Politics discussion thread II

by Judith Curry

Looks like we need a new thread on this.

I’m still crazy busy but doing my best to keep the blog rolling along.  Thanks for your continued participation!

591 responses to “Politics discussion thread II

  1. I attempted to watch the presidential debate. Gave up after 15 minutes. Trump considers the debate a success. He is surrounded by yes-men.

    • His aides thought it was a disaster but they probably didn’t bother to tell him.

    • “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” – Mark Twain

    • It was not a debate. It was a full scale argument, like normal people have. Very populist. Trump did well.

    • thecliffclavenoffinance

      George
      I read a transcript of the debate and thought Trump won. Of course I had the advantage of NOT having two people talking at the same time. BIDEN started the interruptions, something he did successfully in a debate with Paul Ryan in 2008. When Trump saw Biden using the same strategy, he counterattacked hard.

      My wife, who watched the debate on TV, thought Trump was rude and nasty and thought he lost by a mile. She was not capable of deciding who won the debate, based on the policy issues discussed, as the behavior turned her off.

      Both of us do not like Trump, but like Biden less, so we are not biased in favor of either man.

      We are shocked that these are the two “best” candidates for president. Trump is unable to form coalitions to get things done, such as ending Chinese theft of trade secrets, and Biden is not all there, and never really was.

  2. Donald Trump mocks Hillary Clinton over her pneumonia outbreak pic.twitter.com/feHjV6cLDa— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) October 2, 2016

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  3. Mr. Trump blustered, bullied and interrupted his way through the debate. Chris Wallace seemed unable to contain him. Yet, I think Wallace should have told Trump on about ten occasions “You shut up”. And I think Biden should have said on those occasions to Wallace: “Either you shut him up and make him stop interrupting, or I am leaving this stage and the debate is over”.

    Nevertheless, Trump’s bullying tactics took their toll on Biden, who increasingly got flustered, forgetful, and confused. As a result, I thought that Biden failed to get his points across and seemed to rely on simply calling Trump a liar (which of course, he is). By contrast, I thought that Trump was surprisingly articulate and whatever he said (real or imagined) he got across clearly and distinctly. In that respect, I have to say that Trump won the debate by a large margin, in the sense that he conveyed his position (often based on false premises) much better than Biden did.

    On a couple of points… Regarding choosing the next Supreme Court judge, Trump asserted that he had been elected for four years and his prerogative to nominate a justice did not end at the end of the third year of his presidency. He said he was president for four full years. Biden countered, saying that an election has already begun, and let the people decide. Yet the people already decided 3.7 years ago and I thought Biden’s response was weak and unconvincing. Biden should have said that polls showed that people no longer support Trump, that he is a lame duck president trying to stack the court before he is voted out, the people are disenchanted, and the people do not want his nominee. But as always, Biden simply is unable to articulate. In regard to health care, Trump was very proud of removing the aspect of affordable care that would fine anyone who did not participate, but Biden’s response was tangential, arguing that Trump’s actions would end medical care for thousands (without any proof or backup). Biden should have pointed out that this policy was necessary; otherwise all the sick people would register for Affordable Care and many of the healthy people would opt out, which would kill the system; therefore, Trump’s action was intended to kill Affordable Care and would deprive large numbers of people of medical care. I think that Affordable Care (aka Obamacare) was a flawed, noble attempt to provide more people with medical care. However, we already have a system in place that works well: Medicare. Medicare for more people, leading eventually to Medicare for all is the best way to go. But, Medicare is expensive. The fees paid in only account for about a third of the cost; the rest comes from general taxes. When Trump and the Republicans pushed through a major tax cut a couple of years ago, that made it even tougher to pay for Medicare even in its present form. The resultant budget deficits are huge. But, by pushing interest rates down close to zero, the cost of the Government debt is low. To combat the corona, the Federal Reserve issued three trillion dollars of new money, created out of nothing. We seem to have reached Nirvana where we can pile up debt, and pay nil interest on it, and live forever on borrowed dollars. The Fed pumps money into the banks, the banks lend out money. The money goes into real estate and stocks. The debt builds up, but who cares? I can’t see why the Fed shouldn’t print another several trillion and get rid of poverty in America. Let the debt roar upward!

    We have known since the earlier Democratic Party debates that Biden is slow witted, inarticulate, easily flustered, and can’t get his message out smoothly. That was demonstrated time and again. By contrast, Pete Buttegieg was sharp, responsive, quick and authoritative. He would have taken Trump apart. Elizabeth Warren would not have gotten flustered but would have presented her plans for everything, all well thought out and articulated clearly.

    Everything they say about Trump is right. But I am not impressed with Biden. The Democrats I admire are Buttegieg, Warren and Sanders, and there are many flaws in the Democratic Party as well, particularly the branch in Sacramento. In Sacramento, they are more concerned with global problems (which is not their business) than serving the people of California. While they go gung ho on solar and wind energy, electric cars, and the like, they have killed nuclear power, and they are now killing natural gas power, and power is in shortage in California, as it has been ever since the Enron fiasco. Furthermore, all those power lines to the solar and wind installations add to the fire risk. Then, take water. The folks in Sacramento have not taken steps to provide a reliable source of good water to the people. Water is a perennial shortage. Then take fire prevention and firefighting. The budget for the bullet train was ten times that for fire. But with all that, they could not provide basic services to the people. If you want to take a driver’s test it can take up to 3-4 months to get an appointment (pre-virus). In Sacramento they wring their hands continually about the housing shortage but they’ve let in many millions of illegals that have made the housing shortage far worse. The real problem for California is overpopulation and the open borders policy in Sacramento has brought our population up to unsustainable levels in demand for power, water, clean air, housing, fire danger, and basic services. The income tax is the highest in the country, and the level where the rate jumps to 9.3% is a mere $75,000/yr. So, I think the Democrats have traveled the road of good intentions toward hell. In politics today, it’s not choosing who is better, but rather, choosing which one is worse than the other worse one.

    In the battle for the Democratic Party nomination, earlier this year, about a dozen hopefuls contested for the chance to run for president. But the system was a setup to allow all the imaginative, visionary, analytical contestants to spread their votes between themselves (Sanders, Warren, Buttegieg) while sleepy Joe hung in the background and collected the votes of the fearful, the distrustful, those without vision, and those that needed the comfort of not rocking the boat. In the end, the others beat up on one another enough that sleepy Joe who didn’t much advocate hardly anything seemed like the safest bet. And the Democratic press kept telling us that the others were too radical, and only the sleeper could unseat the redhead. Who knows, that might be true? Maybe this country is so unable to grasp new ideas and is so fearful of change, that only a sleepy alternative to Trump could win?

    But I am not as hateful of Trump as some, nor as disparaging of Trump as others seem to be. After all, we just lived through 3.5 years of Trump, and until the virus hit, the country was doing well by some standards. The stock market was soaring. The budget was in deficit, but that was nothing new, and even the eight years of Obama built up the deficit pretty substantially. The rich were getting disproportionately rich, but I seem to be one of the few people in America who thinks that is a very bad thing. Some of that trickled down, and unemployment was very low. People were working and buying cars and houses. China was impeded in taking advantage of us (with our willing accomplices). The driving forces were low taxes, low interest rates, and a business friendly government. It was heartening to me to see Trump’s solid support for Israel, while the Democratic Party ignored 3 billion people in the world who were deprived of human rights, and focused on their repeated criticism of Israel for far smaller maladies. He rightly pointed out the fallacies of the UN.

    In any event, pre-virus, we survived 3 years of Trump without great mishap.
    On the flip side, we had to endure his relentless attempts to deprive needy people of medical care, his endless selection of key people in the administration who were either buffoons or incompetents, or if competent, were quickly fired and replaced by lesser candidates. The Environmental Protection Agency became the Environmental Destruction Agency, and the Consumer Protection Agency became the Consumer Persecution Agency. But worst of all, or perhaps best of all, depending on your viewpoint, he was ineffective at doing the two things that were the lynchpins of his campaign for presidency: stopping illegal immigration and rebuilding American industry. When the virus arose, he provided no leadership to fight spread of the virus, and only tried to play it down, lest it might hurt the stock market. The only reason we don’t have even more cases and deaths than we do is because most of the country ignored him and wore masks and kept apart.

    Trump is a fundamentally rotten person, but a dose of Trump is not fatal, nor was a dose of Nixon, nor was a dose of Bush, nor was a dose of Carter, or a dose of Reagan, or for that matter even a dose of Obama. We’ve had some lousy presidents in our time and we’ve survived.

    The real issue beyond Trump is who will win the Senate?

    • Donald

      I agree with your first paragraph. The moderator was very weak and Both he and Biden should have done more to control Trump before it got out of hand.

      however the world knows how Trump operates, but for many it would be a revelation that Biden could be weak and get flustered and confused. So perhaps Trumps performance was not as damaging as those of us from abroad might have thought.

      Shame on those pouring hatred and vitriol on Trump

      Whatever the ins and outs lets hope Trump Biden and anyone else they came into contact will escape with light symptoms. Time will tell, as it took around a week before it became obvious that Boris Johnson was very ill.

      tonyb

      • tony –

        >Shame on those pouring hatred and vitriol on Trump

        Indeed, shame on those disgusting people who would cheer at the misfortune of others. What kind of people would do such a thing? And what kind of people would egg someone on who did that?

      • Joshua

        Yes if the tweet is as shown then I agree, that was disgraceful.

        Tonyb

      • The alternative would be for you to eschew riding on high horses tony.

      • Joshua

        As I gave the right aNd moral answer you cannot accuse me of being on a high horse. Mind you I am ready with a very long ladder for the next time you want to ascend one

        Tonyb

      • tony –

        Maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to judge the morality of others.

        If Shadenfreude is a disqualifier from that status of being a moral person, few people other than you would be left. There’s a reason why someone who makes such an obvious display and regular practice of laughing at and mocking other people’s misfortune got elected to be president of the US.

        Personally, I go with something like separating families and putting kids in cages, but I guess I’m weird that way.

      • tony –

        Where does this rank on your morality scale?

      • What would make me a better man; to pretend that I care what happens to Trump or be truthful….

    • Let me guess, Donald, that if the Democrats had nominated Buttegieg then Biden would be on your list of Democrats you admire.

      • James –

        Do you doubt that Butegieg would have done much better in a debate with Trump? I had some problems with him as a candidate, but he is articulate and can effectively convey policy outlines. Certainly better than Biden in that regard.

        But Biden had the support of the black community, whereas Buttegieg had basically, none. Unlike with Pubz, black voters comprise a significant % of the Dem part and Dem voters. This is the way of the Demz, which has a wide range of constituencies, of which none can successfully be eliminated from representation as the Pubz have done, and none of which are willing to just cede their agency for the sake.

        Combine that with a two-party system, which propels a zero sum, lesser of two evils framework, and the only candidate that could reach the top of the ticket was a mediocre candidate who has a wide if tepid appeal across the board.

      • Joshua,

        I didn’t want Biden initially because I thought he was too old. But, all in all, I think the Democrats could have done worse. And there is no doubt whatsoever that he will be better than the disaster in the White House now.

    • “Nevertheless, Trump’s bullying tactics took their toll on Biden, who increasingly got flustered, forgetful, and confused.“

      Does anyone really believe that was not a strategy? I would have advised Trump to use a bunch of double negatives, just to get Ol’ doddering Joe more confused.

      I’ve seen innumerable videos of Biden that made me think Dementia was just around the corner. If he had to face more than just softball interviews, the deterioration would be even more evident.

      Having said that, I was surprised Biden didn’t just completely freeze up needing assistance in leaving the stage. If there is another debate (highly doubtful now) Trump should hammer on those accomplishments important to his base.

    • The misgovernance in CA extends to the energy sector. They import ~30% of their electricity from other states, Canada and Mexico. That is going to continue to increase as they shut down nuclear and fossil fuel plants; power bills will increase as well. How long do they expect industry will put up with rising costs? Ideology run amok!

    • Donald –

      > But the system was a setup to allow all the imaginative, visionary, analytical contestants to spread their votes between themselves (Sanders, Warren, Buttegieg) while sleepy Joe hung in the background and collected the votes of the fearful, the distrustful, those without vision, and those that needed the comfort of not rocking the boat. In the end, the others beat up on one another enough that sleepy Joe who didn’t much advocate hardly anything seemed like the safest bet. And the Democratic press kept telling us that the others were too radical, and only the sleeper could unseat the redhead.

      I disagree. What put BIden over the top – by a very wide margin actually – was support in the black community. None of the other candidates got much of any support in the black community. at all. People can blame the media, or they can blame the DNC, but in the end I think that the other candidates shoulder the blame for not effectively running campaigns that got support in the black community. That was on them. It didn’t have to be that way.

      > Who knows, that might be true? Maybe this country is so unable to grasp new ideas and is so fearful of change, that only a sleepy alternative to Trump could win?

      One of the reasons why some of the other candidates didn’t get support in the black community is that the black community, on the whole, is more conservative than much of the rest of the Dem party. I think it is too reductive to just boil it down to not being creative, or fearful of change, or not able to grasp new ideas. People can have legitimate reasons for disagreement without diminishing those reasons. In fact, if anything I’d say it was a lack of creativity, an inability to think outside the box, an inability to change, that would help to explain why none of the other candidates got any more then just a tiny fraction of the black vote in the primaries.

    • 1# Mr. Trump blustered, bullied and interrupted his way through the debate.

      2# Nevertheless, Trump’s bullying tactics took their toll on Biden, who increasingly got flustered, forgetful, and confused.

      3# By contrast, I thought that Trump was surprisingly articulate and whatever he said (real or imagined) he got across clearly and distinctly.

      1# We all know Trump is that and why keep making the argument? I don’t mean you, but that’s a drum beat and the message from the Democrats. It’s I am not a bully. Who would put that forth as a credential? Rather than call someone a bully, deal with them. Here’s our foreign policy. Call country X a bully. That’s stupid. They call Trump climate denier. Who cares? Impeach his butt if you don’t like his position on renewables.

      2# Bullies of the World: China and Russia. How to deal with bullies? Not Biden. Biden said he would keep us safe. I saw the the ad. He’ll keep himself safe by caving to the loony left so that they don’t burn down the White House.

      3# Trump knows how to land a punch. It’s not surprising. He took apart the Republicans in their primary, and then the DNC. He wasn’t missing his punches then. It helps that Biden and the Democrats are hopeless. They’ve reached the end of the road, there is no Utopia. It’s just dividing a pie amongst their victims without producing anything of value. President Obama did not know how to improve race relations and their wokesters don’t know how to do it, and they blame Trump.

      Rapp, you wrote a good comment. Think greater audience.

  4. Danley B. Wolfe

    Climate etc. might set some rules for blog entries. Purely personal opinions might be voiced elsewhere not on Climate etc.

    • What opinions are not personal?

      • > What opinions are not personal?

        Opinions Daniel agrees with, no doubt. Opinions he agrees with are fact, not opinion

    • Danley

      Surely it is personal opinions that Drive a politics thread? What are you suggesting that people should post about if personal opinions are banned?

      Mid you, an awful lot of the comments on other threads are also personal opinions, an individuals take on a paper, their ow theories, an opinion on how an organisation is performing with its models etc.

      If you are talking about vitriolic personal attacks on politics or each other, then that might be a different thing.

      tonyb

    • I will help you, dannylee. You missed the turn, somewhere. You are on the wrong blog.

  5. I will always look to see who started the debacle, and it was Biden. First up was Trump, no interruptions. Then Biden’s turn, no interruptions. Trump’s turn once again he was interrupted 3 times by Biden. That is when CW should of said something to Biden. When Wallace did nothing Trump was like, hey I can play by those rules too.
    Hispanic’s by about 67% thought Trump won the debate according to Telemundo.

  6. Science triumphs!!!

  7. I was kind of surprised to hear that Google had a huge run on Hunter Biden in their searches. It was like people just didn’t know that Hunter Biden got millions from the Russians and the Chinese. How could people not know? It’s ben all over many conservative websites and commentaries not to mention the Senate report. Yet apparently some people never go to anything by the Democratic propaganda corps for their news and they didn’t know.

    • It’s part of the censorship by the MSM. Millions of our fellow citizens are fed a narrative that excludes many facts and realities that others are aware of because they seek alternative news sources. The same thing has happened with Antifa in Portland. Their activities were going on long before earlier this year. The MSM was forced to cover the neo fascists, when it was impossible to ignore. The left was convinced the group was peaceful and anti fascist, when their behavior points to garden variety, Bohemian fascists. The left wants to be brainwashed. The MSM gives them what they want.

      The left likes their news force fed to them. Nothing too complicated. Just a tidy, pre packaged story, reinforcing their preconceived world view. No nuances or subtitles. Straight out binary thinking required. That is why the inclusivity prone Proud Boys story being portrayed as white Supremacists has legs, in spite of evidence otherwise. No one will be called out for the inaccurate news. Nor the Trump $750 Tax story. Since journalists can count on the left never doing actual research nor being capable of understanding complexities of the Tax Code, the story went viral and will be repeated for years.

      The left. The media. A symbiotic relationship made in heaven.

      • > It’s part of the censorship by the MSM.

        In the end, victimhood will always win out. And no better victimizer than the mean ol’ “MSM.”

      • cerescokid, I agree. It may seem amazing to some that I would’ve vote for Sanders in 2016, but that’s the God’s truth. However, all one has to do is consider the arguments on the conservative side to realize that the left really has been brainwashed– and that’s an appropriate and accurate term. They have no idea what’s going on except for what NPR and the NYTimes tell them.

        I made the decision to go down the rabbit hole and see what the other side was saying. What I found is that it’s amazing what people will believe that’s based on nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking.

      • Alright Joshua, pony up. Let’s hear where Trump has refused to condemn hate groups like White Supremacists.

      • Don132 –

        I’m not going to play that game because it’s a set up. If “the msm” keeps playing that Gamez that’s in them.

        Trump dicks around on these issues, intentionally, and then plays the plausible deniability card. His cult members lap it up. If he wanted to put the issue to rest he could have, at least for this round. It was a big fat hanging curve ball and he just took it for a called strike.
        He tried to walk the line and sometimes he has to backtrack, like he did with Charlottesville. But in the end it makes little difference. People are pretty fixed in their views.

        But the notion that he’s some kind of poor little victim rather than a willful actor working in what he perceives to be his best interests is laughable. Especially since the same mourners over what a poor victim he is are the same cult members who fall at his feet because they think he’s such a master manipulator.

        Well, for the most part:

        How long ’till Adams claims this was a master move after all?

      • Joshua-
        You’re not going to play that game? And what game is that?

        The MSM is projecting that Trump is some sort of white supremacist or at least tacitly supports these hate groups. There’s zero actual evidence of that– I ask you to supply it, and you can’t. In fact Trump has condemned these hate groups. The MSM is taking what he actually says and distorting it.

        Notice that in the debate Trump said “sure” when asks to condemn these groups, and then was interrupted. He later asked which group do you want me to condemn? Because he has been clear about this is the past but the media keeps dragging it up to supposedly “prove” that Trump won’t commit to this or that. Yet there’s zero proof, only assumption, insinuation, and conjecture put forward as “proof” when the actual proof is in what the man has actually said.

        https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesville-transcript-20170815-story.html

      • J

        “….dicks around…”

        Is that a verb?

        He didn’t backtrack on Charlottesville. That was his original statement. If you weren’t a prisoner of leftwing media you would’ve read the original transcript. Some outlets admitted such. You missed it.

      • Ok Don132 –

        I guess you’re right. Trump is just a poor innocent little victim of the big bad “MSM.”. He has tried over and over just as hard as he could to disassociate himself from any and all white supremacist groups…

      • Ok boyz –

        Trump has no agency. It’s Joe’s fault. No, it’s the media’s fault. It’s axiomatic because Trump is infallible

        -snip-

        Topline: A Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that more than eight in ten black Americans view President Trump as “a racist,” with nine in ten respondents disapproving of his job performance⁠—and with the election still ten months away, former vice president Joe Biden is (so far) black Democrats’ candidate of choice.

        -snip-

        The survey, conducted on May 29 and 30, found that 52 percent of Americans answered yes when asked whether they “think that President Trump is a racist.” Only 37 percent said no. Just 33 percent said the president should continue “posting messages on Twitter.” Fifty-four percent said no to the question.

        -snip-

        Poor little fella. It’s sooooooo unfair.

      • -snip-

        Topline: A Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that more than eight in ten black Americans view President Trump as “a racist,” with nine in ten respondents disapproving of his job performance⁠—and with the election still ten months away, former vice president Joe Biden is (so far) black Democrats’ candidate of choice.

        -snip-

        The survey, conducted on May 29 and 30, found that 52 percent of Americans answered yes when asked whether they “think that President Trump is a racist.” Only 37 percent said no. Just 33 percent said the president should continue “posting messages on Twitter.” Fifty-four percent said no to the question.

        -snip-

        Poor little fella. It’s sooooooo unfair.

      • Ok boyz –

        I guess you’re right. Trump is just a poor innocent little victim of the big bad “MSM.”. He has tried over and over just as much as he could to disassociate himself from any and all white racist groups or racist ideas, but the propaganda machine just keeps hiding it from the public. Trump has no agency. It’s Joe’s fault. No, it’s the media’s fault. It’s axiomatic because Trump is infallible.

      • Fox News White House chief correspondent John Roberts went off on some of his Twitter followers on Thursday for “hammering” him over asking White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany for a “definitive and declarative statement” that the president denounces white supremacy and groups that espouse it.

        “Why didn’t he say, ‘I don’t know who they are. Can you give me more information about them,’ and then make a decision about it? So this all remains puzzling,” Roberts told “Outnumbered Overtime” guest host Melissa Francis on Thursday afternoon.

        “And for all of you on Twitter who are hammering me for asking that question, I don’t care,” he said. “Because it’s a question that needs to be asked, and clearly the president’s Republican colleagues a mile away from here are looking for an answer for it too. So stop deflecting. Stop blaming the media. I’m tired of it.”

      • Kid –

        > On Monday, Trump specifically called out the KKK, neo-N*zis and white suprem*cists in a choreographed statement read at the White House — but that was two days after his initial statement on the protests, for which he was criticized for not condemning those groups and instead cited violence “on many sides.

        It’s the same playbook over and over (1) make ambiguous statements (I.e., d*ck around), (2) thrill racist groups (3) play the victim, (4) claim plausible deniability, (5) watch cultists lap it up.

        Try removing the scales from your eyes.

      • Joshua,
        A survey that shows that many Americans think Trump is a racist skirts the issue of whether people are made to think that because of the distortions of the mainstream media, which continually insinuates that Trump tacitly supports right-wing hate groups but without a shred of evidence. Trump isn’t on the left, therefore he must be on the side of the far-right militia groups?

      • I hate to tell you, Joshua, but this “violence on both sides” that you condemn Trump for pointing out is actually primarily violent from one side, and you know darn well which side has been burning and looting and intimidating people of late.

        Remove the scales from thine own eyes.

      • Don132

        > A survey that shows that many Americans think Trump is a racist skirts the issue of whether people are made to think that because of the distortions of the mainstream media,…

        60% of Americans think he’s usually dishonest.

        Stop acting like he’s a pathetic little victim. He’s a grown man. He has agency. He spends nearly all his time cultivating his image. He gets the image he creates.

      • Fascinating, Joshua; propaganda defines the man.

      • Don132

        > A survey that shows that many Americans think Trump is a racist skirts the issue of whether people are made to think that because of the distortions of the mainstream media,…

        I’m sure you’re very smart, but I doubt that you have some gift of insight that’s greater than most of the public. Stop insulting the intelligence of the American public.

        A majority of Americans think that he isn’t truthful.

        He’s a big boy. He’s responsible for how the public views him. When he plays around regarding racism and then backtracks after people want to call him on it, his cult members love it but most people aren’t impressed.

      • Don132

        stop acting like he’s a victim. He’s a grown man. He has agency. He spends nearly all his time cultivating his image. He gets the image he creates.

      • Joshua, you’re going to have to up your game.

        When you talk about his (Trump’s) image, what makes you so sure that this is the image that he himself projects, instead of an image that the media has cultivated for you? We can go back and forth forever on the “he’s a racist” issue but the plain fact is that he has condemned hate groups and white supremacists in the past (as my earlier links showed) only you haven’t been paying attention. For political purposes the mainstream keeps pretending that he’s a closet (or overt) racist who would kill black lives with his own hands if he only had a chance. Right?

        The beginning of wisdom is realizing that “the news” is here to tell us what to think. Hard truth to swallow if we’ve lived our whole lives believing in the NYTimes and other mainstream outlets.

  8. Seems like the SCOTUS appointment before the election must be done, right?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/02/politics/mike-lee-tests-positive-covid/index.html

    Given that there would likely have to be key people isolating.

  9. Trump’s debt could be a security issue.

    From article:

    Former top intelligence officials told me Trump would have difficulty receiving a clearance if he were an ordinary citizen — unless he could provide our hypothetical FBI agent with some answers. There are too many pressure points and unexplained financial relationships to give him a pass.

    And when Mueller’s office that summer subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, the president’s lawyers issued a sharp protest. They were skittish, even though “our subpoenas had nothing to do with these [Trump] loans,” Weissmann writes. Instead, they were tracking payments to Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

    Who has lent Trump money? How does he plan to repay it? What oversight will there be to prevent him from compromising the country’s interests to manage his debts?

    It’s not as if these questions are new. In his business dealings, Trump has always displayed what Russians describe as “bespredel” — “a complete rejection of any and all rules.” When criticized, he denigrates his opponent. If he lacks facts, he makes them up. If he’s sued for misconduct, he launches a countersuit. When his enterprises are about to go bust, he threatens to take his creditors down with him.

    What’s astonishing is that Trump has gotten away with this behavior — through his casino bankruptcies, a special-counsel investigation, an impeachment trial and now a scorched-earth election campaign in which he threatens that if he doesn’t win, he may not accept the result. Stoking public outrage is part of his strategy; it’s where he lives.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-trumps-debt-could-be-a-national-security-threat/2020/10/01/db5d1270-0408-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html

    • “… a scorched-earth election campaign in which he threatens that if he doesn’t win, he may not accept the result.”

      Really? And this is a threat?

      If an election is disputed, that’s one thing. It’s happened before.

      If, on the other hand, it’s determined that Trump lost and must vacate the WH, is there anyone in his right mind who believes that Trump will engage the military to try to retain power unlawfully, and that the rest of the country will let him get away with it?

      My suggestion is that this is just another campaign trick to smear Trump because it’s simply ridiculous to believe that this is anything to worry about, and despite what we’re constantly told the president has never said that he’ll refuse to leave the WH if he lost.

      • Don,

        He’s a desperate man. He may go to jail or his empire will collapse if he loses. It’s not a question of what he’ll do. It’s a question of how much the Republicans and the courts will let him get away with. He might think about asking for asylum in Russia if he hasn’t yet talked to Vlad about it.

      • Little jimmy is really in a frenzy. MAGA POTUS Trump will be better off if he loses. No more defamatory BS from seditious little nuts like you. He has his own mansions, fleet of aircraft and golf courses. He just goes to the good life. Doesn’t need the headaches or the trappings of office. It’s the country that will be in big trouble.

      • “He’s a desperate man”? Any evidence for that, other than, just like Joe Biden, he wants to win the election?

  10. Douglas B. Levene

    Most people have made up their minds. The debate was never going to change anyone’s mind. Its only purpose was to possibly affect the small number of undecided voters. In my humble opinion, Trump’s best chance to do that was to show that Biden is feeble and senile. He failed to do that, and nothing else that happened is moving the meter on the dial one way or the other for either candidate. Since Trump was behind in the battleground polls at the start of the debate, and failed to move undecideds towards him, I’d say he lost.

    On the other hand, you could say that Trump avoided a disaster, which is what the debate could have been had it focused on Biden’s big issues: the pandemic and health care generally. He did succeed in preventing Biden from making the debate about those issues.

    • Good analysis.

      I didn’t watch – couldn’t bring myself to witness the race to the bottom…but from what I’ve heard.

      I think there’s a chance that a tiny fraction of Trump leaners were put off enough to maybe not vote. I doubt that Biden lost a single vote. The bar was set so low, his lousy performance was expected as a ceiling. I want to personally thank Trump for helping so much to set the bar so low.

      • Photon Powered, Sideways, High Side Racer

        “. . . witness the race to the bottom . . .”

        Vice President Biden won that race and continues to set new records for depth to the bottom.

  11. POTUS DJ Trump got covid-19 because he’s an essential person who’s regularly exposed to the public and others from around the globe. Joe Biden has the luxury to stay in his basement because, he’s not an essential person.

  12. There are some doubts now about the timeline.

    Some are speculating that Trump was the one who infected Hicks. Trump may have been ill before Hicks tested positive. He may have even gone to the debate knowing he he was sick.

    Since they are now making plans for Pence to take over if Trump’s symptoms worsen, it probably means he is already sicker than they are telling us which means he may have been ill through multiple appearances without wearing a mask.

    • James –

      > Some are speculating…

      This is right from the Trump playbook. Leave that stuff to the “skeptics” and the Trump cult. Why play that game?

      • If Trump was being regularly tested and was showing symptoms on Wednesday when aides said he was tired and had a raspy voice, then likely he had tested positive well before Wednesday.

      • I agree that there’s clearly something fishy about the timeline. It’s likely that he knew of a positive diagnosis somewhat before it was announced. Seems to me that the speculation beyond that is just waaaaay too much pulling rabbits out of a hat – of the sort I regularly see at this site. For example, speculating that he had a diagnosis on Wednesday seems a bridge too far without any more evidence. Too many reasons why that simply isn’t plausible. And too much risk that something might leak out or someone might blow the whistle. All conspiracy theories should be subjected to the plausibility and whistleblower tests.

  13. The fake media are so gullible and stupid. They said Trump made a dog whistle to the proud boys. Please explain how you could dog whistle to people you never even heard of???

    “I don’t know who the Proud Boys are. You’ll have to give me a definition because I really don’t know who they are.”

    • > Please explain how you could dog whistle to people you never even heard of???

      Right. That’s why during the debate, he didn’t say, “Who are the Proud Boys?”

      He just throws the garbage out onto the floor, and his cult just laps it up, saying “Please sir, may I have some more?”

      • Meh. Funny that Trump is asked to disavow Proud Boys but Biden wasn’t asked to disavow Antifa.
        From my view: Biden accomplished his goal of not royally gaffing and not being unlikable.
        But Trump accomplished his goal of emphasizing “Sleepy Joe” and his lack of energy.
        Neither candidate addressed substantive issues facing real Americans: like what is the plan to address the enormous economic black hole caused by COVID-19 (and policies fighting it).
        I initially thought that the strategic win was for Biden because he didn’t lose, but, on reflection, think strategically it was better for Trump if it truly caused undecided voters to not vote.
        Trump’s base is far more energetic and Trump has been and continues to be more energetic campaigning. The COVID-19 positive he supposedly has – that’s the wild card now.
        Trump was at a rally the day after the debate; Biden was announcing his plan to visit Florida for the first time in 2020…next week.

      • James Cross–

        So yes, Biden disavowed the violence. Good for him. Give him credit.

        We have clear evidence that Trump has also condemned violence wherever it comes, but in the imaginary universe of those who believe the NYTimes has no bias he’s constantly giving these hate groups the dog whistle because he doesn’t agree with the rioting, looting, and burning that’s now taking place by those on the left.

        Did Joe Biden, presumably future president, step up and call any of the Democratic mayors to discuss ways of tamping down the violence or to advise them “for the good of the country”? During the debate he admitted he did not. So then is he giving the (implicit) dog whistle to the perpetuation of the violence? Just like Trump is giving the (implicit, assumed, conjectured, imagined) dog whistle to violence on the right?

        Separate fact from imaginings and projections and hopes, as if all the people on the left don’t fervently hope that Trump is a racist and a secret White Supremacist. This is your imagination, and the imagination of the MSM, working overtime.

  14. Donald Rapp – You pretty much nailed it.

  15. It was pretty obvious that this was a debate designed to separate Biden’s two factions. Like Dan Bongino said – this is a base election. Trump has a solid, unified base, while Biden is scrambling to hold two opposing factions together. Trump didn’t win the debate, but Biden certainly lost.

  16. I’d always thought that when Trump spoke of “fake news” he was just being a narcissistic idiot who couldn’t handle reality.

    But the man is spot on. It’s like a fish swimming in water: we’re so surrounded by it (MSM “news”) that we think nothing of it. Trump has clearly and unequivocally condemned hate groups, including groups on the far right, and yet the news is: Trump refuses to commit!

    The “news”: say it enough times and people will believe it. Turn off your brain and repeat ….

  17. Trump heading to the hospital. Walter Reed.

    Must be more serious than they’ve been saying. He must have been sick for at least five days or more.

    Haven’t heard any mention of HCQ. Maybe I missed it. I heard something about monoclonal antibodies – something with a little more science behind it, although still not well researched.

    • Trump’s treatment.

      Regeneron defines its compassionate use program as “intended for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions who do not have any viable or available treatment options, and are unable to participate in ongoing clinical trials.”

      https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-trump-covid19-test-white-house-99b30c9b-604d-4ab4-9914-b4cee28e7c6d.html

      • “Fuming Donald Trump tells Putin vaccine didn’t work!”
        https://tinyurl.com/yyykqyz5
        A dose of Sputnik V, the vaccine recently developed in Russia during a fast-tracked process many scientists fear bypassed rigorous medical review, was sent to Trump last month as part of the special rations given to every Russian agent.
        /s

    • According to the press, Trump is tested daily and supposedly today is the first day he tested positive. If that is the case, the symptoms may not show much for a number of days. But can you believe that?

    • “Trump heading to the hospital. Walter Reed. Must be more serious than they’ve been saying.”

      I’ve just read that regeneron and/or remdesivir can only be administered in a hospital, per FDA rules. So that may be the reason for his hospitalization.

      • Actually they gave the regeneron before he went to the hospital.

        They’re saying today they moved him to the hospital when they did because they wanted to make sure he could still walk to Marine 1 for the photo op, instead of being wheeled on a gurney.

      • James –

        The more I think about it, the more the timeline seems fishy.

        His illness progressed to the point where he was in the hospital and on remdesivir less than 24 hours after testing positive. That’s unusual.

        So maybe he had the virus for days before he tested positive? But he’s supposedly tested every day.

        OK, but people can get false negatives, especially with the rapid tests. But symptoms don’t usually appear until you’ve had the virus for a few days. So he likely had to have gotten false negatives for multiple days… 2, 3, 4 days. That seems very unlikely.

        Did he test positive for multiple days even though he didn’t have symptoms, and they didn’t want to cancel the debate because of him being positive because that would be embarrassing, and so they thought they could get away with not admitting he was positive?

        OK that’s nuts, right? Implausible, and irresponsible on their part and a risky gambit because gjrre could be a leak.

        But we know that Hope tested positive well before we found out. We know that we found out only after a reporter found out (somehow) and reported it. And we know that he traveled and mingled (maskless) with people after contact with someone known to be infected. Do we know they are quite willing to disregard the CDC guidelines.

        So we know they were willing to be irresponsible.

        I’m not a conspiracy guy, but the timeline is fishy. I wonder what the explanations are?

      • A “I’m not a conspiracy guy, …” spouting conspiracies. Veddy interesting. [Check out the old comedy, Laugh-In.]

      • Yeah. You were probably right to chasten me for too much speculation but there is a lot about the timeline that isn’t making sense. Especially how he has gone from publicly “well” as far as we knew to testing positive to having minor symptoms to going to the hospital – most of that compressed into less than 48 hours.

  18. We have a political discussion with no discussion of real politics: Ending “endless” wars (one Nobel nomination); peace in the Middle East (two Nobel nominations); booming economy (America first priorities); historic economic gains for minorities and women; ditching the idiotic Paris Accords (China and India were the winners); ditching the naive, counter-productive Iranian deal (Obama’s desperate “legacy”); and etc.

    • Big beautiful wall… oh, wait…

      That Mexico paid for.. oh, wait…

      Beautiful healthcare plan…. oh wait…

      That would cost less to pay for…. oh….wait…

      Big beautiful $1 trillion infrastructure project…. oh…wait…

      Great trade deal with China….. oh…. wait…

      Deficit gone, down to nothing…. oh… wait….

      GDP 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, OR MORE…. oh…wait…

      Trade deficit shrunk…..oh…wait….

      Only the best people…. oh…wait…

      15 dead from Covid down to zero…. oh… wait..

      Anyone who wants a test can get a test….. oh… wait…

      Drive in tests at Walmart, Target, CVS… oh… wait…

      Great website to sign up for testing…. oh…wait….

      Raise the minimum wage….oh…wait….

      Bring back manufacturing… oh… wait…

      Special prosecutor for Clinton… oh… wait..

      Ban Whitehouse officials from lobbying jobs..
      oh… wait…

      There’s a lot more. Should I continue?

      • Sniping, disjointed comments are not political discussions. Substantive political, economic and foreign policy advancements are political discussions.

      • Curious George

        Raise the minimum wage .. Your data got mixed up.

      • Robert Starkey

        Avoided the war Obama thought was inevitable- N Korea.

        Engaged most radical terrorist organization on planet Isis and destroyed that organization

        Achieve lowest rate of minority unemployment in history.

      • > Raise the minimum wage .. Your data got mixed up.

        -snip-

        “I’m going to have a statement on minimum wage,” Trump told Fox Business during a White House interview. “I feel differently than a lot of people on minimum wage, some people in my own party. But I will have a statement over the next two weeks on minimum wage.

        -snip-

        -snip-

        “The minimum wage has to go up. People are — at least $10, but it has to go up. But I think that states — federal — I think that states should really call the shot. As an example, I live in New York. It’s very expensive in New York. You can’t buy a hot dog for the money you’re talking about. You go to other states and it’s not expensive at all. Now what it does is puts New York at a disadvantage if the minimum wage is up, companies move out and things, bad things happen. At the same time, people have to be taken care of. But what I’m really going to do on the minimum wage — but it has to go up.. .. So I would like to raise it to at least $10.

        -snip-

        There’s more. Should I go on?

      • Curious George

        Does the Democratic Party really oppose raising the minimum wage?

    • Joshua likes to focus on a lot of trivial things but misses the biggest issues like:
      1. avoiding nuclear war with North Korea. Obama considered war with North Korea virtually unavoidable.
      2. Lowest levels of minority unemployment in history.
      3. Engagement with an elimination of largest terrorist operation on the planet Isis.

      Should I go on and on like Joshua.

      • > Joshua likes to focus on a lot of trivial things

        Yeah.

        Debt? Trivial!

        Infrastructure? Trivial!

        Health insurance? Trivial!

        Testing for Covid? Trivial! (only causes # of cases to go up)

        GDP? Trivial!

        Manufacturing? Trivial!

        Trade deficit? Trivial!

        Wall? Trivial! (well, OK that is trivial).

        Meanwhile, low unemployment #s are good although most people not afflicted with motivated reasoning agree that the president has little effect on that particularly over a period as short as four years (but if you’re going to go there then you have to give Obama credit for reducing it far more than Trump did).

        North Korea? Seriously? A dog and pony show, AFTER North Korea developed the long range capability, that got nothing accomplished (well, there were the love letters).

        Cetainly deserves some credit for Isis – it isn’t “defeated” as he claims but it is significantly diminished. He deserves credit for the acceleration of a strategy largely developed under Obama.

      • likes to focus on a lot of trivial things

        Yeah.

        Debt? Trivial!

        Infrastructure? Trivial!

        Health insurance? Trivial!

        Testing for Covid? Trivial! (only causes # of cases to go up)

        GDP? Trivial!

        Manufacturing? Trivial!

        Trade deficit? Trivial!

        Wall? Trivial! (well, OK that is trivial).

      • Meanwhile, low unemployment #s are good although most people not afflicted with motivated reasoning agree that the president has little effect on that particularly over a period as short as four years (but if you’re going to go there then you have to give Obama credit for reducing it far more than Trump did).

        North Korea? Seriously? A dog and pony show, AFTER North Korea developed the long range capability, that got nothing accomplished (well, there were the love letters).

        Cetainly deserves some credit for Isis – it isn’t “defeated” as he claims but it is significantly diminished. He deserves credit for the acceleration of a strategy largely developed under Obama.

      • Meanwhile, low unemployment #s are good although most people not afflicted with motivated reasoning agree that the president has little effect on that particularly over a period as short as four years (but if you’re going to go there then you have to give Obama credit for reducing it far more than Trump did).

      • North Korea? Seriously? A dog and pony show, AFTER North Korea developed the long range capability, that got nothing accomplished (well, there were the love letters).

      • Cetainly deserves some credit for Isis – it isn’t “defeated” as he claims but it is significantly diminished. He deserves credit for the acceleration of a strategy largely developed under Obama.

      • deserves some credit for Is*s – it isn’t “defeated” as he claims but it is significantly diminished.

        .

      • deserves acknowledgement for accelerating a strategy largely developed under Obama

      • “Among those paid by the hour, 392,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.2 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 1.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 1.9 percent of all hourly paid workers.” Bureau of Labor Statistics 4/20

        Those below minimum wage earn tips. Out of 150 million workers (not just hourly workers) 392,000 is a very small percentage. Most of the states without state minimum wage above $7.25 are in the south. There will always be the debate about impacting the workforce through reduced hours, layoffs, etc, if the local labor market is distorted through higher minimum wages. Not all business owners are in the 1%. Not all businesses can pass on higher costs to customers. Some may just bag it if the margins are too thin, putting some employees out of work. But overall, it would have minimal effect on income inequality.

      • Rob,

        If those are the best you got, you’re in trouble.

        Nothing has changed significantly with Korea except they’ve built more missiles and bombs. The unemployment claim has been destroyed with the pandemic and the terrible response. His ISIS accomplishments were riding on the coattails of Obama and accompanied by betraying our allies – the Kurds – who did all the work.

  19. Governor Grinch “Gestapo” Whitmer’s emergency powers BS lockdown of Michigan has been struck down by Michigan Supreme Court. My great home state of MI will be open for business again. The Blue Wall lockdown to keep the economy squashed for left loon political gain has got a hole in it.

  20. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-winning-voter-
    registration-battle-against-biden-key-states-n1241674

    In the last few weeks, Joe Biden has led President Donald Trump by a fairly consistent 8-point average in national polls and has maintained leads in more than enough battleground states to win the Electoral College, including Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all states Trump won in 2016.

    But there are signs Trump’s ground operation is paying off when it comes to registering new voters in key states, an advantage that could become important if the race tightens before Nov. 3.

    The Trump campaign has boasted that it knocks on more than a million doors a week, a claim that’s impossible to independently verify. In sharp contrast, the Biden campaign had ditched a ground game for virtual outreach, citing Covid-19 concerns — even though academic research has routinely concluded door-to-door canvassing is the “most consistently effective and efficient method of voter mobilization.” Only just now has the Biden campaign decided to restart its in-person voter contacts in some battleground states.
    As deadlines approach, new data from the past few months shows Republicans have swamped Democrats in adding new voters to the rolls, a dramatic GOP improvement over 2016, even if new registrations have lagged 2016 rates across the board. It’s a sign that in a pandemic, Democrats are struggling to seize traditional opportunities to pad their margins, such as the return of students to college campuses.

  21. Old sure-thing inevitable anointed Queen Hillary was way ahead at this time in 2016. But that sad sore loser ended up bumping her little head on the glass ceiling and the old bat is still knocked silly:

    https://www.investors.com/news/joe-biden-lead-over-donald-trump-narrows-after-presidential-debate-ibd-tipp-poll/

    Joe Biden’s lead over President Donald Trump has narrowed to 2.7 points among likely voters, a new IBD/TIPP 2020 election poll finds. Trump’s rise comes despite registered voters seeing Biden as the winner of Tuesday’s debate and coming across as more likable by double-digit margins.

    • Don wrote:
      >”Trump’s rise comes despite registered voters seeing Biden as the winner of Tuesday’s debate and coming across as more likable by double-digit margins.”

      Of course, part of what is going on is that human beings evolved to conform to social norms: everyone “knows” that they are “supposed to” say that Biden won the debate and that Trump was a real meanie. So, poll respondents say what they are supposed to say.

      Except… from the viewpoint of an honest debate judge, Trump scored some major points — pointing out that Biden will not say if he is going to pack the Supreme Court, that the Biden family has been proven to be corrupt, etc.

      And the fact of the secret ballot reduces (it does not eliminate) the force of social conformity.

      I don’t know how this thing will turn out: I am pretty sure that neither candidate will win 55 percent, but beyond that…

      To stick my neck out, my “official” prediction is that Trump “wins” on election night, but then my party (I am a registered Democrat) steals enough votes via ballot stuffing in the rest of November to pull off a Democratic “victory.”

      I mean, how often do you lose betting on Democrats stealing an election??

  22. With the notable exception of Dr. Curry and her choice of serious climate research topics and current research, this blog has more than it’s fair share of hyperbole and pure gibberish. Much of it making laughable attempts to defend the accumulation of failed models and questionable data related related to (so far) nearly worthless long-range “climate change” models. Do we REALLY need to add political commentary as well ….. perhaps the ONLY topic with more outright falsehoods, half-truths, bias and pure nonsense??

    • As I predicted on this blog in the Summer of 2016, the election of MAGA POTUS Trump would render the argument over the so-called “climate science” of alarmist CAGW moot. As long as MAGA POTUS Trump remains in office, arguing over the alarmist CAGW will remain moot.

      It’s a political thing. Always has been.

      Nobody will stop you from starting your own “climate science” blog via WordPress, or whatever. And nobody will care or even notice, if you do.

      (Now watch some little left loon virtue signaling slumlord monkey pop up and point out that my predominantly spot on predictions don’t always pan out.)

  23. Trump shouldn’t have gotten tested – that way he wouldn’t have gotten the virus.

  24. Geoff Sherrington

    What a heap of disappointing comments I have just read here. Reminds me of stories of old ladies knitting while sitting around the guillotine and yelling “off with his head” and “next”.
    Where is the discussion on how well Potus has positioned USA in international trade, security, personal wealth of citizens and so forth. From distant Australia, my impression was his scores for important matters within his control are mostly way above the results for the last dozen presidents. Put another way, Trump’s track record says to friendly country folk “What’s not to like?”.
    We then look at Biden with a very corrupt financial dealings record internationally, supporting the demolition of national energy supplies that work, pushing too hard the interests of minority pressure groups like actors, queer, coloured, criminal types …….. not the USA we have come to love as a solid, reliable, peaceful partner.
    Seen from here, it is a no brainier to favour Trump. He delivers the required goods. Geoff S

  25. 3 world leaders who have gotten ill, Johnson, Bolsonaro, Trump – all populists who have downplayed the seriousness of the virus.

  26. Has Don’s MDMSA hat lost its tinfoil lining ?

  27. “Early Voting Suggests Biden Is Going To Annihilate Trump, And The Gop Is Soiling Itself: The president’s attacks on mail-in voting are backfiring spectacularly.”
    BY BESS LEVIN SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 Vanity Fair

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/donald-trump-joe-biden-early-voting

    If the GOP pushes its Supreme Court nominee through (unlikely IMO), and Biden wins big, the Dems will control the Senate and pack the Court in revenge. (Plus revoke the filibuster rule.)

  28. Packing the Supreme Court with new judges is the last thing Democrats should do. The US Constitution was long a model for large parts of the world but is now proving to be more and more dysfunctional. It needs a comprehensive overhaul, the first thing one can do is dismantle the purely party-political body SCOTUS and establish a more neutral court with far less authority to intervene in political decisions or to write new laws. This should be in the long-term interest of both parties and especially for the US legal system, and if Republicans do not agree in such a reform, one may have to draw this card

    • Rune Valaker wrote:
      >[The US Constitution] needs a comprehensive overhaul, the first thing one can do is dismantle the purely party-political body SCOTUS and establish a more neutral court with far less authority to intervene in political decisions or to write new laws.

      The Constitution does not grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court: I know some of our friends may claim it does, but let them quote the actual text that does so.

      John Marshall seized the power of judicial review in a very clever decision in Marbury v. Madison: he set it up so that the opponents of judicial review had no effective means to object. Sort of like Mussolini’s “March on Rome.”

      The fundamental problem is that no document is or ever can be self-enforcing. No matter what you put into a Constitution, if the people in power ignore it, and there are no effective centers of power to oppose their power grab, the document is just a piece of paper.

      The Stalinist Constitution was not all that bad… except that when Stalin decided to violate it, no one could stop him.

      Historically, democracies are very short-lived and intrinsically unstable: they depend on a rough balance of power among contending groups that prevent any group from seizing total power.

      As Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan put it, “Democracy is like a train. When you reach your destination, you get off.”

      Will the Left end democracy in the US in the next decade? Fifty-fifty, I’d guess.

      Will democracy in the US survive another three-score and ten? I very much doubt it.

      Life will go on. Democracy will be seen as a fragile springtime flower that never continues blooming through the fall.

      (No, I do not like that fact. But there are many facts I do not like — death, for example. The world is as it is, whether I like it or not.)

      • Rune Valaker

        An important part of the principle of distribution of power – wich is fundamental in all democracies – is that the Supreme Court has the right to test whether ordinary laws given by the Legislative Assembly are in accordance with the constitution. Some countries such as Germany have their own constitutional courts, most other countries have given this authority to the Supreme Court. Or rather, the Supreme Courts has developed this role. The Norwegian constitution of 1814 did not state that the Supreme Court had this authority, but the principle was gradually developed and without this right of review, the legislature can decide anything, such as restricting freedom of expression even if it is guaranteed in the constitution. In most countries ordinary laws can be introduced by ordinary majority, changing the constitution normally requires some form of qualified majority, 3/4 or something similar.

        The problem in the United States is the unrestrained activism the Supreme Court has taken up over the years, and this can only be curtailed by Congress.

      • Rune –

        I gather from your name that you’re Scandinavian but I can’t tell which country you’re from. In your country in the SCOTUS as political as here?

        In this country we’re about to have a 6-3 court with a singificant lean towards Republican ideology even though Republicans in Congress represent a minority of the public in their partisan identity. This happens even because Republicans in the Senate represent only maybe 45%? of the vote (skewing in favor of white, rural voters). A Republican Senate voter from Montana has some 60x the power of representation than a Democratic voter from California. The president sits as a Republican irrespective of fewer votes than his opponent. Because of gerrymandering, Republicans enjoy a higher % of representatives in the House than the % of votes they have gotten of total votes cast for House candidates.

        Biden may have to get 5% or 6% more votes than Trump to win the electoral college.

        If SCOTUS seems less political in your country, do you think those aspects of our form of democracy (or democratic republic) play a role in the difference – and maybe that’s because we have only two major parties?

      • The U.S. is a constitutional republic; your mob, Joshua, does not rule. Our Constitution was designed such that people in a couple of big states (e.g. NY & CA) do not rule the people in the other (currently 48) states. As well as providing for diverse political/economic experiments, it helps avoid passion-based civil wars. Your brand of passion-based politics, Joshua, would tend to lead to a second U.S. civil war.

      • There is no Supreme Court of the United States in other countries.

        Republicans appear to appoint justices to the court that interpret the Constitution.

        Democrats appoint justices to the Supreme Court that follow poltical ideology not the constitution.

        The United States is a republic not a pure democracy ruled by the mob.

      • I am Norwegian and our “SCOTUS” consists of 20 judges. Ordinary cases are decided in a chamber with five judges, more principled cases are decided by a “Grand Chamber” with nine judges. And cases that shall review the legality of laws passed by the Storting, our legislative assembly, are decided in plenary in which all judges participate. 20 jugdes is usually no problem, usually someone is on leave and if there is an even number one is drawn at random.

        Later this autumn, we will have a climate case where the court will decide whether the government’s decision to award new licenses for oil extraction in the Barents Sea is in accordance with the constitutional provision to protect the environment. That matter shall be decided in plenary. And my qualified guess is that the Supreme Court will not interfere in such pronounced political decisions, something both the first and second instance already have refused to do. This is not the task of a non-democratically appointed body.

        In Norway, new Supreme Court judges are appointed by the government on the advice of the Court Administration, a non-political body that assesses the qualifications of the various applicants. Norwegian Supreme Court judges tend to be appointed around the age of fifty and sit until they are 67 years old, then they must resign. Over the years, especially in the past, there have been tendencies towards politically motivated selections of judges, at least this is not a problem today and there is cross-party agreement that judges should be elected on their legal merits and not their political position. And the selection of new judges takes place completely without controversy, after the judge is appointed it is mentioned in the news, that’s all, and only the professionals (lawyers, judges, etc.) pays any attention to the appointment..

      • Rune –

        Thanks. I have to wonder if the higher degree of politicization in our SCOTUS (yes, if course there’s no “SCOTUS” in Norway 😊) isn’t mostly explainable by more general societal/cultural differences… but as a general principle I think our highly polarized society these days, and in association judicial system, is materially attributable to how we function as a two party system – which exacerbates partisanship and polarization as compared to multi-party systems where voting might feel less like zero sum, winner take all elections that encourage scorched earth mentalities and strategies.

        Seeks to me that in our not that distant past, we had no less polarization, but it wasn’t so aligned in orientation with party divisions. I observe that it used to be that even as there was strong polarization across society, there was still some diversity within parties. Today, while there is still some ideological diversity within the Democratic Party, imo there is virtually no ideological cross-over from any ideology within the Democratic Party into the Republican Party. My opinion is that these days, in addition to no cross-over from within the Republican Party into the Democratic Party, there is also virtually no ideological diversity within the Republican Party. Longtime Republicans have totally left the party and have essentially nowhere to go because there is no viable non-Democratic Party other than the Republican Party.

        Any thoughts on that from the perspective of a Norwegian, and how having multiple (viable?) parties might affect the politicization of your Supreme Court?

      • Joshua

        I won’t pretend to understand the previous political leanings of your supreme court but understand that if the new person is appointed it would give a decisive conservative majority of 6 to 3 . With the previous judge in place it was 5 to 4

        Surely it is as correct to have a right leaning majority as to have a left leaning majority unless you inherently believe those on the left are not as capable as those on the left.

        With your greater knowledge of the ins and outs of the supreme court perhaps you could interpret this chart

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices

        On the surface it seems to me there has been a gradual shift to the liberal side and in very recent times there has been a bit of a shift back.

        I understand the democrats want to pack the Supreme court so they can have a majority in future. Surely that can’t be right?

        Tonyb

      • tony –

        > Surely it is as correct to have a right leaning majority as to have a left leaning majority unless you inherently believe those on the left are not as capable as those on the left.

        On general principle, sure. And a perfect balance would be an unreasonable expectation.

        But that significant imbalance on SCOTUS and in the Senate is in alignment with a disproportionate balance in the other direction among the electorate. Pubz have greater power on SCOTUS, in the Whitehouse, and disproportionate power in the House relative to the number of votes cast.

        Again, perfect balance should not be expected and the notion of a tyranny of the majority should not be sneezed at. But on the other hand at some point, imo, there is an inherent unfairness when proportion of balance tips too far the other way, and in the direction of handing disproportionate power to a minority.

        OK, so “fairness” on life is no guarantee either. You can try to be fair but you have to accept some level of unfairness. But at some point unfairness becomes potentially unsustainable and unstable. I think we might be approaching a tipping point in that regard.

        Further, I see no particular reason why, as thinking beings, we can’t work on instituonal reform so as to adjust for fairness. As brilliantly as our system was designed, it’s unrealistic to expect that it should extend forward indefinitely in time without adjusting to context that couldn’t be anticipated.

        The problem is that in being stuck in a zero sum frame, no one is willing to let go of a partisan orientation on what would comprise “fairness.” Imo, it’s a mess. And I have some concern that if it continues in the current direction it could reach a point of not being sustainable.

        But maybe I’m wrong and maybe the outcomes in the election will help to equalize the current power imbalance. (just to note, the white/rural vs. diverse/urban divide and power imbalance is in some ways the most obvious, and one that is trending towards a greater divide, it isn’t the only relevant metric).

      • tony –

        > .Surely that can’t be right?

        Jusr to note, I want to credit you for your faux incredulity rhetorical questions. You’ve obviously spent some time mastering the technique and I just wanted to acknowledge that effort.

      • Joshua

        You often read far too much into my motives. I meant what I said, surely it cant be right that the dems want to pack the court in order to firmly tip the balance their way ?

        It’s a system that seems to have stood the test of time and majorities wax and wane. The dems seem to want a large permanent majority but Perhaps you can reassure me that is not the intention?

        Tonyb

      • Tony –

        Lol.

        Surely it can’t be right that just before the 2020 election, the very same people who argued just a short four plus years ago, early in the presidential campaign, that they were setting a precedent that no justice would be appointed to SCOTUS once the presidential campaign was underway, are now going to install a justice to the SCOTUS to lock in for decades a 2/3 majority power imbalance favoring a distinct minority of the American citizenry, and justify that move on the simple fact that they have the power to do so?

        Surely, since in your impartial take on American politics, you have such obviously deep knowledge of morality and what surely must be the natural laws of how morality plays out in reality, you can explain how surely the democrats aren’t trying to do as you describe.

      • An approximate 50/50 split in U.S. opinion does not define a “distinct minority,” Joshua. It is beyond ludicrous to assert that a judge committed to interpreting issues in light of an established Constitution which is designed to protect minorities would somehow violate the rights of minorities.

        Four years ago, the discussion was about a U.S. Democrat President nominating a SCOTUS Justice for “advice and consent” to a Republican-controlled Senate during an election year. As the Vietnamese “B girl” would say: Nebba happen, GI. Morality doesn’t enter into the discussion, Joshua.

        [N.B. The issues of morality, ethics, concepts of fairness, etc. depend on the relative positions of the people espousing their applications. People need to clearly define their idea of fairness when applying the notion to their preferred policy implementation.]

      • There are two reasons why old sleepy senile joe won’t answer the question on whether he supports the very stupid Democrat threat to expand the SCOTUS and pack it with left loon justices. First, the vast majority of the American electorate are agin’ it. The American public is not yet stupid enough and are not sufficiently brainwashed by the Marxist insurrectionists to allow that.

        Second, old sleepy senile joe cannot say he is agin’ it, because that would piss off the left loon Democrat party base, who don’t like old sleepy senile joe anyway.

      • Dave –

        > .Our Constitution was designed such that people in a couple of big states (e.g. NY & CA) do not rule the people in the other (currently 48) states.

        At the time the constitution was drafted, the representative balance was perhaps 6X, at most. Now it can be on the order of 68X. Would you think that 680 X, or 6,800 X, or 68,000 X would all be equally OK as 6 X or 68 X? If not then on what eoinxiles would you draw a line? Sonyiu think that the finding fathers, in their wisdom, could have anticipated such a much greater distorted imbalance in representarice equality? Can you point to where the founding fathers wrote how no matter the magnitude of the imbalance, it would still fit with their vision of how our democratic republic should work?

      • The United States of America is a union of coequal States. Ratios mean nothing, Joshua; the smaller sovereign States will not allow the larger States to rule unchecked. Current Democrat Party attempts to institute mob rule could, in the extreme, lead to a second Civil War. The War Between the States was just that; it was not one political faction fighting another (think Spanish Civil War).

        Since the U.S. schools no longer teach Civics, this is all lost on increasing numbers of Americans. Most foreigners will never understand. The numerous inane comments on this Thread are evidence of both truths.

      • Dave –

        > The U.S. is a constitutional republic; your mob, Joshua, does not rule.

        >> Your brand of passion-based politics, Joshua,..

        One more point. With such obviously “passion based statements” you make it readily evident that your analysis is based more in antipathy and tribalism and guilt by association than in a clear-eyed analysis. In the future, if you wish to discuss rather than just denigrate, I’m game. But you have to admit that it’s pretty ironic that in your putative upset with “passion-based politics” you have little to offer other than “passion-based politics.”

      • Yours is a typical factless response, Joshua. You offer nothing but ad hominins to rebut my factual statements.

      • Additionally, Joshua, your use of “Pubz” (meaning the human pubis, I assume) when referring to members of the Republican Party, indicates your juvenile approach to political discourse.

      • Roger Knights

        “First, the vast majority of the American electorate are agin’ it [packing the Supreme Court].”

        If a lame duck president and senate appoints the judge who’s just been nominated, “packing” will be seen as payback by the majority, to restore balance.

      • Isn’t that just speculation, Roger? The majority wants the SCOTUS justice vacancy filled by the current POTUS and Senate. That is what is very likely to happen.

      • Rune Valaker wrote to me:
        >”An important part of the principle of distribution of power – wich is fundamental in all democracies – is that the Supreme Court has the right to test whether ordinary laws given by the Legislative Assembly are in accordance with the constitution. ”

        Why?

        Why is that “fundamental in all democracies”?

        Wasn’t true in Athens. Wasn’t true in Rome. Wasn’t true for centuries in the “mother of Parliaments.” Wasn’t in the US Constitution.

        Does not seem to be “fundamental in all democracies” historically.

        At all.

        Your statement seems to be a historical error.

        Historically, it is an unconstitutional, anti-democratic power grab by the Federalist oligarch John Marshall that has sadly been imitated in some other countries.

        Rune Valaker also wrote to me:
        >”The problem in the United States is the unrestrained activism the Supreme Court has taken up over the years, and this can only be curtailed by Congress.”

        Indeed.

        The American Framers viewed the Supreme Court as just a court. There is no indication that the Framers thought the Court could or would legislate on issues like abortion or gay marriage.

        I am pro-choice on abortion. I agree that something had to be done to treat gays equally on inheritance, medical rights, etc.

        But these are matters for legislatures to legislate on. Under the American federal system, such issues are left to the states.

        Not the Supreme Court.

        And the states were indeed dealing with such issues.

        The states, the other two branches, and the people should just ignore the Court when it starts to legislate. If the Court chooses to violate the Constitution by arrogating powers to itself, there is nothing in the Constitution at all that says the rest of us have to obey it.

        As the heroic Andy Jackson supposedly put it, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

        Or just abolish the Court– treat the Court as a virus to be eliminated.

        Maybe even some of our Leftist friends will come around to supporting democracy now that the Court will be 6-3 Republican!

      • Aristotle claims to have written the Athenian constitution. Constitutions in general define the limits of government power.

        “The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-constitution/

        The US Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of whether legislation exceeds the powers given and thus violate individual liberty. As laws on segregation and abortion in the US famously did. Laws that are stuck down can’t be legally enforced. The ruling on Roe vs Wade relied on the right to privacy. Although a woman’s right to be free in decisions about her own body is more fundamental. I am not pro abortion – I am pro choice.

        It is a system of checks and balances evolved over a very long time. And which is fundamental to well functioning democracies.

      • Roger Knights

        “The majority wants the SCOTUS justice vacancy filled by the current POTUS and Senate.”

        Do you have polling numbers on that? Certainly a majority of Democrats don’t want it, and their party is likely to win the presidency and perhaps the Senate (the House isn’t involved in judicial confirmations). The SC nominee will be the most conservative one on the court, this being unpopular among Democrats, and her writings indicate she is willing to overturn Roe vs. Wade. A national majority is against doing that, and thus might well endorse a court-packing move to add enough votes to outweigh hers. Biden refused, in the recent debate, and elsewhere, to rule out court-packing, and various prominent Democrats have endorsed it, and it hasn’t hurt his poll numbers.

      • Dave –

        > Ratios mean nothing, Joshua

        OK, you’re on record.

        So to illustrate your logic: If we had a two state country, and 99% the citizens lived in one state. And 1% lived in the other, it would be entirely appropriate for them to have equal representation in the Senate.

        Because “ratios mean nothing”.

        And if they taught civics I would understand the brilliance of that logic.

        Of course, you could take the challenge and attempt to quantify what level of imbalance would be acceptable/unacceptable and lay out your criteria picking that particular degree of imbalance.

        But y instead umyou trap yourself into an absurd corner (that the “ratio means nothing”) and appeal to your sense of superiority as if that explains why that’s a logical argument.

      • Additionally, Joshua, we can see what Communist China (the 99%) is doing to the Uighurs and Hong Kongers (both in the putative 1%). The Communist Chinese simply conquered the Uighurs. Hong Kongers actually thought they had a constitution of sorts, but the Communist Chinese have fundamentally torn up the transfer of power agreement. Since the rest of the world is not going to do anything in either situation, the Uighurs and Hong Kongers can bend over and kiss their collective a$$es goodby.

        Actually, a 60/40 split is more realistic. For example, during the early 17th Century, it became apparent to the Southern U.S. States that the Northern States would continue to dominate as new States were admitted to the Union and their supermajority protections would be lost; the handwriting was on the wall. With no Constitutional prohibition to Succession, some Southern States said adios. The Northern States had the population and industrial might to block that.

        The U.S. Constitution, however, was still in effect during the War Between the States; slavery was legal. Then-President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation applied only in the rebellious Confederate States that were not under Union Army occupation; it wasn’t until the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in December, 1865 that slavery was outlawed in the entire U.S. The former Confederate State of Alabama, as a condition for readmission to the Union, was the final ratifying State.

      • Dave –

        > Additionally, Joshua, your use of “Pubz” (meaning the human pubis, I assume)

        Wow. I will never again underestimate how what’s already on your mind leads to you making bizarre interpretations.

        Pray tell, what do you think it means when I call Democrats “demz?”

      • D is D. P is not R.

      • Robert I. Ellison wrote:
        >”The US Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of whether legislation exceeds the powers given and thus violate individual liberty.”

        I know that this is the falsehood you were fed in school in civics class.

        But where in the Constitution does it say that???

        Like you, I am pro-choice. Like you, I oppose “separate but equal” racial discrimination. Like most Americans, I like some Supreme Court rulings, and I dislike some Supreme Court rulings.

        But truth matters. The facts of history matter.

        Again, where in the Constitution is the the Supreme Court appointed the final arbiter of whether or not some law or policy is constitutional?

        It just is not there.

        Abortion, for example, is obviously a complex and deeply political issue with many facets, which is why the High Court has to keep revisiting it.

        The late Justice Ginsburg herself has criticized the Roe decision on similar grounds:
        >”Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court. In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. As the Supreme Court itself noted, there was a marked trend in state legislatures “toward liberalization of abortion statutes.”‘ That movement for legislative change ran parallel to another law revision effort then underway-the change from fault to no-fault divorce regimes, a reform that swept through the state legislatures and captured all of them by the mid-1980s.

        >”No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conformirg to the Court’s delineation of abortion regulation still permissible. Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.” (from Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s December 1992 essay in the NYU Law Review.)

        On that, RBG was clearly right.

      • Dave –

        > D is D. P is not R.

        “Pubz” would read like “pub” +z. If YOU read it like “pube” +z, (with the king “u” sound) that’s because of what you’ve got rattling around in your head beforehand.

      • That should be long “u” sound.

      • ‘The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.’ Article III Section 1

        Afraid I didn’t take American Civics classes – but I do know something about the origins and purpose of these institutions in modern democracies.

      • Robert I. Ellison wrote to me:
        >”Afraid I didn’t take American Civics classes – but I do know something about the origins and purpose of these institutions in modern democracies.”

        No, apparently, you actually know nothing at all.

        What you quoted from the Constitution says nothing about the Supreme Court having the final word in Constitutional interpretation.

        “Judicial power” means the power to be judges; that is just English (perhaps not your native language?). The fact that the provision you cite vests judicial power in the High Court and in lower courts sort of gives away the fact that “judicial power” does not refer to the right to make authoritative judgments concerning constitutionality. After all, the lower courts do not have such a power, although they certainly do have “judicial power.”

        If you had taken a US history class, back in the days when history was taught, you would have learned about Marbury v. Madison and how everyone viewed that as an unexpected power grab by the High Court to claim a power it was not given in the Constitution.

        History teachers used to sort of chuckle over how John Marshall put one over as a scam. Jefferson and Madison were not amused.

        Indeed, Jefferson argued that the judiciary had no unique right to judge constitutionality but that all three branches were “co-equal” in judging constitutionality:
        >”You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. … Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” [emphasis added]

        By the way, Marbury v. Madison was in 1803. The court waited more than fifty years before it again struck down an Act of Congress.

        That second time was in 1857: the Dred Scott case.

        Perhaps you have heard of it?

        Not a real auspicious sign for “judicial review,” eh?

        Maybe we should try following the Constitution instead.

        Hopefully, the current brouhaha over the High Court will start to destroy its reputation and erode the illegitimate power of nine old men and women.

      • No, apparently, you actually know nothing at all.

        Gratuitous bilgewater.

        What you quoted from the Constitution says nothing about the Supreme Court having the final word in Constitutional interpretation.

        Being the appointed highest legal authority in the land – it has the power to pass judgement on laws – the Constitution and Bill of Right being the primary legaL documents. That would seem to be too obvious to require any explanation.

        Judicial power” means the power to be judges; that is just English (perhaps not your native language?). The fact that the provision you cite vests judicial power in the High Court and in lower courts sort of gives away the fact that “judicial power” does not refer to the right to make authoritative judgments concerning constitutionality. After all, the lower courts do not have such a power, although they certainly do have “judicial power”.

        They have the responsibility the preserve the absolute primacy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

        If you had taken a US history class, back in the days when history was taught, you would have learned about Marbury v. Madison and how everyone viewed that as an unexpected power grab by the High Court to claim a power it was not given in the Constitution.

        The authority of the three arms of government were established in Articles I, II and III of the US Constitution. The very old argument about separate and equal powers and checks and balances was decided long ago. Unchecked executive power is a recipe for mob rule and tyranny.

        As for Dred Scott – the law is an ass. The ruling was voided by the 13th and 14th amendments.

        Hopefully, the current brouhaha over the High Court will start to destroy its reputation and erode the illegitimate power of nine old men and women.

        I find your revolutionary fervour a most peculiarly Quixotic quest.

      • Robert I. Ellison wrote to me:
        >”Being the appointed highest legal authority in the land – it has the power to pass judgement on laws – the Constitution and Bill of Right being the primary legaL documents. That would seem to be too obvious to require any explanation.”

        Your basic logical error is that the courts can look to the Constitution, just as the Congress and the President should look to the Constitution, without the Court having the unique power over the other branches to judge whether a law is constitutional or not. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the authority to have the final word, and you have quoted nothing at all from the Constitution that says it does.

        You just pretend it is “too obvious to require any explanation” because you can’t give any explanation since the actual words of the Constitution do not say what you would like them to say.

        Typical Leftist prevarication.

        Indeed, I provided a quote from Thomas Jefferson showing that he did not think your view was ” too obvious to require any explanation.” In fact, Jefferson, as that quote shows, strongly maintained that your position is not only wrong but the basis for tyranny,

        You are an enemy of government by the people.

        But, despite the fact that you admit to knowing little about American government, you think that you have greater insight into the intent of the American Framers than Thomas Jefferson!!

        Okaaayyyy…. ( as I look around for a safe exit before Ellison loses it completely).

      • You have shown an utter lack of understanding of historic – starting with your ignorance of the Athenian constitution – and intellectual roots of the US constitution. In Scottish legal precedent in particular. Nor much of an appreciation of fundamental judicial responsibilities. This is what was far too obvious to need much explanation in the modern world.

        ‘In writing the decision, John Marshall argued that acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not law and therefore are non-binding to the courts, and that the judiciary’s first responsibility is always to uphold the Constitution.’
        https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&context=facultyworkingpapers

        Was this not anticipated in appointing a Supreme Court under Article III?

        “The written Constitution is to be enforced in court in conformity with conventional legal standards and norms. Its meaning in particular cases is to be determined through exposition of its text in light of intent, and in fidelity to the requirement that judges enforce existing law and not make new law.” https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/marbury-v-madison-establishes-judicial-review

        Dave interminably argues in a scatterbrained way – if he wants to fling about insult and deprecation – to abolish the Madisonian system – as far as the judiciary is concerned – of checks and balances at the heart of the US Constitution. It is a very silly, deeply impractical and utterly politically unrealistic. But he has a proverbial bee in his bonnet. ‘Roos loose in the top paddock as we would say. These principles – btw – are explicit in our constitution – deriving as it does from the same wellsprings.

        ‘In framing a government, … the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught the necessity of auxiliary precautions. The Constitution, with its separation of powers and checks and balances, provided just such “auxiliary precautions” to be used in controlling government.’ James Madison

        Read more: Constitution of the United States – Principles Of The Constitution – Government, System, Powers, and Federalism – JRank Articles https://law.jrank.org/pages/5605/Constitution-United-States-Principles-Constitution.html#ixzz6a3jeQqtp

  29. Why would “the left” (you mean the Democrats, I presume) end democracy?
    Is it “the left” who are casting doubts on the legality of voting by post?
    Is it “the left” who are trying to prevent or make it difficult for certain types of people to vote?
    Is it “the left” who are not saying whether they will give up power easily?
    Is it “the left” who are trying to impose a new high-court judge (despite arguing against such an action the last time it happened, with Obama) before the people can make their choice of which party/president should be in per in a couple of months?
    What exactly are “the left” doing to end democracy?

    • A democracy functions by having at two legitimate political parties. Legitimate means that each party accepts that the other has the right to govern should they win the election. When has the “Democratic” party ever accepted they lost in 2016? When have they stopped trying to overturn the results by hook or crook?

      • meant to sat at least two

      • Rune Valaker

        Joshua, I have problems where to put my replies on Climate etc.

        >>>Any thoughts on that from the perspective of a Norwegian, and how having multiple (viable?) parties might affect the politicization of your Supreme Court?

        You obviously have a point when there are only two political parties that “owns” the society, there is far more polarization than in Scandinavia where there are five to seven – eight different parties that govern in the form of different coalitions. And as I wrote above, we tended to make political appointments from 1945 to around 1965 when the Labor Party (the Norwegian Social Democratic Party) had power almost alone for 15 – 20 years. But that time is long gone. In Scandinavia – and this is first and foremost a Danish tradition – we have something we call “Embetsverket” (the civil service,) where independence from the various political currents is a sign of honor wich “Embetsverket” watch out for and protect, and strike down if a politician tries to intervene in an area that should not be politicized. GB also have a string “Embetsverk” and a two party system but do not have the same issues as the US, but they have the idea about an independent sivil service (“Embetsverk”.)

        If I understand correctly, Anthony Fauci could be fired by Trump if he one day he feels he has to. The Scandinavian version of Anthony Fauci cannot be fired by the govermet, the Prime Minister or the King. (do not understand “the King” as the King personally, “The King” is synonymous with “The King in Council” where the government and the King meets every Friday to formally decide the most important decisions the government makes, and where The King has no personal power. in Norwegian constitutional doctrine, the king’s refusal to ratify a decision in “The King in Council” will be synonymous with an abdication. )

        The Norwegian version of Fauci (Tegnell is his Swedish counterpart) can be dismissed only by a judgment of the ordinary courts after the Government has issued a summons to dismiss him. And he is entitled to payment until the verdict is final, which takes several years. And in the few cases this happens, it usually ends up in the Supreme Court. Of course, there are a number of officials who quit because they have various personal problems and are unable to handle the job, but here one finds amicable solutions. But if an official feels exposed to political pressure and that is the reason why someone will get rid of him or her, he has an exceptionally strong job security that no government will challenge in the judiciary unless they are 100% sure of victory. An example; in the last hundred years, only one judge in Norway has been sued for being disqualified. He lost, and it was not because he had been politically pressured, but because he was a lousy judge but did not understand it himself.

        What few American seems to understand is that it is entirely possible to appoint both judges and prosecutors who are independent in the sense that they should not be “elected” in a political campaign. And it requires a completely different way of thinking than the American approach where judges, prosecutors, police chiefs, etc. are elected in a seemingly democratic process. But there will not be much democracy left when these can sit for decades after decades such as RBG and Long Don Silver, where at least the latter was appointed in a heated political campaign and after clear political dividing lines.

        It is pure banana republic when a Minister of Justice, in this case Barr, can intervene in ongoing criminal cases and instruct prosecutors what is punishable and how long a prison sentence a defendant should receive. In Scandinavia and most of Europe in general, such a practice had been characterized as pure corruption. It is entirely possible to have a fairly independent judiciary, including that the prosecuting authority is independent. We have had it in Scandinavia for over 100 years. And this is so strongly guarded that even the slightest suspicion of dirty play and political interference largely ends up with some politically elected operative must leave office in emberresment.

      • Thanks Rune. I missed this before.

    • To end democracy can be very lucrative. Once elected, change rules to be sure to get re-elected. National Socialists did it in Germany in 1930s with a great success.

    • You are not very bright, murphy. Nobody objects to vote by mail that is based on sound bi-partisan planning and is conducted properly, as has been practiced with absentee voting across the country. Willy nilly mailing out gazillions of voting forms without purging voter rolls of the dead and otherwise ineligible, lax or no procedures for verification of voter eligibility, no verification of voters signatures, acceptance of ballots well beyond election day etc. etc. is what the Dems want and its a recipe for rampant cheating and everybody knows it.

      The rest of your blabbing are just vague unsupported assertions.

    • stevenreincarnated

      They said they’d give up power easy last time too all the while using Federal assets against their political opponents. If the Democrats had the Senate then they would have had their judge. Someone once said that elections have consequences.

    • The “left”:
      A bipartisan committee in 2005 found that absentee ballots are the largest source of voter fraud. This makes sense. Think of how they’re controlled (not): you mail them in, the post office handles them. If an employee of a Republican district who is a Democrat decides that Trump must be beaten at all costs, then who/what’s to stop that employee from taking all the absentee ballots out to his/her back yard and burning them? What if all the postal employees at one office decide that Trump must be beaten by any means fair or foul?

      Voter ID: not such a terrible idea. You need an ID for a lot of things. Agree that other abuses aren’t appropriate.

      Has Trump said he will not give up power if he loses the election? Don’t confuse a dispute over vote counting with “refusing to leave office.”

      The high court: it’s perfectly legal for Trump to appoint a Supreme Court judge and Congress to approve. Get over it. Don’t tell me the Democrats wouldn’t do the same exact thing is they had the opportunity (and the votes.)

      Ending democracy? Yes, if Trump clearly loses the election and then stages a coup with the help of the military, then democracy ends. Does anyone really believe this will happen? This is just another fantasy because I highly doubt that ANYONE in this country would allow a clear loser to stage a coup, and I highly doubt that anyone in the military would back that move.

      Is it the “right” out there burning and looting and rioting? Boy, if it were there’d be howls of protests and demands for “law and order” and arrests. But it’s not, so everyone thinks it’s justified because “black lives matter,” as if the vast majority of Americans, including those on the right, don’t believe that anyway, and as if everyone doesn’t agree that bad cops should be removed, and as if we didn’t have eight years of an Obama presidency to solve the problem of bad policing which has NOT been solved (so blame Trump.)

      Stop fantasizing. Look at the facts.

      • Look at the facts indeed.

        I live in Oregon which has been 100% vote by mail for 20 years. I get an email when my ballot hits the post office, and I get an email when it has been received and fed into the computers. If anyone does something to my ballot In between, I will not get the second email and I will know. These computers also audit your signature and kick it out if it doesn’t match. Last cycle we only had 16 kicked out state wide, caused by spouses signing the wrong envelope.

        Besides, your fraud assertion applies to poll staff as well, but even more so because there are more of them That we have to trust.

        Regarding burning and looting, the protests here in Salem Oregon have been non-violent. Non-violent until earlier this month when a convoy of proud boys came down from Portland and literally assaulted the non violent protesters with bats and billy clubs. Two were arrested, but many other assailants were not. Video suggests the authorities were not doing enough to restrain the assailants.

        Apparently the proud boys only believe in the 1st amendment when they agree with the message.

    • JMurphy wrote to me:
      >Is it “the left” who are not saying whether they will give up power easily?”

      Yes, as a matter of fact, it is: Hillary told Sleep Joe not to concede no matter what.

      And, indeed, the Left spent over three years obsessed with the idea that the Trump campaign somehow only won n 2016 because they colluded with the Russians. When the truth was that Hillary paid for a fake dossier providing fake info provided by… Russians.

      JM also wrote:
      >”Is it “the left” who are trying to impose a new high-court justice…”

      Yes, it is. The Constitution says the President nominates and the Senate consents or not. Judge Barrett was nominated by the President and will probably be approved by the Senate, just as the Constitution provides. Just as happened in 2016 with Merrick Garland, except that then the Senate, being controlled by the opposite party, chose not to consent to the then President’s choice, just as the Constitution provides.

      The Left is whining about this because they do not like the procedure laid out in the Constitution, which was followed in 2016 and is being followed now.

      The Left hates the American people: as shown by Hillary’s “deplorables” comment, the current wishes on social media for the President’s death, the arson and looting in our big cities, etc.

      Look: I think Trump has been at best a mediocre President. I disagree with him on trade, abortion, and a whole lot of other issues. I agree with him on some issues: most notably ending these insane and unending “bipartisan” wars.

      But, yes, the Left wants power at all costs, as shown by the Russian Collusion delusion, the whining about the Left losing control of the judiciary, and all the rest.

      And, JM, that is not becoming, even to those of us who are not partisan (I am a registered Democrat).

      • Physicistdave, sorry but I can only see conspiracy theories in your reply but if you actually have any evidence for the following claims you made, I would certainly be interested:

        “Hillary told Sleep Joe not to concede no matter what.”

        “When the truth was that Hillary paid for a fake dossier providing fake info provided by… Russians”

      • JMurphy wrote to me:
        >Physicistdave, sorry but I can only see conspiracy theories in your reply but if you actually have any evidence for the following claims you made, I would certainly be interested:

        >[Dave]“Hillary told Sleep Joe not to concede no matter what.”

        >[Dave]“When the truth was that Hillary paid for a fake dossier providing fake info provided by… Russians”

        JM, do you live someplace where you cannot get news from any US news media at all? North Korea,, maybe?

        Here (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156) is a report from NBC News that Hillary stated, “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances…”

        And are you really not aware of Hillary’s campaign paying for the infamous Steele dossier used to justify Deep State spying on the Trump campaign (notably the FISA warrants on Carter Page)??? You’ve really never heard of the Steele dossier and all the rest, paid for by Hillary’s campaign??

        Here is the lede from a CNN story ( https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/fusion-gps-clinton-campaign/index.html ) :
        >”The law firm for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee has acknowledged its clients’ role in paying for opposition research on Donald Trump that helped fund the now-infamous dossier of allegations about the now-President and Russia.”

        If you simply google “hillary paid for steele dossier”, you get over a half-million hits! And the top hits are to the NYT, the AP, Reuters, the WaPo, NBC, etc.

        Really, fellow, what planet have you been living on for the last four years???

        Have you heard of Covid-19? Did you know that RBG has died?

        What you are ignorant of has been the biggest news story of the last five years.

        JMurphy, you are indeed one truly amazing and exceptional dude!

        As Schiller said, “‘Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.”

  30. Can’t believe all the comments above that claim the MSM doesn’t treat Trump fairly. Next thing you know, they’ll be claiming the MSM treats Global Warming in a less than forthright manner.

    • Doesn’t it? Only record heat is climate; record cold is just weather ..

      • Rune Valaker

        Just follow UAH, your last bulwark before you also have to declare UAH as “fugded.” Most gifted climate debaters do not look for snow in Saudi Arabia in May, or 21 C where I am to day. Follow the development of OHC and that is pretty much all we need to understand that something is going on.

        Now I’m just waiting for a new conspiracy theory from the “climate skeptics” where the ARGO buoys are equipped with heat-seeking sensors where they slalom between the cold parts of the ocean and only seek out the hot parts.

      • Robert Starkey

        Something going on is quite different than concluding that drastic actions need to be taken to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid catastrophe.

      • Curious George

        Rune, I don’t know how real or surreal Global Warming is. The media bias is very real.

      • Rune Valaker

        As for AGW, I have never cared about MSM or “themedia,” I was first introduced to the theory at Gymnasium in 1974 or so. Then it was completely out of my interest to approx. 2015 when a good friend of mine claimed that AGW was a hoax and that it was all set up because the UN was to form a socialist world government, a hypothesis I did not find rational. Since then, I have familiarized myself with these questions albeit on an amateur level, and my sources are not Tony Heller or The No Trick Zone, but peer reviewed papers often presented on Judith’s “Week in review – science edition” and other sources, and then my conclusion that the world, especially the oceans, is warming at a pace that is far beyond the natural variations. What we are going to do with this is a completely different question, but that there are still people who doubt, even deny that this takes place, I find on a par with the claim that the moon landing in 1969 also was a hoax.

      • The rate of warming over the last 100 years is comparable to previous warming periods. Cherry picking start and end dates will give you any warming/cooling rates you want.

      • Rune Valaker

        >>>The rate of warming over the last 100 years is comparable to previous warming periods.

        And that period beeing?

      • Rune Valaker wrote:
        >”As for AGW, I have never cared about MSM or “themedia,” I was first introduced to the theory at Gymnasium in 1974 or so. ”

        Well, I have you beat, then. I first learned about it in the early ’60s!

        Haven’t you noticed that our hostess here, Judith Curry, is well aware that anthropogenic CO2 does have a warming effect on the planet, and that many of us (I think most of us) who comment here also recognize that fact? And, similarly the fact that the globe is indeed warmer today than it was a couple centuries ago?

        Do a bit of googling and you should be able to find discussions a while back here where a lot of us tried to critique the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” nonsense.

        Judith has a very open comments policy, and, yes, some kooks comment.

        But a number of us are actual scientists, and all scientists are skeptics: that is our job.

        I hope you are not conflating “climate skeptic” (just equivalent to “scientist”) with the kooks who deny basic, well-verified physics.

    • I love how cult member simultaneously argue that Trump is a master manipulator of the press even as he’s a poor woeful victim of the press.

      Trump has as much agency as anyone in the world to craft his image. He has “written” books on his strategies for image construction. He has invented personalities to use to call the press to “talk” to reporters. He has been a reality TV personality. He has been a constant figure in the press for decades. He puts his name on all kinds of products and buildings to craft his image.

      There are probably few people in the history of the planet who have spent more time thinking about and working on crafting a public image.

      Trump deliberately the line of plausible deniability with respect to issues like white supremacy (and white nationalists). He does that so that he can not turn off the support might get from those constituencies and still okay the victim card.

      It’s a deliberate, and practiced technique. If he wanted to change the game he could do so in a heartbeat.

      Its positively hilarious to see how he has an army of cultists willing to take up the banner of victim hood as they believe that a publicity hound shyster is both a master manipulator of the press and yet a poor little victim of the press.

      • Robert Starkey

        Joshua, can’t Trump be both a publicity hound shyster and a victim of a largely biased unfair press.

      • Rob –

        > Joshua, can’t Trump be both a publicity hound shyster and a victim of a largely biased unfair press.

        I love how in the end, there’s no possibility other than he’s a poor victim.

        Even though he’s a master manipulator who gets the press to do what he wants, he’s still a poor victim who gets treated so unfairly.

        Ecen though he deliberately walks the line of plausible deniability, he’s a poor victim because he walks the line of plausible deniabikity.

        I love you boyz.

      • In excess of 90% of MSM pieces on President Trump are negative. Peddle your conspiracies elsewhere, Joshua.

      • MAGA POTUS’s Trump’s electoral success depends on the wisdom of the crowd. Only 13% of the American public have a great deal of trust in what they are fed by the left loon media. Around 12% of those are left loons and the remainder are not bright at all.

        https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

      • Joshua,

        The MSM lied about the Russian Collusion delusion.

        Kevin Clinesmith has pled guilty.

        Trump is indeed a braggart, blowhard, clown, and all the rest.

        But the MSM also lied.

  31. Correction; Norwegian Supreme Court judges must resign when they are 70 years of age, not 67 as I wrote above.

  32. So an entire team of doctors takes time away from caring from how many patients to have a press conference on the care of someone who has crafted public policy around downplaying the virus?

    “so has he received supplemental oxygen?”.

    “hes not on any right now…he hasn’t gotten any today.”

    • Try to not fixate on non critical trivia.

      The critical difference between dems and repubs in regards to the federal courts: Dems appoint and promote judges thru the system based on the judges supporting cultural goals that are deemed appropriate. Repubs do the same for judges based on their knowledge of and commitment to following the constitution. It is a huge difference.

      • Yah. Pubz don’t care about cultural goals. And they are just interested in interpreting the constitution objectively. I get that.

        Pubz, like climate “skeptics, ” aren’t affected by confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, etc. And I don’t care how much evidence says otherwise because I don’t believe that evidence, and my reasons for doing so are completely free from bias even though I can’t provide any evidence to support thar opinion.

        Thanks for the explanation, Rob.

      • Comparing people to the human pubis (Pubz) is getting tiresome, Joshua. It reflects a juvenile mindset. Site management moderation, please.

      • Robert Starkey

        Joshua, you are being untruthful. I didn’t state that repubs didn’t have cultural goals. They don’t select and promote federal judges based the judges supporting a particular cultural objective. That is why repubs appointments are much less predictable once appointed.

      • Rob –

        Thanks for proving my point.

        As just one of many examples, do you think that abortion is not a cultural issue?

      • Are cultural issues amenable to judicial fiat, Joshua?

      • Robert Starkey

        Joshua asks- do you think that abortion is not a cultural issue?

        I think it is a cultural issue.

      • Rob –

        > Joshua asks- do you think that abortion is not a cultural issue?

        >> I think it is a cultural issue.

        Given that abortion is a “litmus test” via a vis for Trump and many other Pubz (in government and otherwise), then how do you conclude that Pubz…

        > …don’t select and promote federal judges based the judges supporting a particular cultural objective

      • Robert Starkey

        Jouhua falsely claims that abortion is a ” litmus test” of repubs judicial nominees. Court presidence is what repubs follow most.

        Is there a supreme court ruling granting a woman the right to abort a healthy ( say 8 month) fetus? This seem to be a cultural position of many dems judges

      • Rob –

        See this is what I love:

        > Jouhua falsely claims that abortion is a ” litmus test” of repubs judicial nominees. Court presidence is what repubs follow most.

        -snip-

        “I’m going to start by asking the question that I articulated before the Senate, which is, does this nominee — has this nominee recognized that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided in 1973?” Hawley told NBC News earlier this month. His office confirms that he still holds this position.

        “If they can’t beat the test, it doesn’t get further than that, I’m gonna vote no,” Hawley told NBC News at the time.

        -snip-

        Or that this isn’t a litmus test in abortion.

        -snip-
        Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., said a socially conservative justice is something Republicans owe to their voters. He, like Hawley, was elected in 2018 in large part, they say, on the issue of the Supreme Court. McConnell refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nomination after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, making the Supreme Court squarely an issue in the presidential election nine months later.

        “I would love if that nominee would say that they’re going to look at right to life as an issue, overturning Roe versus Wade, I think is something that any of us believe in the sanctity of life, and that is an important issue and again that’s very important in Indiana,” Braun told NBC News.

        -snip-

        So, abortion is a cultural issue and Roe vs. Wade is precedent, but Pubz don’t pick judges for SCOTUS on the basis of a cultural issue and instead they do so to follow precedent.

        And let me guess, the reason why you made that fallacious argiment is because…. MSM!!!1!!1

      • Joshua
        Abortion is a cultural issue and Roe vs. Wade is precedent. Repubs appointed judges follow precedent.

        I will agree that some repub politicians vote in favor of a judge because of how they believe they will vote on a particular culture issue. They don’t know they hope. Row vs. Wade is a precedent which may be more fully defined but highly unlikely to be overturned.

      • Rob –

        > I will agree that some repub politicians vote in favor of a judge because of how they believe they will vote on a particular culture issue.

        Thank you. And they want judges that will overturn a select set of precedents.

        And they do that because they think that will appeal to their Republican constituencies.

        That is why Trump went from pro choice to running as a candidate who would, explicitly, use Roe vs. Wade as a litmus test. That is why he is running with that as a fundamental plank in his platform. He is catering to the religious right and they are sticking by him through h*ell or high water because of it.

      • Robert Starkey

        Joshua
        I don’t see large groups of Repubs that want to overturn Rove vs. Wade, but there are a few. I see that as a Dem talking point to rile up their base. I see Dems promoting the right to late term abortions and that doesn’t seem consistent with Roe.

      • Rob –

        > I don’t see large groups of Repubs that want to overturn Rove vs. Wade, but there are a few.

        I don’t know how large it is (I’m sure it’s more than just a few). Overall, existing precedent in Roe V Wade has popular support.

        But it is a very motivating basically single-issue, issue for a key constituency that Trump absolutely depends on. Absent his promises to use Roe V. Wade as a litmus test, they might likely not vote for him or not vote at all. That is why they support him despite the many ways that he is not at all like candidates they previously supported. That is why so many evangelics did a 180 on their opinions as to the importance of the personal behavior of candidates as a measure of their suitability for public office – in alignment with Tump’s candidacy.

        That’s why he panders to that group even if for years prior to running, he was pro choice.

      • Robert Starkey

        Joshua
        You seem to think you have great insight into the motivation of bible believers as well as Trump.

      • Joshua wrote:
        >”As just one of many examples, do you think that abortion is not a cultural issue?”

        I would think that it is a moral and legal issue, a tragic issue that has no fully satisfactory resolution.

        When a woman gets pregnant and did not intend to, that is a tragedy, isn’t it?

        So, to keep the fetus alive, should we force the woman to carry it for nine months? That seems to me to be involuntary servitude, and so I oppose it.

        But I can also understand why many people are disturbed at the idea of killing the fetus.

        Do you lack the empathy to understand why they are distressed?

    • It’s almost funny, if it were not so pathetic. The left loons are hating on the MAGA POTUS Trump’s doctors. Trying to catch them in a lie. Pathetic bunch of jackals. Yes, you are included, joshie soyboy.

      • This is what we get form the “Waaaaaah, big daddy Trump is such a vixrkm crowd.”

        The doc was asked if Trump was on oxygen. The answer was that Trump isn’t on oxygen right now.

        Offer a plausible denial, and then whine that you’re a victim when people point out that you aren’t playing it straight.

      • Robert Starkey

        Joshua seems most expert on focusing on unimportant trivia

      • You are not very bright, joshie. And you are blinded by ideology. Very big handicaps. Do you have any evidence that MAGA POTUS Trump has been on oxygen anytime, since his positive test? The doctor’s answer did not indicate that was the case. You are raising issues based on stupid suspicion and/or unsubstantiated rumor. And who tf cares if he was given oxygen by medical staff at some point, when he has rapidly been given the latest greatest treatment and he has had no fever for the last 24 hours? You are just hoping for a bad outcome. And if the outcome isn’t bad, you want to find some other way to make the MAGA POTUS Trump and anybody who cares for or about him look bad. You are pathetic. Leave the docs out of, you little varmint.

      • Don –

        I think you missed my point. My point is that it is part of a strategy, one that Trump, like virtually all politicians actually, imploy all the time.

        When asked a question that you don’t want to answer, you respond with plausible deniability. Then when people point out that the answer was unsatisfactory, you whine “Waaah, I’m such a victim, you’re such a meanie. MOMMY!”

        The doc could have just said, “This is a personal matter of healthcare and I’m not going to answer that question.” Also not a good answer. Ideally he would have just given a straight forward answer and detailed whether he was on oxygen at all, in the last week, say, and if so when that was.

        Instead he gave a mealy-mouthed answer that does no one any good so that the cult could say “Waaah, bif daddy us such a victim (when he isn’t brilliantly manipulating the press) you’re such a meanie. MOMMY!”

        But don’t let me get in the way of your hateful rants. I realize you’re triggered and bottling that up could have disastrous consequences.

      • Robert Starkey

        Joshua

        Can you point out where it was whined “Waaah, I’m such a victim, you’re such a meanie. MOMMY!” You make to much stuff up.

        You are focused on the trivia in the doctor’s statement. Trump may well have been on oxygen for a time at the White House. He is not now and his oxygen level is over 96 and he has no fever. His improvement is good news.

      • Rob –

        > Trump may well have been on oxygen for a time at the White House. He is not now and his oxygen level is over 96 and he has no fever. His improvement is good news.

        The doc could have just said that. Instead he decided to play the plausible deniability game.

        Sad.

      • The BS about oxygen is just plain stupid and motivated by TDS. Listen to what the doctor said. MAGA Trump is not on oxygen today, was not on oxygen Thursday and was not on oxygen Friday. What does that leave? MAGA POTUS Trump has not had difficulty breathing. Why would he need oxygen? He has had no fever since Friday morning. He is doing very well according to his team of doctors. He has been encouraged to do so and he is up and working. WTF more do you need to know, unless you are just a nitpicking little varmint looking for something, anything to whine about?

      • Don –

        lol. Ok. Whatever floats your boat. You can think the doc wasn’t evasive if you want.

        Just to be clear – I don’t particularly care whether he was on oxygen or not. Doesn’t seem particularly important to me. What matters most is his condition now and going forward.

        But I get it, they can throw whatever onto the floor and you’ll lap it up and say “Please big daddy, can I have some more.” I get it. It’s a cult thing.

        Just like when people point out that evasiveness isn’t the best approach, whining “”Mommy, they’re so unfair to big daddy (whey he isn’t master manipulator of the press)” is a cult thing.

        Just like being off by 3,500% on predictions and then avoiding accountability for such an error is a cult thing.

        Just like getting snookered by a fake video tweeted out by Trump and Trump Jr. is a cult thing.

        I get it. It’s a cult thing.

      • And Don –

        I’ll leave you with this. I think that the best outcome here is that Trump recovers, and along with that takes a different approach going to the virus going forward.

        I hope that instead of constantly downplaying the seriousness of the virus, instead his experience shakes him up and gets him to start taking it seriously.

        I hope that he realizes that after he and a number of other people he was hanging out with, without social distancing, he should strongly encourage mask-wearing and social-distancing on the chance that doing so will reduce the number of people who get sick with the virus.

        I hope that he realizes the importance of testing to catch infections early and to help with contact tracing. I hope that he realizes that as important as testing is, and that it isn’t something to constantly lie about and instead that it is something that he should do whatever he can to increase the amount of, that it isn’t a foolproof way to prevent infections.’

        I hope that after recovery, he realizes how being so privileged to get the best medical treatment – as he has had – is something that millions of people don’t enjoy, and so he drops his lawsuit to take away health insurance from so many people who need it.

        I hope that he changes his behaviors, and stops flaunting the recommendations of his own CDC.

        I hope that he stops politicizing the virus, and looking at it only from the angle of his own best political interest.

        If he does that after apparently getting pretty sick and recovering, that would be a very, very good outcome.

      • Another big load of joshie BS. Watch the full interaction with presstitutes. At the end the doc says not today, not Thursday and not yesterday. That covers Thursday, Friday and Saturday. No oxygen. Period. The patient had no trouble breathing. The doc is obviously amused by the presstitutes insisting on nitpicking and beating a dead horse. The left loons are disappointed that MAGA POTUS Trump is recovering nicely and they just want to stir up you know what. Won’t discuss this dumb fake news oxygen BS with the little varmint any further.

      • Don –

        You never learn, do you?

        I’m old enough to remember whey you believed the Trump crew that Biden used teleprompter during the Telemundo interview.

        Are you old enough to remember when you got suckered on that one. Don?

        You’ve been had, Don. Wise up.

      • Your TDS is showing, joshie. It makes you very easy to troll. Like a fish.
        You are hooked and flopping again. The amount of time and effort you put into your comments reveals that you are……… Pathetic. Keep harping on insignificant meaningless BS. That’s for losers. I will be back out on the road by Monday doing the MAGA thing. You will sit in your basement yammering on a little blog, day in and day out. Now keep making my point. Try to do in 200 words or less, this time.

      • Don –

        You’ve been had once again. Will you ever learn?

        > At the end the doc says not today, not Thursday and not yesterday. That covers Thursday, Friday and Saturday. No oxygen. Period.

  33. Two contradictory statements on Trumps condition.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8801437/Trump-doing-told-Walter-Reed-doctors-walk-today.html

    (scroll to foot of link)

    His doctor says he is doing great but a staffer says his condition is rather poor.

    Anyone got any info that supports either of these positions?

    Tonyb

    • Tony

      An unnamed source made a claim.

      Trump’s medical team was just on TV and stated he was doing very well.

    • That’s the problem with this administration. There is no transparency. There have been so many falsehoods we can’t trust anything anybody says. So who knows? He’ll either be back campaigning or he’ll die (I don’t think they can hide that).

    • James

      So, the doctors are part of his administration? No, they are part of the hospital. If a meteor struck the earth, the whackos on the left would blame Trump.

      • Rune Valaker

        Trump’s medical condition will not be soberly and truthfully reported. We will have the version his staff and other advisers at any time see favorable to his re-election.

        On the other hand, I have a feeling that he is now moving towards hell where he has an experience of drowning, a condition a friend of mine had a few weeks ago also attacked by Covid – 19, and today is in great shape.

        I believe and hope Trump overcomes this. And statistically, he will get through this unless he has exceptionally poor genetics to meet Covid -19 or other health issues or pre conditions that make him particularly vulnerable.

      • This is just stupid. I thought you had some sense. You got some thinking to do.

        “Trump’s medical condition will not be soberly and truthfully reported. We will have the version his staff and other advisers at any time see favorable to his re-election.”

      • Release the lung xrays.

        China, if you’re listening and you have copies of the xrays, release them now.

        I bet his lungs are eaten up with COVID.

      • cerescokid,

        The doctors can only release what Trump authorizes. They’ve already hidden the fact he received oxygen and aren’t releasing his xrays or his blood oxygen levels. Recent administrations have usually released full details of illnesses and treatments.

        Release the xrays.

      • As a fan of irony, I just want to acknowledge Trump as a master of the unintentional variety.

        He’s now getting a treatment, that may well save his life, that was developed by the brave people who worked on therapeutics for Ebola.

        And he traveled knowing he had contact with someone infected and could well be a vector for Covid.

      • kid –

        > So, the doctors are part of his administration? No, they are part of the hospital.

        Conley is the Whitehouse physician. Remember the previous guy, Ronny “the Candyman” Jackson?

      • J

        Pay attention. The team of doctors at the news conferences, several in number, involve more than one doctor.

      • Trump is deceased (oxygen overdose) and the doctors are hiding his body, according to the usual left loon fake news anonymous sources.

      • kid –

        > The team of doctors at the news conferences, several in number, involve more than one doctor.

        But Conley is the one who threw cr*p on the ground just to watch Don and his fellow cult members lap it up.

    • Keep in mind that the presstitutes habitually lie and report unsubstantiated BS against MAGA POTUS Trump. The doctors lined up and reported he is doing fine with no fever for past 24 hours. Are we going to believe science, or the left loon presstitutes with axes to grind?

  34. FWIW, Trump’s infection is not typical. It was detected and treatment was begun before he complained to doctors about symptoms. Therefore he began treatment earlier than almost anyone else has – the average patient might be sick for days or a week before being hospitalized and beginning treatment. He is being treated under a (compassionate use program currently unavailable to most Americans) with an experimental drug, a synthetic mixture of neutralizing antibodies that his own immune system would be making a few days from now. And remdesivir. (No HCQ, so far.) If he were to recovery quickly, it would be a mistake to assume this is the typical experience for a 74-year-old with COVID.

    • Frank has stumbled upon the truth. MAGA POTUS Trump’s infection was detected early. He was quickly treated with a cocktail of the latest and greatest interventions. He is obviously being well-attended by medical staff. The doc says he has had no fever for 24 hours. Unless the doc is a baldfaced, unprofessional, devious, violator of his medical oath, politically motivated prevaricating tool then that is a very good sign that the infection is currently under control.

  35. Not looking forward to Hobson’s choice.

  36. The single most important issue, medium term, in the US is health care.
    The Democrats are 100% sold out to the health care industry. I just looked at Covered California for a Bronze Obamacare plan – the cost range was $600 to $900 per month for a $6300 deductible plan for myself as an individual.
    So $12000 plus before the plan actually does anything.
    The single most important issue, short term, is the US economy. There is zero evidence that lockdowns, masks, etc materially affect death rates – yes, there is some impact but it is small whereas the economic impact is clearly extremely large.
    I’m not saying we should open up right away – but there has been zero dispassionate discussion on the economic tradeoff vs. the health tradeoff.
    I have been saying for some time that there isn’t going to be a vaccine tested, approved, manufactured, distributed and administered for 12-18 months minimum. It is now 6 months and we don’t even have testing done yet.
    What is the plan for the next minimum year to 3 or 4 years?

    • Trump has three(?) most promising vaccines mass produced right now, in a hope that at least one proves safe and effective. He spends taxpayer’s money in an attempt to save lives.

  37. The trend is not old sleepy senile joe’s friend. Add about 5 points to account for the hidden vote that lurks for MAGA POTUS Trump:

    https://johnzogbystrategies.com/biden-leads-trump-49-47-new-john-zogby-strategies-emi-research-solutions-poll-taken-after-president-checks-into-walter-reed/

    • Don: Every other poll since the debate not surprisingly shows Biden maintaining or widening his lead. The Zogby poll is an internet poll that relies on responses from a large group of people who have volunteered to participate and selected at random for each poll. Other procedures for sampling are believed to be more accurate, though none is perfect.

      The legendary “shy” Trump voters of 2016 probably didn’t exist; but even if they did, on a national scale they amounted to only 2% of the popular vote – NOT 5%. (Trump lost by the popular vote by 2% instead of the predicted 4%, a difference that was well within the margin of error of any one poll, but not necessarily a large collection of polls). The real problem in 2016 was the inaccuracy of the polls in some states, most notoriously WI (5.3% or 7.2% error, depending on whose average of polls you consult), MI (4.2% or 3.7%), PA (3.7% or 2.6%), and MN (5.7% or 4.7%). Those errors are believed to have been due to an unusually large number of undecided voters choosing Trump at the last minute, and a local turnout that was included more less-educated whites and fewer blacks than expected. (The errors were not all in one direction; Clinton won CA by 5% more than expected. States are trickier to get right.).

      FWIW, re-elections are generally referenda on the performance of sitting presidents. There are very few undecided, changeable or shy voters left after four years of intense polarization. According to the average of polls, the race as been within 1 or 2% of 53%/46% since Biden became the apparent nominee.

      The big difference (IMO) is that the Republican Party was vastly more popular in 2016 than it is today. If you correct for races with only a single major-party candidate, Trump received roughly 4.8% fewer votes than the average Republican House candidate appearing on the same ballot with him (beating his Dem opponent by an average of 2.7%, while Trump lost by 2.1%). House Republicans got wiped out in 2018 and show no signs of recovering. The Senate could be a disaster for Republicans in 2020 (after winning 12/14 highly contested races in 2016, and usually outpolling Trump). The Trump Republican Party is a minority party. So, if Trump is going to win in 2020, a lot of voters will need to split their ticket, voting for Trump for president and for Dems in other races. Do you predict a lot of ticket splitters? A sudden swing towards Republicans?

      These same factors will play out in the Electoral College. In 2018, the Republicans lost 4 House seats in PA, 2 in FL, 2 in MI, and 2 in Iowa; Senate seats in NV and AZ and barely flipped FL behind a very popular governor. (They also flipped seats in three solidly red states that Trump should win easily.)

  38. Drag battleground states with less that a 2% republican margin in the last election into the blue circle and Biden wins convincingly.

    Drag battleground states where democrats have a solid margin in the polls into the blue circle and Biden wins convincingly.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    • Hillary had a solid margin in the fake news polls. Old sleepy senile joe is lagging significantly behind the old loser. Look at the latest Zogby poll. Very recent polling had 56% of folks expecting Trump to win. Wisdom of the crowd. Look at voter registration in battleground states. The NYslimes looking at the polls in 2016 had old corrupt Hillary as pretty much a sure winner:

      ha freaking ha: Trump’s chances in PA 11% MI 6% etc. etc.

      But it is very true that if old sleepy senile joe gets enough votes in the right places, he will win. It’s also very trivial. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

      • Don is the quintessential Trump groupy. A cultural warrior with no pretence of objectivity.

        I took two approaches. One based on a minor swing on the last election results in battleground states in line with his Zogby poll results. One based on recent polling in battleground states. After all Trump won enough key states to get an electoral college majority without an the popular vote majority of votes – even against a weak opponent.

        I do have a personal reason for wanting Trump in the dustbin of history sooner rather than later. Every time he comes on TV Daisy says how much she hates him. I’d venture that Daisy is a better judge of character than Don. But I’m a little over hearing about it.

      • Popular opinion appears to be with Biden. It will come down to the quite non-trivial matter of votes in key states.

        https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states/

        Don seems to mistake me for someone who gives a rat’s arse about who wins. I deliberately watched the first so called debate. Nothing emerged of any consequence. I’ll take that as confirmation that you got the politicians you deserve – and go back to reviewing global polls on this or that every month or so.

        And despite Don’s tediously repeated partisan slights, innuendo and sarcasm – tools of tribal confirmation bias – I can assure Don that Daisy doesn’t read the NY Times or watch CNN. Her disdain of Trump is based purely on his loutish demeanor.

      • Firstly, Robert I. Ellison, Daisy is responding to your emotional state, not something somebody said on TV. Secondly, people who base their political opinions on relative demeanor rather than substance are easily misled. It is mob behaviour, not reasoned discourse.

        I think issues such as equal justice under the law (not the lynch mob social justice we now witness), economic progress, war and peace, non-hysterical science, etc. are the important metrics.

      • I asked Daisy. She says Trump is arrogant, talks nonsense, is not very bright and to stop writing about her on blogs.

      • This from The Australian newspaper.

        “Neither Trump nor Biden is a suitable candidate for the presidency. They are third-raters in their contrasting ways. The mindless propaganda from their media champions is numbing in its absurdity. These candidates are a sad commentary on US democracy and the Republican and Democratic parties.” https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/trump-v-biden-is-a-clash-of-lightweights/news-story/28d66d47cfd24bede73668b801d4286d

        Don is a 10th-rater at best – a torch bearer without an independent thought.

      • You should be thinking about your legacy, bobby. Do you want to be remembered as the crotchety old dude arguing with a stranger you consider to be a 10th rater on a little blog about something you claim you don’t give a rats arse about? Think about it.

    • I merely analysed some numbers.
      I don’t know why he thinks I’m arguing with his long-winded crotchety old fart risible derision. Trading witticisms with Don – he tries far too hard – leaves us all shortchanged.

      • And while I think about it – I can’t see why he imagines he is at all ‘memorable’.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I wouldn’t worry too much about what the polls say. I live in a purple state and people that normally wouldn’t even vote are so fed up with the antics of the left that they fully intend to vote this round. I’m not sure how many of my patients have commented on the stupidity of defunding the police but it has been more than a handful and they also blame the riots and looting on the left which is only natural considering the left are the ones doing it.

      • Now there’s an unbiased sample. Race riots have been a feature of American life for decades. America burning is a symbol of deeply entrenched social divisions. I don’t know what your answer is.

      • Race riots were not occurring nightly until the Democratic Party began promoting the BLM Marxists. Blacks have been making significant social and economic progress since the Democrat Jim Crow era. Additionally, their gains have been remarkable under the Trump Presidency.

        You have no idea as to the actual conditions in America, Robert I. Ellison; MSM propaganda is not truth. Foreigners get a warped view of America through through the lens of their leftist media.

      • David plays the partisan blame game – showing beyond doubt the profound divisions within the American polity. I analysed electoral college numbers 2 ways. And later hinted that militarization of police is not likely to be a constructive response to protest. Nor is it calculated to attract black voters despite their ‘remarkable gains’.

        “Polls suggest about 10 percent of black voters both nationally and in key swing states with large black electorates are supporting Trump. That is similar to 2016 as well and again reflects broader partisan dynamics — surveys over the last three decades have shown about one of every 10 Black Americans identifies as a Republican.

        If the race is really tight, Trump’s maintaining this sliver of Black support could be critical.”
        https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-big-chunk-of-white-americans-with-degrees-and-people-of-color-are-behind-trump/

        And you’ll find that Daisy watches an essentially Trump/Biden neutral local MSM. David overestimates the reach of US media. Her response may be a women thing – and who knows how they think.

        “Polls suggest that white women without degrees won’t be as GOP-leaning in 2020 as they were in 2016, either because they like Biden more than Clinton, have grown tired of Trump or some combination of both.” op cit

        Then there is his job approval rating overall. But it is all just fake news of course.

        https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

      • The numbers are what they are, Robert I. Ellison; I don’t filter them through a partisan lens. Additionally, I do not allow opinion polls to sway my analyses of important issues. The results of the U.S. Presidential and “down” races will be revealed sometime after the election. Those are the only numbers that really matter.

        The stability of President Trump’s approval/disapproval numbers over time is remarkable considering the wide swings in previous Presidents’ numbers. Could this be the result of the unrelenting “Resist” negative media coverage (over 90% negative)? The awareness of President Trump’s negative press coverage is not a partisan issue. Again, the numbers are what they are. Under any other President, Middle East peace and Nobel Peace Prize nominations would be trumpeted far and wide. Do you want more examples?

        In the U.S. it is primarily the Left that instigates and participates in political violence. For example, the difference between the peaceful Tea Party protests and the confrontational and violent BLM protests is stark. Extreme Leftist rhetoric and aggressive behaviour do deepen partisan divides. People don’t respond well to being called evil.

        There is no serious fear of violence in the U.S. if Biden wins the Presidency; the Right generally accepts “the will of the people.” There is, however, credible fear of Leftist violence if President Trump wins reelection. Left rejection of the 2016 Presidential Election is exemplified by “Resist,” “Not My President” and renowned entertainers talking about violence against the President. Most believe it will be worse this time.

      • I simply assigned purple states with a less than 2% – a swing in line with the closest recent polls – Republican margin in 2016 to the Democrats. Alternately I swung purple states on the basis of recent state polling. Such simple analysis may be wrong or things may change. But it is objectively based on available data.

        Your political predilections are yours and you may vote as you like for whatever reasons.

      • Didn’t Daisy tell you not to drag her into your dumb blog arguments, bobby? Stop making a fool of yourself, old dude. We want to remember you when you used to be the hydrology guy, or whatever.

      • I always do the opposite of what Daisy says on principle – and she only listens to a small fraction of what I say. “You just talk all the time. That’s how they know you’re crazy.” We have a perfect symbiosis.

        An empty vessel like Don – a flibbertigibbet – a frivolous, flighty, or excessively talkative person – has nothing serious on offer ever.

      • If Daisy had any sense, she would tell you not to jump off a high building.

        It’s amusing that nimrods are citing fivethirtyeight as an authority on Trump’s chances to win an election. I forgot to point out, that is MAGA POTUS Trump. Memory issues, bobby?

        MAGA POTUS Trump got more than 8% of the black vote in 2016. He will get a lot more this time and the exit polls will be wrong, again.

      • Don pushes the personal denigration to insanely pantomime lengths. And is eyes wide shut enough – how do we fool ourselves – to not see the 538 headline or numbers. Don’s forte is pious hope and bombast. Sans credible analysis. He rejects with nothing but assertion anything not in accord with his tribal narrative. I may be wrong but it is analysis based on credibly derived numbers.

      • You dragged poor old Daisy into this, bobby. And you foolishly persisted when she told you to stfu. Shame on you.

        You know squat about our society, our culture, our politics. All you know is what fake news media wants you to know.

        Here you go, bobby. Nate Silver, the genius behind fivethiryeight, pretending that his pre-election BS was not really wrong, it just didn’t turn out the way it was supposed to. He is the one with the road kill hairdo.

      • I used 1) a swing away from Trump of 2% in purple states – in line with the poll Don foolishly quoted as fact and emblematic of certain Trump victory – and 2) purple state poll results from realclearpolitics. Sorry if the numbers don’t add up to Don’s satisfaction and so incite such raving lunacy. Victory is far from certain – even Trump is counting on the Supreme Court to save him. What a loser.

      • Trump a ‘Narrow Favorite to Win Electoral College’? In a close race with an unappealing Hilary? Even Biden is more palatable to the average American.

        I’d suggest that Don knows squat about anything but bumptious squealing. I’m bored with it now. Daisy is far too amusing to waste more of my time on this nonsense.

      • You are hallucinating, old dude. I didn’t quote any poll as fact. Some are better than others, but they are all modeled estimates. You are the dip who thinks that 538 can take some numbers from a poll and do some magic with them and tell you which state this and which state that and in the end, whoever gets the most votes in the right states wins. That is trivial BS. Look at what those nimrods did in 2016.

        I will let you carry on with your pretend election analysis foolishness without me, old annoying kibitzer. Tomorrow I go back out on the MAGA road to help effect the re-election of MAGA POTUS Commander in Chief Most Powerful Man in the World and $Billionare Playboy$ *Donald J. Trump*. We work with the the actual voters, bobby. Get to know them and get them out to vote. I can tell you from recent experience that Trump voters are really fired up. More than back in 2016, when they hardly knew the man. The energy level of old sleepy senile joe’s folks is lacking. We are confident, bobby. Wish us luck.

      • “Trump a ‘Narrow Favorite to Win Electoral College’? In a close race with an unappealing Hilary? Even Biden is more palatable to the average American.”

        I feel sorry for you, old dude. You either didn’t watch the video, or you did and you don’t know that the discussion took place on election night, or you have need of medical attention. In any case, you are a waste of time.

      • I’ll leave you to your blatant misrepresentation of the video and poll you linked. People like you always have an excuse or some new strange distractor. Filling up seats at Trump rallies is a statistical methodology you might be able to manage.

  39. The Big Orange Fella is back on the job. He looks a little less orange, but well. The left loons are very disappointed:

    • Try this one:

      • Wait! I think I see an oxygen tube coming out of his collar. He’s gasping. Ready to keel over. He needs to drop out, NOW! No more debates.

      • Do Trump supporters want to hear that the therapeutics he’s been taking were developed by Gilead Sciences?

        “Gilead Sciences, Inc. is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet medical need. The company strives to transform and simplify care for people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. Gilead has operations in more than 35 countries worldwide, with headquarters in Foster City, California.”

        No, they want to hear this,
        “A miracle coming down from God”

        The man knows his base.

    • God created and owns Gilead. Look it up in the Bible.
      Why are you lefties so mad at Christians and religious Jews, but you love the Islamists?

      • “Why are you lefties so mad at Christians and religious Jews, but you love the Islamists?”

        That’s called a straw man:
        “an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.”

        A con-man is sitting in the White House – we’re pissed at the gullibles who put him there.

      • Give me more of the con-man that excels at economic development and international peace.

      • “God created and owns Gilead.”

        We’re co-owners. Part of my 401K Is in pharmaceuticals.

      • It’s a fact. You silly lefties have raised Islamists to a privileged, protected and exalted position over religious Christians and Jews. Your bizarre left loon feminists have made tools of themselves by parading around with rags on their heads to show solidarity with Islamist non-feminist females, who are stoned to death by their men if they get out of line.

        And you are going to be pissed for another 4 years and 4 months, soyboy.

      • Not gullible. Trump is a blunt force instrument. He is our first FU POTUS. His base sees the left’s physical assault and verbal intimidation on those who don’t share their ideology, suppressing free speech and diversity of thought. His base values individual liberty. The leftwing extremists call Trump supporters rac***s, Naz** and stupid. The patriots don’t forget.

        Liberals were the conscience of America in the 1950s. They brought the country along appealing to the goodwill of their fellow citizens. Through the efforts of Liberals, cultural norms were changed, institutions were reformed, and Federal, State and local legislation reflected liberal values. They made a huge improvement in the country. They were important and relevant. Liberals are neither important nor relevant. History has passed them by. The only thing they excel in is having their brains manipulated by the Democrat lap dogs, the MSM.

        Today, the leftists act more like thought Stormtroopers. They demand allegiance to their worldview. They become estranged from family members who vote for Trump. They want to nullify history. They have become a cross between Brownshirts and zealots of the inquisition.

        That is why defections from the Democratic Party are occurring. That is why Blacks and Latinos are moving to Trump. They share the values of free speech and economic liberty. Traditional Democrats, those who would have fit in nicely in the Party during the 1950s, have been ratted out.

      • According to Wikipedia, about 70% of Americans identify as Christian, while only 1% identify as Islam.

        And yet….
        “Overall, there were 307 incidents of anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2016, marking a 19% increase from the previous year. This rise in hate crimes builds on an even sharper increase the year before, when the total number of anti-Muslim incidents rose 67%, from 154 in 2014 to 257 in 2015. By comparison, in 2016, there were 62 hate crimes against Catholics and 15 against Protestants.”

        But what does Don write in defense of our con artist president?

        “You silly lefties have raised Islamists to a privileged, protected and exalted position over religious Christians and Jews.”

      • Robert Starkey

        Steve
        So hate crimes against Muslims rose during the Obama administration. Has that trend continued during Trump’s term?

        Most Muslim countries seem to love Trump.

      • Steve

        Hate crimes against Muslims seem to have dropped over the last few years

        https://www.voanews.com/usa/report-anti-muslim-hate-crimes-drop-second-year-row

        However similar crimes against Jews seem to have increased sharply

        Tonyb

      • Cerescokid,
        “The leftwing extremists call Trump supporters rac***s, Naz** and stupid.”

        Pretty much the whole world sees Trump for what he is – someone who would like nothing better than to run America like his own private corporation. Not unlike Hitler, Stalin or Putin.

        An instrument of blunt force? You bet.

      • Why not throw in Ji, Erdogan, Maduro and Merkel, Steve? [Guess which one is more of a joke.]

      • Give us the stats on hate crimes in the Islamist countries where genocide against Christians and Jews has been going on for centuries, soyboi.

      • From Wikipedia:
        “Allegations that Barack Obama secretly practices Islam,[1] or that he is the antichrist of Christian eschatology, have been suggested since he campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and proliferated after his election as President of the United States in 2008. As with conspiracy theories surrounding his citizenship status, the claims are promoted by various fringe theorists and political opponents,[2][3] with American bloggers and conservative talk radio hosts particularly promoting the theories.”

        Rob Starkey,
        “So hate crimes against Muslims rose during the Obama administration.”

        Yep.

      • Robert Starkey

        Steve
        Good to see how you react when the data YOU post shows a negative trend occurring during the Obama administration that improved under Trump’s.

        An excellent example of TDS. BTW, I’m not a repub and voted for Obama in 08.

      • Don and Robert team up in defense of POTUS!

        Don,
        “Give us the stats on hate crimes in the Islamist countries where genocide against Christians and Jews has been going on for centuries, soyboi.”

        Robert,
        “Most Muslim countries seem to love Trump.”

        Clearly, not the sharpest tools in the blogosphere.

    • Is this like your 5,000 deaths COVID prediction?

      As various doctors have pointed out, one thing that is characteristic to this disease is that someone can look and act fine but actually have low oxygen levels. Some can also be fine and apparently recovering one day and go rapidly downhill the next. I’m not wishing for anything but it might be a little premature to say he’s back.

      • Oxygen Oxygen Oxygen is the latest iteration of the stupid Russia Russia Russia left loon fake news conspiracy theory serial. It will be fun to see what else you crybaby left loon jokers can dream up in the next 4 years and 4 months.

  40. MAGA POTUS Trump’s docs are about to have a press beating outside Walter Reed: The docs will be taking about 49 questions about oxygen and very likely will be pressed numerous times to explain why they are white and why they did not vigorously denounce white supremacy in the previous presser:

  41. Don –

    You say

    > No oxygen. Period.

    Anyone not in the cult says:

    • And they still throw the garbage out onto the floor, knowing that gullible and credulous cult members will just lap it up.

      After saying that they weren’t “necessarily” trying to hide things, this happened:

      > Pressed again on whether they had dropped below 90, Conley said the President’s blood oxygen levels didn’t get down into “the low 80s.”

      Unreal. They just know that they need zero amount of accountability to satisfy the cult members, who will lap anything up no matter how foul.

      And then they can play the victim card, and talk of how unfair it all is – as if these people have no agency.

      It’s obviously an intentional strategy.

      • Look soyboy, the doc yesterday said that MAGA POTUS did not have oxygen Thursday, Friday, or Saturday. He made that up, like you habitually make things up. Now he says that MAGA POTUS Trump’s O2 saturation levels were transiently dropping below 94%. Doc was concerned. Big Orange Fella reported no shortness of breath and he didn’t need the O2. Doc in an abundance of caution gave him O2 and in “about a minute” O2 level was back over 95%. Kept the O2 going for an hour, okey dokey and …blah blah blah… we come to the present and the MAGA POTUS Trump is doing fine, he is back to kicking left loon buttocks and MAGA POTUS Trump could be discharged, as early as tomorrow. Eat your little black heart out, you little varmint. Now keep harping about oxygen, you silly little character.

      • Don –

        >…the doc yesterday said that MAGA POTUS did not have oxygen Thursday, Friday, or Saturday.

        Lol. I know what he did and didn’t say. And anyone with a grain of common sense knew that he was being cagey and spinning. Yet you took what he said and concluded that..

        > No oxygen. Period.

        It’s like your credulous belief that led you to fall for obviously doctored videos that Trump and Trump Jr. post.

        Look, Don, I’m trying to help you out. Be a bit more skeptical. Don’t just lap garbage out just because Trump throws it out for you. You can still vote for the guy even if you throw off the shackles of cult membership.

  42. MAGA POTUS Trump is feeling very well today and following the advice of his docs to get up do his thing:

  43. After careful reflection, I have decided to call the race. Biden wins.

    We’ve done it. We’ve elected someone clearly in mental decline. That cannot stand up to Russia or China. Who will raise the corporate tax rate and drive businesses and capital away. Will restore critical race theory to the government. Will get us into another war. Then resign. He will resign. Harris who polled around 3% in the primaries will be our President.

    Here’s the good news. They are both Clinton Democrats. They will protect my money. Which after all is the important thing. My future depends on the government being able to pay its debts and that our stock market doesn’t drop by more than half. And that social security lasts long enough until I reach Biden’s stage.

    This is the important thing one more time. Just like Trump, they’ll worry about the stock market. There are lots of old people with 401(k)s who voted for Trump 4 years ago. Trump said, the market will crash. So, the government will in effect, bail out the stock market so the Democrats don’t get creamed in 2 years. Are the Democrats going to let Trump be right about the market crashing? If Trump lives, this is going to be the best 2 years of my life.

    Trump rebooted. He’s going to make more money than all the previous Presidents combined. He’s never going to stop. He’ll be on so many podcasts. The revenues will be endless. He will buyout Twitter before this is over. And the Washington Post.

    • I bet if you sent copies profound insight of this to all your clients your business would be through the roof. Well done!

    • Ragnaar

      “We’ve done it. We’ve elected someone clearly in mental decline. That cannot stand up to Russia or China.”

      China with its aggressive Belt and Road policies, which ultimately will put many countries into a debt trap they can only repay by signing over assets such as ports or natural resources (including ‘green’ energy) I see as an existential threat.

      Add in their stealing of technology, the inability of the west to operate there without a Chinese partner. The pressure they put on western companies to tone down criticism and the way that the west have been stupidly complicit in sending well paid jobs there all add up to a very serious threat.

      This is even without their posturing over Taiwan and their expanding their territorial aggression by building up military islands. We gave them a huge free ride on CO2 emissions and another one on operating under the WTO

      So what IS the Democrats position on countering all this? I really have no idea as to whether there is a policy.

      tonyb

      • I suppose Biden lacks standing on China at this time. They’re probably the greatest threat. There’s the South China Sea problems. While we fight amongst ourselves.

      • Trump on China:

        Jan. 22, Twitter:

        “One of the many great things about our just signed giant Trade Deal with China is that it will bring both the USA & China closer together in so many other ways. Terrific working with President Xi, a man who truly loves his country. Much more to come!”

        Jan. 24, Twitter:

        “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”

      • Diplomacy is always publicly attacking your opponents. Riiiiight, James Cross.

      • James

        I expect many politicians wish they could claw back things they say

        “Misquotation: ‘A week is a long time in politics’

        Attributed to Harold Wilson, and probably first said at a lobby briefing for journalists at the time of the sterling crisis in 1964. Interestingly, as Nigel Rees in Brewer’s Quotations (1994) records, Wilson himself, when asked just after his retirement as Prime Minister in 1977, could not pinpoint the precise occasion on which he first used the words. The Liberal politician Joseph Chamberlain is recorded in 1886 as having said: ‘In politics, there is no use in looking beyond the next fortnight.’

        Tonyb

      • China will never defeat the USA! I’ll tell you why, because the US will never adopt an arrogant, self centered world view that would blind it to the dangers of a economy based on 70% consumer consumption propped up by 27 trillion in debt and the most expensive military in human history.
        Nope, ain’t gonna happen!

        PS: Short oil/coal stocks and go long solar/wind/batteries.

      • Jack

        I hope you are not linking the $27T Debt to the military spending. Let’s look at how we got to spending $4.8 Trillion per year. We now spend $3.4T on Social Programs compared to $.77T on defense. The increase since 2000 for Social Programs is $2.3 Trillion per year versus an increase in defense of $.47.

        The Individual Income Taxes and more specifically the marginal tax rates comes under attack for the huge Debt as well. Compared to the increase in Social Programs spending it’s chump change, peanuts.

        Taxes on individuals are 22% of income today versus 10 to 14%, including Social Security, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the top marginal tax rate was 91%.

        We are going to have deficits in the $2 to $3 Trillion for at least this Fiscal Year and maybe more years after that. And how much tax revenue did we lose from the Trump tax cuts in 2018? Compared to 2017 about $72 Billion. In the big picture not much compared to spending on Social Programs.

        An interesting thing about the Trump tax cuts which supposedly benefits the rich is that in Obama’s last year, 2016, those making over $1 million paid $373 Billion in Taxes. In 2018, after the tax cuts, those making over $1 million paid $465 Billion, or an increase of $92 Billion. Something that is never mentioned is that under Clinton, those making over $1 Million paid a smaller percentage of their income in 2000 than in 1993.

      • cerescokid
        Do not confuse me with someone who supports either dominate political party but on balance the Ds are better than the Rs. Hey the whole thing could have turned out better if McCain was elected in 2008. Am I right?

        I see the Chinese are spending a small fraction of our defense budget on their Belt and Road plan. A brilliant plan that creates a vast economic network controlled from Beijing at the same time it collects billions in interest and no-bid infrastructure projects built by Chinese companies.
        https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/10/01/seven-years-into-chinas-belt-and-road/

  44. Wisdom from Reagan

    Image-1.jpg

  45. knapweednefrila

    utznefrila

  46. I see that the Trump fanboys are as angry and insulting as ever!
    We have to try to understand, however, because it must be confusing for them at the moment. Their cult leader is supposed to be fighting a secret battle against pedophiles and those who drink children’s blood, and now he’s been deliberately infected (by that secret, underground, cabal) by a virus that they claim doesn’t exist!
    Must be very confusing for them – no wonder they’re lashing out!

    • I don’t know about you but 6-3 is music to my ears. And, picking up on Banks’ “Let’s Play 2”, I say let’s go for 7-2.

    • Biden is fighting a battle against himself, so we should understand. His mind is failing him. He’ll be able to retire the White House soon. He will be Okay. They’ll take care of him.

    • JMurphy |wrote:

      >”I see that the Trump fanboys are as angry and insulting as ever!…

      >”Their cult leader is supposed to be fighting a secret battle against pedophiles and those who drink children’s blood, and now he’s been deliberately infected (by that secret, underground, cabal) by a virus that they claim doesn’t exist!”

      You do realize that you are just continuing to make an utter fool of yourself, don’t you?

      Trump and his supporters do not claim the virus does not exist. Trump shut down travel from China when Biden and his cult followers were opposing the shutodwn because they did not take Covid seriously!

      Why do you keep posting falsehoods that anyone who has followed the news throughout 2020 knows are just not true?

      (Yeah, I know: because all you care about is your side getting power.)

  47. Left loon soyboiz who hoped the continuing lockdowns in Blue states along with their rioting looting and burning of businesses would stifle recovery from the Red China Wuhan Bat Soup virus are sad.

    Latest Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimate for 3rd quarter GDP growth. A very amazing and MAGA 34%:

    Click to access RealGDPTrackingSlides.pdf

    MAGA POTUS Trump built historically strong economy and it is bouncing back yuugely despite Democrat intransigence on economic relief and stimulus legislation. Winning the election is more important to them than helping the country.

    Meanwhile, the left loon Democrat encouraged and enabled BLM-antifa goons continue the brown shirt tactics:

    I will be landing in PA, this afternoon. On the road for MAGA, until election. See y’all. Please continue to practice vigorous left loon varmint control on the usual suspects.

  48. One more. This is MAGA gold. MAGA POTUS Trump sends pizzas to supporters outside Walter Reed. Very enthusiastic and appreciative man on video says: You can tell it’s from Trump, it’s not gluten free and it’s got meat on it:

    • Millionaire buys pizza for his cult followers! MAGA! (MILLIONAIRES ARE GIVING ALMS)

    • Is Trump paying for it? Or are we the taxpayers?

      • One thing for sure. We’re paying for him to have a huge team of the best doctors, the best equipment, the best facilities. I heard that there is a 20 person medical team at the Whitehouse. And he gets the best therapeutics that sent even available to basically anyone else – it looks like just as a preventative treatment essentially, before his disease is severs. That’s what makes it so amusing to hear people in his administration claim that now he knows what it’s like for the little people when they get infected. He has no idea.

      • Joshua,

        See the link to the Derek Lowe column and the comments.

        He may be sicker than is being let on. Or he may be getting the VIP treatment and, anybody who can plant in his head that he should be getting something, he asks for it and gets it. So he may be getting over-treated.

        Who knows with this President and White House.

        They can’t even manage the President being ill. One would think that with any concern for the security of the country Pence would limit himself quite a bit as far as contact with others. Who knows how much of the White House staff is now ill or in isolation?

        It would be really ironic if Trump and Pence both got so ill that Pelosi had to take over. But somehow I think both of them could be on their death beds and they would find some way to skirt the succession and we’d probably end up with Ivanka in charge or something else crazy like that.

      • James –

        I heard a immunologist today speculating that they’re treating him preventatively, before the disease gets severe.

        His reasoning was that while the meds he’s being given have typically been reserved for the very sick, and he undoubtedly has lower respiratory involvement, it would make sense to use them before a multi-organ infection set in.

        The problem is that the information being given out is useless given that they have zero credibility at this point, there is a total lack of transparency, and the only thing they care about is spinning the situation to pleas the cult.

      • Daily updates by independent medical experts “is a total lack of transparency.” Conspiracy theorists just gotta spin conspiracies. Right, Joshua and James Cross?

      • “The problem is that the information being given out is useless given that they have zero credibility at this point, there is a total lack of transparency, and the only thing they care about is spinning the situation to pleas the cult.”

        How biased is Joshua given what the doctors have reported. TDS infection?

      • > How biased is Joshua given what the doctors have reported. TDS infection?

        Lol. The doctor actually admitted he was spinning the information, although he said it wasn’t “necessarily” intended to mislead people. He onvosuly first avoided, and then actually lied about whether Trump had been given oxygen. Don’t tell me the like Don who got suckered, you actually believed him as well? Did you miss it when Don said the Trump hadn’t received oxygen “period” based on what the doc said only to then have the doc hang him out to dry?

        What’s weird is that they spin stuff that actually doesn’t even matter.

      • > “Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life.”

        Says a man who has a team of doctors and a wing of a hospital dedicated to caring for him, with no concern of paying for it although no expense is to be spared.

        On a par with “Let them eat cake.”

      • Even J should find this humorous. I wonder if Omar ever heard of Gillette

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjiDDYJXkAAn56x?format=jpg&name=900×900

      • Good humor does have a bit of truth.

      • Rob –

        You seriously think they are credible and transparent?:

        Here you go –

        -snip-
        Trump Didn’t Disclose First Positive Covid-19 Test While Awaiting a Second Test on Thursday

        President received positive result on Thursday evening before making an appearance on Fox News in which he didn’t reveal those results
        -snip-

      • Robert Starkey

        Joshua
        The doctors reported factual information which indicated that the patient was improving. The patient did in fact improve to the point of being discharged.

        You focus on an initial attempt to not disclose patient information prior to being at the hospital and then leap to a claim that you can’t trust anything they say.

        Can you honestly claim that Biden will do as well managing the federal bureaucracy as Trump.

      • Rob –

        > You focus on an initial attempt to not disclose patient information prior to being at the hospital and then leap to a claim that you can’t trust anything they say.

        You need to pay closer attention.

        I focus on how they are cagey, lack transparency, mislead and lie. And from that I conclude that they aren’t credible and that they lack transparency.

        They could just say that the patient doesn’t want them to release certain information and thus they can’t do so. But that isn’t what they do and instead they spin. They always spin.

        Go back and look at how Don was fooled. When we said they were being cagey, Don said that it was certain that Trump was never on oxygen. “Period.” Don was fooled by their lack of transparency and caginess. I wasn’t. I said they were being cagey and they weren’t being transparent. They later admitted that Trump was on oxygen.

        It is a trivial piece of information. Why did they hide the truth and lie about it? That’s what us important. They lacked transparency. They lied. And they get away with it because the people who support this administration politically don’t hold them accountable. This plays out over and over. They spin and mislead their supporters, and when that becomes obvious their supporters let them off the hook.

      • Rob –

        > Can you honestly claim that Biden will do as well managing the federal bureaucracy as Trump.

        I have no idea, actually. But that isn’t an excuse for the incompetence of this administration, for their lack of transparency, for their lying. It’s amazing how their supporters just refuse to demand accountability from them.

  49. Derek Lowe peering through a glass darkly on Trump’s treatment.

    “That severe stage shows up as an overactive immune response leading to the well-known “cytokine storm”, and potentially big trouble. It really looks like the best therapy we have for that at the moment is dexamethasone. So I found it interesting – and not in a good way – that the president’s medical team had actually put him on dexamethasone, because its mode of action is to damp down the inflammation response. And if a person is still in the early stages of infection, that’s the opposite of what you want to do. There’s a real gear-shift in the treatment of coronavirus patients, when you have to switch from treating the viral infection to treating the immune consequences of the viral infection, and what’s appropriate for one phase of treatment is definitely not appropriate for the other.

    So since the Walter Reed physicians are, in fact, very competent, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that the president’s infection is further along than we had thought. They may well be seeing signs of inappropriate over-response to the coronavirus and are trying to knock that down before it gets more serious. Another possibility, I suppose, is a similar over-reaction to pneumonia (which is the only reason I have ever had a short course of dexamethasone myself). OK, then. . .but how on Earth do we square any of that with the physician’s comment yesterday that Trump was doing so well that he might be discharged today? Discharging a 74-year-old man with coronavirus in the middle of remdesivir and dexamethasone therapy makes no sense at all”.

    https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/10/05/the-presidents-coronavirus-treatment

  50. The story is something like this:
    Trump is going to PA and they know his route once there from A to B. Then you line it with Trump signs to raise his self esteem. One of the signs said, Make Liberals Cry Again. Which is my nomination for the best troll ever.

    Unfortunately, we will not make liberals cry again and Biden will win. They will still cry when then realize they have made Biden the President. After 4 years of enduring pain, this is their salvation. There isn’t even a curtain. That was pulled back a long time ago on Biden by Toto. They haven’t stopped the wokeness or the critical race theory. There are so many things they aren’t going to do. Most of what they do will be ill conceived which led to Trump in the first place. They will realize Trump is not the problem. Their own party is the problem. Trump was their meal ticket and they will be left with Biden. And they’ll be doing anything they can to elbow everyone else out of their way so that he listens to them. They can’t follow him because there is nothing to follow. We will no longer have a President. It will be a bunch of insiders stabbing each other in the back so that they can have his ear. We will be fine though. We will be entertained.

  51. Robert I. Ellison wrote to me:
    >”I find your revolutionary fervour a most peculiarly Quixotic quest.”

    I don’t think you believe that.

    My side won when the people of the UK stuck their thumbs in the eyes of the British elite and the Eurocrats in Brussels. My side won when the American people chose the crazy guy from Queens over the Establishment Queen whose “turn” it was to be President. My side wins almost every time an election is held in Eastern Europe and the people elect folks who are anathema to the ruling Western elite.

    Yeah, my side can’t win them all, and I predict we will “lose” the American election in late November after the parasitic verbalist overclass have stuffed enough ballot boxes to “elect” Mr. Senility.

    But if we are “quixotic” why do we win a lot recently?

    I am a Jeffersonian, my friend. I hate rule by judges, just as Jefferson did. I hate monetary/financial cartels that destroy the value of the currency and exploit productive citizens, just as Jefferson did. I hate a standing military and would like to eviscerate it, just as Jefferson did when he was President. I hate war.

    And, more than anything, I hate the idea of an elite overclass lording it over ordinary productive citizens.

    Through most of my life, for well over half a century, both “liberals” and “conservatives” opposed all of those basic Jeffersonian principles.

    But now, at last, there is a new rebirth of freedom, a rising tide of populist opposition to the neo-liberal world order of which you seem to be so fond.

    No, my friend, what is “quixotic” is your faith that neo-liberalism can survive.

    We will dismantle, deconstruct, and delegitimize the whole “progressive” neo-liberal institutional structure of Western nations.

    No matter who “wins” after November 3, the battle will not be over. We have the will, we have the ideas, and we have the ordinary, productive people on our side.

    We will bury you, my friend. You are the past.

    We are the future. As John Adams said in his dying words, “Thomas Jefferson still lives!”

    • I’d hope for a future sane and free from zealotry. Liberal here refers to a classic liberal of the Scottish Enlightenment variety. A movement that informed framers of the US Constitution. For me it starts with democracy and the rule of law – the hard won freedoms of the enlightenment.

      ‘When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.’ Hayek – The Constitution of Liberty

      The principle is that we own ourselves and our labor. We are free and this freedom is endowed by God.

      “We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage…. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.” Hayek – The Intellectuals and Socialism

      It is powered by markets. Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies. Economic freedom is a crucial freedom.

      Optimal tax take is some 23% of GDP and government budgets are balanced. Interest rates are best managed through the overnight cash market to restrain inflation to a 2% to 3% target. These nuts and bolts of market management are mainstream market theory and keep economies on a stable – as far as is possible – growth trajectory.

  52. IRobert I. Ellison | wrote to me:
    >”Interest rates are best managed through the overnight cash market to restrain inflation to a 2% to 3% target.”

    Hilarious that you would quote Hayek!

    You have not actually read any of his economic works, now have you?

    Say Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle or Prices and Production?

    I have.

    (And, yes, I have also read The Constitution of Liberty, The Road to Serfdom, etc.)

    I almost switched from physics to monetary economics after earning my Ph.D.: I had an offer from a Hayekian economist in the UK to do a post-doc in econ.

    And the import of Hayek’s work, and that of his colleagues, such as Mises and Rothbard, is that inflationists like you are destroyers of civilization.

    The idea that 2-3 % inflation is somehow healthy is the sign of ignorance of economics of the sort Hayek fought all his life. It’s the shifting Phillips’ curve — once inflation becomes expected, it is no longer stimulative.

    And Hayek’s central message in economics was that, when the inflation is unexpected, it produces disastrous distortions in the capital markets: Hence, the title of Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle.

    What 2-3 % inflation also does is eat away at the savings of ordinary people who are not members of the elite: it destroys half the value of one’s savings in 25-35 years.

    Of course, the elite uses hedge funds and special tax gimmicks and all the rest to do just fine, while ordinary productive people suffer.

    I’m certainly no conservative: I’m a radical Jeffersonian.

    And you are certainly no follower of Friedrich Hayek: you are an opponent of his basic economic principles.

    You are one of those who push us further along the Road to Serfdom.

    Hayek became ever more radical in his old age, and I am sure he would cheer the efforts of all of us who aim to defeat and destroy all of the hangers-on of the parasitic, verbalist elite such as yourself.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…”

    You will see that Thomas Jefferson still lives. And neo-liberalism and the parasitic elite it sustains will die.

    • There are a few warning signals of crashes that make them potentially controllable – primarily hyper growth with positive feedbacks. Long before dragon-kings Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian school of economics developed principles of management of interest rates that are used to maintain price stability (low inflation) and stable economic growth. In monetary policy the Australian government instituted a consumer price inflation target of 2–3 per cent in 1993. This is managed primarily through the overnight cash rate. When the economy is at risk of overheating – the overnight cash rate is increased putting a damper of demand. Conversely – rates are decreased during downturns. Over the period of the target – until Covid – Australia has had uninterrupted economic growth. At the same time we had low government debt, conservative banking practices, a strong democracy, an effective legal system and low levels of official corruption. Growth and stability are as much psychological as technical and flourish during periods of moderate change.

      In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade.

      This is in accord with Hayek’s philosophy and Austrian School of Economics monetary policy. And indeed – more modern economic thought..

      https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/

      Your rants are quite mad.

      • Robert I. Ellison |wrote to me:
        >”There are a few warning signals of crashes that make them potentially controllable – primarily hyper growth with positive feedbacks. Long before dragon-kings Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian school of economics developed principles of management of interest rates that are used to maintain price stability (low inflation) and stable economic growth. ”

        “Dragon kings”??? You brought up Hayek: I merely pointed out that you were stating falsehoods about him.

        There’s just one little problem: what you say disagrees with reality. It has not worked: the dot-com debacle, the 2008 crash, and all the rest.

        You keep having crashes every decade or so, contrary to your claims but consistent with what Hayek et al. predicted given the policies you advocate.

        You’re spreading voodoo economics: you claim that things are “controllable,” but no one has been able to do it.

        The neo-liberal also wrote:
        >”This is in accord with Hayek’s philosophy and Austrian School of Economics monetary policy.”

        You have not actually read Hayek’s writings on economics that I mentioned, now have you?

        You think that if you repeat an untruth enough times you can fool people.

        But reality is there, youngster.

        And, as I pointed out, 2-3 % inflation steals people’s savings over a period of two to three decades. But you like stealing from productive people, don’t you?

        The neo-liberal also wrote:
        >”Your rants are quite mad.”

        The world is turning against you neo-liberals, and so you declare the world to be “mad.”

        But we have let you neo-liberals have your way for decades and you have failed.

        And so we will sweep you into the dustbin of history where you belong.

        The world defeated fascism and Communism and now we must finish the job by defeating the remaining enemies of the human race — neo-liberals like you.

        Call it “mad” if you wish, but the human race had had enough of your ilk.

      • Hayek I quoted – and dragon-kings are defined by Didier Sornette in the video in the linked article.

        Australia has had uninterrupted economic growth since 1993 – as I said and lie through your teeth as you like – until Covid. By resisting asset bubbles – Hayek’s bete noir – and free trade, good governance and fiscal responsibility. Economic growth in excess of low inflation adds to wealth. Targeted low inflation implies a modest growth in money supply, increased consumer demand and economic growth. Capitalism requires growth but asset bubbles and busts are the enemy. You have no grasp at all of basic economic theory let the Austrian school business cycle.

        I am a Hayakian liberal. I expect that you haven’t read much of Hayek, Mises or the Austrian school at all. Given the lack of depth displayed.

        I don’t declare the world to be mad – nor you. I described your mad, ignorant, all over the place rants full of invective and condemnation as mad. And I have had more than enough of you.

  53. Robert I. Ellison |wrote to me:|
    >”Capitalism requires growth but asset bubbles and busts are the enemy. You have no grasp at all of basic economic theory let the Austrian school business cycle. ”

    Capitalism does not require growth in the money supply, much less price inflation. The price level will adjust to the supply and demand of money. Elementary (Austrian) economics.

    It’s Keynesians and similar crack-pots who think that a market economy requires an expanding money supply. Austrians have put a lot of effort into refuting such cranks.

    The neo-liberal also wrote:
    >”I expect that you haven’t read much of Hayek, Mises or the Austrian school at all.”

    I read Mises’ Human Action and Theory of Money and Credit in high school. I was friends with Mises’ student Murray Rothbard when I was in grad school. I was at Stanford when the Cato Institute was founded in the Bay Area, back when Cato had an Austrian orientation: I knew Ed Crane, Murray, et al. I attended Cato’s first summer school held at Stanford. The Institute for Humane Studies was within walking distance of Stanford back then, so I knew Walter Grinder, Leonard Liggio et al. (For those not in the know, Liggio later became President of the Mont Pelerin Society.)

    Unlike you, I actually knew these people, Bob. And, unlike you, I have actually read thousands of pages of their work.

    By the way, the most readable intro to Austrian business cycle theory is, in my opinion, Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression: anyone who wants to find out whether it is Bob or I who is telling the truth should start there.

    Bob, you are just making stuff up, hoping you can fool people who are not familiar with the Austrians. You just assumed that no one here would actually know much about these guys, but I was familiar with them, personally.

    Why do you bother to do this, Bob? I have told people where they can go to check on your lies.

    The neo-liberal also wrote:
    >”I am a Hayakian liberal. ”

    No, you are the antithesis of Hayek’s views on economics: you are an apologist for the parasitic, verbalist overclass, AKA a neo-liberal.

    Bob also wrote:
    >”And I have had more than enough of you.”

    Good. But I am going to keep an eye on your posts here, because people who are willing to lie on one subject are usually willing to lie on everything else.

    I will say this: you claim expertise in sewage systems, and you are certainly a a walking testament of the need for sewage systems!

    • Dave .

      Thanks for the heads up on Rothbard. I love reading such books.

      It turns out nearly everything my father told me in the 1950s about the causes of the Depression just wasn’t so. As is the case with a lot of conventional knowledge.

      I’ve just ordered it…..In about 10 seconds. Ain’t technology great.

      • Ceresco kid

        As both Trump and Biden have perceived health issues the battle tonight between their second in commands become very important. You presumably want Pence to turn in a storming performance and his adversary to come over badly with extreme policies the electorate will be nervous of.

        I have never heard either of the two before in any sort of debate so it will be interesting to see what happens.

        Have you any expectations as to their likely performance?

        Tonyb

      • Hi Tony

        They are both seasoned politicians and I expect them to hold their own. I don’t think there will be any great points scored on either side nor will the debate influence many voters.

        If you are against Trump there is absolutely nothing that Pence could say that will bring you over. If you are for Trump there is absolutely nothing Harris could say to change your vote. The VP, in any election, is a non factor. This time, that is especially true.

        My wife is the most kind, calm, unemotional, thoughtful person I know. She never, ever raises her voice. Except when she rants and raves against Trump. She knows how much I love him.

        She agrees with nearly every policy that he pushes, especially right to life. Yet she hates him. Sometimes, shamelessly, I bait her. Just for fun.

        I’ve followed politics very closely since Ike. Like many, when young I was Liberal. I didn’t vote for Reagan in 1980 but did in 1984. I’ve mostly supported Republicans in varying degrees of enthusiasm after the Democrats lied repeatedly about the cause of the 1981-82 recession, blaming it on Reaganomics. I didn’t vote for Bush 1 in 1992 instead voting for Perot. I voted for Obama in 2008 but not 2012. Mostly I’ve voted more times against a Democrat rather for the GOP candidate.

        As I recall, early in the 2016 GOP primaries I started somewhat supporting Rubio. But like the other GOP candidates he couldn’t go toe to toe with Trump during the debates. Trump was a man against boys.

        I’ve never seen such fanatical support for a Republican candidate. The closest would have been Reagan but it was a more refined, unemotional support. I read what Trump supporters say online. They are bonkers about him. I think it’s that Trump never misses a chance to troll the governing class, the political elite, leftwing academics, celebrities and
        especially the leftist media. If Trump wins it will be because of the constant anti Trump media rant. The media have lectured the public one too many times.

      • Ceresco kid

        From my perspective from over the pond, trump has been on the back foot for most of the last six months and went further behind with that terrible debate wth Biden. I think that business with the virus has also been detrimental to him.

        So he has a lot of ground to make up and needs to get all his supporters out as I can’t imagine that many of the previously neutral would go for him after these last few months . What’s your forecast?

        Tonyb

      • Robert Starkey

        Kid

        Tell your wife I also hate Trump, agree with his policies, and will therefore vote for him. She can get over hate.

      • Rob –

        Why do you hate Trump?

      • Tony

        The national polls, like CAGW, just don’t add up.

        First, the subsidiary polls on enthusiasm, who they think will win and the shy voter phenomenon, tell a different story than the lead Biden has in the national polls.

        Second, 20% of the population is in NY and CA, both solid Blue States. The up and down in national polling, has no impact on the electoral vote in several of the other key states.

        Third, if accurate, polls show much more support by Blacks and Latinos for Trump than existed in 2016. They are out in force on Twitter, as enthusiastic as any white Trump supporter.

        Fourth, the internals of some polls raise questions about their findings. Over sampling of Democrats and under sampling of Independents and Republicans. Over sampling younger voters. A number of issues have been found with polling overall. Like Fake News, are we finding Fake Polls.

        Fifth, I’ve read numerous accounts of Trump voters saying they lie to pollsters. Who knows.

        Robert’s comment puts yet another wrinkle into the equation.

        I think Trump wins. I hope it is not decided by very close elections in a few states. I hope they don’t find a lot of irregularities in voting, especially with the expansion of vote by mail. Daily, I read about mistakes in sending out ballots to the wrong people or people who have moved or have died. There has been a growing fissure in our politics for a couple of decades, mostly a cultural divide. Questions about the integrity of our elections will just add to the chasm.

      • cerescokid,
        I see a lot of #5 “accounts of Trump voters saying they lie to pollsters” too. In fact I have never seen a Republican claim they tell pollsters the truth and this goes back to the Bush years. By this metric 100% of every poll taken in the last 15 years had to be rigged to match election results.

      • Just checked a hour ago at one of the oldest and best pro republican sites out there, Freerepublic.com (established 1996)
        “To: Kaslin
        I’ve been polled twice in the last month. It was through a text message that took me to a web site to answer about 5 minutes worth of questions. It was geared to towards a state senate seat and the Presidential election.

        I gave different answers about what party I am registered between the two times. The first was D, but I strongly agreed with all conservative positions and strongly disagreed with all leftist positions – same thing with candidates. The second time, I did the same, but told them I am registered as an R. ”

        One thing seem obvious. At this point most Americans could’nt tell if the election was rigged and will never know if it was.

      • Jack

        Just by chance I’m in the middle of watching Social Dilemma on Netflix which discusses manipulations of the public by the big tech companies. Pretty interesting as it gets into elections etc.

        Back to polling. I remember election night 2016 some commentators were disturbed that the exit polls didn’t match what the voting results were in some states. I wonder if some voters either were shy about telling the truth about their vote or were intentionally lying? The more nefarious take would be that the actual vote tallies were in error.

      • The very act of releasing that documentary at this point in time is a form of social manipulation. Frankly none of it was new to me. More like an anesthetic to soften the blow-back like when Facebook and Twitter just banned and blocked every Qanon website on their services today.

        The House of Reps are trying to break some of them up but that seems impossible since they are now co-dependent.

        From what little leaks out about DARPA and their work with behavioral AI is a mystery but some of it seems pretty dangerous if it was used on US citizens. But if we don’t do it the Chinese will first is a classic excuse.

  54. Economic growth is absolutely necessary. The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets.

    One of these principles is to maintain – as far as possible – stable economies through responsible fiscal and monetary policy. Manage asset price growth through buying and selling on overnight cash markets, low government expenditure and balanced budgets and refraining from ‘quantitative easing’. It is psychological more than technical. Avoiding greed and fear in booms and busts.

    I have degrees in civil engineering and environmental science. My technical specialization is hydrology and biogeochemical cycling. My professional experience is in integrated urban water cycle management. For which I have won design awards.

    You haven’t contributed anything of any analytical substance or real world application. People and books you may have known or read decades ago? That you claim support your simplistic views? And you continue with your insinuations, accusations, denigrations and childish mockery and threats. You are far from the Hayekian ideal.

    • Robert I. Ellison advocated:
      >” low government expenditure and balanced budgets and refraining from ‘quantitative easing’….”

      Yes I agree that that would be very nice, but it is hard to see how your advocating government spending of 25 % (!) of GDP counts as low government expenditures! That would mean the state is overwhelmingly the largest player in the economy. You are so caught up in the neo-liberal Matrix that you cannot see what it would actually be like to be skeptical of the state and the current neo-liberal institutional structures that are strangling the human race.

      Look: I view government the same way I view organized religion. Throughout my life, I have been amazed that anyone can view either as anything more than a con game played at the expense of ordinary decent people.

      Alas, I can get rid of neither.

      But, I do endorse the opening of Thoreau’s famous Essay (you’ll note that Henry David shared my antipathy to a standing military):

      >”I HEARTILY accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. ”

      Remember, Bob: Thomas Jefferson still lives, and, in the end, radical Jeffersonians will sweep aside the military-industrial complex, the monetary-banking cartels, the judges who try to rule in place of the people, and all the rest.

      The governments shall topple, the natural and inalienable rights of man shall triumph, and the parasitic verbalist overclass that you so love shall be tossed into the dustbin of history.

      I hope you live long enough to see it, though I do not think you will enjoy it.

      • Empirical analysis of the Armey curve. Government expenditure of 25% is near the optimum for maximum economic growth.

        Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies.

        Compare this to Dave’s wild and woolly revolutionary fervour. Like Thoreau – he should be arrested for marching to the beat of a different drum.

      • Robert I. Ellison |wrote:|
        >”Empirical analysis of the Armey curve. Government expenditure of 25% is near the optimum for maximum economic growth.”

        Is there anyone here, except for Ellison, who thinks this is anything but a joke and really believes that economics is a discipline that can get a result like that from “empirical analysis”?

        I could go on at length about correlation vs. causation and the need for scientific research to have some logical underpinning and so on, but I assume that would be a waste of time for any intelligent person.

        Anyone take our boy from Down Under seriously?

      • By the way, if anyone is curious, the “Armey” of the “Armey curve” is the slightly wacky ex-Republican politician and sidekick of Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey: Armey liked to show up dressed in cowboy gear, for example.

        He had a singularly undistinguished academic career before he got into politics. The “Armey Curve” seems to come from a hack book he knocked out while in Congress (The Freedom Revolution).

        I.e., taking this “Armey Curve” seriously is about the same as taking The Art of the Deal seriously!

        One more reason not to take the Conservative GOP Establishment seriously.

      • ‘Similarly to the Laffer curve, this literature emphasized the existence of an
        inverted U-shaped curve between government size and GDP growth, sometimes called the Armey Curve (Armey et al. 1995), the Rahn Curve (Rahn 1999) or also the “BARS curve” referring to Barro (1989), Armey et al. (1995), Rahn (1996) and Scully (1994). The top of the curve would supply the “optimal” government size in the sense of the size that maximizes GDP growth.

        Therefore, the debate shifted from the sign of the relation between government size and growth (either positive or negative) to the determination of the optimal government size.’ https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00654363/document

        There is a considerable literature that Dave may pursue or remain in ignorance of. I’ll just say that most countries could think themselves lucky if they had government spending of 25% of GDP and inflation consistently in a targeted 2 -3% range.

        Armey was indeed a Republican Majority Leader in the Senate.

  55. Robert I. Ellison wrote to me:
    >”I have degrees in civil engineering and environmental science. My technical specialization is hydrology and biogeochemical cycling. My professional experience is in integrated urban water cycle management. For which I have won design awards.”

    Which is of course consistent with your knowing nothing about economics.

    The neo-liberal also wrote:
    >”One of these principles is to maintain – as far as possible – stable economies through responsible fiscal and monetary policy. Manage asset price growth through buying and selling on overnight cash markets…”

    If you actually did know anything about Friedrich Hayek, you would know that he was extremely skeptical of government’s ability to “manage” the macroeconomy, capital markets, etc.

    Indeed, his Nobel lecture was entitled “The Pretense of Knowledge” ( https://mises.org/library/pretense-knowledge ): I suggest you read it — you might learn something (I doubt it — you seem to be ineducable, but you might).

    Here for example from the speech is Hayek’s comment on the sort of ongoing inflationary policy you endorse:
    ” The continuous injection of additional amounts of money at points of the economic system where it creates a temporary demand which must cease when the increase of the quantity of money stops or slows down, together with the expectation of a continuing rise of prices, draws labor and other resources into which can last only so long as the increase of the quantity of money continues at the same rate — or perhaps even only so long as it continues to accelerate at a given rate. What this policy has produced is not so much a level of employment that could not have been brought about in other ways, as a distribution of employment which cannot be indefinitely maintained and which after some time can be maintained only by a rate of inflation which would rapidly lead to a disorganization of all economic activity. The fact is that by a mistaken theoretical view we have been led into a precarious position in which we cannot prevent substantial unemployment from reappearing; not because, as this view is sometimes misrepresented, this unemployment is deliberately brought about as a means to combat inflation, but because it is now bound to occur as a deeply regrettable but inescapable consequence of the mistaken policies of the past as soon as inflation ceases to accelerate.”

    That was Hayek’s view throughout his professional life: he opposed the views you advocate.

    Look, Bob, I keep criticizing you because you keep advocating views which you claim to be those of Friedrich Hayek and you are simply factually mistaken.

    If I claimed that Karl Marx was a fierce supporter of laissez-faire capitalism, I would simply be mistaken, regardless of whether laissez-faire capitalism is a good idea or a bad idea.

    Similarly, you brought up Friedrich Hayek and then continued to misrepresent his views. Whether your views or his views are right or wrong, it is wrong of you to lie about his views.

    • He confuses management of interest rates through buying and selling on cash markets with centralized planning and Hayek’s ‘problem of knowledge’. A cause of asset inflation and consequent busts is governments keeping interest rates too low for too long. According to Hayek.

      I quoted Hayek on what democracy means for a classical liberal – something Hayek defined himself as. Although Hayek is sometimes referred to as a neo-liberal – this is not in the sense that Americans use the term liberal.

      • Whig was what Hayek says were his ethical origins. It was informed by the Scottish Enlightenment – that was influential as well in the founding of the US.

        “By the first half of the 19th century, the Whig programme came to encompass the supremacy of parliament, free trade and acceleration of the completion of Catholic equal rights, the abolition of slavery and expansion of the franchise (suffrage).” Wikipedia

        But we were talking interest rates and bubbles – fueled by government keeping interest rates too low for too long. According to Hayek.

    • physicistdave: “…Hayek…was extremely skeptical of government’s ability to “manage” the macroeconomy, capital markets, etc.” Absolutely.

      RIE often uses anachronistic conflation of mid 20th century era expressions of Hayek’s, comparing them to 21st century political philosophy. He often buttresses his arguments using Hayek’s essay “Why I Am Not a Conservative”, for example.

      Before one can unpack RIE’s misguided notions relating to classical liberalism and conservatism, one must first unpack the basis of the philosophies themselves just a bit, to get at the roots; because Hayek did this.

      Conservatism is a proxy label, not a philosophy unto itself technically (though usually seen as such today), but it was originally coined as a political label to identify those who embraced an earlier form of governance. To keep it simple, conservatism was first coined in France in the early 19th century, and quickly picked up by the British Tories as a label to represent an appeal towards an earlier form of the monarchy. Whigism, on the other hand, is at the heart of classical liberal philosophy. Whigism embraces individualism, freedom and liberty; it’s antithetical to central authority of any kind; monarchies, socialism, etc. The Whigs and Tories were rivals in the 19th century, there’s obviously been a great deal of evolution of political philosophy since this era.

      Conservatism has a different evolution depending on the country. The U.S. was founded on Whigist philosophy; rugged individualism, personal liberty and freedom. Conservatism wasn’t coined in the U.S. until the late 19th century as U.S. political philosophy began to splinter into differing philosophies, i.e., progressivism and neo liberalism. So again, conservatism came about in the U.S. as an appeal for an earlier form of governance, classical liberalism in this instance! U.S. conservatives believe in the early philosophy for the founding of the U.S., conservatives in the U.S. are classical liberal “whigists”; those who believe in individualism, freedom and liberty.

      Look at conservatism in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party is the Christian Democratic Union, it’s a conservative party. Since conservatism is an appeal to an earlier form of governance what would its basis represent in Germany? I would argue National Socialism. Angela’s father, Horst Kasner, was a leader in the Hitler youth movement. He survived the war and became a pastor for the Lutheran church. His stated aim was to spread socialism in the church, his nickname was the red pastor. Conservatism in Germany is not built on the back of the Whigist tradition. Many of the U.S. Left consider Merkel the leader of the free world, how can this possibly jive with the definition of classical liberal?

      Hayek spoke of the differences in conservatism between the U.S. and England, referencing his preference to the Whigist tradition. But with the evolution of conservatism since Hayek’s 1960 essay to today, there’s no doubt he would align with todays conservatism; later in the 20th century he became increasingly aligned with conservative leaders. Hayek was a confidant of Margaret Thatcher’s. David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget in 1981, was an acknowledged follower of Hayek.

      The Institute of Economic Affairs arranged a meeting between Hayek and Margaret Thatcher in 1975. “During Thatcher’s only visit to the Conservative Research Department in the summer of 1975, a speaker had prepared a paper on why the “middle way” was the pragmatic path the Conservative Party should take, avoiding the extremes of left and right. Before he had finished, Thatcher “reached into her briefcase and took out a book. It was Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty. Interrupting our pragmatist, she held the book up for all of us to see. ‘This’, she said sternly, ‘is what we believe’, and banged Hayek down on the table”

      Hayek has been extremely influential in the evolution of the classical liberal form of conservatism.

      Conversely Hayek said: “May one who has devoted a large part of his life to the study of the history and the principles of liberalism point out that a party that keeps a socialist government in power has lost all title to the name ‘Liberal’. Certainly no liberal can in future vote ‘Liberal'”.

      The label of “liberalism” mightily misused in any form today, Hayek stated as much; but so is conservative; look at German conservatism.

      • Conservatism in the US was based on defending the core values of democracy, the rule of law and individual freedom – because that was the tradition instituted by the founders. But without a philosophical basis for maintaining traditions of freedom labels mean nothing and signify only group identification. Jungeltrunks presumes that I take these labels at face value and that we may instead relabel for the 21st century – and thus claim Hayek as one of the neo-conservative tribe. Something that has less to do with appreciating the substance of Hayek’s social and economic thought and is more symbolic.

      • In his book “Why Liberalism Failed” Patrick J. Deneen posits that the synthetic joining of different types of western liberalism is doomed to fail.
        https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34746473-why-liberalism-failed
        “… Liberalism is built on a foundation of contradictions: it trumpets equal rights while fostering incomparable material inequality; its legitimacy rests on consent, yet it discourages civic commitments in favor of privatism; and in its pursuit of individual autonomy, it has given rise to the most far-reaching, comprehensive state system in human history.”

        I hope he’s wrong where this ends but some of his arguments ring true.

      • jungletrunks

        Robert, You should read Hayek’s work again: “Why I Am Not a Conservative”, an essay directed towards European conservatism:

        Hayek: “We should remember, however, that when the ideals which I have been trying to restate first began to spread through the Western world, the party which represented them had a generally recognized name. It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe [classical liberalism] and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution. Indeed, until the character of this tradition was altered by the accretions due to the French Revolution, with its totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings, “Whig’’ was the name by which the party of liberty was generally known.”

      • jungletrunks

        Your reply is meaningless in the context I presented. I’d say nice try, but it wasn’t.

  56. Physicistdave simply doesn’t get the classic liberal spirit of Hayek – or indeed his economics. Physicistdave’s comments consist of sophomoric slogans – no armies, no government even of the GOP it seems, no legislative review, etc – that he pursues with unabomber intensity. He pretends to a knowledge he doesn’t have and can’t of course explain – and then canvasses your support. No doubt savoring your plaudits in his imagination. Nor is his mode of uncivil discourse at all welcome.

    “There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. …. [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. … Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.

    “Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.” Hayek – The Road to Serfdom

  57. Idanefrila

  58. Did Trump have a teleporter accident when the doctors programmed it to remove the virus from his body?

    This must be a coverup.

    The proof will be in whether the fly on Pence’s hair had a Trump head on it.

    Why are they hiding the closeups of the fly?

    • Compare

      BRUNDLE
      So, I asked the computer if it improved me and it said it didn’t know what I
      was talking about. And that’s made me think very carefully about what I’ve
      been feeling, and why. And I’m beginning to think that the sheer process of
      being taken apart atom by atom and put back together again, why it’s like
      coffee being put through a filter. It’s somehow a purifying process. It’s
      purified me, it’s cleansed me. And I tell you, I think it’s going to allow me
      to realise the personal potential, I’ve been neglecting all these years. That
      I’ve been obsessively pursuing goal after goal.

      TRUMP
      To me it wasn’t therapeutic — it just made me better, OK? I feel great — I feel, like, perfect, I think this was a blessing from God, that I caught it. This was a blessing in disguise. I caught it, I heard about this drug, I said let me take it. Feel better than I did 20 years ago.

    • I listened to the debate on the radio so probably formed different impressions to someone viewing it with a commentator talking over it

      I thought Pence quite stolid and calm and rather boring. I didn’t like his opponents voice and found her to be a bit shrill, but she seemed well informed and didn’t make any particular mistakes or come over as extreme.

      So fairly even and neither of the debaters is likely to have frightened off potential supporters

      Tonyb

      • Robert Starkey

        I watched and thought Pence did poorly. He totally blew the climate resopnse.

      • Robert

        People will form different impressions either watching the action or just listening. Perhaps because I had to concentrate on the voices I found Pence slightly less irritating.

        Presumably the radio listenership will be much smaller than those viewing the spectacle.

        tonyb

      • Tonyb,
        Hi. As one of few republicans in democratic peoples republic of San Francisco, I thought Pence did well. Especially on climate change. Way exaggerated impacts of CAGW. Long term heating from 1880 to present may be natural or partially man made. I have not formed an opinion. I do notice the adjustments by NOAA and NASA of temperature record and placement of long term measurement equipment. But one can’t tell or attribute the increase at this time. I don’t think this causes wild fires. 100 years of forest mismanagement and beetle infestation contribute but not 2*F increase.

        From 900 to 1200 AD SW USA suffered long term drought and high forest fires incidents. Look to understand long term natural trends first.

        Take care
        Scott

      • Robert Starkey

        When Pence was asked by the biased moderator if he thought climate change was an existential threat he just stood there.

  59. Nancy pelosi threatens to use 25th amendment to remove Trump from office due to his erratic behaviour

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8819293/Trump-claims-cured-interview-COVID-hospital-treatment.html

    Scroll to foot of link for story

    Tonyb

    • Pointless theater – Bill Barr would stop it.

      Wow Trump has really pissed off the medical establishment. In the old days doctors were mostly hard core conservatives.
      “”New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday published a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration over its “astonishing” failure to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, writing that “this election gives us the power to render judgment” of current U.S. leadership.

      The world’s top medical journal has never before condemned or supported a political candidate, according to the New York Times, making Wednesday’s editorial a first in the publication’s 208-year history.”
      https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812

    • The article said she had this concern about his mental state when he canceled talks about the stimulus package. Of course, the House had been diddling around with it for months and then the instant (the very instant) they passed it she announced to the world they were waiting on Trump. In other words she told the world Trump was holding things up.

      He might be mentally incapacitated. Or, the more logical answer is that he used the sudden reversal as a negotiating tactic. I note things are moving again on the stimulus package. She is not used to getting jerked around and trolled by the master at both.

      • Go to article ‘pressure mounts for new lockdown’

        https://lockdownsceptics.org/

        A study was made of countries and US states that catered for the full range of covid reactions ranging from severe full lockdowns to much milder manifestations and basically it made no difference what measures were taken

        Tonyb

      • I just now read that Pelosi suddenly reversed herself on the stimulus package this afternoon. I wonder if there is a 25th Amendment counterpart for House Speakers when there is concern about their mental acuity.

        Some believe she is upset about the declassification of documents surrounding the Russia Collusion hoax and it’s possible implications of involvement by Biden and Obama.

        They are asking what did Obama know and when did he know it. The concept of retroactive impeachment comes to mind.

      • Tonyb,
        There will no more full lock downs for this virus. There are enough drugs/vaccines/therapies available within the next 90 days we won’t have to. There will be changes to global behavior that will last for decades but we will act more like Taiwan or S. Korea next time, Right?

      • House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy just announced he is putting a coalition of House Members to evaluate the mental fitness of Nancy Pelosi to serve as Speaker.

  60. The Harris Pence debate. Biden will not ban fracking and that’s a fact. Then we watch clips of him saying he’ll do that. AOC tweet, hipster blah blah bad. Her 2 million followers will say, oh what the heck, I’ll vote for them anyways. Because AOC is a sellout. What a losing energy policy Biden will bring. Harris was a fail. She was a fail in the primary. She locked up people for smoking pot. She didn’t answer about packing the Supreme Court.

    ‘She’s co-sponsored Medicare for All, backed the Green New Deal, pushed for higher taxes, called for open borders, defended sanctuary cities, demanded taxpayer-provided health care for illegal aliens, promoted late-term abortion, and endorsed a religious litmus test on Catholic nominations to the judiciary.”

    Last night I don’t think she answered about abortions in the 9 month. I guess that’s being a moderate. I do feel like saying, I don’t like abortion in the 9th months. But I don’t like Trump more than that. Because he’s so mean, we can worry about those later, when another Republican gets elected President. Donald Trump made me cry, so I am voting for Biden and those babies can fend for themselves. I had to live through 4 years of Trump.

    • When Harris-Biden pack the Supreme Court and create two new states and abolish filibuster, no Republican gets elected – ever.

      • “When Harris-Biden pack the Supreme Court and create two new states and abolish filibuster, no Republican gets elected – ever”.

        Would there be something wrong with that?

        DC and PR should have been states long ago. Each have populations greater than some states. The people in DC are taxed and have no representation. Residents in PR don’t pay federal taxes for the most part but they pay payroll taxes, social security taxes, business taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes and so on also with no representation. And another six justices with term limits might do a lot to get politics out of the courts.

      • I am glad you can make the argument. Biden and Harris cannot at this time. Los Angeles should be its own state. As should NYC. Houston. Chicago. There’s no end to it. I am for a pure democracy. We should each be our owns states and we should all serve on the Supreme Court at the same time. So you all are libertarians? Welcome to the club. We’re good. Biden is a libertarian. Happy day. We can smoke pot and Harris will not jail us for 5 years and then smirk.

      • Curious George

        James, there is everything wrong with living in one-party state. I survived it once and I don’t want to repeat the experience.

    • I’m voting for Trump because he acts like a big daddy.

      He tells us all the time he’ll fix everything like only he can. He’s a tough guy and voting for him makes me tough.

      He makes me feel more virile. I’ll vote for him.

      • Curious George

        +42 :-)

      • J:
        Trump has sort of danced to YMCA at a rally. Biden played something on his phone. On the basis of that alone, you know the right choice to make.
        You cannot be happy about Biden. We’re tired of watching hipsters apologize for being white. Tired of pointless wars. Seeing workers sold out. The establishment getting rich. Tired of men setting records in women’s sports. Tired of climate doom and cowering Republicans. You don’t like Trump and macho is bad. I know you can do better than that.

      • Ragnaar –

        > We’re tired of watching hipsters apologize for being white.

        You spend way too much time viewing rightwing podcasts. You’ve lost your sense of balance.

      • J:
        I want to be the first to admit you won. Biden won. I promise to not try to impeach Biden, to not support the FBI or you name it trying to get him. I promise to not fixate on him for the next 4 years but if he goes full demetia, I might have a problem with Harris. Now if either of them gets us into a pointless war or bans fracking I will blame you. Which I think is better than blaming them. I am kind of undecided on this last point. If the stock market crashes, and how would I know, I will not blame you or them. They can’t help themselves they suffer from all those things you may think I suffer from. But then I would blame big Democrat money for letting those two crash the market. I am counting on the market at the 50% level. But I have confidence in people like H. Clinton to not let the market crash. Really. My money was going to be safe with her. That’s what I thought 4 years ago. Enough to keep it all on the table. I accepted H. Clinton before she won.

      • Right wing podcasts, Sam Harris. Bret Weinstein.

      • Ragnaar –

        Yeah, that proves my point. Both are inherently rightwingers although they play moderates to gullible audiences.

      • And look – I don’t want to outrage mine. I’ll leave that for the “Waaaah, cancel culture” crowd.

        But you’ve been on here for weeks wetting your pants about Antifa. What do you have to say about today’s example of what the FBI says is the biggest threat of domestic violence?

        Do you remember all the times that Barr, Trump, et al. say that rightwing extremism isn’t a problem?

      • Should have said domestic terrorism. And before you go there, yes, Antifa is a problem and these guys no more equal “the right” or Pubz than Antifa equals “the left” or demz.

        But these right wing extremists are a problem and according to the FBI, apparently, more of a threat than Antifa (I don’t know how they measure such things). So I’m guessing you’re wetting the bed (in a macho kind of way)?

      • Matthew R Marler

        Joshua: I’m voting for Trump because he acts like a big daddy.

        He tells us all the time he’ll fix everything like only he can. He’s a tough guy and voting for him makes me tough.

        He makes me feel more virile. I’ll vote for him.

        That’s stupid (on purpose, I suspect).

        Trump worked for a tax cut that Biden has promised to repeal.

        Biden wants a Biden Green New Deal, a lot like the Harris/AOC green new deal, and Trump opposes that.

        Biden has promised to prohibit fracking as soon as he can, whereas Trump supports fracking.

        On COVID, Biden has promised to do what the Trump administration has been doing: support vaccine development, etc.

        There are lots more policy differences, well articulated in the two debates so far. Vote for the candidate/party whose policy preferences. are more like yours.

      • “Vote for the candidate/party whose policy preferences. are more like yours.”

        Absolutely, vote for the most progressive from of U.S. governance there is, conservatism, it’s the power of individualism that unlocks creativity for invention! Not collectivist bodies who decide how and when one must think, marching in lockstep. The biggest irony in modern day politics is that “progressives” are progressive, they’re actually regressive on all things that matter. Progressively advancing Marxism isn’t progressive at all for freedom and liberty of the individual. “It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.” –Hayek

      • “….unlocks creativity for invention.”

        A few years ago the World Almanac had a list of inventions, discoveries and innovations over the last 400 years. Individuals from the US had about 250 out of the 450 listed. Russia, during its Soviet Union heyday, had 1, high octane gasoline.

      • cerescokid “…the World Almanac had a list of inventions, discoveries and innovations over the last 400 years. Individuals from the US had about 250 out of the 450 listed.”

        Nice observation, cerescokid. And let’s not forget that modern China has been built from “progressively” stealing U.S. invention. Biden is in the back pocket of China, a vote for Biden is a vote to fund China’s appetite for stolen property. One of the most important things Trump has done is illuminate corrupt Chinese influence on Western democracy. People are going to be gobsmacked when the amount of collusion by American academics and politicians comes out, and it will come out.

  61. The Biden/Harris ticket is proof the DNC can get you vote for anybody. The RNC lost control of the 2016 primary. What became never Trumpers lost control. Proving some people do believe in a democracy.

  62. The Trump campaign should shift it’s emphasis from Biden to Kamala Harris and California. This would make a good Trump commercia:

  63. ““In such a highly partisan environment, false information can be easily disseminated. Health messaging, which is one of the few effective ways to slow down the spread of the virus in the absence of a vaccine, is being damaged by politically biased and economically focused narratives,” said Zhao and Wu.”
    Since CNN burned up its credibility a long time, people don’t listen to them when we need them to. And we don’t understand the importance of economic factors, let alone people not getting cancer treatments. You let them take your science and tell lies about it, and now you’re complaining.

  64. Who was it on this board that was touting Trump’s massive “success” with North Korea? Can we talk?

    -snip-
    Kim Jong Un unveils North Korea’s biggest intercontinental missile
    Pyongyang advances its weapons technology despite impact of sanctions and coronavirus
    -snip-

    https://www.ft.com/content/2a7b7ec0-1cd5-4b4a-bb03-0a0f5333ea37

  65. hoveringnefrila

    Jurassianefrila

  66. I admit to listening to Scott Adams. “One of the reasons you like President Trump is he doesn’t follow the science, because the science is often B.S.” – Today’s youtube video

    • WHO discourages lockdowns as U.S. hospitalizations continue climb; 11 states set records for new COVID-19 cases
      What about Biden? We know what Trump said. Biden will now discourage lockdowns.

  67. Rostislavnefrila

    vfhyznefrila

  68. E-Mails Confirm Hunter Biden Used Joe Biden’s VP Perch To Shake Down Corrupt Foreign Oligarchs For Cash

    The Media Do Not Want You To Read, Share, or Discuss The New York Post’s Hunter Biden Scoop
    Journalists should correct the story rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.
    – Robby Soave
    – Reason.com

    I hadn’t been posting much to Facebook about the election. With this story I did post. Reason.com being libertarian would not go along with restrictions on Facebook in a very general way. But I liked that they said something when a lot of media is trying to limit the story.

    Biden is corrupt. Politicians lie, but his family takes money. This is wokeness? A few of you will vote for Biden. This is your guy. This is your DNC. This is all those great things your party says. Taking money from other corrupt politicians from foreign lands. You understand why Trump won the first time and that your answer to that is no answer. It’s a pathetic answer. I feel sorry for you.

    • Do we know those emails to be true and if so can you summarise what they are telling us?

      Tonyb

      • Tonyb:
        I don’t know if it’s true. Reason.com ususally has a good take on things and a bias towards Facebook and Twitter’s defense. There’s bias against Trump broadly. And the Biden family is corrupted by foreign and domestic money.

      • “Indeed, two mainstream reporters who acknowledged (and criticized) the Post’s scoop—The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman and Politico’s Jake Sherman—faced thunderous denunciation on Twitter from Democratic partisans simply for discussing the story.”
        It’s this wall of attacks that even their own face. I think that indicates bad. Don’t do that. And these are the people to lead us? Is this a free speech issue? A tribal issue? In some ways it’s China lite. But self imposed. Backed by big money.

    • The email are fraudulent and originate from Giuliani. Quote from link:

      How do we know the email is authentic?

      We do not. The New York Post published PDF printouts of several emails allegedly taken from the laptop, but for the “smoking-gun” email, it shows only a photo made the day before the story was posted, according to Thomas Rid, the author of “Active Measures,” a book on disinformation. “There is no header information, no metadata.” The Washington Post has not been able to independently verify or authenticate these emails, as requests to make the laptop hard drive available for inspection have not been granted. The New York Post said it obtained the material from former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a personal lawyer to President Trump.

      What does the Biden campaign say?

      Andrew Bates, a campaign spokesman for Joe Biden, said a review of Biden’s schedules from 2015 finds no record of any such meeting. Officials who worked for Biden at the time told The Fact Checker that no such meeting took place.

      “I was with the vice president in all of his meetings on Ukraine,” said Michael Carpenter, Biden’s foreign policy adviser in 2015. “He never met with this guy. In fact, I had never heard of this guy until the New York Post story broke.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/14/hunter-bidens-alleged-laptop-an-explainer/

      • The emails are real and very important. Seth Rich was emailing about it when he died. Also about the unmasking.

      • You are impressed that the Washington Post ( the Democrats surrogate newspaper ) did an investigation and couldn’t authenticate that they were from Hunter Biden computer?

        You agree it should be investigated by the FBI right?

      • Yes, but not as real as the Chinese trademarks Ivanka received.

        “Ms. Trump’s growing portfolio of trademarks in China and the family’s business interests there raises questions about whether Chinese officials are giving the Trump family extra consideration that they otherwise might not get”.

        Of course, this is why Trump will bluster and brag but never really do anything serious about China. He has too many business interests there.

      • Sure, Rob, let’s investigate it after we investigate whether Trump is a Russian agent.

        https://www.salon.com/2020/09/04/why-trump-was-never-investigated-as-a-russian-agent_partner/

      • A recent Trump tweet. Time may solve it all.

      • Steve Scully, C-SPAN, who was to be the “impartial “ moderator at the 2nd Presidential debate, has been suspended after admitting he sent a tweet to a Trump hater asking for advice. He had previously claimed he was hacked and didn’t send the tweet.

        This development comes on the heels of Twitter admitting they censored tweets by the NYPost about the Biden blockbuster story. It also follows news that former executives of Twitter and Facebook are working on the Biden campaign.

        Talk about incestuous relationships.

      • Rob,

        Looks like you’re getting your wish. It is being investigated as a Russian intelligence disinformation effort. :)

      • James Cross

        “Looks like you’re getting your wish. It is being investigated as a Russian intelligence disinformation effort. :)”

        The Russian thing ain’t going to work meter is at high. The Hunter Biden emails are looking more true.

        But the I need this grifter (Biden) in the WH meter is also at high.

        Conclusion: They only thing I know is I hate Trump. I will burn down anything to make that happen. I would suggest counseling and cheaper yet, meditation. Where is Mosher these days?

        I think he left the country before the election. I admire that. Just leave. Don’t make an ultimatum like some child.

      • The account of how Giuliani got the emails is so absurd I do wonder if they could come from Russian intelligence. Drunk Hunter Biden (maybe it was him, maybe it wasn’t, nobody knows) drops off laptop at local Q Anon computer repair shop where owner finds an email with no meta-data of a meeting that nobody can find any evidence of actually happening and doesn’t bother to go back to retrieve the laptop.

        The only explanation I can think of is the Russians are making bets on which one of them can come up with the dumbest ploy that they can get the faux stream media to believe. Somebody must have cashed in on this one.

      • James Cross:
        “What about the part where the FBI had possession of this information back in December? Why didn’t the FBI come forward with this evidence about Hunter Biden’s emails, which appear to show collusion and influence-trading? Isn’t that something they should have told the president or members of Congress? Was the FBI deliberately covering it up? If the good citizen who came forward and alerted the FBI of the contents of the laptop had not made a copy of the information, it would still be under FBI lock and key. But the computer repairman did make a copy and sent it to Rudy Giuliani. If true, it’s a stunning indictment of the FBI that an American citizen—who alerted them to alleged multiple crimes involving a guy with the last name Biden—knew not to trust them and made other arrangements should they try to cover it up (which, apparently, they did).”
        I am going with the FBI has the computer. I am disappointed that you are suggesting the Russians. I don’t care what is lacking, the FBI has the computer. Where did the pictures and at least one video come from? Rudy G with the Russians. Why would I trust the FBI? Looks like that was burned up trying to get Trump. So, the FBI was involved in the last election, Trump’s term and this election. What a great group. But can we trust them now? I am going to trust them to point out a fraud here. We had about 3 years of the Democrats trusting them and making them as wholesome as apple pie. Do you think the FBI is in on this? It would be poetic.

      • Robert Starkey

        The FBI needs to explain their actions or lack thereof. If they determined the laptop was a fake, release a statement. If the determined it was not a fake, Chris Ray needs to be fired.

    • Another comment. A long time Trump said fake news. They were offended. He was going to end democracy by saying that. This episode isn’t fake news. It’s pathetically trying to block news. Then dismiss the news. And riducule the news. Something happened. Why shouldn’t we hear about it? He described/predicted this while they said, we are democracy. They’re frauds. They are fakes. They are trying to cling to power. If Trump wins, will fake news peacefully transistion itself to some other place? They did not the last time. They declared war.

  69. Hunter Biden is White Privilege. Joe, do the right thing. Be woke. You ain’t Black. Drop out of the race.

    • Almost no one is a strong supporter of Biden.

      Many are strongly opposed to anything and everything that Trump says or does.

      The latest dirt on the Biden family seemingly selling access probably won’t change many voters opinions. I wonder if it may reduce Democrat turnout on election day.

    • It does make it hard for the Democrats. Trump is terrible. Then this failure is who they vote for. The D.C. establishment wins with all their money and corruption. Liberals used to want to burn the government down. Now they want to protect it. What sell outs. They have become what they hated. And all that stuff they said in the their youth? B.S. Frauds.

  70. ‘Shoot them in the leg’: Biden has some police reform ideas at town hall
    https://www.dailydot.com/debug/biden-shoot-them-in-the-leg/
    Why do they let him talk? No one has every taught anyone that.

  71. I’ll say this for President Obama. You don’t see his kids raking in bags of cash from foreign countries do you? He was smart. He used his V.P as an example of what not to do.

  72. gjkbrctybznefrila

  73. Recent video:
    DarkHorse Podcast with Greg Lukianoff and Bret Weinstein
    Greg Lukianoff is a co-author of Coddling of the American Mind, and president of FIRE (https://www.thefire.org/). He discusses with Bret the current situation in the United States, how it relates to historical events, and what it might lead to.

    Colleges are covered, if you think FIRE can’t be trusted, watch the video.

  74. Hunter Biden’s hard drive: Russian disinformation.
    Does that mean Hunter Biden is a Russian Agent?

  75. Alekseichnefrila

    Ballardananefrila

  76. Ben Shapiro makes the best case for voting for Trump that I’ve seen anywhere — convinces me:

  77. Joe Biden will throw Hunter under the bus. What a corrupt man you’re dragging across the finish line. Where has Obama been? He knows Joe. Obama’s legacy will be, Not Joe. He will say, I didn’t do this. Recall the 1994 crime bill. He wants Joe to go away and be given the easy job of blaming Trump. The easy job.

  78. Why does Trump have a bank account in China?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54625422

    And it’s paid out money in taxes so Trump must have business there.

  79. The greenhouse effect is a fact inferred from data. So true according to Newton’s 4th rule.

    “The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1

  80. Robert wrote:
    “The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.”

    “the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.”

    It is not very large. The natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget is something 0,3 % at most.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1

    The atmosphere greenhouse effect on the Earth’s surface is not measured yet.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  81. With today’s news of confirmation the Joe Biden took money from China, he is the big guy, I was wondering how to explain this to my 25 year old grad student son.
    The MSM used to be against power. They have been against Trump’s power. But they are for Biden’s power. The MSM are the enemy of people Trump said and people were so offended. He was right. Trump made them do that. You can’t be for Joe Biden doing this and for the people. You can’t be for the end of the MSM being against power and for the people.The MSM is just power. There is nothing more than that. There is no Constitution. Maybe we always were going to get here. Maybe it’s a better place. This is what you all are. This is what we are. There is nothing that can hold Joe Biden accountable, but Trump can be held accountable. Those with power can crush anyone. There’s no defense against them doing so, because all there is is power. Joe Biden by winning cannot take us back to some previous place. He’d like to go back to 3 years ago and then retire. He is the symbol of power for as long as he lasts. Then he’ll be a symbol of failure as power not under his control consumes him. Enough on the Right will survive this election. The Republicans know a few things about power. I do think the timing of the Hunter Biden emails proves that. Joe Biden is being kneecapped right now. He’ll probably win. But he’s been impeached before he’s even elected. The Democrats will sacrifice him. And the Democrats are going to have to do a lot once Trump is out of office to shut him up. And Trump has his loyalists.

    • Ragnarr,
      That’s not how any of this works.
      Nobody is guilty of anything until they admit it on the record. Trump is innocent because he has never admitted to ever breaking any law, ever. Those 3,500+ lawsuits? That’s just a very active publicity campaign to boost his image and it’s tax deductible too.

      • James –

        Ragnaar – become someone who is very *concerned* about corruption was Biden all the way until this news came out. He was a HUGE fan of Biden

        Now that there’s rock solid evidence that Biden is exponentially more corrupt than ANYTHING Trump ever did, as hard as it has been for hi to do, he has switched sides.

        Because he cares so much about corruption.

      • The real scandal. In the long run a greater threat to democracy than any one person.

        Image-1.png

      • I hear Trump is feeling magnanimous and will issue a full pardon to Biden tonight.

      • As long as he adds his family to the list of people in his administration and campaign that are already on the list or have already been pardoned, I think it’s a good idea.

        At least he threw Clinton in jail on day one like he promised (along with getting Mexico to pay for the wall, getting that incredibly good and cheap healthcare plan in place, negotiating that deal for NoKo to denuke, reducing the deficit to zero, reversing the trade deficit, getting 4% GDP growth, draining the swamp, getting rid of lobbying, etc.).

      • You know, for a while I was getting worried that “the left” was going to take over in the red-baiting department.

        How silly of me to think that “the right” would ever relinquish the cheap tactic of impugning patriotism as a rhetorical device.

      • Justice K was not guilty of what they said he did. Do you remember that circus? This is a job interview to be the President. Guilt doesn’t matter, just like with Justice K. It needs to be investigated, like with Justice K. Are you going to sweep this under the carpet? What is the standard? There are none, including guilt. The Democrats destroyed everything. It’s just about power.

      • Wow, would you just look at the amazing Chinese. Their economy has fully recovered, stock mkt. soaring, most patents issued, largest navy. They just crushed a tiny COVID-19 outbreak and the MSM covered it up.
        “City In China Tests 10 Million People After 13 COVID-19 Cases Are Found
        October 16, 2020
        In the past five days, health authorities say they conducted more than 10 million coronavirus tests of all Qingdao residents, all of which came back negative. ”

        There only 2 ways this ends. China slowly strangles us with their economic and technological power or we change our culture and beat them at the same game. Who ever dominates in AI & genetic engineering will control destiny. I think that the major reason the US lets Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft build monopolies is to keep this power in US hands.

      • jack:

        China’s people will be free when they can live in Montana, and drive a pick-up with a rifle rack. They’ll never be us but we may become them. China whipped them, then gave them bread and circus. Our government has never whipped us. That’s why we’re great. We are not robots. We’re not pets. I believe like all people, they have what is takes. And someday they will be free. We at times see their dissidents. What they need they have. It just has to come out.

    • J:
      I don’t know what I stand for. Somewhere I said it’s just devolved into power. Trump has used his power for good. What is good? Employment. Raising people up. Having cheap reliable energy. Education. Lots of things. The Democrats have had their bad on display for four years. Biden’s power would be bad. You can make a pretty good list of why that is true. Joe Biden is corrupt. In no universe is he not corrupt. Nothing you will say will change that. He’s your answer. Because you were given only him as your answer. Someone cornered you into supporting Biden. It wasn’t me. I support Trump. Because of all the powerful people that have and are trying to take him out. Because it is the powerful that do it to us. He’s the enemy of my enemy. He’s taken them all on. He doesn’t cower and hide. President Joe Biden will go down in history as not Trump. An empty old corrupt vessel who threw his son under the bus.

      • I disagree with you about everything you wrote there.

        But at least you’ve willing to stop pretending you care about corruption. That’s an improvement.

      • > He doesn’t cower and hide.

        Of all the absurd things you wrote in that paragraph, that one tops the cake.

        The level of willing suspension of disbelief….it’s awesome.

      • Ragnaar,
        One of these days ‘we’ will get you…
        You will never see it coming and never remember that you ever supported all this stuff.
        Elon Musk is working on the hardware with “mind link” and Facebook will write the code.

        “Consciousness is physically integrated, and causally active, information encoded in the brain’s global electromagnetic field, according to the conscious electromagnetic information (cemi) field theory developed by University of Surrey’s Professor Johnjoe McFadden.

        Professor McFadden proposes that the brain’s information-rich electromagnetic field is in fact itself the seat of consciousness, driving ‘free will’ and voluntary actions.
        This theory also accounts for why, despite their immense complexity and ultra-fast operation, today’s computers have not exhibited the slightest spark of consciousness.”
        http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/neuroscience/cemi-field-theory-08973.html

        See also David Eagleman livewired

      • J:
        So what you’re saying is you don’t care about corruption. Joe Biden is still corrupt as the day is long. China has Joe Biden in their pocket. You’re fortunate this came out now. Not losing to China. I would call that good. Joe can’t do that. Too busy hiding and cowering and asking for his Jello. Trump’s got a pretty good idea of what to do. Joe doesn’t and he can’t do it. As President, the Democrats will getting rid of him from day one. Don’t vote for that guy. Joe Biden is the prize you won. Two years from now, Harris will be President and Republican will be about to win the House and the Senate. It’s going to be epic.

      • Joshua dislikes Trump so much that even with more and more evidence of Biden’s corruption he’ll still prefer Biden.

        TDS is real and many people can’t get past their hate of Trump.

        I think the key will be how it impacts voter turnout on election day. Will Democrats still get out and vote in high numbers???

      • > So what you’re saying is you don’t care about corruption.

        No. That isn’t what I’m saying. This is what happens when you limit your thinking to a binary framework.

        That is definitely not what I’m saying. Try again. Put on your non-binary thinking cap.

      • > Joshua dislikes Trump so much that even with more and more evidence of Biden’s corruption he’ll still prefer Biden.

        From what evidence we have thus far of “corruption,” to the extent that corruption of a candidate is a decision criterion for whom I will vote for, Trump’s level of corruption is waaay more disqualifying. It’s not even close.

        I don’t pretend that corruption, of the legal sort, isn’t a piece of Biden’s profile as with virtually every single other politician in Washington. It has been also true if Trump since he’s been in Washington, on a massive scale. And it has been a part of Trump’s profile (if from the other side of the corruption game) on a massicd scale for decades. Trumo has openly bought influence from politicians at exteneley high levels of play, across a broad spectrum of vectors, for decades and decades. His whip status of wealth was purchased through influence by his father before he inherited his silver spoon.

        The willing suspension of disbelief by cult members, to actually believe that he isn’t a corrupt politician who achieved his politician status after decades of corrupt business dealings, is a sight to behold.

        That you would foist onto me some gullible belief in the high moral character of the politician I will vote for, simply becsuee he’s the politician I will vote for, is what’s called “projection.”

        I can at least respect those people who say they won’t vote for either candidate because they don’t want to vote for a corrupt candidate. But people who tell themselves Just-So stories to hide from Trump’s massive corruption don’t earn my respect.

      • jacksmith,

        You’re really OT with that one but it is an area I’ve been particularly interested in.

        I don’t know why people keep referring to McFadden’s theory as a “new theory” since it goes back almost 100 years and includes Karl Popper among its proponents. Even McFadden and Pockett were publishing on the theory nearly 20 years ago. The latest paper is primarily a summation that incorporates some new arguments and data.

        https://broadspeculations.com/2020/10/21/em-field-integrates-information-spatially-in-brain/

      • James Cross,
        Yes I was aware of that this theory of conscience isn’t new. I keep a few news bots looking for breakthroughs in the mind-machine interface world and that popped up. I see from your link you are far more versed in the details than I am.
        There are few things than humans can do to alter the nature of our reality more profound than understanding how the brain functions. One of our biggest blind spots is accounting for temporal bias in our reasoning and I must keep reminding myself that there maybe ways of reasoning that our bio-electrical brains are incapable of performing due to physical limitations. AI is a way to move beyond that.

  82. BREAKING

    Tony (I’ve got the goods) Bobulinski will be Trump’s “special “ guest tonight at the debate.

    • Maybe he can get some advice from Rudy (or Jeffrey?) what to do with his hands while watching?

    • Bizarre that people keep associating Biden with China when Trump is the one with the tax paying bank account and Ivanka is one with the sweetheart marketing deals there. And that’s just what we know about.

      “But so far the Bobulinski allegations seem like bubkes. At 10:47, minutes after the debate ended, the Wall Street Journal, part of the same media empire as Fox News and the Post, reported, “Text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden” — the former vice president’s brother — “discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.”

      Even if Bobulinski is telling the truth, that Joe Biden knew about the China enterprise, it’s not clear what the scandal is — he was a private citizen at the time and not yet running for president. Trump has elevated an unsubstantiated assertion that Biden had knowledge about his son’s legal and failed business venture to a “crime” for which he “should be in jail.” To put in context how absurd this allegation is, one of the first things George W. Bush did after he left the White House was deliver a paid speech in China. Somehow he remains at large”.

      https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/hunter-biden-wins-the-debate-431558

  83. Here’s what Bannon and Rudy are doing. There’s more coming. It’s timing. We know attention spans are short. Democrats are going to start to break from this trainwreck. Biden’s win is going to be dam of sewage breaking and flooding the land. And people saying, the promised land at last. Biden will have restored decency. I know it will be hard to recognize. But this will be our Utopia.

    • Yeah, sure, like people are really going to believe Trump, Rudy, and Bannon because… because…they did have such a great track record. LOL

    • Bannon and Trump won the WH against the Clinton machine. They have a good record of making leftists dysfunctional. So say what you want about Bannon, I thank him for that. If you find Bannon’s laptop, all bets are off though.

  84. Joshua dislikes Trump so much that even with more and more evidence of Biden’s corruption he’ll still prefer Biden.

    TDS is real and many people can’t get past their hate of Trump.

    I think the key will be how it impacts voter turnout on election day. Will Democrats still get out and vote in high numbers???

    • I think the general consensus amongst the British (mostly hostile to Trump press) is that Trump performed much better this time round and landed a few blows. He certainly didn’t lose the debate and arguably won it.

      All in all the general thoughts are that if Trump had performed like that in the first debate he wouldn’t be trailing Biden by 10 points. Biden is not viewed with great enthusiasm by many here.

      I haven’t see this debate yet after the unpleasant shouting fiasco of the last one.

      Might try and catch it later

      tonyb

      • HI Tony

        More evidence of blatant bias for Biden was a pre debate report by NBC about the Hunter Biden emails. Until the last day or so the authenticity and damage value was questionable. However, the FBI has the computer and witnesses have vouched for the emails and confirmed that Joe Biden was the “Big Guy” referenced in one email when discussing who would be cut in on the investment. The media is saying it’s part of Russia disinformation while the FBI and National Intelligence agency says it’s not. In reporting last night the NBC reporter said the emails could not be verified (that is now false) and that many former intelligence officials said it had the hallmark of Russia disinformation. An unbiased reporter would have said the FBI and National Intelligence agency said there was no evidence of Russia disinformation but former officials said there was.

        Typical water carrying by the MSM for the Democratic Party.

      • Tony,

        Your convoluted attempts to justify your consistent support for Trump are always entertaining, thank you.

        On UK views of the two, some evidence might enlighten, though I doubt it.

        https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2020/10/08/europe-wants-joe-biden-beat-donald-trump

      • I enjoy them also, Tony. Very creative.

      • Tony:

        It’s been suggested you’re a Trump lackey. Would either Trump or Biden be prosecuted in the U.K.? Biden was paid off by foreign companies while V.P. Trump is corrupt in some way, though I haven’t seen specifics here that I can recall. I suppose Trump paid of New York politicians but I don’t think that makes Trump corrupt. Does the fact that Exxon pays off foreign governments make them corrupt for that specific act?

      • VTG and Joshua

        Hmm. Perhaps your own extreme political bias is showing through and has clouded your judgement? The general consensus amongst those press without a rabid left wing bias was that Trump did much better this time round, although after the last fiasco that is not saying much.

        I am certainly no supporter of Trump. Equally I think Biden is a waste of time. Which doesn’t mean to say that everything either of them does is wrong.

        America could and should do much better than these two candidates

        tonyb

      • VTG

        Your point? The British and most European press doesn’t like Trump, nor do most of the people. If you read my remarks I said Biden is not viewed with much enthusiasm in Europe. However Trump is viewed with even less enthusiasm.

        instead of distorting my views and believing in my non existent kinship with Trump, perhaps you can clarify why America has produced two candidates of this nature this time round and in 2016?

        tonyb

      • Ragnaar

        Britain has a very investigative press. I doubt if any politician in the top positions could survive either a big financial or a big se* scandal.

        tonyb

      • Tony,

        Rather than guess at my “extreme political bias” you might more usefully ask how you continually arrive that the conclusion that Trump is the best candidate, whilst simultaneously not being a supporter(!).

        Your continued very amusing attempt to portray Trump and Biden as comparable shows how extreme your own views are in reality, compared to the population you live in, as per the referenced poll.

      • Tony –

        VTG gets to the point. You are, in fact, the extreme outlier in the UK with respect to your political views on the US election.

        As for the candidates – each actually makes a lot of sense as a candidate given the US electorate and our two party system.

        Trump is a good candidate as his skill for hate-mongering is what enables a minority party to have a chance at disproportionate political power. The Republican electorate has shown that no candidate can hold the more traditional Republican voters with the far-right elements. So after cutting out basically anyone who doesn’t support the more extreme elements, they need a figure like Trump who can rally motivate the more extreme elements.

        Biden is a good candidate in that he’s mediocre and thus can avoid splitting a party that has such a wide ideological framework.

        This is what we have with our two party, winner take all, zero sum structure that has now become completely polarized along party lines. All issues are viewed with the partisan lens. We used to have similar levels of polarization, but there was more diversity within the parties.

        If things continue along these lines it may be unsustainable. For example, it’s quite likely that pubz will have majority power in the Senate and the presidency despite getting a distinct minority of votes within each branch, and a senator from Montana representing 1/60 as many voters as a senator from California. They will also have power in the House out of proportion to the number of people who voted for them. Given that there are only two parties, no coalitions are needed and peope have no realistic option other than voting for the lesser of two evils.

      • VTG

        Hilarious. You mistake a degree of even handedness as being my extreme bias which says more about you than it does about me. I am not and never have been a Trump supporter I am not and never have been a Biden supporter. The US can do better. Its about time it did.

        I am very moderate and in that respect have been the mainstream winner in each of our last six major elections. If I were extreme I would have been on the losing side each time wouldn’t I?.

        I think you need to stop jumping to conclusions as you appear to have a habit of jumping the wrong way.

        tonyb

      • tony –

        > I am not and never have been a Trump supporter I am not and never have been a Biden supporter.

        Ok. Thanks. Now I understand.

        So it’s merely unbiased analysis combined with coincidence that you happen to always find that even though you’re not a supporter of either, Trump always comes out ahead in your analysis.

        Got it now.

      • Joshua

        Thanks for your interesting reply

        “they need a figure like Trump who can rally motivate the more extreme elements. ”

        So are you suggesting that the only people voting for Trump are extremists? In which case there appears to be a solid 40% plus of the American voters you can put in this category?

        “Biden is a good candidate in that he’s mediocre and thus can avoid splitting a party that has such a wide ideological framework.”

        I get Biden and his purpose, but I dare say that, like us, you have many mediocre candidates and surely someone a little younger and livelier might have drawn more votes without alienating anyone? Or are some people voting for Biden in the hope of getting his running mate a year or two down the line, in which case there may be as many fearful to vote for Biden for the same reason

        tonyb

      • tony –

        > So are you suggesting that the only people voting for Trump are extremists? In which case there appears to be a solid 40% plus of the American voters you can put in this category?

        I can see why you’d get that, but no. There are some for whom voting for Trump is a practical consideration. It’s a zero sum, lesser of two evil question for some voters – less so with Biden as a candidate than Clinton as a candidate. That isn’t entirely unlike my calculation in deciding to vote for Biden – as is the case for many Demz voters as well.

        But there are a LOT of lifetime Pubz who have looked at that setup and left the Party. Among legislators, there are hardly any politicians left within the Pub party who can survive without a “dear leader” like fealty to Trump. Romney is one and Sasse is another (milder version). There are practically no others.

        There is, at this point, much more diversity within the Demz Party than the Pubz Party. I don’t attribute that to anything in particular about the character of the ideology of the different parties or their supporters. It just works out that way because there is, naturally, a much more diverse electorate in the Demz side of the ledger. The Pubz can survive with basically little diversity because their “little diversity” represents a constituency that is of a size close-enough to a majority to make them viable. And they can continue to leverage age that circumstance to maintain power even as they become a smaller and smaller minority over time.

        > I get Biden and his purpose, but I dare say that, like us, you have many mediocre candidates and surely someone a little younger and livelier might have drawn more votes without alienating anyone?

        Possible. But there’s always another side of the coin. I used to wonder at how the Demz could settle on such a mediocre set of candidates….Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Biden. How is that possible? At some point you have to begin to think it isn’t only a coincidence. There is a “self-selection” bias in that maybe people who want to become politicians are more inclined than average to be mediocre from the start…. But at some point it isn’t merely coincidence that the most mediocre of people (with relatively high unfavorability ratings) keep being the people who get the most votes in the nomination process.

        > Or are some people voting for Biden in the hope of getting his running mate a year or two down the line, in which case there may be as many fearful to vote for Biden for the same reason.

        That’s the kind of naive, conspiracy-like innocent question that after some time begins to look ridiculous, tony. This isn’t some secret plot by those commie evil-doers who are manipulating Manchurian candidate Biden in hopes of installing their preferred evil-doer in the form of Harris.

        Maybe the problem is that you over-consume rightwing media and get your info from extremely skewed sources like the commentariate here and at WUWT?

      • Joshua

        You were dong so well with your interesting 11.20 reply until you accused me of conspiracy theories

        You have a possible President who will be 78 if elected. His health is subject to question and his running mate therefore takes on more than usual importance. If I were looking to vote for Biden I would ask myself If I were happy if this meant it was possible, if not certain, that his running mate could step into the shoes of power.

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/11/joe-biden-kamala-harris-vp-running-mate-analysis

        There will be some that will like the idea, some that will be indifferent and some who may be uneasy, for whatever reason. That is no sort of conspiracy theory just thinking ahead a little way to a realistic scenario.

        tonyb

      • Tony –

        If you are asking whether a significant number people are voting for Biden because they want Harris as president then you are falling into conspiracy ideation whether you know it or not.

        1) Harris is no more popular with demz voters than Biden.
        2) she’s probably even less popular than been with the most influential people within the party.
        3) there’s a lot of data that show that the vice-president candidate has little influence over the election. Even if that influence might be higher this year than typical, you have no evidence that has gone from or actually none to very, very little.
        4) there is am industry of conspiracy mongers who are selling the notion that Harris is the secret attempt by influential dems to install a radical commie in the Whitehouse. If you get your ideas from conspiracy mongers, or your ideas are congruent with the garbage conspiracy mongers are peddling, then you’re going with a conspiracy. Use your common sense instead.

      • James

        Don’t bet the family farm that Biden will win double digits. Don’t bet lunch money that he wins at all.

        After the election pollsters will be making excuses all over the place for their incompetent and fraudulent numbers. Just like 4 years ago.

      • Joshua

        Your 4) in particular is way over the top. I suggested no such thing. I am merely saying that surely any prudent person will look at the VP credentials as there is a more than usual possibility they may move into the top job. That is not a conspiracy but merely making a proper assesment of the situation

        Tonyb

      • Tony:

        “…perhaps you can clarify why America has produced two candidates of this nature this time round and in 2016?”

        That’s a good question though, we look down on the rest of the world. Greatness has it’s problems. Trump is liked. He is there because the system failed. I don’t think that’s debatable. The Republicans lost touch. The Country Club Republicans who thought Jeb Bush was the one. Trump isn’t owned. The establishment tried to prove he was. They may get him out but I think that will prove to be a hollow victory.

        Biden is just old school and typifies the Democrats also losing touch. Replaying the past. The past with Republican amounts of money. Trying to be Country Club Republicans. The Democrats are just liberal Republicans trying to control their nutjob left, like they’ve been doing for 50 years. The nutjob left is actually right in that their party is selling them out like they stabbed Sanders in the back in 2016 and 2020.

        The DNC is so inbred they put up Biden with his foreign corruption and they thought they’d get away from it. And it looks like they will. Dragging their voters 90% of the way into the D.C. Swamp. Where I am sure they’ll be happy.

        We used to faith in our government. That’s proven to be the wrong thing to do. We used to have faith in our institutions and they failed us. We used to have faith in our corporations but they sold us and themselves out.

        The answer is still where it’s always been. With ourselves. That is what made us great.

      • Ragnaar – While Biden is nominally the candidate – the payload of this Blue Virus is Camela Harris.

  85. Dionysianefrila

  86. Biden predicts a bleak future with 200,000 more people dead from coronavirus
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
    The deaths curve hasn’t flattened yet. It’s going through flyover country. SD, MN, WI.
    But what is to be done? Sacrifiice more children. Yes they are 6 years old and live with one parent in a bad neighborhood. Old person, here’s from them to you.
    All you old people here. You can take a child’s stuff. Biden will help you with that.

  87. J:

    Biden has been bought. Trump is incapable of being bought. You say they are both corrupt. Fine. Trump will burn anyone. Biden cannot. He’d cower. Trump has nothing to lose and is not the Beta. Biden owes China and his left wing. Trump doesn’t owe anyone in his party a damn thing. He’ll go after people in his own party. You’re a good person. You’re electing a weak President. Who feels guilty.

  88. Malice is closer to anarcho libertarianism than 99% of us.
    No regrets video:

    Comedian Dave Smith joins Michael again this week, for a discussion on the changes in perspective that come with bearing responsibility for a child, the importance of taking physical violence off the table as a possibility when parenting, the blossoming conspiracies surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop, who among Trump, Biden, and Justice Breyer may not survive until Election Day…

    Malice is just fun, he’s not a doomster. He has the idea that this chaos is bringing us towards what libertarians have been saying. It’s all bleeped up and the current power structure is transforming. People are realizing this is bleeped up. The politicians are just repeating their mantras and sticking with what worked in the past. The rich are consolidating their positions and have exit plans in place. Sound familiar? So what are we for? Liberty. You’re going to need it.

  89. Moving post to this more appropriate article:

    Mr. Bobulinski, who served as CEO of the firm Sinohawk set up by the Bidens, provided fresh details about Joseph Biden’s involvement in a deal with Chinese firm linked to the Chinese Communist Party that ultimately funneled $5 million to the Biden family.

    Mr. Trump invited Mr. Bobulinski to the debate, where, according to reports, the president plans to point him out during the debate and confront Mr. Biden about the questionable deals.

    He said Hunter Biden used the Chinese credit line as his “personal piggy bank.”

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/22/tony-bobulinski-hunter-biden-ex-business-partner-i/

    • See WSJ article I cited above. No evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement in his brother’s and son’s failed business deal in China and nothing illegal if he actually had been involved in a failed business deal in China. The Trump family on the other hand…

      • James, I’m not sure which of your 51 posts contain that article, but now there are at least two independent sources documenting Biden’s corruption. One, the HB laptop and now three cell phones belonging to a first person witness of the crimes. He will be testifying before Congress today. You are carrying water for the Dimowits, but your bucket has a really big hole.

        Former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski is going to turn over his electronic devices and business records to the FBI and appear Friday before two Senate committees investigating accusations centered on content from a laptop linked to Hunter.

        Fox News’ reporter John Roberts tweeted:

        “Tony Bobulinski will announce that he will turn his electronic devices and records of business dealings with Hunter and Jim Biden over to the FBI”
        Bobulinski, a retired Navy lieutenant and CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, will hold a briefing in Nashville, Tennessee, as he attends Thursday night’s debate as a guest of President Donald Trump, Roberts also reported.

        https://www.newsmax.com/politics/tony-bobulinski-fbi-hunter-biden-pay-for-play/2020/10/22/id/993351/

      • jim2,

        Even what you quote doesn’t show any evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement.

        – The Wall Street Journal newsroom has found that texts and emails recently given to the publication by Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, provide no evidence that Joe ever used his political standing as a former vice president to aid Hunter’s business dealings in China.

        https://www.newsweek.com/wsj-newsroom-found-no-joe-biden-role-hunter-deals-after-reviewing-bobulinskis-records-1541553

        Trump is desperate and grasping at straws. The national nightmare will be over soon.

      • Biden is a sĺeezy swamp creation who has used his position to enrich himself.

        Nobody wants Biden as president. People simply don’t want Trump regardless if he is effectively.

    • jim2 –

      Highest # of hospitalizations yesterday in two months. Have been tacking upwards for weeks.

  90. Evidence of Joe’s involvement because there were efforts to shield him. WSJ probably were misled by these actions.

    In May 2017, according to texts obtained by Fox News, Gilliar warned Bobulinski, “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.”

    Bobulinski replied, “OK they should be paranoid about things.”

    Texts also show Bobulinski saying, “U need to stress to H, does he want to be the reason or factor that blows up his dad’s campaign, things need to be done right and protective of that fact.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hunter-biden-business-partner-confirms-email-showing-joe-was-offered-ten-percent-stake-in-chinese-business-deal/

    • jim2,

      That was 2017. Even if the allegations are true, what would be illegal about Joe Biden, a private citizen, doing a business deal in China? Trump himself in the middle of the debate said he was trying to do business deals in China.

      • What is illegal is that the “deal” was access and influence to/of the US government in exchange for money. The money was laundered by giving Hunter jobs and businesses, then Hunter paid sleepy Joe. Joe didn’t take money DIRECTLY from a foreign government, the foreign government got it into Hunter’s hands, then Hunter gave it to sleepy Joe.

      • He wasn’t a part of the government in 2017.

      • Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˌrɒbɪˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/ ROB-ih-NET BY-dən;[1] born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who served as the 47th vice president of the United States in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017.

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

      • Your point that he wasn’t VP in May ’17 is correct. Bobulinski ‘s phones span 2015 to 2018. He was actively corrupt while in office.
        Do we really want a criminal as President of the USA?

      • Your point that he wasn’t VP in May ’17 is correct. Bobulinski ‘s phones span 2015 to 2018. He was actively corrupt while in office.
        Do we really want a (krem i naal) as President of the USA?

      • joe - the non constitutional scholar

        Jom2 – “Do we really want a (krem i naal) as President of the USA?”

        I concur – but it requires 2/3 vote in senate to convict. What do you think the chances of getting 17 or so Dem senators out of 50 to demonstrate a sufficient level of ethics or any ethics

      • joe – the comedian. :)

      • Surely jim2 you realize that Biden’s involvement ended when the Orange Man got sworn in at his pathetically small inauguration.

        But let’s review this story.

        1- At its core it is a failed business deal so nothing actually happened.
        2- WSJ found no evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement in the deal.
        3- If Biden had been involved, it would have been as private citizen doing business in China – the same as Trump.
        4- Biden’s supposed influence with the government, if the deal had worked, would have had to have been influence with the Trump administration so the Trump administration would have been complicit.

        This is obviously a pathetic smoke screen because Trump is losing it so badly.

      • James –

        When did Seth Rich get involved. And who did they unmask to find out?

      • In the UK whoever is the winner of the general election moves into No 10 on the day after the election. He is then sworn in by the queen. So there is no dead period.

        Does the president still have any real power from election day until they leave the white house three months later? Is the country in limbo?

        Tonyb

      • I think the covid tracking project and bill gates are involved also.

      • James Cross said: This is obviously a pathetic smoke screen because Trump is losing it so badly.

        You wish, James. There are too many sources for the FBI to bury now. Biden is toast.

      • James – I’m disappointed your handlers couldn’t come up with something better than those 4 lame talking points. If that’s the best you’ve got, I feel sorry for the Dimowits.

      • Jim –

        Looks to me like you’ve got name-calling and conspiracy theories and that’s about it.

      • I wasn’t sure if Biden was toast until I saw this article at the Fox News website:

        -snip-
        A C-SPAN caller strongly suggested Friday that he is “leaning” toward voting for President Trump due to the lack of mainstream media coverage of the growing Hunter Biden controversy.
        -snip.

      • C-SPAN is where the Russians get their best conspiracy theories and fine tune their pro Trump social media techniques by listening to crazy right wingers. This is where they got the idea to tie Russian support of renewable energy to the war against fracking.

      • I love winning. That is why I back Trump.

      • Well, at least we can get past your pretense that CORRUPTION!!!!11!!!1!!! is a real concern of yours.

  91. Trumps achievements in the Middle East alone are reason enough to give him another four years, and also an award of the Nobel Prize.

    In a historic joint call afterwards, he also announced a “very special deal” between Israel and Sudan — marking the third Arab country to move toward normalizing relations with the Jewish state in an election-season push by his administration. It’s unclear if Sudan, which had pushed back on the White House efforts, is formally recognizing Israel or ending hostilities against it.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-lifts-sanctions-sudan-announces-deal-israel/story?id=73788360

  92. “Global warming is an existential threat to humanity,” Biden said. “We have a moral obligation to deal with it and we’re told by all the leading scientists in the world we don’t have much time.

    • I wish Trump would have asked who are these leading scientists who believe we only have 10 years to avoid catastrophic consequences from CO2. What model have they used?

  93. You will recognize the edit.

    More Hunterleaks. Turns out the Biden Kr+i+me Cartel Family was involved in something called “Project Hanson” which helped a communist Chinese military contractor acquire a Michigan based manufacturer. Obama and Biden approved of the sale of the Michigan company in 2015, so this was while Biden was using his influence in office as VP.

    https://ussanews.com/News1/2020/10/23/project-hanson-biden-thugs-helped-communist-chinese-military-contractor-acquire-michigan-manufacturer/

  94. Washington – Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is raising concerns over the process by which the Obama administration’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) approved the acquisition of a U.S. automotive technology company, Henniges, with reported military applications. Henniges was reportedly jointly acquired by Chinese government entities and an investment firm linked to family members of then-Vice President Joe Biden and other Obama administration officials. In his letter to Department of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Grassley is requesting documents associated with the approval of the transaction, as well as other details that may speak to the legitimacy of the decision-making process, including any potential coordination with the Obama-Biden White House.

    https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/grassley-raises-concerns-over-obama-admin-approval-of-us-tech-company-joint-sale-to-chinese-government-and-investment-firm-linked-to-biden-kerry-families

    • Lol.

      Let’s say 20% of black viewers watched the debate.

      And you think almost 1/2 of all blacks likely to vote changed their views on Trump, formed after his 4 years in office, because of what they saw during the debate?

      Think of the math

  95. …black voters not black viewers..

    • I thought this was a pretty good article.

      But then again, tracking Fiddy % is much more evidence-based.

      https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-two-party-system-obscures-the-complexity-of-black-americans-politics/

      • Joshua

        You often comment on the two party system ( see I do take notice) but what is the alternative in a country as large and disparate as America?

        Would you favour proportional representation or hope that a viable third and fourth party come along?

        Tonyb

      • Political parties have come and gone throughout American history. Both the Dems and the Repubs have deep philosophical differences within their own camps.

      • Tony –

        My concern is that our country is likely more polarized across parties and less diverse within parties than at any other time in our history. That’s not really a fault of the system as no one in the 18th century could have foreseen how our country has become atomized into such hostile camps.

        It’s not that I’m necessarily concerned about this at some abstract level – in theory anything might work…but I am worried that the situation on the ground could well not remain sustainable. We seem to be locked into a vicious cycle where the partisanship makes the polarization worse and the polarization makes the partisanship worse. At what point does the white/rural versus diverse/urban polarization cause our system to crumble under its own weight. It’s a unknown, but again at a theoretical level I can see where it might reach a point if instability.

        Suppose in this election Trump loses the popular vote by some 6% but is ahead in the electoral college count on the night of the voting and then after more votes are counted winds up behind in both departments And suppose the Pubz challenge enough votes to turn the election back again and it goes to SCOTUS with three judges hearing the case who have been appointed by Trump, and suppose there isn’t overwhelmingly clear evidence that there was fraud but the state electors in enough states didn’t go with the majority votes – enough to turn the election and/or that SCOTUS ends the counting at some point….

        Or suppose that SCOTUS sustains an electoral college total that works out to put Biden over the top after he was losing on election night.

        I tend to think that people tend towards being too alarmist about this kinds of large-scale developments. In my life experience, we muddle through even when people hand-wring and foresee doom. But at the same time I’m not sure how we get through those kinds of scenarios, and even if we do get through it, how sustainable would it be if the Senate moves even further into a state of disproportionate status where a minority of the Senators from diverse/urban states represent 70% of the electorate and a majority of the Senators represent something like 30% of the electorate (as some projections happening fairly soon)? Do we just keep heading into that kind of scenario, hoping that because our institutions have proven resilient in the past they will prove resilient now? Do we ignore the potential of the possibly unprecedented polarization across party lines to undermine the resiliency of our institutions of government?

        I hope that we can be proactive and begin to work on institutional reform, with a recognition of the potential dangers we’re headed into. Yes, a system to ensure more proportional representation would be one type of reform we might move towards – even minimizing the power of legislatures to gerrymander would help in that regard. And I think that having more parties would help. And I think that ranked-choice voting could help.

        These kinds of institutional reforms have taken place in the past. But in our current state it’s hard to visualize how reforms might take place because there is so little good faith being extended across party lines. I think if Biden wins (which I think won’t happen), there’s a chance that he will be able to help spur bipartisan reform initiatives. My guess is that he’d like to move in that direction, although as we saw with Obama, it seems that Republicans, on balance, have no interest in bipartisan reform. But perhaps if Trump loses the Republican Party he leaves behind will be more open to bipartisan reform than they were in the past?

        If Trump wins, especially if he wins with a significantly smaller popular vote, and if the Senate continues to reflect disproportionate power being distributed to a powerful minority – I see zero hope for any bipartisan reform within any near-term future. Speculating about what kinds of reforms might work would be absolutely pointless.

      • Joshua

        Thanks for your interesting reply. From this side of the pond America looks very polarised. If trump should narrowly win I see a repeat! on a much larger scale, of the rioting we saw when he won in 2016 .

        I see no charismatic leader of any of the main parties who could get two terms and create some sort of reconciliation. Perhaps you can see someone?

        Tonyb

      • Tony –

        > Perhaps you can see someone?

        Charismatic leader? No. But these days anyone charismatic tends to wind up exacerbating polarization for the most part – becaiae both sides see this as a zero sum scenario. That’s where a system with multiple viable parties might help. In such a situation, I think, that everything would less likely down to compromise = a loss.

        But maybe what we need is someone mediocre who has a real interest in bipartisanship. In that sense, Biden might fit the bill. He’s certainly totally mediocre. And he at least pays lip service to bipartisanship. If course, politicians always try to craft an image and usually it’s phony. But Biden does have a fairly long history of leaning towards bipartisan engagement. One question is whether he could gain any support from the left side of the demz coalition for bipartisanship. They feel that Obama tried that and got burned. If Biden gains the presidency and the demz maintain the House, and particularly if they take the Senate along with that – they would likely see bipartisanship as capitulation, again, particularly since Pubz had an official policy of rejecting Obama’s appeals to bipartisanship.

        But maybe if the pubz are in bad shape after the election they may actually see compromise as their best option. It’s a long shot but it isn’t impossible I don’t tbink. Maybe between some interest in bipartisanship from some pubz and from moderate dems Biden could offer enough meat in the bones to lefty demz to get them to moderate their opposition. Biden’s very campaign mygjt be instructive. There are some lefties who constantly attack Biden, for sure (see Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi as examples), but for the most part they’ve swallowed their ideological preferences enough to support a moderate dem against Trump. Of course, opposing Trump is a stronger motivation perhaps than a accepting compromise with moderate dems and pubz who suddenly act interested in compromise after years of absolute rejection of compromise. But there are some issues that could serve as stepping stones – like a massive infrastructure program, for example, or a comprehensive immigration reform, who j are issues thst get a fair amount of support on both sides of the aisle.

  96. The devil is in the details. It depends on which Black voters where go for Trump. Same with Latinos. I do know I’ve seen more Blacks on TV talking positively about Trump. Krem-eye-naal reform and Opportunity Zones have made an impression.

    Also, more and more Blacks are entering the Middle Class or better. Affluence and property ownership changes one’s politics.

    Rapper 50 Cent on Tuesday confirmed that he’s backing President Trump for re-election, saying he could become “20 Cent” under Democrat Joe Biden’s plan for higher taxes.

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/20/50-cent-backs-trump-i-dont-want-to-be-20cent-under-biden/

    • The Trump campaign, largely under Jared’s influence, has definitely decided that one way they can expand begins their base is to target lack voters.

      There’s some evidence they’ve made some marginal increase among some younger black males. Not much at all among women and older black voters.

      Given the rate at which young black males vote, it isn’t likely to have a huge impact but may improve upon the @83% deficit he had in the black vote in 2016. Not clear if that would be enough to compensate for the white working class voters he’s lost. Of course, what matters most is what happens in key states and whether he can being out voters who didn’t vote last time. Unlikely Biden will be able to do that.

  97. Joe Biden calls climate change the ‘number one issue facing humanity’

    “Global warming is an existential threat to humanity,” Biden said. “We have a moral obligation to deal with it and we’re told by all the leading scientists in the world we don’t have much time.”

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken

    • “hobgoblins”

      They’re comin’ for your suburbs!

      A Depression the likes of which you’ve never seen!

      He’ll take away for Medicare and Social Security!

      Biggest political crime in American history!

  98. Joshua said: My concern is that our country is likely more polarized across parties and less diverse within parties than at any other time in our history.

    I believe the Republican party is becoming more diverse. More Blacks and Hispanics are voicing support for Trump. This is the Dimowits worse nightmare.

    Like Trump said: Success will bring us together!

    And, sorry Tony, but I don’t see any stellar politicians produced by the UK. Trumps actions have made him the best President for the common man in decades. And that “common man” group includes Blacks and Hispanics.

    The Dimowits will enrich the technology billionaires and entrenched wealthy interests, just as he and his party have done for many decades. If Biden is elected, I can see the government paying Amazon for any “green” initiatives – and they will be taking money from the common man and giving it to Bezos.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s