientific American alongside other prominent scientists in a piece reacting to Donald Trump’s election win this week, Richard Dawkins wrote our “deeply civilised small nation” should try to lure top scientists from the UK and US eager to escape their countries.
    The British ethologist and author of the book The God Delusion wrote how “the two largest nations in the English-speaking world have just suffered catastrophes at the hands of voters – in both cases the uneducated, anti-intellectual portion of voters”.
    Snip
    Dawkins wrote there were top scientists in the US and the UK – “talented, creative people, desperate to escape the redneck bigotry of their home countries”.
    “Dear New Zealand, you are a deeply civilized small nation, with a low population in a pair of beautiful, spacious islands,” he wrote.
    “You care about climate change, the future of the planet and other scientifically important issues.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11746387

    British scientists don’t like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn’t even ask questions about Richard Dawkins
    Dawkins has been publicly criticised by colleagues before. In 2014, Harvard professor EO Wilson said that Dawkins wasn’t a scientist at all, instead calling him a “journalist” and implying that he didn’t do any work of his own.
    “There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research,” said Wilson during an interview on Newsnight.
    Dawkins tweeted soon after to say that he had actually done new work and that the argument was the result of a specific disagreement.
    “I greatly admire EO Wilson & his huge contributions to entomology, ecology, biogeography, conservation, etc. He’s just wrong on kin selection,” Mr Dawkins wrote on Twitter. “Anybody who thinks I’m a journalist who reports what other scientists think is invited to read The Extended Phenotype,” he wrote in a follow-up tweet, making reference to the sequel to his seminal book The Selfish Gene.
    It is Twitter that has led to many of the controversies that Dawkins has been embroiled in. A Guardian article last year reported that some people close to Dawkins were worried that his online outbursts could be destroying his reputation
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-atheism-criticism-atheist-study-rice-university-science-scientists-a7389396.html

    Fellow Scientists Reprimand Atheist Richard Dawkins for ‘Misrepresenting Science’
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/03/fellow-scientists-reprimand-atheist-richard-dawkins-misrepresenting-science/

    Richard Dawkins a god among atheists
    http://www.vancourier.com/community/richard-dawkins-a-god-among-atheists-1.2580785

    Richard Dawkins Misrepresents Science, Say British Scientists
    http://www.science20.com/news_articles/richard_dawkins_misrepresents_science_say_british_scientists-180594

  48. This reminds me of the lefties here on CE. You will see the pattern of using loose associations in an attempt to link the target to an unseemly group or behavior. This is awesome. Tucker Carlson tears this guy a new one, over and over again. You will recognize shades of Williard-JimD-DannyT. I won’t attempt to put the intact link on here.

    Three Ws dot youtube dot com, then

    /watch?v=kHP_bkoo32I

    • If Tucker Carlson has something to say against Stormfront, he needs to devote this segment to that, and not just act surprised when they support Sessions.

      • Thanks for demonstrating my allegations, JimD :)

      • Carlson is shocked, shocked that Stormfront endorses Sessions for his views. Fake outrage is his forte.

      • As Catweazle said – Liar! Or perhaps just ignorance. He is not shocked. He is informed and the guest is not. That is why the other guest is red faced and Tucker is not.

      • They need to get used to this until they address the root problem of alt-right support.

      • Get use to libel and slander? Just because you coined a new term of derision for those you hate? Why would anyone get use to libel and slander because liberal haters have to hate irrationally?

        Seriously, you have a problem. Until you can fix it, things will only get worse for you.

      • This, again and from you, is another example of attempting to slime someone with loose associations. The fact that some group “endorses” Sessions does not impugn his character. Anyone or group can endorse anyone or anything. It is meaningless and could even be a dimowit or Soros funded group – who knows?

      • Carlson did not say exactly why he thought Stormfront is a bad group. This kind of side-stepping always happens. Trump, too. It just leaves the questions open.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Hollywood as a group supports Democrats. I can think of a fairly bad list of associations with Hollywood. Shall we tar all Democrats with that list?

      • Hollywood isn’t a politically homogeneous group as far as I know. They have very diverse views there.

      • 34 examples: http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-hollywood-stars-support/

        However, ‘grouping’ is a tactic of convenience.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Maybe compared to the DNC and even that would be a close call.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Then you shouldn’t group the members of Stormfront.

      • Stormfront have a website where they state a monolithic view. They define themselves as a group. People like Carlson or Trump only have to go there and state which aspects they find deplorable, then we can move on. They won’t, of course.

      • stevenreincarnated

        OK, so who did the Screen Actors Guild support?

      • Do they have political positions posted somewhere? Perhaps, as a union, they may have a union position, and I would not be surprised if I support everything in it as it pertains to the broader discussion, if not perhaps some internal politics related to the movie industry.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, I can understand why you don’t want the people that you support being responsible because they get support from the people of Hollywood, but the people you support embrace it, take their money, have them at their events. They are much more accountable for the behavior of their Hollywood supporters than Trump is for some weird group that most normal people just ignore (and I had to look up just to see who they were) and he hasn’t asked for any support from.

      • What is it about Hollywood people you don’t like? Their humanitarian efforts? Usually they are spokespeople for and donors to various causes. I would judge them on the causes they represent.

      • Jim D: “What is it about Hollywood people you don’t like?”

        Well, just take Leonardo DiCaprio for example. Or ‘Hanoi’ Jane Fonda.

        Although I met her brother once, had a few beers with him, and he sat on my Velocette. He was a good bloke.

      • Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston were “Hollywood” people too. They still have the whole cross section today. Clint Eastwood is to the right. You shouldn’t generalize.

      • Jim D: “You shouldn’t generalize.”

        I didn’t generalise, you silly little man, so knock off the BS. I specifically named two, De Caprio and Hanoi Jane. That is most definitely NOT generalisation. I leave that to you, it’s your stock-in-trade.

        I am aware of the leanings of assorted others, such as John Wayne, for example.

      • Tell that to steven then. It looked like you jumped in on his side, but maybe not. Tell him that you think Hollywood is more assorted. I tried and just got guff back.

      • What Humanitarian efforts? Flying jets around and trying to make sure no one else can?

      • stevenreincarnated

        You mean besides the drug use, sexual assault, and pedophilia?

      • Exactly!

      • stevenreincarnated

        Other than a few minor vices I guess they aren’t all that bad.

      • You are generalizing about Hollywood in a prejudiced way, but that’s fine. It’s a free country which also means we can call out prejudice where we see it.

      • stevenreincarnated

        It’s a pretty easy group to be prejudice against. I don’t have any trouble with that at all. When the industry decides to take measures to clean its act up perhaps it won’t be so easy. Let me know when they start turning each other in. In a small industry like the film industry you can bet almost everyone that isn’t involved knows who is. In the meantime you want to associate politicians with their supporters so deal with the people that support your favorite politicians.

      • So you see Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood and that is your first thought about them. Generalizations don’t work, and say more about you than the targets.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’m sorry if I ruined your movie experience for you. Maybe attacking people for who supports them is something you should leave behind you since you don’t seem emotionally strong enough for the ramifications.

      • This seems to be your problem not mine.

      • stevenreincarnated

        “Little House on the Prairie’ star Alison Arngrim agreed. ‘This has been going on for a very long time,’ she told Fox News. ‘It was the gossip back in the 80s. People said, “Oh yeah, the Coreys, everyone’s had them.” People talked about it like it was no big deal.’”

        Gossip. No big deal. Going on a long time. Sounds about right. Time to drain the Hollywood swamp.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070474/Does-Hollywood-paedophilia-epidemic-Abuse-revealed-child-actors.html

      • Like Fox News is a moral leader.

      • No, just a news source.

      • Like Fox News is a moral leader.

        Closer than the NYTimes and the like.

      • Jim D: Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston were “Hollywood” people too. They still have the whole cross section today. Clint Eastwood is to the right. You shouldn’t generalize.

        Conservatives in Hollywood are notable exactly because they are so rare. You have named 3-4 of them in the last couple of generations of Actors.

      • The two I listed headed the SAG at various times. That’s a union position. Confusing, isn’t it.

      • Only to the left that cannot think outside of generalizations.

      • Jim D seems to have a problem with the basic definitions of words. Tucker was not “surprised”. He challenged the guest to back up his claims, and the guest was “surprised” that anyone would challenge his word. And had no evidence to back up his libel.

        The Guest was surprised. Tucker Carlson knew what he was talking about. But then that is common. The left never knows what it is talking about as evidenced by JIm’s misuse of words throughout this thread.

      • Carlson needs to get used to the fact that alt-right people will support people like Sessions and Trump, and the criticism should not be on the people that report that, but on why they think the alt-right are wrong to support them.

      • You are as clueless as the guest. Tucker could not care less about who or what or when the alt right is! He was asking the guest to back up his libel and slander and the guest failed miserably! Tucker kept pushing him to admit he either made it up, or that he was simply dishonest. IN the end, everyone (except you since you are demonstrating you know nothing) knew he had just made it up and was being dishonest. But he could not say that on the air because then that is proof of slander and libel!

        Go find your own squirrels! Geez man, no one can be that dense.

      • @jimD

        > They need to get used to this until they address the root problem of alt-right support.

        This is not Communist Russia or China, you aren’t required to disavow people, especially people you don’t know.

        there are extremists on both sides, we don’t see calls for the Left to disavow the crazies who say they support the left, why should we be seeing calls for the Right to disavow the crazies who say they support the right?

      • The problem with the “alt-right” meme is that it’s not well defined. And that is purposeful. The left want just about any conservative organization, like Breitbart, to get conflated with some extremely small groups, like the not-sees. So basically, they want to smear the differences to discredit legitimate and beneficial right-wing groups and organizations. That’s what this whole “alt-right” thing is about.

      • I have always thought alt-hate is a better description.

      • Yea, they are the ones blocking streets and beating up innocent people right now. Some call them BLM and OWS. But you are correct. They are just alt-hate. Or how about just hate.

      • Jim2 – good point! That is how the left always works. And it is straight from Alinsky’s rules.

      • davidelang, if the left has room-fulls of people preaching hate, they would be condemned.

      • And where are you looking for the condemnation? From the haters themselves?

        Seriously, learn!

      • > if the left has room-fulls of people preaching hate, they would be condemned.

        you are being willfully blind

        BLM rallies where they chant “kill the cops” and similar have been well documented

      • Do the BLM vote for Hillary because they think she has a similar view and will enact things that achieve that? That is a difference here.

      • if the left has room-fulls of people preaching hate, they would be condemned.

        What a l1e. There are room-fulls of leftists preaching hate all over. Nobody cares. Nobody pays attention to videos etc. They just condemn it as “fake news”.

      • If you showed those videos(?) to Obama, he would tell you why any kind of hate is wrong, while I have yet to hear Trump say that.

      • None are so blind as those that will not see. The videos are all over the internet. If Obama cared he would have seen them and condemned them. But they serve HIS purpose, so he remains silent!

        THINK!!!!

      • “If you showed those videos(?) to Obama, he would tell you why any kind of hate is wrong, while I have yet to hear Trump say that.”

        Oh Dear Lord, are you in kindergarten? You have yet to hear the president-elect tell you what you want to hear? Would you hear it if he said it, or would instead hear the likes of Wolf Blitzer wondering why he wasn’t more dramatic in saying it?

      • He doesn’t have to be dramatic, but “stop it” and “I disavow them” are not good enough. Why does he disavow? What is wrong with those people in his mind? Are they deplorable?

      • I have yet to hear Trump say that.

        Yeah, I suppose you didn’t read the full NYTimes interview.

      • see my answer to JPZ.

      • He doesn’t have to be dramatic, but “stop it” and “I disavow them” are not good enough.

        Yeah it is. They’re Americans too. Theirs is a natural reaction to the hatred spewed at them from the SJW/Left. They aren’t allowed to act on their feelings, but they’re right that the people who built this nation were overwhelmingly white. When the Left tries to treat them as 2nd class citizens, it’s quite understandable that they want to throw them out.

        If you don’t want straight white people, especially men, celebrating their overwhelming contribution to building this nation, you should start by denouncing, and continuing to denounce, racist sexist scum like the BLM/SJW/”Feminist” movements.

      • Then Trump should support them to show where he stands. Either way, just “stop it” is not the way to lead. A President needs to set an example, and words help too. What does he consider American and unAmerican? We have a fairly good idea from his speeches where Obama stands on this type of thing.

      • Set an example? OBAMA DID set an example!

        On the issue of Gates, with no clue on what went down, he said the police were stupid. On the issue of Martin, again with no clue on the facts, he said that was his SON! On the issue of Brown, again with no clue, he called the police racists!

        Yet on the case of Tania Stokes, he sat on his hands! He has set an example! Thugs and criminals are to be praised and mourned. Innocent children are just post partum abortions!

      • philjourdan, you have over 50 replies to me today over the space of 8 hours. I just can’t be bothered. Does anyone else get this much attention?

      • I did not count. I merely responded to ignorance. A character defect of mine. I try to educate where I see ignorance.

      • Another 32 today, and I didn’t even reply to the ones you did yesterday. I am trying to save you time because clearly you are spending hours on trying to reply to me.

      • And none from Tuesday to Monday since you are keeping count. I have a fanboy! I am honored. I hope you are learning.

      • Then Trump should support them to show where he stands. Either way, just “stop it” is not the way to lead.

        Wrong.

        He’s disavowed them, but their behavior is not UnAamerican, and they’re entitled to their own opinion.

      • disavows them because…? That part is missing.

      • “He doesn’t have to be dramatic, but “stop it” and “I disavow them” are not good enough. Why does he disavow? What is wrong with those people in his mind? Are they deplorable?”

        Using the word “deplorable” is a non-starter. Hillary went and made that a political toxin.

        Disavow means to deny any responsibility for or any involvement with. Why should one have to explain why they are disavowing, particularly in the context of outraged accusers? Why do the outraged need it explained to them by the accused why they are disavowing? Do they not know why they are outraged? Do you? Are you, or is it faux outrage?

        Thesaurus offers these words, among others, as synonyms to disavow:

        Impugn – meaning dispute or call into to question the validity of

        Repudiate – meaning refuse to accept or associate with

        Abjure – meaning solemnly renounce

        Of course, Thesaurus also offers phrases such as “weasel out of” or “wash hands of” or words like “welsh” but context is everything when determining the meaning of words.

        In response to this question posed by Dean Baquet:

        “My first question is, do you feel like you said things that energized them (alt-right) in particular, and how are you going to manage that?”

        Trumps response was:

        ” I don’t think so, Dean. First of all, I don’t want to energize the group. I’m not looking to energize them. I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group. They, again, I don’t know if it’s reporting or whatever. I don’t know where they were four years ago, and where they were for Romney and McCain and all of the other people that ran, so I just don’t know, I had nothing to compare it to.

        But it’s not a group I want to energize, and if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why.”

        Then in response to an unknown questioner, who asked:

        Unknown: “Mr. President-elect, I wanted to ask you, there was a conference this past weekend in Washington of people who pledged their allegiance to Nazism.”

        To which Trump responded:

        “Boy, you are really into this stuff, huh?”

        Then Reince Priebus interject and tells the unknown questioner:

        Priebus: “I think we answered that question right off the bat.”

        To which the unknown questioner persisted:

        “Are you going to condemn them?”

        Trump answers:

        “Of course I did, of course I did.”

        Then Priebus interjects:

        “He already did.”

        To which the unknown questioner insists:

        “Are you going to do it right now?”

        Then Trump say’s…and please pay attention Jim:

        “Oh, I see, maybe you weren’t here. Sure. Would you like me to do it here? I’ll do it here. Of course I condemn. I disavow and condemn.”

        Condemn means an expression of very strong disapproval or censure. Censure means formal disapproval.

        It is this kind of disingenuous equivocation from the left that led to an across the board rejection of them at election time.

      • What does he condemn? Racism in any form? Republicans made such a big deal about Obama not using the word Islamic in connection with terrorists, but somehow Trump gets away without explicitly calling out racism.

      • Jim,

        I have responded to that with a detailed response at:

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/18/the-trumpocene/#comment-827091

        But as is too often the case here, the effort made has cost me a delay through the rabbit hole.

      • disavows them because…?

        They don’t represent him? That’s all he has to do. Just disavowing them is enough. You don’t have any right to demand more.

      • In what way don’t they represent him? He might agree with their words, but prefer they not be spoken in public. We don’t know.

      • We don’t know.

        You know he’s disavowed them. That’s all you need to know.

        If you keep going you’ll be like the people who insisted Obama was a secret Muslim.

      • If I disavowed some whole group of people, I would give a reason for it.

      • “In what way don’t they represent him? He might agree with their words, but prefer they not be spoken in public. We don’t know.”

        Of course, instead of waiting for my detailed response – which quotes verbatim Trump and the questions asked of him – you could always just read the NYTimes interview for yourself. It would save you some embarrassment…I mean, kind of too late for that, but save you further embarrassment.

      • Your linked comment was not there when I checked. In his interview he says just “But it’s not a group I want to energize, and if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why.” Most people are a step ahead of Trump and know exactly why these people are energized, but we will let him find out in his own time.

      • Most people are ahead of Trump? ROFL!!! Yea, that is why “most people” are president!

        Oh wait, Most people are not nor ever will be!

        Please keep underestimating him! But then you do not have the knowledge to estimate him.

      • “If I disavowed some whole group of people, I would give a reason for it.”

        If you read the NYTimes interview you would know that reason, assuming you know the reason for your own outrage over the alt-right.

      • “Your linked comment was not there when I checked. In his interview he says just”

        Not where?

        Are you bothering to read the questions he is responding to? Have you been unable to gauge the outrage implicit in the questions. Are you unable to glean that Trump is responding to that outrage by disavowing and condemning. Or did you miss the part where he uses the word condemn?

      • the link went nowhere, so it must be deleted or in moderation.
        As I mentioned, he seems puzzled by their support and now wants to find out why. Perhaps he can look back at his speeches to give himself a clue.

      • Disavow and condemn are not reasons. Incomplete answer.

      • “Disavow and condemn are not reasons. Incomplete answer.”

        Fine Jim, show me in that interview where the interviewers give reason for their outrage at the alt-right. Surely that is required too, no? Stop pretending like your “what’s the reason” game isn’t like Blitzer wondering why Trump wasn’t being dramatic enough.

        The questioner of whom Trump responded with that last quote I posted asked this question:

        “Mr. President-elect, I wanted to ask you, there was a conference this past weekend in Washington of people who pledged their allegiance to Nazism.”

        After Trump points out that it is the left who is rabidly obsessed with Nazism and alt-right (my interpretation) with this response:

        “Boy, you are really into this stuff, huh?”

        And after Priebus points out that Trump has answered this question already, the unknown questioner asks:

        “Are you going to condemn them?”

        But he gives no reasons as to why he wants this condemnation. What’s up what that?

      • “What does he condemn? Racism in any form? Republicans made such a big deal about Obama not using the word Islamic in connection with terrorists, but somehow Trump gets away without explicitly calling out racism.”

        Your last sentence above gives evidence of how disingenuous your first sentence is.

      • It is very similar. Hillary listed racism, misogyny, homophobia and bigotry as deplorable, while all Trump has said about this is to welcome them at his rallies, and we still wait for him to say that this type of thing is wrong by name. Maybe you notice this now that you think about it.

      • I understand Hillary s four horseman of deplorable, as conferring those attributes traits without merit, as a racist remark concerning her idea of privileged white males. She said so in her speech. Those attributes are as pale as my skin in relation to the fine, understanding, upright males in most of the world. Perhaps she missed the exhibit a few years ago at Princeton University on women in India that get kicked out of their homes for either divorce or a daughter in law, to become beggars. Medical treatment for Women? That’s evil to look upon the anatomy of a women. And if she so happens to get raped, it her fault and somebody should kill her. Yep, I’m riddled with flaws in the eyes of Hillary and her cohorts. She wouldn’t be ” my president ” either.

      • No, Hillary labeled Trump supporters as deplorables. The left always uses their pet traits as epithets against their opponents.

        get an education JimD. Seriously.

      • JimD thinks that all thought not in sync with his is racism or worse, It is the same way with all the left. That is why they are always saying anyone not with them is a racist, sexist, zenophobe, homophobe and all the other petty pejoratives. And people are tired of it.

        The boy has cried wolf too many times. So much so that now when the wolf walks among them, they cannot even see it.

      • “They need to get used to this until they address the root problem of alt-right support.”

        The only reason you know about the alt-right is because the left wing media has told you to care about it. The only reason you know what David Duke is doing at any given time is because of left-winger’s who follow David Duke on Twitter so they can use what he says to smear people right of center. The alt-right has a platform because of left wing media not because of Trump.

        That’s the root cause of the problem, what do you suggest be done?

      • “get an education JimD. Seriously.”

        He did. It was one of those so called “free education” schemes he likes to advocate. It is difficult for the indoctrinated to recognize they’ve been indoctrinated, and we’ve all been indoctrinated to one degree or another, but with Jim D., the mercury is ever rising.

    • Carlson vs Kristoff was hilarious. I don’t think NK ever once retorted with actual facts.

    • This Trump response right here:

      “Oh, I see, maybe you weren’t here. Sure. Would you like me to do it here? I’ll do it here. Of course I condemn. I disavow and condemn.”

      What part of condemn do you not understand?

      • “Trump is clueless as to why this group is energized, so I think it is a bit of a blind spot for him.”

        I doubt it. I think his remark; “Boy, you’re really into that stuff, huh?”, in response to the question of of allegiance to Nazism gives clue as to who he thinks is energizing that crowd.

    • “Disavow and condemn are not reasons. Incomplete answer.”

      Fine Jim, show me in that interview where the interviewers explain why they are asking for the condemnation.

  49. Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos): “When you try not yelling and throwing a fit about people saying things you dislike, maybe people who are above doing things like that won’t think they’re above you as well.”

    ME throwing a fit? What precisely has Trump’s victory caused YOU to do, do you think?

    So can the passive-aggressive schtick, Sunshine. It appears you believe me to be someone that gives a flying dog’s testicle what the likes of you and your self-absorbed whiny “Progressive” Liberal Lefty loser clique think of me. Why on Earth should I bother? Oh – er – you’re not based in California by any chance, are you?

    As to who you think you are and what views you hold, you certainly have ideas well, well above your station, that’s for sure. Truly, I find your contempt for Trump – you even described him as “evil” – extremely difficult to comprehend. Compared to either Clinton, he’s positively angelic. Just hope and pray you are never confronted with true evil at any time in your protected, pampered little life.

    As I say, you lot (the sneering, patronising, condescending pseudo-intellectual self-elected “elite”) lost – and now you’re crying like babies.

    Go cuddle a puppy, you poor little snowflake.

    And if I were you, I’d try to find out a bit more about ghost writers and precisely how and why they are very prevalent indeed in the circles of people who are too busy doing real stuff in the real world to sit down and prod at typewriters/word processors/whatever, and why you can be pretty certain that their work reflects very accurately the reality of their subject, their life, their character and their activities.

    They’re just another aspect of the real world you don’t have a clue about.

  50. Willard: “I thought you were a Brit, Cat Boy.”

    I am indeed.

    And WE are the electors on both sides of the Pond who have just terminated the rule of you sad self-elected “elite” losers.

    First, Brexit; now Trump; next year, Le Pen: The year after, Orban…Wilders…the collapse of the Eurofascist kleptocracy in Brussels.

    You lot had your chance, you blew it.

    Now it’s our turn.

    • Thanks mate, you just promoted us as racist’s, bigots and right wing zealots. Just what we need.

      • HotScot: “Thanks mate, you just promoted us as racist’s, bigots and right wing zealots. Just what we need.”

        My pleasure, think nothing of it!

        You aren’t by any chance a member of the Nationalsozialistische Schottische Arbeiterpartei, are you?

    • > First, Brexit; now Trump; next year, Le Pen: The year after, Orban…Wilders…the collapse

      A comment which shows how right-wing populism promotes a new form of permanent revolution.

      • Willard: “A comment which shows how right-wing populism promotes a new form of permanent revolution.”

        You lot with your PeeCee bigoted, smearing, condescending, patronising, insulting attitude to anyone you considered insufficiently “intellectual” (which in fact you aren’t anyway) and outright refusal to brook any disagreement with your crackpot pussy-wussy worldview, all microaggressions, safe spaces and the other claptrap of Generation Snowflake brought it on yourselves.

        Now we’ve a decade or three of work ahead of us, not just America has to be made great again, most of the Western World has to be.

        You had your turn.

        You messed it up.

        Now it’s our turn.

      • > Now it’s our turn.

        There’s still a conservative government in UK, Cat Weazle, so I’m not sure what you mean by “our.”

        Oh, and Sarkozy just lost. Does it mean it’s already your strawmen’s turn?

        Please, do continue to rip off your shirt. Groundskeeper Willie would be proud.

      • “There’s still a conservative government in UK, Cat Weazle, so I’m not sure what you mean by “our.”

        Why exactly do you believe I should have a problem with a Conservative government, being at heart a Conservative and a staunch Thatcherite? May is going to take us out of the EY, if she doesn’t we’ll elect someone who will.

        “Oh, and Sarkozy just lost.”

        Excellent, I loathe the horrid little Socialist toerag. What was your point? I want to see Marine Le Pen win the Presidency and initiate Frexit, didn’t you realise that?

        Poor sad Silly Willy Wombat, I’m not ripping my shirt, why would I want to do that when it all seems to going very nicely – better than it has been for decades?

        You’re a loser Sunshine, live with it!

      • > Why exactly do you believe I should have a problem with a Conservative government […]

        It’s hard to believe the slogan “now our turn” when it’s already your turn, Cat Weazle.

        Your class warfare may require a bit more coherence than that.

        I thought conservatives were against class warfare, BTW.
        Or not.

      • “It’s hard to believe the slogan “now our turn” when it’s already your turn, Cat Weazle.”

        Yes, Silly Willy Wombat. That’s why I said it. We’ve had a change of PM and Chancellor since Brexit.

        You’re not right bright, are you?

        Now we’ve got a Conservative government, we’ve got rid of Cameron the self-styled “Progressive” AKA Socialist, known as the ‘Heir to Blair’. Hadn’t you noticed that?

        Willard: “Your class warfare…”

        MY class warfare, Willy Wombat?

        I’m a Right winger remember, we don’t DO class warfare, we leave that to you Lefties.

      • > I’m a Right winger remember, we don’t DO class warfare […]

        Then your “our turn” crap may now mean what you think it means, Cat Weazle.

        Pray tell more about Cameron the socialist.

  51. Trump’s thing is not giving in to political correctness. PC is the quality that prevents mentioning what you notice, and hence leaves problems to grow and fester for years.

    One PC thing is climate science. What you might notice is, for example, no adult peer review; or regressions where physics ought to be.

    The un-PC story is that climate is too complicated for analytic attack, and so we don’t know what’s going on and are not going to know.

    The climate scientist modified limited hangout is it’s serious work nevertheless and ought to be funded heavily.

    Trump may simply not buy that line either.

    It’s not a mistake.

  52. From the article:

    Friday 10/7 PM, hours before launch, TW asks for a call, with Jack Dorsey, CEO, Adam Bain COO, and Dan Greene, VP US Sales.
    My internal TW contacts informed me that on Thursday night, 10/6, TW CEO, Jack Dorsey, personally killed the emoji and notified his senior staff.
    I asked if “There’s going to be another BS legal reason like last time” and they responded, “No, Jack just killed it, there isn’t one.” They were shocked that this was happening.

    View story at Medium.com

      • Jack Dorsey is the snowflake that got toasted this go-around. All the King’s horses, and all the King’s men, couldn’t put Hillary Clinton back together again. This just puts a big, thick underline to that. Love it!

      • Twitter is worth more than 15 billion, jim2.

        How much is El Naranja Hombre, again?

        Sad.

      • Yep. An for all the good it did in the fight against Trump, the $15 billion might as well be wooden nickels.

      • Teh Donald fights people, jim2, not the other way around.

        Like when D.C. Donald tries again to pay less in taxes on his fancy new hotel.

      • Willard: “Like when D.C. Donald tries again to pay less in taxes…”

        I try to pay less taxes, Willy Wombat. Everybody I know tries to pay less taxes. Everybody who isn’t on benefits tries to pay less taxes. It’s called tax avoidance and is totally legal and honest.

        The fact you seem to think there’s something wrong with that tells us a great deal more about you and your position in society than than you understand.

      • > I try to pay less taxes […]

        Do you often sue your government when trying so, Cat Weazle?

      • That is what the “Tax Courts” are for. Or is this just another bait and switch by liberals. To make the unwashed masses think they have a remedy for a bureaucrats nightmare of an agency, but not let them avail themselves of it?

        I guess that is why liberals love the Madoffs. They do it illegally.

      • It tells us he does not pay taxes. Just another free loader.

      • So anyone who tries to minimize their tax burden is evil, eh?

        LOL! Yep! Only a parasite would say that. Everyone who pays taxes tries to LEGALLY reduce their burden. Just like Donald is doing.

        Us terrible deplorables! We are resent those biting the hand that is feeding them!

    • I don’t get it. It’s common knowledge Twitter is in the bag for the whole SJW thing. As long as they were supporting Horrible Hillary, so did Twitter.

      And given how the SJW’s were down on Trump, Twitter would have been looking to hurt him even if they didn’t like Horrible Hillary.

      Twitter is dead. It just hasn’t lain down yet.

      • It’s common knowledge that freedom fighters are still sore about their loss after overindulging their trademarked abuses.

        Joining Milo’s gaslighting won’t kill the tweeter.

      • But the Breitbart Hooter will kill Twitter. There will be a Breitbart social app called Badger, a cable channel BCN, and some others for Millennials.

      • Joining Milo’s gaslighting won’t kill the tweeter.

        Twitter is dead. It’s part of the swamp. Its CEO did it. I doubt it can be undone, but getting rid of Jack Dorsey and Randi Harper would be a good start. Also kicking Feminist Frequency off the “Trust and Safety council

      • > Twitter is dead.

        Just like Mark Zukerberg is.

        RIP, Mark and the tweeter.

  53. The Informed Consumer

    rishrac | November 20, 2016 at 10:46 am |

    I responded with a “whoops” to someone that pointed out your sarcasm. Sorry, I misread you.

  54. There is hope for people who want out of the Trumpocene! You can get a nice little flat in the bubble for only $1.9 Million US.

  55. From the article:

    “A lot of people here tonight felt like they lost,” the rapper began. “You know why? Because y’all been lied to. Google lied to you. Facebook lied to you. Radio lied to you.”

    However, Mr. West said, such truth-telling was necessary for real progress. “Obama couldn’t make America great because he couldn’t be him to be who he was,” he said. “Black men have been slaves. Obama wasn’t allowed to do this” — the rapper screamed — “and still win. He had to be perfect. But being perfect don’t always change” things.

    Even amid his raw, spontaneous and sometimes rambling monologue, Mr. West seemed to know he was courting controversy. “I’m not always going to say things the perfect way, the right way,” he said. “But I’m going to say how I feel.” He added, “Get ready to have a field day, press. Get ready, get ready. Because the show’s over.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/arts/music/kanye-west-beyonce-donald-trump-speech.html

  56. From the article:

    Having previously exposed the “intellectual-yet-id i o t” class, Nassim Taleb unleashes his acerbic tone in 3 painfully “real news” tweets on President Obama’s legacy…

    Follow
    NassimNicholasTaleb ✔ @nntaleb
    Obama:
    Protected banksters (largest bonus pool in 2010)
    “Helped” Libya
    Served AlQaeda/SaudiBarbaria(Syria & Yemen)

    NassimNicholasTaleb ✔ @nntaleb
    2) (Cont) But in the end what Obama did that is unforgivable is increasing centralization in a complex system.

    NassimNicholasTaleb ✔ @nntaleb
    3) Don’t fughet Obama is leaving us a Ponzi scheme, added ~8 trillions in debt with rates at 0. If they rise, costs of deficit explode…

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-20/nassim-black-swan-taleb-sums-obamas-legacy-3-painfully-real-tweets

    • Taleb has it right on Obama’s $8 Trillion legacy Debt. He got it wrong by saying IF interest rates rise. Correct answer: WHEN interest rates rise. Just like IF we have a recession should be replaced by WHEN we have a recession.

      Just a matter of time.

      • Obama increased the debt, no question. But conveniently omitting how much debt existed prior to Obama’s taking office is only narrative.

        Spread it around fairly or it’s just more of the same.

      • As much as he increased it by. He left his mark.

      • Phil,
        That’s fine as long as it’s recognized that structure had a foundation, and much of ‘the mark’ was foundationally based also. Interesting how only one portion of the debt credited while the rest from other admin’s is ignored. Plus the bonus of ignoring why ‘the mark’ expanded out of fiscal issues on the table prior to entry in to the game.

      • When the discussion is about debt, you do not bring up tangents like his son Treyvon. Again, the question was what part of the debt is his. The answer is as much as is not. Simple question, simple answer.

        If you want to discuss his other failures, that is a discussion for another thread.

        Again, learn to ask questions.

      • Phil,
        I don’t need to ‘ask a question’ of you. I’ve done research. I recognize that debt has increased under Obama. I additionally recognized that that debt was added to existing debt. And that some portion (parsing out the amounts is questionable) of the Obama debt is due and caused by actions which occurred prior to his taking office.

        I give you props for acknowledgement of two portions. Debt pre-existed Obama and some portion of the debt which grew under Obama was due to actions not of his making.

        Trayvon? No idea of what you’re talking about. Likely that makes us both in the same boat.

      • Sorry Danny, if you have no idea of Treyvon, you have not been paying attention. But that is not surprising. And no one told you to ask a question. I said “the question”. You need to learn to read.

        You do need to stop projecting your own ignorance. I am not responsible for your ignorance as I have no idea where you got your education from, if any.

        As for the debt, there is no question. It is simple. All debt accumulated from the time he occupied the oval office until the time he leaves is his. When you get your information from propaganda sites, you will always be wrong, as I proved. The source is there. It requires some knowledge to know how to get to it, but that is your only impediment.

        Simple fact. Presidents are not allowed to spend money once their term expires. And no president can be indebted by a past president (as you will soon be screaming when Obama’s regime ends). So from 1/20/09 @12:00pm to 1/20/17 @11:59am, all debt accumulated by the US is Obama’s responsibility. Not Bush’s (8 years in and the answer to every mistake of Obama’s is still Boooosh!). Not Trump’s. Just Obama’s.

      • Josh,

        Thanks for the link. I’ve followed this argument for years. Interestingly under Obama, the ‘framing’ of the discussion goes towards the debt being an ‘investment’ with hopes that the ‘investment’ would lead to improved gdp with following hopes that the debt will be pared as a result.

        I said interestingly above because we now hear exactly the same argument when it’s directed towards the ‘new’ plan of trickle down leading to improved gdp with following hopes that the debt will be pared as a result.

        And of course ‘the narrative’ ignores the giant hole this country was left from the immediate prior administration. Bush kindly sent us ‘consumers’ a couple of pretty treasury checks (=/- $600 IIRC) expecting us to spend our way to greater investment, with hopes that via this investment, debt would be pared as a result.

        But that’s the world of narratives. Ceresco is often reasonable. In this case, not even close.

        Deja vu?

      • with hopes that the ‘investment’ would lead to improved gdp

        LOL! I love it when folks with no clue pontificate on subjects they are ignorant of.

        The debt is created by SPENDING more than the government takes in. Since GDP is a measure of the national product PLUS government spending, the debt is not an “investment” leading to improved GDP. It is the vehicle to PROP up the GDP when the economy has tanked. And it does nothing of actual value. It is merely a number to play with that robs from future generations in order to give a clueless president a talking point.

      • Phil,

        Well then Sherlock. “LOL! I love it when folks with no clue pontificate on subjects they are ignorant of.”

        And I love it when ” It is the vehicle to PROP up the GDP when the economy has tanked. ” effectively l!es by omission when ignoring that ‘the economy’ had ‘tanked’ for reasons unrelated to the administration at the time. Since you’re so on the ball and pontificating why not enthrall us with your knowledge. How much ‘value’ is created when this ” It is the vehicle to PROP up the GDP when the economy has tanked. ” isn’t done by a clueless president?

        While you’re at it, go further and show where we’ll be based on ‘projections’ via our current ‘clueless’ president elect when it comes to debt, four years from now.

        Happy to wait.

      • LOL! I am not “pontificating”, I am merely reciting definitions! But I can see how that seems to be pontificating to you given you have no clue what you are talking about. BTW: The name is STILL PhilJourdan. Not Sherlock, not any other childish name you want to assign. No wonder you have no clue when you have no clue who you are addressing!

        There are no “l!es” [sic] in my explanation. I did not opine on the REASONS for the economy tanking. I told you WHAT GDP is a measure of. Debt is not an investment. Your house is an “investment”, Your mortgage is your DEBT! That is before Econ 101! The economic ignorance in this country is simply mind boggling!

        Before you even start to learn basic facts, you need to learn the difference between a definition, and opining about causes. You are not even at the crawling stage in this discussion yet.

        And another FYI for you – presidents do not project debt into the future. OMB and CBO do. Learn some BASIC facts. Then come back and ask some relevant questions.

      • What is unreasonable? I made a factualstatement. Bush’s Debt Held by Public went from $3.4 Trillion to $6 4 Trillion. Obama’s Debt by Public went from $6.4 Trillion to $14.4 Trillion.
        What is unreasonable is to blame the deficits under Bush on his tax cuts when a dramatic drop in GDP growth rate and growth in Adjusted Gross
        Income were the major factors. Not the wars. Not the tax cuts. It was the drop in the tax base .

        What is unreasonable is the blame for Reagan’s largest deficit at $220 Billion in 1986 on his cutting the top marginal rate when in comparing the effective rate that year against the highest effective rate under Carter demonstrates that only $20 Billion can be attributed to the tax cut.

        What is unreasonable is to whine about how great things were when the top marginal rate was 91% in the 1950s when taxes on individuals are now 50% higher today than back then.

        The problems with the deficit and exploding debt are due to excessive spending on social programs and
        not low tax rates and not military
        spending.

      • Ceresco,

        I’m not sure where you got numbers since no link provided. Here’s another source in addition to the Wapo work Josh cited:
        “George W. Bush – President Bush added the second greatest amount to the debt, at $5.849 trillion. But that was a 101 percent increase to the debt. It was $5.8 trillion on September 30, 2001. That’s the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton’s last budget. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by launching the War on Terror. That drove military spending to record levels of between $600-$800 billion a year. It included the Iraq War, which cost $807.5 billion. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA. These were known as the Bush tax cuts and they further reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. For more, see President Obama Compared to President Bush Policies.” https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

        To address your question as to ‘what is unreasonable’ is to not factor in that we were as close ‘even’ last with Carter. Reagan began the ‘cold war’ spending spree (not that it didn’t have value), Bush 1 was about even with Reagan. Clinton also.

        Then came Bush 2 (much related to 9/11 & security interests), and much of the Obama spree was as a result of Bush 2’s leaving just a bit of a mess to clean up. Did Obama spend bunches? Absolutely. Is it solely as a result of bad policy. That’s an ‘unreasonable argument’.

        Finally, what are Trumps proposals slated to do? Increase by about $5T more. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/10/11/trump-tax-plan-would-add-trillions-to-the-debt-clinton-plan-would-trim-deficits-tax-the-wealthy/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

        I didn’t whine about the items you posted so attribution to me is off base. Some is attributable as you said to ‘social’ programs (SS & Medicare) but you’ll need to cite the attribution of those to Obama. Even Trump has stated he’ll leave those two alone.

      • Save yourself some trouble and some embarrassment. Treasury.gov has the official figures, and Bush did not add that much. Your “source” tries to attribute Porkulus to Bush and charge him with the 2009 deficit. He is only responsible for 1/4 of it, not all of it. The “official” figures is 5.034 Trillion for Bush. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

        It is the one table Obama cannot cook to his advantage.

      • Danny

        My numbers are from the Department of Treasury. We are talking about 2 different aspects of Debt. Debt Held by the Public is what I was quoting and it is a subset of the total debt. And the more important since an increase in interest rates will have an immediate impact on the budget. The Bush tax cuts were no more than $100 million per year. That’s a result of my research of raw IRS data. Treasury shows Defense spending peeked at $700 Billion per year a $400 Billion increase from FY 2000.
        Here is the major takeaway. The MAJOR cause of Bush’s deficits was the precipitous drop in GDP and thus Adjusted Gross Income. No one and I mean no one ever analyzes what really drove the deficits.

        Even with the Bush tax cuts and even with the Wars, he could have balanced the budgets up to 2008 with a growth rate of 73% AGI , which Clinton had, instead of the 27% which Bush had.

        Beyond that, since 2000 spending on Social Programs has increased $2Trillion per year. Compare that to the $300 Billion increase in Defense spending and the drop of $100 Billion in Bush tax cuts, which have expired and have no impact on current deficits.

        The left doesn’t want to face the obvious. Deficits are now driven by Social Program spending. The 2014 IRS “effective tax rate” was 15.1%, much higher than the 11 to 12% of the 1950s when the top marginal rate was 91%. When we get the IRS report for 2016 in 2 years, I expect it to be even higher and maybe at an all time high, which is 16.1% under Clinton for just one year, 2000.

    • Nice false flag!

    • Awesome. The post office should mail letters like that for free.

    • Willard

      Looks like it was created by a British Guardian reader. Surely Americans don’t normally spell ‘neighbourhood’ in that way?

      tonyb

      • Tony –

        ??? Do you need to get your eyes checked?

        BTW, you must have missed this:

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/18/the-trumpocene/#comment-825074

      • josh**

        Has anyone tracked down the writer?

        No, I didn’t see that comment. It has some 6 plus questions and a desire for me to write several separate expositions.

        Lets just say that Trump believes Brexit encouraged anonymity, numerous other sites comment on ‘shy’ voters and I think DS has hit the nail on the head that Republicans might not tend to respond to the sort of polls that were convincing everyone that Hillary was going to win.

        BTW, do you mind if I call you Josh to see if that goes into moderation as often I forget to remove a letter from your full name in order to try to circumvent the system (this email will also see if Josh triggers anything)

        tonyb

      • Sorry, anecdotal, non-evidence based….

      • > Looks like it was created by a British Guardian reader.

        Keep on digging, TonyB.

        The truth is out there.

      • Willard

        If it was supposed to have been written by a redneck its quite well composed, with reasonable grammar and punctuation and with only one obvious spelling mistake.

        The paper itself looks completely pristine, that is to say it does not appear to have gone through any hands but those holding it. The crease lines show only loose folding rather than a deep crease to put it into an envelope.

        So, what do you believe to be the truth?

        tonyb

      • Willard

        Gregory seems to be a political activist involved in Black Lives matter and Anti Trump movements. He appears to detest Trump so certainly wouldn’t appear to be above making him look bad (or worse depending on your politics)

        http://koin.com/2016/11/11/mckelvey-i-blame-portland-violence-on-trump/

        So, what is your opinion?

        tony

      • “Looks like it was created by a British Guardian reader. Surely Americans don’t normally spell ‘neighbourhood’ in that way?”

        They certainly don’t!

        Remember the letter that lost Dan Rather his job?

        A letter purporting to be from the 1970s which indicated G W Bush may have shirked his duties while in service with the Texas Air National Guard – which, if it was real, should have been typed on an Olympus manual typewriter on the curiously proportioned, low quality US military format paper?

        And that had clearly been printed on a laser printer on modern ‘Letter’ size copy paper from Micro$oft Word using a standard template?

        The “Liberal” Left really are THAT inept!

        And then the wonder why we laugh at them…

  57. Judith concludes, optimistically:

    “The only rational option is to take pragmatic actions to encourage the best impulses of the new administration. President Trump deserves a chance to succeed. The onus is on those who wish to influence policy to find some common ground on policies that will move the country forward.”

    Since when is politics rational.

    Majority Leader McConnell announced just before the 2010 midterm elections that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” The left hasn’t forgotten and now believes this was said at the beginning of the Obama presidency. It won’t be forgotten.

    Given the divisive campaign that Trump ran, chance are good that left wing and minority activists and possibly women – with the encouragement of Saunders and Warren – will be protesting in the streets throughout a Trump presidency. It is hard to be rational in the face of violence. We could see a period like the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

  58. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #249 | Watts Up With That?

  59. You should be glad your name is not Brian Johnson if you are too fragile to be referred to by your initials.

  60. The “commenter” (I was at least one of them) did not say Trump wrote the book, they said “read HIS book”. It is under his name. Whether he operated the word processor or dictated to a copy smith, it does not matter. It was Trumps idea and an insight into the man.

    Your definition of “his book” means that Obama has NO speeches! HE did not WRITE them, he just read them off of TOTUS.

  61. Since this appears to be hearsay, I’m not taking it too seriously at this point (even though if true, it ROCKS!) From the article:

    “Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

    “The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.

    A second source confirmed the fireworks.

    “The meeting took place in a big board room and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said.

    “Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/

    • Trump spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway told reporters the gathering went well.

      “Excellent meetings with the top executives of the major networks,” she said during a gaggle in the lobby of Trump Tower. “Pretty unprecedented meeting we put together in two days.”

  62. Trump rocks. From the article:

    In a video message released moments ago by Donald Trump, the President-Elect announced that he has asked his team to develop a list of executive actions for his first day as president and announced that he would issue an executive order on his first day of office, withdrawing the US from the Trans Pacific Partnership, and would issue a notification of intent to withdraw from the TPP, voiding Obama’s “free-trade legacy.”

    Trump stated that his agenda “will be based on a simple core principle, putting America first… whether it’s producing steel, building cars, or curing disease, I want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right her on our great homeland.”

    He added that he would issue a rule, along the lines of what he proposed during his Gettysburg address, that for every new government regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated, and said that he will direct the labor department to investigate abuses of visa programs.

    TRADE – Withdraw from TPP and negotiate bilateral trade deals in America’s favor
    ENERGY – Cancel job-killing restrictions on American energy industry (including shale energy and clean coal)
    REGULATION – For each new regulation, 2 old rules must be eliminated
    NATIONAL SECURITY – Develop a plan to protect America’s vital infrastructure from cyber-attacks and all other forms of attack
    IMMIGRATION – Direct Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs
    ETHICS REFORM – Drain the swamp by imposing a 5-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyist after they leave the administration (and a lifetime ban on lobbying for foreign governments)

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-21/trump-says-he-will-issue-executive-order-first-day-office-withdrawing-us-tpp

  63. After Obummer has had 8 years in power, only now does he realize … from the article:

    So only now, after the election, are Democrats starting to think, once again, about the American economy as a whole. Here, for example, is Barack Obama, speaking from Athens, Greece, on November 16:

    In the years and decades ahead, our countries have to make sure that the benefits of an integrated global economy are more broadly shared by more people, and that the negative impacts are squarely addressed.

    We can note, incidentally, that the Greeks have been crushed, economically, by the European Union—a sort of US federal government writ large.

    So now Obama, after the election, as he faces the Trumpian extirpation of most of his brittle legacy, is waking up to the idea that prosperity should be “more broadly shared by more people.” Of course, with Obama, one wonders whether his definition of “people” includes the American people, at least the ones who born here—and yet happily, we won’t have to worry about him for much longer.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/21/virgil-battle-blue-collar-america-remembering-forgotten-man/

    • The idea of redistributing the wealth has been there since Obama first started. Republicans have finally realized that this gets votes and are signing up. “More broadly shared” = “Redistributing”. They delayed for eight years, but are now signing up apparently, but I think trickle-down will win over again, which is the opposite view. They are Republicans after all.

      • Funny thing is that as Clinton and Obama raised the top marginal rates the 1% +- income benefited. The number of taxpayers earning over $500,000 went from 208,000 to 630,000 during Clinton’s presidency. Just from 2009 to 2014 and after Obama raised taxes in 2013, the number of taxpayers earning over
        $500,000 went from 730,000 to 1,245,000. Notice from 2000 to 2009, after taxes were raised, how the increase in 1% taxpayers was substantially less than the bookend periods.

        It is clear from the empirical data
        that when taxes are raised on the wealthy income inequality is greater than when taxes are lowered. And when taxes are lowered on the wealthy income inequality goes down. Of course a thinking person could conclude that the top marginal rate has nothing to do with it. That correlation does not prove causation thing.

      • When taxes are raised on the wealthy, the deficit goes down, and infrastructure can get replaced as it ages.

      • Obama raised taxes on the wealthy. The deficit went up! So much for Jim’s theory.

        No matter how greedy and envious you get, the simple fact will remain. The rich did not get rich by being stupid. They find ways to avoid taxes. The more you tax, the more they avoid paying the tax.

      • The deficit decreased by 2/3 during the Obama administration. The final deficit is close to the average since 1980. (Maybe you confuse debt and deficit).

      • JimD math: $459b x .33 = $561b

        Learn that in college too? LOL! Maybe you should have taken more math and less woman’s studies!

        The Deficit has NOT gone down in Obama years.

      • From 2000 to 2009 taxes were lowered not increased.

      • When taxes are raised on the wealthy, the deficit goes down, and infrastructure can get replaced as it ages.

        When taxes are raised on the wealthy,” they have less capital to invest in productive enterprise.

      • That’s the trickle-down theory. They just upgrade their health club memberships and yachts built in Italy, and buy more art. It is not an efficient way to put money into the system. If you give the same money to poor to middle-class people, they spend nearly all of it immediately, and on local products.

      • Trickle down is the ignorant label, not a theory. The fact remains, investment and capital come from rich people, not poor ones.

        So once again, how many poor people have hired you?

      • How do you stop rich people from just holding onto the extra money they get? When poorer people get extra money, they spend it. The middle class level of wealth drives the economy. They need a bigger share of the growing wealth.

      • How do they “hold on” to their money? Do they stuff it into mattresses? Regale us with your knowledge! LOL

        I have got to hear this one!

        And what happens when you shower money on people – but do not make available any additional goods? Hmmm?

        And finally, is the US economy the same size it was 200 years ago? The same pie (adjusted for inflation of course)? Did someone eat your pie?

        The ignorance! It burns!

      • It’s easy to find more than 13 at BB, plus that has nothing to do with $2T sitting on the sideline.

      • That is ONE article. I am sure you can find thousands of typos at Breitbart, but then I am not citing them as some sort of “fake news” authority. As they are the source of “fake news”!

      • “That’s the trickle-down theory.”

        There is no such thing. Perhaps you mean supply side economics, but there is no “trickle down theory” among economists.

      • It describes the flaw in supply-side economics.

      • The flaw? Or your ignorance. Do not claim a flaw when you have no clue on the concept.

      • That’s the trickle-down theory.

        Trickle-down theory” is just a derogatory name. It doesn’t really apply to anything.

        They just upgrade their health club memberships and yachts built in Italy, and buy more art.

        Nope.

        It is not an efficient way to put money into the system.

        It’s the most efficient way to put money into capital investment.

        If you give the same money to poor to middle-class people, they spend nearly all of it immediately, and on local products.

        Which means none of it gets invested in productive enterprise.

        I’ll grant you that “upgrad[ing] their health club memberships and yachts built in Italy, and buy[ing] more art” also doesn’t result in investment, but in the first place it does go towards paying the wages of “poor to middle-class people,” and in the second place many/most wealthy people are looking to invest their excess money in something that will return profits, a steady income, or both.

      • Didn’t work under Bush or Reagan, but they still keep trying the exact same thing. Growth based on government hand-outs is not sustainable. They need to do it the old fashioned way, which is to borrow from investors because then success breeds more investment, and you get winners based on who is best.

      • Sigh. Back in the good old days:
        “President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.”

        “He pledged that his spending plans will not neglect the national debt, now totaling about $5.7 trillion.

        “After paying the bills, my plan reduces the national debt, and fast,” Mr. Bush said. “So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we’re going to run out of debt to retire. That would be a good worry to have.”

        “Democrats urged caution.”

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-surplus-justifies-tax-cut/

      • Didn’t work? The largest peace time economic expansion in history did not work? Well, at least you have revealed what you want. You do not want an economy that works.

        For those who DO want an economy that works, yes it does. When you allow more people to keep the fruits of their labor and invest it as THEY see best, the economy expands (bigger pie), more jobs created, and (this is the real shocker) the poor and middle class wages rise!

      • There are examples of Jim’s desires. All the money was “given” to the poor and middle class in Venezuela. And what do they have? No Toilet Paper and 720% inflation. The same was done in Zimbabwe. What did they get? Want to see a $100TRILLION bill?

        Every time Jim’s wants are tried, that is what you get. There are more examples of it as well.Remember Argentina? He most certainly does not. But that is what you get. A lot of paper chasing no goods.

      • Didn’t work under Bush or Reagan, but they still keep trying the exact same thing.

        Vas you dere Charlie?

        I was, and it worked fine under Reagan. Bushes not so much, but they were into crony capitalism, not laissez-faire.

        Growth based on government hand-outs is not sustainable.

        Tax cuts aren’t “government hand-outs”.

        So tell me, since you’re such an expert, how much of that reduced tax burden on the “rich” under the Trump plan comes from investment tax credit and/or capital gains?

        They need to do it the old fashioned way, which is to borrow from investors because then success breeds more investment, and you get winners based on who is best.

        Yes, and the less those investors get taxed, the more they have to invest on the roundabout.

      • So did Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. That worked out real well there, right?

      • “If you give the same money to poor to middle-class people, they spend nearly all of it immediately, and on local products.”

        Consumerism is not capitalism, for starters. That expenditure on goods and services is necessary for a vital economy, but consumption only sustains an economy. Investment helps economy grow.

      • Bringing more people into the middle class helps the economy because these are the consumer base. Fair wages and more profit-sharing help in this.

      • The “middle class” did not exist until Capitalism. And yes, the middle class is essential for it. But you do not “bring” them in. The Economy raises them into it!

        You never took a class in economics did you?

      • “It describes the flaw in supply-side economics.”

        It is a pejorative coined by a comedian. In order to understand your own argument it is necessary to understand supply side economics as economists present it, not as a “roping fool” presents it.

      • Everyone knows what it is because it is descriptive of the problem and less jargonistic.

      • ROFL!!! OMG!!! Less “jargonistic”? It is pure jargon! False, but pure jargon! It is the equivalent of a cave man trying to describe a plane!

        That is the ignorance of those who use it as if it was something real.

      • Everyone knows what it is because it is descriptive of the problem and less jargonistic.

        Nope.

        It’s not descriptive of anything but the confirmation bias of socialists.

      • Less tricked down than they hoped. It just widens the pay gap instead.

      • The “pay gap” has widened more under Obama than any president before him. So you are claiming that Obama is a proponent of Supply Side economics? Do you also subscribe to the theory that unicorns fly and make rainbows?

      • do you think the last 8 years, or the 8 years of Clinton narrowed the pay gap?

      • The recession didn’t help for sure. The trickle down idea leads to a less healthy economy in general because it is positioning the benefits in the wrong place to have an effect. Clinton ended with a surplus budget, and Obama reduced the deficit by at least two thirds without even being allowed to tax the rich. The current deficit is just below the average since 1980.

      • Obama has not reduced the deficit. The 2008 deficit (the last full year of Bush 43) was $419b. Obama has yet to have a deficit that low. Only in liberal land can an increase be a cut.

      • Less tricked down than they hoped. It just widens the pay gap instead.

        A matter of opinion. Certainly there are no “facts” to be observed on the subject.

      • “Bringing more people into the middle class helps the economy because these are the consumer base. Fair wages and more profit-sharing help in this.”

        The “middle class” is a pretty ambiguous term. I would argue that being middle class means having a certain amount of autonomy when it comes to work. Being middle class means having living within a comfortable standard with palpable economic security and have accomplished this through their own expertise.

        A comfortable standard of living varies from city to city and state to state so broad fixes with impositions of “living wages” will only fail. Fair wages are subjective and each individual negotiating their wage should have a say in what they think is “fair”. They don’t need the government to tell them what that “fair wage” is. The more their expertise is in demand, the easier they will find it to negotiate what they think is a “fair wage”.

      • I think fairness is measured by what fraction of the total salary pool goes to those on top in an individual business. This fraction has been increasing meaning that the workers helping to make and sell the products are not sharing in the revenue provided by their work as much as they used to. It’s a negative trend that needs restoring to the way it used to be, which is more broadly shared across the company.

      • I think fairness is measured by what fraction of the total salary pool goes to those on top in an individual business.

        This sort of attitude is why the economy is in such trouble.

      • Why should a CEO earn as much as 100 of his employees. What does he need with that money? If they pay themselves that much, they should at least be taxed more on it.

      • How many people can do a CEO job?

        Ever heard of Sellers Market? It is called competition. Companies “compete” for talent that is rare and only a few can perform.

        When you have run a company successfully, then others want you to run theirs. Virtually anyone can run a machine press.

      • Jim D

        When taxes are raised on the wealthy the deficit goes down.

        This is the kind of inductive inference that is used in the Magical Mystery Tour logic of trying to solve the AGW attribution problem. Yes Clinton increased taxes on the wealthy. Yes Clinton balanced the budget. But if Clinton had NOT increased taxes the IRS data show the budget would have been balanced. Also, if the growth in GDP and Adjusted Growth Income had been what Bush had then in spite of the tax increase, Clinton would not have balanced the budget.
        Obama increased taxes in 2013. But now just 3 years later the deficit is rising in nominal terms.
        Jim, just like the AGW issue, there are other variables at play. With the budget, deficits are a function of tax revenue and spending. Spending will be driving the deficits for the next few decades. Tax revenue is going to have a hard time keeping up.

      • David asked the question did the pay gap shrink under Clinton?

        After Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy income inequality exploded. Census data shows the top 5% increased their share of aggregate income from 17% to 21% under Clinton. From 1947 to 1992 it had hung around 15% to 16%. Also the number of taxpayers making over $1million went from 67,000 to 240,000 under Clinton. So much for tax policy solving the income inequality problem.
        There have been many factors at play in rising income inequality. Rather than take a studious approach at understanding what they are, many want to hitch their wagon to just one. Simple solutions for simple minds and all that stuff. Not dissimilar from AGW.

      • It makes sense to tax the rich more precisely because their pay is out of whack as a share of the total payroll. Who, earning a comfortable million, will care if they are taxed at 35% or 40%. It will not send them into poverty.

      • Those earning $1m will care. And it is not “35-40%”. Hell, the middle class is already paying that! Which goes to show you have no clue what you are talking about and are probably not earning a paycheck!

        But that guy earning $1m will not pay that rate. Why? He will divert his money so that he lessens his tax burden. Again, the rich did not get that way by being stupid.

        To make it easy for those with NO economic education, ask yourself why Tom Brady earns $100m. Are you going to “take” that away since that is 400x what the least paid player makes?

        You need to start thinking more, and pontificating less.

      • “I think fairness is measured…”

        There is no standard of measurement of fairness. You’re confused.

      • Fairness is subjective, and not a measurable term. Stop the lying.

      • “I would say the Gini index measures fairness in this regard.”

        Then you would be misrepresenting what the Gini index actually measures. This is what your link says the Gini index measures:

        “Distribution of family income – Gini index measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of family income in a country. The more nearly equal a country’s income distribution, the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25. The more unequal a country’s income distribution, the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the index would be 100.”

        The Gini index is not a measurement of fairness.

      • Yes, I interpret that as fairness of income distribution.

      • So a man working 80 hours a week should earn the same as a man working 10 hours a week.

        As everyone can see, your idea of fairness is yours alone. And no one elses.

      • “Yes, I interpret that as fairness of income distribution.”

        You may as well tell me what you interpret to be unicorns.

      • Ever been hired by a poor man?

        If not, then you have no clue what you are talking about. But you got the talking points down pat.

      • @jimD

        > How do you stop rich people from just holding onto the extra money they get?

        So what do you think rich people do with their money, stuff mattresses with it?

        Scrooge McDuck and his money bin is a fiction (and even he had an enormous number of businesses that he ran)

        Rich people can:

        1. spend the money to buy something

        2. invest the money in a business

        3. loan the money to someone else so that they can spend the money or invest in a business

        even ‘leaving the money in a bank’ is a benefit as it allows the bank to then make more loans to people.

        again, what do you imagine that rich people do with their money?

      • Put it this way. If you are going to give a million in tax breaks, should that all go to someone earning $10 million, or $10k each to 100 people earning $100k?

      • Hello! McFly! Are you in there?

        WHO pays the taxes! Tax breaks can only be given to people who PAY taxes! If you pay $100 in taxes, you cannot expect a $10,000,000 tax break!

        Hello! Anyone home McFly?????

      • Ah David! I wanted JimD to tell us what he “knew” about Rich people! You spoiled the fun!

        BTW: You got a spare mattress? Mine is full and I have another million to stash,

        LOL!

      • @ JimD

        > Put it this way. If you are going to give a million in tax breaks, should that all go to someone earning $10 million, or $10k each to 100 people earning $100k?

        You say that like there’s a single RIGHT ™ answer to that one. That is the root of the disagreement.

        The question is which will end up doing the most good.

        As others have said, poor people have never given someone a job.

        you think it is better to give a little money to a lot of people.

        I’ll point out that both examples you give equate to 10% of the person’s income.

        I think it’s really important to look at what you are encouraging with whatever policy you are setting

        you aren’t just going to cut the tax rate by 10% on someone, you are going to change the rules about what’s taxed and how the taxes are calculated. What is it that you are going to discourage by raising taxes on it, or encourage by decreasing the taxes on it.

        Trump has said he’s interested in encouraging people to run businesses by cutting taxes on business income, and at the same time simplifying things by reducing exceptions (which will actually increase the effective tax on companies large enough to pay armies of accountants to work the exceptions). I think both of these are really good things.

      • You mean like the top 1% pay more than the bottom 99% in taxes (2015)? That “fair share”? LOL! Again with the word “fair”. I say it is not fair to charge a person $10 for a Big Mac and another only $1. They buy the same burger, so why is the price not the same?

        The rich pay MORE than their fair share. If not for the rich, the poor would have less than they have! You cannot force a person making $10,000 a year to pay $100,000 in taxes! Yet they get that much in benefits. Is that “fair”.

        You find the word “fair” in the Constitution, and we will discuss “Fair”. Until then, stick to FACTS. You have none of those to begin with!

      • “How do you stop rich people from just holding onto the extra money they get?”

        How much is “extra” money?

        “When poorer people get extra money, they spend it.”

        Consumption.

        “The middle class level of wealth drives the economy.”

        More consumption.

        “They need a bigger share of the growing wealth.”

        Then they are investing beyond their consumption. Beyond windfalls in resources, it is capital investment that grows economy. Consumerism merely sustains it.

      • The trend is for large companies to eat the lunches of small companies, and for the money to funnel into fewer hands at the tops of those remaining large companies. The middle class, also small companies, are squeezed out. The wealth flows through it, not to it anymore.

      • That “trend” has been exacerbated by Obama. Why do you suppose Obama favors big companies over little ones? And it is government regulations that create the environment for big companies to “eat” the little ones. So you favor that practice.

        It is called Crony Capitalism. It is capitalism in name only. It is more like the “3rd” rail of socialism. So you favor socialism, and you favor the practice of favoring big companies and forcing more money into the hands of the wealthy, just like Obama.

        But free market folks – the conservatives – do not. Any wonder why the “large” corporations donated to Hillary over Trump 99-1?

      • “Put it this way. If you are going to give a million in tax breaks, should that all go to someone earning $10 million, or $10k each to 100 people earning $100k?”

        When you put it that way you are talking about tax rebates not tax breaks. When a tax is reduced this does not mean that the government gave the taxpayer money, it means they took less from that tax payer. You seem to think the only reason for taxation is wealth redistribution.

      • It could also be seen as a choice between eliminating loopholes and deductions for the wealthy or more tax breaks for the middle class.

      • Deductions ARE eliminated for the wealthy! Why do you suppose you know nothing about taxes, corporations, wealth, the poor, the middle class, or anything else discussed so far?

      • “The trend is for large companies to eat the lunches of small companies, and for the money to funnel into fewer hands at the tops of those remaining large companies. ”

        Mergers that amount to over $78 million needs government approval before the merger goes through. Last year, out of 10,250 mergers the government challenged 7. When they challenge this usually winds up becoming some compromise in order to satisfy the government enough to okay the merger.

        https://www.propublica.org/article/these-professors-make-more-than-thousand-bucks-hour-peddling-mega-mergers

        Didn’t Judith link that article?

        “Too big to fail” is of course, not official policy. It flies in the face of anti-trust laws.

      • In many cases the buyers are foreign or multi-national companies and funds leave the country that would have stayed in with smaller companies surviving. It’s a trend. Tax them more to keep the money in the country.

      • Taxing them more is WHY foreign companies are buying them up! The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world! So companies can save a lot of money by moving out of the country!

        The definition of insane is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You are proposing doing the same thing and expecting a different result!

      • JimD said:

        > The trend is for large companies to eat the lunches of small companies, and for the money to funnel into fewer hands at the tops of those remaining large companies.

        First off, you don’t seem to be aware that a lot of the ownership of those large companies are the investment and pension plans for the middle class

        But I agree that having few large companies is not as good as having more smaller companies (due to the decreased competition)

        but rather than trying to punish people who have been successful, a better approach would be to look at why the large companies have been outperforming the small companies so much.

        A large part of the problem is tax and regulations that have been imposed. They hurt everyone, but they hurt the large companies less than the small ones.

        Let’s take the Sarbanes-Oxley audit requirements. There is a pretty high minimum cost to having auditors come in and go over everything. But this cost doesn’t scale linearly with the size of the business, so these requirements actually encourage larger businesses. And having been involved with quite a few of these audits, the chances of them finding anything that the company doesn’t already know and admit to are so near zero that it’s pretty worthless.

        Taxes are another place where it’s good being large. Once you get large enough to have accountants and tax lawyers on-staff, working on your business full time, the amount you pay in taxes decreases significantly because there are so many tax breaks that are out there, all created by people who think they are helping smaller companies. But the small companies can’t afford the effort to track them all and figure out what they all are.

        reduce the tax rate, and at the same time simplify the tax code so that there are far fewer exemptions, and you will reduce the advantages of being a huge company.

      • Larger companies that benefit from the efficiency of size can also pay higher tax rates more easily.

      • Only if the government protects their monopoly. Normal companies have to compete. So they do not earn excessive profits. What is the ROI for Exxon? Bet you will never get that one right.

      • “It could also be seen as a choice between eliminating loopholes and deductions for the wealthy or more tax breaks for the middle class.”

        Desperate arm waving will not make you sound any more intelligible when it comes to tax breaks. Whoever gets the tax break; doctor, lawyer, beggar man, thief, gets to keep his own money, not that they got “extra” money.

      • There are choices to be made about which tax breaks to give. Some benefit the already wealthy, some benefit the middle and working classes.

      • Yea, but then you run into the equal protection clause of the Constitution. So you want to enslave people again.

        leave it to a liberal to advocate insanity and slavery. But then I repeat myself.

      • “reduce the tax rate, and at the same time simplify the tax code so that there are far fewer exemptions, and you will reduce the advantages of being a huge company.”

        That tax code is far too reliant upon tautology as its foundation, simplification is a mythical promised land.

      • JimD said:

        > Tax them more to keep the money in the country.

        how has that been working out for you? Obama has been trying to do this for years.

        The result is that Apple has how much money parked outside of the US so that it won’t get taxed???

        you have to look at what the actual effect of raising taxes is, not what you wish it to be.

      • Corporate inversions. Another kind of loophole.

      • So now JimD is an imperialist! He wants the US to conquer all lands and subjugate all companies headquartered there!

        Loophole? Why should The Guardian be subject to US corporate taxes? Because you think it is “fair”? LOL!

        Wow, let’s see, so far Jim has said he wants slavery returned, loves Crony Capitalism, wants to do away with the equal protection clause of the Constitution, wants the US to conquer the world. All in the name of “fair”.

        Whose idea of fair JimD? Apparently not mine since we already disagree on what is “fair”. So you want to be emperor of Earth and force your fairness on everyone else.

        Ignorance is scary.

      • “It’s a trend. Tax them more to keep the money in the country.”

        Gee Jim, doesn’t the idea of government aggressively denying mergers even occur to you?

      • You need to maintain enough competition.

      • “There are choices to be made about which tax breaks to give. Some benefit the already wealthy, some benefit the middle and working classes.”

        As I’ve explained to you Jim, one group is more likely than the other to invest that money and that capital investment is the sure way to grow economy.

      • That’s where we disagree. A successful company will reinvest its profit. The government can lend/invest rather than just give money away to businesses.

      • When does the government “invest”? LOL! The government SPENDS! Government has no concept of “investing”! Do you know what depreciation is? Do you know what amortization is? Government does not.

        How many mattresses does Exxon have with money stuffed in them? They must since they do not “invest” any profits!

        The ignorance! It BURNS!

      • “Larger companies that benefit from the efficiency of size can also pay higher tax rates more easily.”

        What are you saying here, Jim? That its fine for larger companies to “eat the lunch” of smaller companies because the government can tax that and redistribute it back to the smaller company so they can have some semblance of a lunch?

      • It is just the way capitalism trends. Bigger and bigger. The last few decades have shown this to be true. Is there a solution? I don’t know, but the reality is that this is why the money ends up in fewer hands who don’t need all the money they are getting.

      • Really JimD? Who was the largest retailer 40 years ago? Who is today?

        Who was the largest Computer company 40 years ago? Who is today?

        Who was the largest software company 40 years ago? Who is today?

        What do those 3 companies of today have in common? Where were they 40 years ago? Were they even 40 years ago?

        What is the difference between those industries and the Banking and Auto industry? Hint: Too big to Fail.

      • “It is just the way capitalism trends. Bigger and bigger. The last few decades have shown this to be true. Is there a solution?”

        You just offered a solution in the comment you made before this one of which I’m responding:

        “You need to maintain enough competition.”

        There needs to be massive competition. A free and unregulated market would help and a currency not debased would be splendid. That would be capitalism.

      • Open competition is the problem, because that is why we end up with few winners and many losers and less choices and, in the limit, near monopolies, which is bad for the consumer, although they may get some back by taxing profits more effectively.

      • LOL!!! I can tell your free education did not include economics!

        Competition weeds out the weak and inept. But it also brings in the new and innovative! The old ones have to adapt and change to keep up, or they die! What kills competition is government! Government sets up the barriers to entry for new companies! Government ensures the old rotten companies continue! (see GM).

        You are asking for the government to fix the problem they created!

        The ignorance is painful!

      • “Open competition is the problem, because that is why we end up with few winners and many losers and less choices and, in the limit, near monopolies, which is bad for the consumer, although they may get some back by taxing profits more effectively.”

        No, the exact opposite creates the problem not “open competition” (whatever that means) or massive competition is not the problem. Using government force to consolidate and create massive mergers is the problem.

      • I haven’t heard of the government forcing a merger. It restricts them, if anything, and could encourage break-ups in certain cases.

      • Facepalm!!!!!!!!!!!

        Chrysler -FIAT? BAC-Countrywide?

        JimD go get a real education.

      • “That’s where we disagree. A successful company will reinvest its profit. The government can lend/invest rather than just give money away to businesses.”

        Apparently our disagreement is on what a tax break means. You seem to think it means that if the government taxes less they are “giving away” money, where I think the government is simply taking less.

      • They are choosing to take less than what would otherwise be due to them in certain circumstances that they decide.

      • There is no “Choice”! They take what they are legally allowed to! Notice the verb – TAKE. Not GIVE, TAKE!

        There is no choice. Try to “choose” to not pay your taxes. Let us know which prison you are in.

      • “They are choosing to take less than what would otherwise be due to them in certain circumstances that they decide.”

        Taxpayers owe what they owe. Nothing is “due” besides what they owe. If they owe less because of a tax break then that is what they owe. It is not about what is “due” when it comes to taxes, merely what the government takes.

      • JimD said:

        > They are choosing to take less than what would otherwise be due to them in certain circumstances that they decide.

        Many (most??) countries around the world are formed on the premise that the King/Government owns everything and lets people use some of it.

        The USA is different. Our Governing document starts off “We the People”.

        In the US, the Government only has the powers that the people have decided to give to it. The 10th amendment spells it out explicitly that anything not specifically enumerated remains the power of the states or the individuals.

      • Wealth – it’s what’s produced by human innovation
        in import-replacing cities, like Venice emerging
        out of the marshes, trading with Constantinople,
        first salt, then venetian glass, then telescopes!
        https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/23rd-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/

      • Wondering why twice moderated by some
        invisible hand? Testing …

      • “I haven’t heard of the government forcing a merger. It restricts them, if anything, and could encourage break-ups in certain cases.”

        Sorry Jim, I should have been more clear with my words. When I say using government force I am talking about private persons gaming the system by using the force of government to shut down competition. Occupational licensing schemes and business licensing schemes is just one example of how elitists use the force of government to keep the “deplorable” ones out of business.

        Those kind of licensing schemes stifle competition while raising prices and encouraging cartelization. Cartels are not a natural state of capitalism they are a natural state of the regulatory state. The drug cartels don’t exist because of capitalism they exist because of drug prohibition.

    • “Everyone knows what it is because it is descriptive of the problem and less jargonistic.”

      Ah, the argumentum ad populum strategy.

      Money doesn’t flow the way you seem to think it does. When a tax break stimulates investment, the flow of money goes first to suppliers, contractors, and employees. If a profit is generated through this investment only then does the money flow to the investor and by the time it does flow that way it will only do so as long as there was no tax hikes on “the rich” that, in the aggregate, reduce the amount of flow back to that investor.

      • Since the 80s, money just trickles down just by magic.

      • That is the way it appears to the ignorant. The ignorant are also unaware that 80% of the rich are first generation. Which means they were not rich when born.

        But that requires knowledge, not ignorant slogans.

      • “Since the 80s, money just trickles down just by magic.”

        There are countless small businesses who used their tax break to invest who are amazed and in awe of your financial acumen and insight.

      • Ah, the plain folks strategy.

        The less you can count the small companies who benefit a little, the more they matter to the representatives of the big ones who benefit the most.

        But then, all that money trickles down all over again.

      • Willard,

        Did you actually make a point with that last post or just string a bunch of words together?

      • Since the 80s, money just trickles down just by magic.

        Pushed by an invisible hand.

      • “Pushed by an invisible hand.”

        Yep. Scientists and engineers prefer the phrases emergent properties or emergent behavior, or simply emergence. If everything invisible is magical you must think dark matter is sorcerer sauce and that space-time curvature a wiggly magic wand.

      • Scientists and engineers prefer the phrases emergent properties or emergent behavior, or simply emergence.

        I preferred the indirect reference to Adam Smith.

      • “I preferred the indirect reference to Adam Smith.”

        My point is that people are willing to accept invisible hands in all kinds of fields of endeavor.

        I once argued to friends in my neighborhood (teeming with engineers working for Boeing) that Smith’s invisible hand is emergence. There was three of them (engineers) at this gathering and they all three snickered. I asked; “What”? One of the told me that from an engineering standpoint, emergence is almost always a bad thing.

        Good or bad, that engineer helps to demonstrate my point of invisible things we accept.

  64. His Excellency Nigel Farage the ambassador of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, to the United States of America, on his arrival at Washington Dulles International Airport addressing representatives of the US media qualified the new era in the US-UK special relationship in the following terms:
    “I think frankly when it comes to chaos you ain’t seen nothing yet.“

  65. It appears that the European Court of Justice, long considered by Brexitiers as a bastion of European interference, is going to preside over negotiating Britain’s exit terms, in order that any agreements discussed and entered into are fully compatible with the EU trade regulations and the human rights of affected nationals.

  66. We should be out of the hell hole that pretends to be a democratic institution called the EU by 2019 according to the latest negotiations

    http://www.politico.eu/article/guy-verhofstadt-to-david-davis-welcome-to-hell-brexit-negotiation-brussels-europe/

    However, with the Italian referendum shortly and elections in France and Holland next year there is a strong possibility that this ghastly organisation will have dissolved by that time.

    This will leave sovereign and independent nations to trade with each other and cooperate in fields such as security without the bureaucracy and craziness of going through Brussels or one of two parliaments.

    tonyb

    • Yup. Those 13,000 new civil servants required in the uk to cover current eu responsibilities are a great way to cut bureaucracy.

      Brexit.

      The antithesis of what it says on the tin.

      • Amusing. Britain votes to not be under the thumb of 13,000 “civil servants” anywhere, particularly those in Brussels.
        You’re argument against the vote is that they simply must have 13,000 “civil servants” to rule them. And, horror of horrors, they might be in Britain now!
        Because we all know that you just couldn’t possibly do anything without 13,000 people telling you what to do. And there’s just no difference- none at all – between forcing the British to spend well over a half-billion dollars a year on Belgian “civil servants” in Belgium vs spending that half billion on British people in Britain.
        Let me guess: “no, no” you will say- there aren’t 13,000 civil servants now. That’s simply how many it will take to assume the responsibilities of the EU. This is because everyone knows that the EU is a model of efficiency and all of it’s various tasks – especially those the British objected to – simply must carry on. They just have to!
        How did I come up with the half-billion? Assume an avg income of $50,000 and 13,000 is $650 million. Not counting health care and lifetime pension.

      • Those 13,000 new civil servants required in the uk to cover current eu responsibilities are a great way to cut bureaucracy.

        Whether or not it cuts bureaucracy, it brings it closer to under the thumb of elected officials. Who answer to voters.

      • VTG: “Brexit.

        The antithesis of what it says on the tin.”

        Hehehe!

        You wish!

        You lost, we won, suck it up!

        The big question is, after the European elections in the next couple of years, whether there will be an EU to Brexit from, and whether the whole affair will just have been a waste of time.

        Face it, the World has changed, things are very not favouring you sneering “Liberals” any more and you’re going down.

        But hey, you know that, right?

        That’s why your posts are all starting to reek of fear and desperation.

      • VTG: “Those 13,000 new civil servants required in the uk to cover current eu responsibilities are a great way to cut bureaucracy.”

        More total, unmitigated claptrap, straight out of the Guardianista playbook.

        Hey VTG, it’s suddenly occurred to me, what a fellow like you needs is a bridge!

        I have some really good specimens in stock, right up your street!

        And I can give you a really good deal on a matching pair!

        What do you think?

    • Calexit – proof that no matter how intelligent some on the left view themselves, they are surprisingly retaarded on some issues.

      I also have to question the moral sense of those spending their money in support of this. I’m sure they believe they hold the moral high ground. Anyone opposed to Trump must, right? However if that were truly the case, they would understand that there is far more good they can do for people with their wealth than fund what is essentially the tantrum of the excessively wealthy.

      • Tim,

        Why just ‘the left’, other than your political narrative preferences? Texas has a website and boasts 335558 supporters. Would you really expect them all to be ‘leftists’? http://www.thetnm.org/

        It’s been active for years. Established 2004 as reported.http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/most-likely-to-secede/

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3590673/Texas-Nationalist-Movement-narrowly-defeated-Republicans-fall-TWO-VOTES-shy-secession-debate-going-convention-floor.html

        Some might suggest: “I also have to question the moral sense of those spending their money in support of this. I’m sure they believe they hold the moral high ground.”

      • Calexit and Texas leaving have very different groups supporting them.

        The Calexit group is explicitly a protest against Trump winning. If that’s not a definition of a leftist group, I don’t know what is.

      • David,
        “If that’s not a definition of a leftist group”. Okay, but what else did TimG say:

        “proof that no matter how intelligent some on the left view themselves, they are surprisingly retaarded on some issues.”

        “I also have to question the moral sense of those spending their money in support of this. I’m sure they believe they hold the moral high ground.”

        California secession concept has been around a while also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California
        Maybe Trump is an impetus for revival, but it’s not new.

        Texans (some 300,000 of them) apparently support the concept. Do you and Tim find them unintelligent (or worse)? Are they amoral for ‘spending their money in support? Do they not hold ‘high moral ground’?

      • For what little it’s worth, in spite of the problems that it would cause me (since I live in, and own property in California), I think it would be a good thing for the rest of the country for California to try and make a go on it’s own. I also think it would be a good thing if California were to get broken up into multiple, smaller states.

        That said, the Current Calexit is a bunch of anti-trumpers throwing a hissy fit because they lost the election.

        From what little I know of the Texas situation, the people who have been pushing for that are not the left, but rather the right, wanting to get out before they are strangled by the policies pushed by the left.

        However, neither group seems to remember that we had a disagreement about the ability of states to leave the country back in the early 1860’s, you may have heard some rumors of that unpleasantness.

        Although if California pushes hard enough, it’s just possible that they could get enough other states to agree for them to leave.

        As for those who argue that california pays more in taxes than it gets, are you considering how much of that is ‘paid from california’ only because corporate HQ of companies is here? breaking that up among the company locations would probably level the playing field a lot.

      • David,

        “From what little I know of the Texas situation, the people who have been pushing for that are not the left, but rather the right, wanting to get out before they are strangled by the policies pushed by the left.”

        Yet where is TimG and his complaints about Texas, morality, and spending their money as they see fit (it’s their money after all).

        A hissy fit by either side is still a hissy fit.

      • As usual Danny, honest discussion escapes you. There is a small difference between Texas independence movement and the new Calexit. Texas voted to join the union. It was an independent republic. Not so with California. Texas also happens to be the only state with its own transmission grid. Not that this counts from a legal aspect. Simply put, there are good arguments supporting Texas’ legal standing if they decided to leave the union. Since I’m not a Constitution lawyer, I can’t rate exactly how good, but from what I’ve read, they are a unique case. California isn’t.

        But you keep on with your fair and balanced act. I’m pretty sure there is one here who believes it.

      • TimG,

        Fact: California became a state in 1850.
        Fact: Texas became a state in 1845.

        The same rules apply to them both. It matters not what they were prior. Or what infrastructure they have.

        How’s that for ‘balanced’? Keep working at it. You may be smart enough to figure it out, or ask your mommy to help. I’ll bet she is.

      • Fact,

        Year they became a state is irrelevant. Except as another example of your dishonest style in conducting a discussion.

        Another example is how you look to expand the discussion to make one of your fair and balanced points. My comment was in regard to California billionaires pouring money into a succession effort because they don’t like the results of the election. If you want to broaden the discussion in order to make a point, provide evidence of the same happening in Texas. What is the source of the funding and how much? Who are the people supporting it? What are their issues and justifications? Do you do any of that to make your contribution valid or applicable to my comment? Of course you didn’t.

        As for my mom, were she still alive, she’d tell me ignore jackoffs like you Danny.

      • Tim,
        “Year they became a state is irrelevant.” Year is irrelevant but that they ‘became a state’ is of import. If they were a ‘republic’ or a taxi cab is irrelevant. Once they became states they became states.

        Now you mention billionaires and bash me because you left out that detail. I’m not much of a mind reader. (Your entire quote: “I also have to question the moral sense of those spending their money in support of this.”)
        Okay. What is the financial status of the 300,000+ signatories at the Texas website? It really doesn’t matter much. But let’s delve more deeply. What was ‘the reason’ for the Texas drive being established (bet there’s more than one but don’t wanna give away any surprises). Then please provide the list for the California effort (also don’t wish you to miss surprises but the election results might be an impetus but not the sole concern as you wish it to be made out——see David Lang above).

        Your Mom (RIP) is smarter than you. I might just take her advice. Or alternatively you can provide links, substance and a comparison instead of your normal armwaving argumentation.

        I’m not doing your homework for you. I’ve done my own.

        For ease of reference, your comment: https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/18/the-trumpocene/#comment-826088

    • They may not have a choice in the matter. That map was from the “big one” scares. When California was not a state, but a new part of the pacific ocean.

  67. Calexit? From what I hear some of the other states would be glad to let them go…

    tonyb

  68. Brexiteers are delighted at intervention by Tony Blair.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/734762/Brexit-boost-Eurosceptics-WELCOME-Tony-Blair-politics?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain

    How do I donate to Tony Blairs’ foundation? The more publicity he gets (and his gruesome hangers on Keith Vaz, Nick Clegg and Diane Abbott) the more people will want to ensure that Brexit-the largest democratic mandate in Britain’s history- is swiftly carried out.

    (mind you, the report IS from the Express…)

    tonyb

    • Tony

      I just got a tweet from CNN Money which quotes a new report by Credit Suisse that concluded UK household wealth has dropped$1.5 Trillion as a “direct result ” of the Brexit vote.
      This loss of wealth was driven by a decline in the value of the pound, which has lost 15% of its value following the Brexit vote, the tweet says.

      You have my sympathy. These kinds of “causative” relationships will probably pop up with increasing frequency as every occurrence, which might have happened anyway, will be laid at the door of Brexit.

      It is all beginning to sound like Global Warming. Everyone wants to jump on the band wagon and attribute every sniffle and freak occurrence to a warming world.

      • Cerescokid

        That is the usual sort of theoretical nonsense that economists like to come up with.

        The economy is currently booming with record numbers of people in work, inflation below that forecast, an extremely buoyant economy led by a consumer boom unprecedented for over a decade.

        Mind you, there are plenty of people determined to undermine our democratic decision, including that idiot Blair and the very unpleasant EU leaders who are determined to make an example of us so no other inmates try to leave their lunatic asylum.

        tonyb

      • Bloomberg was reporting this morning that the UK health care (NHS) budget is plunging into debt and that parliament will have to issue billions of new debt to prevent a drastic cut back in services. The last financial year of the NHS in England reports that NHS trusts deficit grew by 185% in 2015/16. Financing that debt may be harder than boosting socialized medicine. It’s called Austerity.

      • Jack

        Here are the statistics for the NHS.

        http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs

        The deficit is some one point five percent of th e total spend. Hardly Plunging into debt. Perhaps we ought to finance it by reducing our overseas aid budget as many foreigners use our NHS as ‘health tourists’ ‘ and never pay a penny

        Tonyb

      • Tony,
        It’s the rate of change that is the problem. I saw lots of other stories about pushing people out of hospitals because of mounting losses.
        Anyway here’s the link:
        http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/pie-in-the-sky-assumptions-about-closing-nhs-funding-gap-35235043.html

    • climatereason: “(mind you, the report IS from the Express…)”

      It’s right though!

      I doubt there has ever been a more detested individual in British politics than Tony Blair, talk about the kiss of death!

  69. News on all the cable networks (except FOX) is that Trump made some kind of statement on the Paris Climate Agreement.
    Let’s see how many ways this will be explained. I think it’s a bluff. More his style.

    • Jack,
      Think he’s got it covered:
      “That brings us back to his comments Tuesday. Speaking to reporters from his hometown paper, Trump suggested that perhaps mankind did play a role, after all. It’s possible that this was in part because of his audience. When he was speaking with The Post in March, he said that his position “hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room.” It’s clear that his enthusiastic bashing of climate change at rallies was itself in part a function of playing to the audience: People showing up to hear him speak in West Virginia didn’t want to hear a nuanced position on climate change.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/22/whats-donald-trumps-position-on-climate-change-all-of-them/

      • That’s one explanation. Of course there’s not one Republican in congress that would support it. In fact they would impeach him if he did!

      • Maybe that’s why he proposed swamp draining? Maybe it’s dealing arts? Maybe much of what was spoken on the campaign trail was a guise?

      • Plenty of people have suggested (e.g. Hansen) that Paris was a pointless “going through the motions”. If Mr. Trump decides that it doesn’t really commit the US to anything, or even just not to anything that might harm the economy, he’d be smart (IMO) to trade leaving it alone for something else he wants.

      • It would be interesting to see how Nuclear power fits in his ‘plan’ (presuming he actually has one). It’s ‘big business’ from inception to production and fits the CO2 discussion. Only one hurdle (besides cost) of which I’m aware………

      • LOL! I knew you could not resist and would be suckered into that lie! Did you get the transcripts of what he ACTUALLY said? Is that crow you had for Thanksgiving?

        ROFL!!!

    • I love it. When you all get tired of the Trump’s a bigot, racist, homophobe argument, and wear out the Trump lost the popular vote argument, you criticize him on “walking back” his campaign promises.

      At the rate you guys are going, that big flashing neon sign you are building that lets everyone recognize what you are will only have room for the I.

      • “you criticize him on “walking back” his campaign promises.”

        Yup. Those people that never voted for Trump, would never vote for Trump in a million years are the ones pointing out all the campaign promises he broke before he even took office.

      • JPZ,
        “Those people”? Guess we’re all human, huh?

      • Danny,

        I didn’t vote for Trump either, but I’m finding it hard to find complaints from ‘those people’ who did vote for him about broken campaign promises than all of those who most vocally and vehemently never voted for Trump. Further, ‘their’ problem with Trump is largely based upon his campaign promises that ‘they’ now want to point to as a flaw.

      • JPZ,

        He didn’t make many ‘campaign promises’ which weren’t vacillatory. That’s why I (those people) stated: “Maybe much of what was spoken on the campaign trail was a guise?” Makes it a challenge for ‘those people’ to be incorrect (or correct for that matter).

        Great examples of ‘wiggle room’ contained here: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf
        You can read for yourself.

        But ‘guilt by association’ was the reason for my comment towards you.

      • Shoot. Left out the take him seriously, not literally meme.

      • “That’s why I (those people) stated: “Maybe much of what was spoken on the campaign trail was a guise?” Makes it a challenge for ‘those people’ to be incorrect (or correct for that matter).”

        Danny,

        I had no idea I was including you in that group of ‘those people’ and was only referring to groups of people not any individual – although, let’s be honest here, it is always individuals who are the cause of group behavior – and as to your comment about Trump’s guise, I suspect you’re probably right. Springer has suggested as much and argued he is pacing his voter base.

        I think the man is smart enough to know he doesn’t have to build a wall in order to satisfy his supporters, all he has to do is a better job of enforcing immigration laws than his predecessor did. He doesn’t have to pull out of the Paris agreement in order to satisfy his base, all he has to do is be the gadfly who keeps challenging the “consensus” while mingling with them.

        It is also possible that his supporters are smart enough to know this as well, but we probably will not know until Trump takes office and actually starts breaking promises.

      • @JeanPaulZodeaux

        Exactly. We realize that soundbites != detailed policy, but the soundbites do show intent and direction.

        the Press who are calling it a betrayal if it’s a fence instead of a wall are missing the point. The point is to enforce the immigration requirements and worrying more about the rights of Citizens and Legal Immigrants than Illegals. The idea that a Mayor can stand up and claim that his policies can override the Federal Government and get away with it is just stupid. Now, there are a lot of things that the Feds have their fingers in that they probably should not, but being able to ignore parts of the law because you disagree with them isn’t the solution.

        If Trump moves in the opposite direction on too many issues, his supporters will be mad at him, but draining the swamp takes time, and practical people (i.e. the “working class”) recognize that things can’t be fixed by just making a statement or setting a policy. Things can be made worse by statements and policies, but the best that an executive order can do is to remove problems to allow people to do better. Anyone who is expecting massive improvements immediately is dreaming, the most that we will get rapidly is breathing room from bad policies and it will take time for the big improvements to show up.

  70. Trump softens position on climate change,

    U.S. President-elect Donald Trump softened his stance on Tuesday on whether humans have played a role in causing climate change, according to New York Times reporters who attended an interview with the Republican.
    Trump has previously described global warming as a hoax and earlier this month one of his aides told Reuters that the New York businessman was seeking quick ways to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris accord to combat climate change.
    On Tuesday, Trump told the Times he thinks there is “some connectivity” between human activity and climate change, reporter Mike Grynbaum tweeted. “It depends on how much,” the reporter quoted Trump as saying.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-idUKKBN13H1NT?il=0

    • Here is the NYT report:
      “President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Tuesday that he would “keep an open mind” about whether to pull the United States out of a landmark multinational agreement on climate change.

      During his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly said he would withdraw from the Paris climate accord. But on Tuesday, he said, “I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it.”

      Mr. Trump’s comments came at an on-the-record lunch with the publisher, editors and reporters of The New York Times”

      He also said he wasn’t going to try to prosecute Hillary.

      Another take-away from the meeting:

      “I think there is some connectivity” between humans and climate change, Trump says.

      • Arts of Deals, or something to that effect. Still don’t think he has any idea what he’ll actually do. Surprise hire?

      • If this keeps up, in some “denizens” eyes, Trump will go from a truth-to-power-speaking, straight-talking, non-politically-correct, non-politician, to a tyrant like Obama.

        But methinks it won’t keep up. My guess is that he’s going to cater to his base, which at this point is the extreme frightwing. We shall see.

  71. Looks like the purveyors of slippery statistics are trying to throw the election for Cr000ked Billary. Note, they have found no evidence, just statistics. From the article:

    Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.

    Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, according to a source briefed on the call. The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

  72. There was a dispute about how to choose the President and the Electoral College was a compromise. Hamilton (he, of the musical) had the opinion that the President should not be chosen by the general public.

    “It is “desirable,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68, “that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of” president. But is “equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” These “men”—the electors––would be “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” And because of their discernment—because they possessed wisdom that the people as a whole might not—“the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
    Ya think.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/

    • Don’t get too excited, Jimd. Some of the Dimowit electors might well vote against Cr00ked Billary because she is so slimy.

      • Just saying that Hamilton’s method would have been better. The Labour Party in the UK has a similar problem with the popular vote counting so much towards their leadership, which is how they got Corbyn.

      • At least a way to approach this would be for the Senate and, maybe House, members to vet candidates that are going to run for their party. They vet for cabinet positions and the Supreme Court, so why not for Presidential candidates? Under such a system Trump would not have passed muster.

      • So the crooks would be the ones to pick the head crook? LOL

        It is the antithesis of the founders intents – which was CITIZEN legislators. They serve for a few years and go back to their homes and work. Instead, jim D wants to institutionalize the ruling class!

        Trump was the anti-ruling class candidate (just as Bernie was – but less so). The people are tired of having a bunch of idiots running their lives! Since they cannot vote on EVERY member of congress, they decided to start at the top and kick the establishment out!

        You missed the boat by a mile on this one.

      • I think the system worked as intended.

    • During the campaign, in a stunning break from American tradition, Trump repeatedly suggested that he might not accept the outcome.

      So these people are urging Clinton to “not accept the outcome”?

      Anyway, Gore didn’t accept the outcome in 2000. It didn’t cause a Constitutional crisis then.

      • If it was the other way round, you can count on Trump making a big fuss about a rigged system. CNN just said that seven presidents won with smaller margins than Hillary had over Trump.

      • CNN lied to you (but that is not surprising). NO president has ever won with a smaller popular vote margin or larger. Every president has won with the majority of EC votes (unless it went to the House, which it has on occasion).

      • AK – this sort of Dimowit whining isn’t worth our time and words.

    • Ya, that happened in 08. Ya think?

  73. What’s worse than that are climate denialist ! That and air conditioning units… the horror. Nothing wrong with prosecuting every single person who disagrees. … it’s very similar to the case that the NAACP made about racism, you don’t need every white person to be racist, for racism to exist. It is perplexing how one line of logic works in one case but not in another. The world has not changed for some people. What you believe is more important than the quality of life. And there exist a deratory term that exist for for people who don’t believe what you believe. How is that any different ? How is any of this different ? Climate science with its appeal to authority or some religions with their appeal to my religion as the one and only, and no other ? See, you aren’t a climate scientists are you ? What papers have you published ? ” when I was back there in seminar school there was a person there who put forth the proposition …. “

  74. From the article:

    Around 34 percent of Germans reportedly “completely or slightly agree” with the statement “because of the many Muslims, I sometimes feel like a stranger in my own country.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/22/a-third-of-germans-feel-like-strangers-in-their-own-country/

  75. From the article:

    At least six Democrats on the Electoral College are prepared to be “faithless electors” by abandoning Hillary Clinton to vote for a Republican other than Donald Trump — in hopes GOP electors will join them to keep the president-elect under the 270 votes he’ll need to enter the White House.

    The Democrats are trying to persuade Republicans to ignore their oaths and ditch Trump, who is expected to end up with 307 electoral votes, according to Politico.

    The electors meet Dec. 19.

    The dissenting Democrats would have to persuade 37 Republican electors to defect. At that point, the final decision on the presidency would go to the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/22/several-electoral-college-democrats-plan-to-vote-against-trump/

  76. From the article:

    A narrow majority (53%), say they think Trump will do a very or fairly good job as president, and 40% say they have a lot of confidence in Trump to deal with the economy, a share that outpaces the percentage who had that much confidence in Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan ahead of their first inaugurations.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-presidency-poll-transition/index.html

  77. Trumps recent behavior may be driven by data analytics. His (Jewish) son-in-law, a business man, seems to have out-done Google! Which is an awesome accomplishment. From the article:

    Kushner formally took over the data efforts for Trump in June, Forbes reports, building a secret 100-person data hub in San Antonio, Texas, “designed to unify fundraising, messaging and targeting.”
    Kushner and his team took a fast-moving, trial-and-error approach to spending in states, reflecting the Trump campaign’s famously lean spending strategy throughout the campaign. This was key to victories for the Republican candidate in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    Kushner credits the campaign’s fundraising haul to machine learning. Per Forbes, his operation “(installed) digital marketing companies on a trading floor to make them compete for business. Ineffective ads were killed in minutes, while successful ones scaled. The campaign was sending more than 100,000 uniquely tweaked ads to targeted voters each day.”
    Forbes reports Kushner’s data operation ultimately made decisions about “travel, fundraising, advertising, rally locations–even the topics of the speeches,” much like Hillary Clinton’s algorithm-driven data efforts.
    He became indispensable to Trump and “wants to be an adviser” to the President-elect, per campaign manager Kellyanne Conway.
    Kushner also weighed in on support for the President-elect from white nationalist groups: “Trump has disavowed their support 25 times. He’s renounced hatred, he’s renounced bigotry, and he’s renounced racism. I don’t know if he could ever denounce them enough for some people.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/jared-kushner-donald-trump-campaign/index.html

    • Any particular reason for the sudden confidence in MSM? Maybe Trump, by kicking their butts, got them on board? Whaddya think?

  78. From the article:

    NASA’s top climate scientist Gavin Schmidt has warned President-Elect Donald Trump that the planet just won’t stand for having a fully-fledged climate denier in the White House.
    Good luck with that one, Gavin. Or “Toast” as we’ll shortly be calling you…

    Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), told the Independent:

    “The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.”

    Unfortunately, Schmidt doesn’t feel so strongly on the issue that he is prepared to offer his resignation:

    Asked if he would resign if the Trump administration adopted the most extreme form of climate change denial, Dr Schmidt said this was “an interesting question”. It would not cause him to quit “in and of itself”, he said.

    “Government science and things generally go on regardless of the political views of the people at the top,” Dr Schmidt said. “The issue would be if you were being asked to skew your results in any way or asked not to talk about your results. Those would be much more serious issues.”

    Schmidt’s principled position on skewing results is somewhat ironic given that skewing results is what he does best.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/23/trump-nasa-hasta-la-vista-climate-fraud-muslim-outreach/

    • more …

      Firstly, as we know, Donald Trump has declared himself a sceptic of man-made climate change theory.

      Secondly, President-Elect Trump holds the old-fashioned view that the job of an organisation called National Aeronautics and Space Administration really ought to involve stuff like space exploration – not, as it became under President Obama, an official promoter of climate alarmism and a vehicle for Muslim outreach.

      • Since we’re suddenly all about MSM:
        “President-elect Donald Trump conceded Tuesday there is “some connectivity” between human activity and climate change and wavered on whether he would pull the United States out of international accords aimed at combating the phenomenon, which scientists overwhelmingly agree is caused by human activity.” http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-climate-change-new-york-times/

        Not sure that describes a ‘skeptic’. Closer to a ‘lukewarmer’ or a closet ‘more climate concered’ description.

      • Wrong Double Deal. Trump didn’t commit to anything. In fact, he expressed skepticism. From the transcript:

        TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

        My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html

      • Unlike you Jim2, from your own quotation Trump stated: “I have a totally open mind.” Please let me know if you need that sentence broken down and explained. It’s a given your understanding of the meaning would be an insurmountable challenge.

        Additionally: “Safety is vitally important.”

        “Trump didn’t commit to anything.” Exactly. That includes ‘anything’. But he did say: ““some connectivity” between human activity and climate change and wavered on whether he would pull the United States out of international accords……”
        Does the immediate above sound like something you would say, or more like something a ‘lukewarmer’ might? I go with the latter based on his vacillation. Why would he ‘waver’ on pulling out of ‘international accords’ if he were skeptical to the point of not finding value in those accords?

        The NYT (damnified MSM again) summation you posted in your comment led me to think he was concerned about behavior of scientists and concerned about political influence but that’s entirely speculative. I’ll wait till he actually does something before assuming results. If you wish to handle otherwise please feel free. I couldn’t access the entire article w/o subscription.

        But if you know what he’s thinking, please spell it out in fine detail. We’d all be interested and appreciative.

      • Jim2,

        In case you missed this from JimD on the other thread: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

        Don’t read it! You won’t like what it says! Trust me! Please don’t look! Stay away! Keep out! Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

      • Well, I read it. There is nowhere in that article showing Trump saying the wall was to be built due to global warming. I won’t believe it until I can read it for myself.

        And even if it says ‘global warming,’ that could just be lawyer’s talking.

      • Shoot. Warned you not to read it.

        Giving you the benefit of the doubt, or the opportunity to say that Politico printed an outright falsehood quoting: “A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly CITES GLOBAL WARMING AND ITS CONSEQUENCES (caps mine) — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief JUSTIFICATION for building the structure.

        But MSM, but lawyer talk, but………….

        http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org/press-releases/17366-trump-acknowledges-climate-change-at-his-golf-course

      • Danny, your other link does not show Trumps filing. So … another nothing.
        I watched part of CBS new tonight. They listed 4 or 5 things that Trump was supposed to do or not and he had said only one of those things. CBS twisted the truth for the others. So, yeah. I don’t trust MSM. God bless you if that’s the only place you get your info.

      • Jim,

        Thanks for the blessing. I’m sure the Irish Environmental group is MSM.

        Tried to locate a source for the permit or application or referenced brochure (probably more than you’d ever do) but no luck. Only found about 30 articles from a multitude of sources. Probably all wrong. But bad on ’em since I’m sure they don’t know about your propensities.

    • Let the two Teutonic knights fight it out.

  79. Personally, I think Kelly should be boycotted. From the article:

    Amazon appeared to remove several politically motivated negative reviews of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly’s memoir Settle for More after a flood of one-star ratings drew media attention.

    As of early Wednesday, 17% of the reviewers on Amazon gave the book one star. At one point, as many as 76% of the reviews were one-star, Slate reported.

    The Los Angeles Timesreported that many of the reviews were linked to a pro-Trump Reddit forum called “The_Donald.”

    Some commenters picked up on the removal of the negative reviews. “Tim from MD.,” for example, wrote a post titled “Over 120 1 star reviews have been deleted. Are we living in a free country anymore?”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/23/amazon-trump-trolls-megyn-kelly-book/94324354/

  80. From the article:

    Italy Report: ‘More Immigrants = More Crime’

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/23/italy-report-immigrants-crime/

  81. Huh. Even Breitbart is in on the ‘bash’ Trump bandwagon: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/25/donald-trumps-hypocrisies/

  82. Globalization kills. From the article:

    Researchers first noticed this worrisome trend last year. They pointed to increases in opioid abuse, obesity and suicide among the causes of death, but what caused these increases has remained something of a mystery.

    This week, a pair of economists have advanced a new theory. They suggest that, for many workers, a major shift in the structure of the U.S. economy could have been fatal.

    The researchers, Justin Pierce and Peter Schott, found evidence that trade with China has resulted in greater rates of suicide and poisonings (including fatal drug overdoses) after 2000, when President Clinton and Republican lawmakers allowed a major increase in imports.

    Pierce and Schott suggest that as competition with Chinese manufacturing forced U.S. factories to close, many of the Americans who were laid off never got their lives back together. Instead, they fell into depression or addiction. White adults, in particular, suffered from the change in policy.

    Schott thinks that trade can have important economic benefits on the whole but that his results shows that policymakers need to do more to help those workers who are displaced.

    “I’m in favor of free trade, but I’m also someone who believes that we should be honest about the consequences,” Schott said. “It doesn’t benefit everyone equally.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/23/trade-with-china-literally-kills-americans-economists-say/

    • Not to mention that our thirst for cheap (and crappy) good and cheap labor from China have enabled them to build a sophisticated military. That may end up getting a lot of us killed before it’s over.

  83. This is a great development. From the article:

    An immigration reform group says the Southern Poverty Law Center legal firm is violating federal tax rules for non-profits by acting “as a campaign operation for one political party.”
    The Immigration Law Reform Institute, which is an affiliate of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, is now preparing a legal claim to pressure the Internal Revenue Service to end the SPLC’s non-profit status. If that happens, donors wouldn’t get tax deductions for giving to the group.

    “This document with exhibits runs over 100 pages, and spells out in laborious detail how the SPLC operates as a campaign operation for one political party and nothing more. For a huge range of reasons, the SPLC deserves to lose its tax status as a 501(c)(3) operation,” said a Nov. 22 statement from FAIR.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/23/immigration-reform-group-sues-splc/

  84. Here’s Obummer’s vision for America …

    A row has broken out after customers were told by Woolworths staff that Christmas decorations will no longer be stocked as it’s now a Muslim store.
    Dortmund, Germany, residents were shocked to see the Woolworths branch’s Yuletide selection, which included gifts, tree decorations, and chocolate Santas, was removed after just a few days on display.

    One shopper reported that the entire Christmas range was on display on Friday, but had disappeared when she visited the next day. The Dortmund resident said when she arrived at Woolworths on Saturday she was greeted by “empty shelves, which had been full the day before”.

    A member of staff explained the sudden withdrawal boasting, “We are a Muslim business, we don’t want to sell Christmas artic