He’s Melting… MELTING! The Strange Implosion of Donald Trump
Photo by Max Goldberg, via Wikimedia Commons
Did somebody toss a bucket of water at his head? Suddenly Donald Trump is melting before our eyes, like the Wicked Witch of the West. Every day brings fresh news of eye-popping gaffes and head-slapping consternation among the Republican faithful. I can’t remember anything like it in presidential campaign politics. Even Michael Dukakis, the doomed 1988 Democratic nominee, survived respectably until November.
Trump was an unlikely nominee to begin with. He coasted to the Republican convention on sheer chutzpah. He had a genius for winging it, based on his own stratospheric self-confidence and a cheerful disdain for details. A political amateur and an unapologetic vulgarian, he also seemed refreshingly uninhibited, unscripted, un-PC, unafraid to speak his mind.
So what if he was vague (or downright ignorant) on policy issues, or prone to proposing extravagant follies like the Mexican wall, or blisteringly crass in his pronouncements on women, immigrants, journalists and anyone reckless enough to prick his monumental ego? Unlike most politicians, he told it like it is… right?
Here was a maverick billionaire (at least by his own reckoning) who would defy the crony capitalists — the elite global plutocrats who supported the likes of Obama, the Bushes and the Clintons. He’d singlehandedly terminate the stifling reign of political correctness and identity politics, halt the corporate outsourcing of American jobs, manage the deficit, stem the flow of illegal immigrants from Latin America and block those potentially dodgy Muslim refugees from countries that harbor terrorists. As he proclaimed in his acceptance speech, he’d even put an end to crime as soon as he took the oath of office. What’s not to like? (Well, plenty… but more about that later.)
Big man, big promises… big bluffer? I’ve concluded that Trump is more performance artist than politician. He wants to be president more than he wants to serve as president. Remember, he said he’d delegate both foreign and domestic policy to his vice president. Trump would simply be in charge of “making America great again.”
In my more cynical moments, I like to believe that the Clintons, ever-calculating and ravenous for power, persuaded their friend Donald to seek the Republican nomination. A non-ideologue with a flair for showmanship, he’d relish the attention and sow such discord within the GOP that the party would crumble before Hillary’s juggernaut.
I wonder if the Clintons began to squirm as Trump’s candidacy gathered momentum like a runaway truck rolling down a mountain road. By June he was already the presumptive nominee, his brassy brand gleaming more garishly than ever. What if he actually (gulp!) won the election come November? This wasn’t supposed to happen; it smacked of Broadway satire, the way Springtime for Hitler, the surefire dud concocted by the hapless con artists in The Producers, unexpectedly became a monster hit.
Always dogged by his own intemperate sound bites, usually taken out of context or willfully distorted by the pro-Hillary media, Trump started to implode during the Democratic convention. The trigger came without warning, but it was classic karma.
Trump had bragged about the sacrifices he’d made as a mega-rich businessman — even claimed that his risky youthful sexual adventures were his “Vietnam.” So what better way to needle the cocksure, Islamophobic chicken-hawk than to trot out the parents of a heroic Muslim-American soldier who gave his life in Iraq?
The dead soldier’s father, the dignified and articulate Khizr Khan, used his pulpit to lambaste Trump for his warped definition of “sacrifice,” not to mention his ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. It was strong stuff, and Trump took the bait. His retort was mild compared to the provocation; he simply wondered aloud if Khan’s wife declined to speak because she was required by her religion to be submissively silent.
Of course, Trump shouldn’t have taken the bait at all. Professional politicians learn to grow thick skins, and Trump’s is paper-thin. Immediately the chattering class pounced on him for insulting a patriotic Gold Star family. Then the deluge began: the accusations against Trump began to resemble the list of grievances leveled against King George III in the Declaration of Independence:
- He referred to Hillary Clinton as “the devil” (He actually said that Bernie Sanders “made a deal with the devil” by endorsing her)
- He invited Vladimir Putin to hack Democratic e-mails (a sarcastic comment referring to the DNC’s alleged plot to assure the nomination for Clinton)
- He didn’t know that Russia had already swiped Ukrainian territory (OK, geopolitics isn’t his strong suit)
- He declined to disclose his tax returns (Is he in debt to Russia, as some rumors have it? I’ll reserve judgment until the facts are in)
- He accepted a Purple Heart medal from a grateful veteran and quipped that this was the easiest way to get one (He was joking)
- He refused to endorse war hero and fellow-Republican John McCain in his re-election bid (McCain had criticized him)
- He balked at endorsing House Speaker and fellow-Republican Paul Ryan (the way Ryan balked at endorsing Trump)
- He further risked his Republican street cred by slamming the Koch brothers as donors to “political puppets” (Bully for him!)
- Last but not least, the insensitive brute ordered a crying baby out of his rally! (He handled it with humor, folks… you had to see the video)
I don’t mean to make excuses for Trump. He deserves much of the scorn and criticism heaped upon his famous thatched head. He’s rude, crude, narcissistic, demagogic and willfully ignorant. No matter how slight the slight against him, he must retaliate. His mannerisms during his acceptance speech eerily recalled the puffed-up posturing of Mussolini. He’s been luring white supremacists out of the woodwork. And yet…
He’s a victim, too. Now that Trump has secured the nomination (at least partly a result of generous coverage in the media), the media have been pouncing on him at every opportunity. They magnified the Khan flap until it overshadowed everything else about his campaign, yet they essentially ignored Hillary’s alleged brush-off of Pat Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith. (Mrs. Smith returned the favor, calling Clinton “a liar” at the Republican convention.)
For that matter, the media have largely airbrushed the deeper implications of the news that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz, a former Hillary Clinton aide, effectively sabotaged Bernie Sanders’ campaign. Did she undermine Sanders with Hillary’s blessing? Did Clinton actually instruct her to spread damaging rumors about Sanders throughout the South? We’ll never know — unless Putin hacks those missing e-mails, of course.
Trump could have attacked Hillary Clinton’s vulnerable underside (an unfortunate image, but I can’t think of a better one)… yet instead of scoring valuable campaign points at her expense, he continued to wrestle verbally with his detractors. It was all about him and his image, as it always is. And he said a mouthful.
Merely to quote Trump’s words verbatim is to miss the often jocular nature of his loopy pronouncements… but of course politicians need to realize that their words will find their way into print or online, raw and unvarnished, without the video emoji of a wink or a smirk. Words can precipitate scandals, and scandals will kill a campaign.
Exasperated by Trump’s sillier and more damaging remarks, the Republican faithful are starting to jump ship. Bad enough that both Presidents Bush refused to attend Trump’s coronation, or that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, also a Republican, endorsed Clinton at the Democratic convention. The exodus continues as more Republicans throw up their hands and head down the gangplank.
Rumors surfaced earlier this week that RNC Chair Reince Priebus, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich were actually planning to stage an “intervention” — a desperate attempt to talk sense with their foundering nominee. There was even talk of a contingency plan in case Trump dropped out of the race. Notable figures (including Obama, naturally) have warned us that Trump is temperamentally and intellectually unfit to be president.
Mother of Mercy, is this the end of The Donald?
What’s saddest about Trump’s unraveling campaign is that he had a chance to give a legitimate voice to that most despised and neglected American caste: poor, working-class and downwardly mobile white Americans. These earnest, Bible-believing provincials are the last demographic we still feel free to taunt with impunity. We call them rednecks, hillbillies, white trash — as if they have no value as fellow humans. They’ve had to watch helplessly as their jobs departed for Asia or Mexico… as liberal urban sophisticates mocked their religion or substandard spelling… as the LGBT community challenged their age-old morality… as the Ivy-educated children of black doctors and lawyers lectured them about white privilege. And they weren’t allowed to talk back.
Because lower-status whites didn’t have a voice, their bitterness seethed inwardly for years until it finally burst forth, with Obama’s ascendancy, in a half-demented eruption of race-hatred, gun-worship, religious fanaticism, Confederate flags and anti-government paranoia. The talk turned combustible, and Trump helped fan the flames.
A better, more sensitive man might have guided that talk so that it stopped short of racism or xenophobia… so that underprivileged whites and underprivileged blacks might have come to understand each other’s grievances and appreciate their common bonds. He might have calmed his constituency’s not-unreasonable fears of a Mexican Reconquista or an Islamist insurgency without demonizing innocent Mexicans and Muslims.
But Trump was only Trump: the brash, buoyant salesman with the insatiable ego and an arguable deficit of human empathy. Once the blinding flash of his primary campaign had faded, even his fellow Republicans began to feel the sting of buyer’s remorse.
At this point, the only person who can save Trump is Trump. And that might not be enough.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate.
Copyright 2016 by Rick Bayan.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Oh, I’m I the first comment! I feel like the guest at a church potluck going to the front of the line. 🙂 Ok, my comment is to not underestimate the power of Clinton to find a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Seems unlikely now, but there are about 3 months left.
Congratulations, Mike! You get first crack at the tuna casserole. You’re right that Hillary could find a way to lose, especially if she ever gets indicted for anything. (She’s had incredible luck so far.) In fact, I might change the last line of my piece to reflect your wisdom.
On second thought, I’ll leave the ending as is. Hillary merits a piece devoted to her flaws.
Indeed and I will look forward to it. I’m surprised either of these candidates could win a primary. It’s a reflection of the sad state of current politics.
FYI, Rick, I threw my side issue up under wild card, whenever you get the chance. No hurry, just whenever.
Trump simply cannot be president because he cannot do the job. At all. This idea that any irreverent idiot can be president is wrong. And Trump is not just any idiot; the list of flaws in his character is astounding. Any one of probably 20 separate psychological issues he has would disqualify him. As well, the idea that a billionaire is the person to speak for and save “poor, working-class and downwardly mobile white Americans” has no sense. Trump getting even this far has already damaged us deeply, both at home and in the world.
A man who has hijacked and nearly destroyed his party should be given the keys to the oval office?!? No, no, no, no! It is not for nothing that the unprecedented repudiation and rejection by a legion of far more honorable republican office holders and party officials has occurred.
I understand that for a conservative voter Hillary represents turning 8 years of Dem ownership of the oval office into 12, a very bitter outcome and its natural to fight it. But how? Give up on Trump, funnel all efforts into keeping the Senate if you are conservatives. Don’t risk ruining the GOP for good by continuing to pretend that it would be anything less than a total disaster if Trump were to win. We had Reagan for 8 and then Bush I for 4. Democrats survived. The republican party and the interests of honest conservatives would be in far worse shape if Trump were to win.
Lastly, If Trump were to win then the GOP would own everything, Congress, Potus, the majority of Governorships. No party should own everything, let alone a party as utterly dysfunctional as this version of the GOP headed by this once in a lifetime ignorant hooligan. The election ain’t over till its over, so I won’t sleep well until Trump is disposed of into the dustbin of history.
Don’t blame the media, there is no monolithic media, every ideological group has their own media. Blame Trump and blame his enablers. History will.
Good points, all of them. I don’t think of Trump as a partisan Republican in the mold of Cruz or Paul Ryan, but yes, if Trump became president the GOP would tighten its stranglehold on Congress — not to mention the Supreme Court.
Is he crazy? I honestly doubt it… but he’s a classic case of narcissistic personality disorder. I thought he might mitigate his ignorance by hiring a brain trust… but he doesn’t trust brains. (Hmm, good line… I should use it sometime.)
Support Trump University. Because the mind is a terrible thing.
Ha, I love it!
Rick ” not to mention the Supreme Court.” Does that mean it is OK for Clinton to appoint liberal judges to further the lefts agenda?
The train has left the station that was used to interpret law when Chief Justice Roberts ruled a fee or penalty was actually a tax, even though the legislation had no reference to a tax in its wording. SCOTUS is now creating law and that was never the intention of the founding fathers as they could see hundreds of years into the future what was going to happen with government.
Rick, There are many different shades of meaning of crazy. I’m crazy about you, He must be crazy to turn down that job, The crazy man with a gun went out shooting, etc. Trump is delusional, that is a form of crazy. He is not schizophrenic, no, he may possibly be suffering from early stages of dementia or that may just be his personality. If and when he loses big he may become quite mentally disturbed, especially if his campaign does serious harm to his finances as well. That would be terrible. <– some insincerity here.
The Trump Quote of the Day:
“I don’t know why we’re not leading by a lot. Maybe crowds don’t make the difference.”
A certain conservative radio show I heard made a valid point about the media, even if most of the media has a liberal bias, (certainly there is some media that has conservative bias) but bias or not, there isn’t one news outlet that would pass up a juicy news story on anybody, if Huffington Post or MSNBC found a nasty story that no one else had about Michelle Obama or any other darling of the left, they would run that story out in a heartbeat. Of course they obviously spend more time and resources digging up dirt on others, but in some ways, the media is going to blast whatever sensation they get their hands on no matter whom it hurts. In other words, Grand Wazzoo, I agree what you say about the media.
These days people use the media to confirm their opinions (me too I damit) not change them. When there were three networks and most households were watching the media had more power. They still had far from total power, if they really had such power in their heyday would Nixon or Reagan have been elected? Rhetorical question, no. Today, the media are way way overrated as kingmakers.
In any case if they are exposing Trump and Hillary but are just as unwilling as I am to have Trump as president then they are doing their job. I hear all kinds of complaints about some story that should be covered from partisans, but those are people Who Found That Story. Do I spend much time looking around for dirt on moderate liberals (my niche) No. But I would find it very easily if I searched. People complaining about media bias it seems to me usually want media bias, media bias towards their ideological views.
Moral: blaming the media is a losing strategy, once you do it you are most likely losing.
I think of the media overall as leaning left, surveys of who they vote for bear this out, and as such represent a head wind for conservative candidates. It’s true they will run a good story that will attract hits and sell papers. It’s also true that they will tell a story to suit their own views. So often something someone says can be interpreted more than one way and when a democrat says such a thing it’s more often interpreted as if she meant it in the more favorable way. If a republican said the same thing it’s more likely to be interpreted in a more negative way. When big news hits I always switch between FOX and MSNBC to get both views. I’d rather see out of both eyes. I do think it’s sad that media isn’t more neutral and I would latch on to a neutral outlet in a second if one existed, but I don’t suppose their is much of a market for that.
Actually I would disagree.
Clinton and Trump are approximately equally flawed. Neither is a credible choice to be president.
However, any idiot who can sit on their hands and do little or nothing for 4-8 years can be president.
What as an example has Obama done ?
If we are really really lucky – we will get a president who does nothing and a congress that does nothing.
We do not need to get into any more wars.
We do not need any more laws.
We do not need any more regulations.
There are many existing laws and regulations that we have that need to be destroyed or fixed – but there is no choice that will result in that happening.
I would also say that honestly aside from style there is not all that much different between “The Donald” and Hillary.
What is it you think Hillary’s accomplishments are ?
As Senator:
She voted for the War in Iraq.
She sponsored no legislation of consequence.
She voted for alot of legislation that anyone who cares about civil liberties should be bothered by.
As Sec. State
Again she accomplished nothing positive.
The coup she fomented in Ukraine resulted in the Russian takeover of Crimea.
She is far more inextricably linked to the disaster in Benghazi than Obama.
She is the source of the infamous claim that “a youtube video made them do it” while it is now clear is that she knew withing hours it was a terrorist attack.
And we have the entire email scandal.
I do not get how so many people have been fooled by this nonsense that Trump asking Putin to release her emails is a “national security” problem for Trump.
If Putin has Clinton’s emails – and he almost certainly does – the damage to our national security has already been done – by Clinton.
I am politically at the opposite end of the world as Bernie Sander’s. I think his policies as president would be disasterous – but Bernie is merely wrong. Hillary is incompetent arrogant and criminal.
If Trump is elected president we can count on the media paying unbeleivably close attention to every word he says and trying to nail him for as long as he remains president.
The media is in the Tank for Clinton. Inevitably she will screw up sufficiently that we will have another 4 or 8 years of endless hearings and investigations – there is already far more than enough fodder.
What I would like is a ballot with “none of the above” as a choice – That would likely win trivially.
Regardless, I can not in good conscious vote for either of these bozo’s.
But I get very annoyed by people who compare Trump to Clinton – as if there is some important or significant difference. There is not.
Neither should be running for president.
I can not and will not vote for trump, but if I reverted back to voting for “the lesser of two evils” I would vote for Trump before Clinton, he is far less dangerous as president.
“Clinton and Trump are approximately equally flawed. Neither is a credible choice to be president.”
I am firmly in your camp. Neither gets my vote.
It’s been that way since day one.
This has nothing to do with the article. It is a question concerning Word press. Mike posted a comment in the wild card section. And 7 comments had been made concerning the Trump article when I opened the article. None of those comments came to me in an e-mail notification. Not until I comment and click the two boxes “Notify me of new comments via email” am I informed of comments to read.
So readers do not have to scan each sub sections that rick has available for commenting, is there anyway to set up Word Press to be notified of comments other than clicking at the end of a comment that I make?
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Hey Ron, I use the WordPress site to follow this blog. A couple of weeks ago, it randomly logged me out. Since I logged back in and re-followed TNM, it’s been ok.
Probably doesn’t help much, I know
You’re a creative writer, Rick. Not only the in usage of language, but in the provocative way you’ve objectively managed to encompass Trump’s Dr. Jeckle-Mr. Hyde political personae from a moderate’s point of view. Overall, I agree with your analysis. He is both perpetrator and victim of exaggerated media coverage, which has been bad for everyone.
Earlier today I was watching a pharmaceutical commercial on TV touting medicine to treat a painful foot ailment caused by diabetes. The commercial was full of smiling optimistic patients, looking forward to a pain free future promised by doctors and clinicians who had dispensed the medicine over time; and then came the disclaimers in rapid quick fire succession: almost a dozen of them, with dire warnings of side effects from depression to blurred vision to heart failure. The cure it seemed could be worse then the disease.
This seems a metaphor for the Trump campaign. Yes, we have serious troubles, but medicine man Trump would make things worse, not better. We need to go no further then your analysis that he indeed is ‘rude, crude, narcissistic, demagogic and willfully ignorant’ to know he’s not suitable for elected office.
The more serious problematic fallout from his campaign is that he’s tainted many of our shared moderate concerns about political correctness and Islam and the plight of the white working class and made them unacceptable to main stream Americans. He’s usurped the middle, which only serves to tear the nation apart.
Thanks, Jay. Good analogy re the prescription medicines that are more dangerous than the disease. And yes, it’s so true that extremist views on race and immigration have pretty much discredited moderate views on the same. We have to go all in with one group or the other. That’s how the extremists suck the life out of the center.
Today I wish I could draw cartoons. I would draw Trump as a the scorpion, and the Republican Party as the frog. I assume most know the story, but if not , you can always google it.
I started digging around and did not find such a picture on the internet, however I did find one story implying Bernie Sanders being the scorpion of the Democrat party and another story back in April of this year referring to Donald being the scorpion of the Republican party.
In today’s 538 now cast (what would happen if the election were held today) Trump has an 8.5 chance of winning (still too high).
Betting on the election now includes the actual category that trump drops out.
At this point only Putin/Julian Assange can make the race competitive again. The Trump side of the GOP has to pray that Putin/Assange will swing the election.
GOP voters might seriously think about giving their support to Libertarian Johnson so the he can make the debates (the hyperventilating rumor mill says that Trump will find an excuse skip the debates, they are all rigged, etc.) and make an adult contest (by which I do not mean one where the candidates discuss their sexual equipment) out of them.
The GOP of McCain and Ryan and Preibus should consider bluntly divorcing Trump and saving their Senate hopes, all resources there.
There are more emails being released every month as a result of several FOIA lawsuits.
Asange has already all but admitted the DNC hack was an inside job, done in the US by a democrat who is now dead under what Assange beleives are suspicious circumstances.
We have not had 2% growth for 1Q since July 2015. 2016Q2 was 1.2% and the trend is DOWN. We may be heading for a recession.
As noted elsewhere all terrorist attacks, all acts of violence favor Trump.
Unemployment is forecast to remain constant – but if that proves wrong it favors Trump.
The effect of Johnson and Stein on the election seems to be favoring Trump by about 1%.
I have no idea how a Clinton Trump debate would go. They are radically different.
Trump managed to do extremely well in the GOP debates – and at this point has far more debating experience than Clinton. I do not think that Clinton is good at debate.
Further she has more vulnerability than Trump.
The arguments against Trump are racist, mysoginist, intemperate.
Those against Clinton are Liar, and Crook.
What is Trump going to do in a debate that will further harm him ?
Clinton has the biggest risk by far.
The GOP is already directing resources at Senate races and has been for some time.
The odds of a strong democratic break in the senate are small.
I think the somewhat open lack of unity in the GOP is refreshing.
Where are the democrats unwilling to endorse a crook and a liar ?
If you want more political diversity, you need both parties to move away from my party right or wrong.
Regardless, what substance is it you expect out of the campaigns or debates ?
Politics has been nasty in the US since 1800 atleast – and far nastier than today.
What are the issues you want debated ?
I can not think of an election where I had less confidence that either candidate was going to do anything in their platform. Why do you want to listen to Clinton or Trump lie to us about what they are going to do as president ?
Clinton has proposed something like a Trillion in giveaways – do you honestly see any of that happening ?
Trump will get a couple of billion for the wall – which will go another couple of hundred yards.
He might provoke a trade war with China – though I doubt it, but even if he did – isn’t that what the left wants ?
“The arguments against Trump are racist, mysoginist, intemperate.”
There ya go again, closing your eyes/mind to reality.
The multi arguments against Trump, just from Republicans, are:
He’s reckless; unexperienced and unprepared for public office; confrontational and divisive; uneducated in foreign affairs; lacks basic understanding of economics; is unfit morally, mentally, and emotionally to hold any elected office; ill informed; habitual liar; compulsive liar; prolific liar; pants on fire liar; brazen liar; deadbeat employer; vindictively litigious —
sorry, lunch ready, so many criticisms, so little time…
This is what you find in the National Review these days from long term conservative opinion writers:
by CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Trump’s latest gaffe shows clearly how unfit he is for the presidency. Donald Trump, the man who defied every political rule and prevailed to win his party’s nomination, last week took on perhaps the most sacred political rule of all: Never attack a Gold Star family. Not just because it alienates a vital constituency but because it reveals a shocking absence of elementary decency and of natural empathy for the most profound of human sorrows — parental grief. Why did Trump do it? It wasn’t a mistake. It was a revelation. It’s that he can’t help himself. His governing rule in life is to strike back when attacked, disrespected, or even slighted. To understand Trump, you have to grasp the General Theory: He judges every action, every pronouncement, every person by a single criterion — whether or not it/he is “nice” to Trump. Vladimir Putin called him brilliant (in fact, he didn’t, but that’s another matter) and a bromance is born. A “Mexican” judge rules against Trump, which makes him a bad person governed by prejudiced racial instincts. House Speaker Paul Ryan criticizes Trump’s attack on the Gold Star mother — so Trump mocks Ryan and praises his primary opponent. On what grounds? That the opponent is an experienced legislator? Is a tested leader? Not at all. He’s “a big fan of what I’m saying, big fan,” attests Trump.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438692/donald-trump-gold-star-family-can-trump-cross-fitness-threshold
How are Trumps remarks about the Latino judge different from Sotomayor’s remarks that being a latina women gives her a different perspective ?
Trump is claiming that the Judge’s viewpoint will be affected by his race and relations to the Latino community.
Sotomayor is claiming that her race and gender affect her viewpoint.
Aside from style the substance is the same.
“How are Trumps remarks about the Latino judge different from Sotomayor’s remarks that being a latina women gives her a different perspective ?”
Sotomayor’s remark annoyed me when I heard it, but more from a masculine perspective than an ethnic one. Men make much better jurists overall: they have better postures when sitting, more prominent eyebrows for silencing annoying attorneys, and deeper voices for clearing the court when necessary. 😏.
Still, there is a difference in Trump’s outburst of reproach, and Sotomayor’s feminist/ethnic self praise. My Cuban American friend during our adventurous years would boast avuban woman were the best in bed; my Italian American girlfriend would exclaim Italian Woman were the best cooks; my African American college basketball teammate would insist his ‘people’ were the best athletes.
It seems to me contextually those kinds of statements are less harmful and prejudiced than associating negative racial or ethnic traits in criticism of an individual, which inevitably will be heard as slurs. And when spoken by an individual who wants to govern the entire nation, it takes on additional negative crassness. In the past in this country we have held our presidents to higher codes of behavior. No longer true, apparently.
Just want to be clear – are you saying that the death of Kahn’s son makes him an expert on immigration and constitutional law ?
A corollary to the rule about attacking gold star families is not to exploit them for political purposes.
Trumps mistake was attacking Kahn directly, rather than attacking democrats for exploiting him.
trump was attacked at the Dem convention. Shocking! Unjust! After they were so sweet and reasonable just days before at the Trump convention. Imagine, someone at the Dem convention having an issue with trump’s throw-her-in-prison-themed party convention . trump was correct, it was an attack, vicious, unexpected, not tolerable. Democrats should have simply said Heil trump, and withdrawn, if they knew what was good for them.
OK, I may be a little worked up about this election.
Every blade of grass in my field, every star in the sky is yelling No! to a trump presidency.
I’d accept Pence as president, even Cruz. They are people who could be president. I wouldn’t like them but I’d accept them. Not trump. Never trump
“I’ve concluded that Trump is more performance artist than politician.” Great piece Rick, many of the same things I was thinking. Well before he decided to run for Prez, I thought his upbringing must have been in a trailer and his dad a used car salesman. I was surprised indeed to find he came from money.
Of course, the divides amongst working class people is intentional. If we were to all unite, we could bring prosperity back.
“OK, I may be a little worked up about this election.” ~ Grand Wazzoo
Rick, I think that your post is about as level-headed an analysis of what’s been happening with Trump and to Trump in the last couple of weeks as I’ve seen. Honestly, with Democrats and their partisans in full attack mode and Republicans and their partisans wailing and gnashing their teeth over the potential coat tails implications of the presumed landslide Clinton victory, I’ve rarely felt so discouraged about the state of our republic.
I don’t believe there has been a more corrupt or loathsome candidate than Hillary Clinton in my lifetime. And, yes, I include Richard Nixon. The dilemma, of course, is that, as loathsome as she is (and, lord knows, we have to get her loathsome husband along with her!), the alternative is an erratic, thin-skinned and egotistical guy, who is woefully unprepared to be the president (although not, honestly, much more unprepared than Obama was in 2007) and who won the Republican nomination in a year when fuzzy-headed populism and anti-establishment anger were driving forces in both parties. Were the Democrats not far more controlled in their nominee selection process, we might be wringing our hands over the nomination of Bernie Sanders, as well as that of Trump.
Frankly, I think that that outcome may have been better overall for the country than a continuation of the oligarchy that appears now to have an increasing stranglehold on the federal government. In a Sanders vs. Trump election, both major parties may have repudiated their candidate, in the way that the GOP is repudiating Trump now. The 3rd party, and maybe even 4th party candidacies, of Johnson and Stein would likely have received far more attention, and possibly made it to the debate stage. I’ve always been a strong proponent of the 2 party system, but, more and more I’m seeing that, with the consolidation of wealth and power in a relatively small group of elites on both sides of the aisle, the major parties are starting to be alike – interchangeable even – and that’s not a good thing. Democracy needs choices. Otherwise, our elections become farcical events. Hell, this election is already a farcical event!
So how do we all lose? Well, as you say the “most despised and neglected American caste: poor, working-class and downwardly mobile white Americans” will continue to lose their grip on economic opportunity and respect, and become angrier and more volatile, leading to an unknown, but certainly bad, outcome. Minorities will continue to vie for the title of Most Victimized and deserving of special treatment. The role of the media as watchdog, will continue to erode, and de facto censorship, of the sort that we’ve seen with social media giants, such as Facebook and Twitter, will likely continue. Donald Trump’s genial joke about the screaming baby at his rally became the headline “Trump ejects Baby from Rally!” and that narrative spread like wildfire, reaching millions of people before they ever saw the actual video – IF they ever saw it. Wazzoo believes that media is blameless in this farce. I do not. There’s a reason that Google shows different results in China than in the US for the search “Tienanmen Square”. The media and the ruling class are far too intertwined these days.
Anyway, I don’t see anything to crow about, although, given our society’s horse race mentality the winners get to crow, so those of us on the “wrong” side need to suck it up and figure out the way to move forward. There’s always a way forward……I think.
“I don’t believe there has been a more corrupt or loathsome candidate than Hillary Clinton in my lifetime.”
This post of Rick’s was about Trump.
Did I not talk about Trump in my comment, and specifically reference parts of Rick’s post?
Is Hillary not the beneficiary of a Trump meltdown?
I’m not exactly sure what point you’re making here….(By the way, are you not Roby anymore? Because if that’s the case, may I abbreviate your name to GW?)
(By the way, are you not Roby anymore?”
No, Roby got sick of this election and is abstaining. I’m his somewhat evil twin standing in channeling famous libertarian Frank Zappa. Its not as crazy as it sounds, really.
Mitt Romney, Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, George Will, the Bush family, the daily multiple GOP/conservative politicians, former officials who won’t vote for trump, many of whom have taken the amazing step of publicly saying that they will abandon party loyalty and vote for Clinton did not come to where they are due to a blown out of proportion baby being thrown out of a rally story. Priscilla, the substance to the case against a trump presidency is far beyond media bias, its real. Voters are deciding against trump because they are decent enough and intelligent enough to weigh the entire universe of issues. The blame the media thing is an exceptionally defective political tool. I should be happy to see GOP voters using it, I guess, but I’m not. Give the voters credit for having enough intelligence as a group to weigh trump and find him unacceptable.
You have an acidic view of Al Gore for gods sake, let alone Clinton and Obama. Its just partisanship and ideology. Once you were a highly partisan liberal democrat as you say. Now you are a highly partisan conservative republican. If you could have one more sea change in you, why not just ditch the habit of being highly partisan?
In 4 months it seems very likely that the trump circus will be over regarding its effect on me, but his effect on you and your party and your ideological group will just really be starting to sink in. You are going to be much more upset about trump in the long run than I am I’ll wager.
If trump somehow should quit and Pence replaces him you’ll hear no hyperbole from me about Pence being a world changing disaster. The whole recent conservative habit of going overboard in criticism of democratic presidential candidates just does not work, its a losing tactic. Hillary has real faults but I do not recognize her from the conservative caricature. Its just ideology in the end.
Since you make so many assumptions about me and my opinion on this election, GW, it’s hard to respond directly. It’s not as if I haven’t given reasons for my opposition to a Clinton presidency, nor expressed serious, ongoing reservations about Trump. And I don’t base my opinions purely on what George Will or Charles Krauthammer, or any other conservative pundits write, despite my admiration for them. All conservatives are not alike. I can name many who are supporting Trump. I don’t base my opinion solely on them either (David Horowitz, Michael Reagan,Whalid Phares off the top of my head, because I’m afraid you’ll think I’m talking about Rush Limbaugh 🙂 )
I know there is a substantive case against Trump for goodness sake. Don’t you believe that there is a substantive case against Hillary? That’s a serious question, by the way.
My point was not that you should listen to some specific conservative person and follow their lead. My point was that all those people I named are well aware of what the media does and they are not lightweights. They did not chose to abandon trump or endorse Clinton because of media stuff about a baby or other stories. trump is a perfect storm of bad, media or no, and these figures see that. That is my point. Blaming trump’s problems on anything other than his character is a diversion.
To answer your question, I decided that there was something oily about both Clintons back when Bill was wildly popular. But its been blown out of all reason in a politically partisan manner. She is not even close to being as bad a candidate as trump, although that damns her with faint praise. She is dishonest we all agree. entitled, related to a man who is happy to shut down an entire airport to get a vanity haircut. Lawyerly, somewhat paranoid. always tending to skirt the law of find a grey area. They had to count the forks and enumerate the white house knick knacks after the Clintons left. She won’t take responsibility for her clearly described by Comey lies about her server. That is not an isolated incident, its a character trait. I don’t like her, don’t like to look at her, don’t want to hear her voice. Don’t want her as my president and have dreaded the idea for more than a decade. I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I am.
But all of that pales next to trump’s faults. And again, she is going to share power, there will be a GOP House and can be a GOP senate. A trump win would be a GOP sweep. That is scary to me for good reason. It would likely backfire on the GOP but for 2-4 years we would not know what is going to happen next. Anybody with any stocks by the way ought to be leery, does the stock market love chaos? Does the military like an unpredictable president who can be baited by anyone who tries or flattered by anyone who tries?
As a tangent, this idea that Clinton belongs in prison is idiotic. You do know what the Iran Contra scandal involved? Much, much, much worse breaches of law and ethics. W absolutuly lied about the cost that a two front war was going to incur he suppressed that. hundreds of millions was his estimate it wa trillions and he knew it. Thousands of dead us soldiers. That is no competition for this ridiculous server issue. The GOP/conservatives consistently overplay their cards. These GOP overblown scandals have some effect but its not in the end a winning tactic. Why don’t we just follow the Howard Zinn line and agree that all of our presidents should be in jail, all liars, all criminals. Not! You have no idea how left wing the whole idea sounds to me, its right out of their playbook. The e-mail issue has done the damage its going to do and given us the insight its going to give us into Clinton’s character. I’ve factored it in.
Conservative don’t want 12 years of the Dem oval office, the Supreme court, understandable. But trump has completely screwed the GOP/conservatives. In a year I’ll be over him, but the trump crater will be the major feature of the GOP landscape.
I only have a mildly negative opinion of Hillary. To me she’s the same kind of pain in the ass as the lady lawyer Christine Baranski plays on ‘The Good Wife’ TV drama – annoyingly sanctimonious and manipulative to the point you want to strangle her, but not someone who is malicious or depraved to be hated.
Hillary has the veracity deficiencies you’d expect from a political Democrat in public view for 30 plus years, during which time she’s been relentlessly attacked and undermined with unending criticism: some deserved; most just overblown petty political propaganda. All politicians walk that political-speak veracity tightrope, in politics telling the unadulterated truth at all times is a formulae for failure.
But the unrelenting barbed attacks of everything she’s said or done by hoards of Hillary Haters have as indelibly marked her as evil in the eyes of detractors as the villainess Cruella De Vil is to Disney film buffs. Like Cruella, the mention of Hillary’s name is sure to elicit automatic hisses and boos, and nothing is going to change that this election cycle.
The remaining question is who do we boo more – Cruella De Clinton, or FrankenTrump, the clumsy grotesque media creation stomping our national mores to smithereens. An easy answer: raspberries to the Monster from Trumpville.
So you think repeatedly lying to the american people is acceptable ? What about lying under oath ? We were through this before with her husband – who atleast was more of a blue dog democrat. Hillary really is a clueless priviledged elitist.
Clinton is not attacked for everything she has said and done – she is attacked for the criminal and immoral things she has said and done.
Trump is actually attacked for everything he has said and done.
While he is a big boy and can take it and deserves what has been dished out to him – so does clinton, and much much more.
It is not Clinton’s name that is the problem – it is her actions.
In the end the nation is nearly certain to pick one of these two regardless of the fact that neither will get my vote.
If you wish to make an argument that Clinton is the lessor evil – that is a judgement call.
One I think you are making wrong.
Do you beleive that Clinton is Honest ?
That she has been telling the truth about her email ?
That not merely Putin, but likely the chinese, and Iranians and North Koreans, and probably about half our allies were reading the Secretary of States email ?\
That she was using he position as Sec State to lobby for Millions for Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Family ?
Do you really think the Clinton Foundation is even a charity ?
Atleast Trump is not trying to make money by pretending to be a charity and selling out the country and selling the power of her offices – yet.
Do you think that the state department responded adequately to the security threats throughout the mideast and benghazi – prior to the terrorist attack on the embassy ?
Do you think that we tried hard enough to rescue those who were there ?
Somehow the left managed to make the fight over whether any response would have been effective. SO WHAT.
First if there was no possible means of an effective response over the something like 9 hours these guys held out – then we did something wrong.
Second, aren’t we americans ? Don’t we try everything to save our own ? Even our dead.
It is bad enough on the rare occasions when a dead american soldier is dragged through the street. Is there someone who beleives we should not have tried to prevent these terrorists from dragging a dead american ambassador through the streets.
Don’t decent honest leaders take responsibility ?
In 1983 terrorists blew up a marrine barracks in Beruit. Reagan did not blame it on somebody else. Shortly after the bombing Reagan took personal responsibility for the security failures.
When has Clinton take responsibility for anything.
I would note this attack happened on Sept. 11. That is a date that every US facility in the mideast atleast should be on alert for terrorist activty for decades to come.
Just as we should be prepared for domestic terrorism on the 18th and 19th of April.
So why is it that we were not able to respond ?
I can go on and on.
Personally I find it amazing. This president calls on his supporters to bring a gun to a knife fight – and then we act surprised when the IRS targets the enemies of the left.
When this is investigated – somehow the story becomes evil republicans.
We have had fast and furious,
The IRS scandal,
The VA mess – which has not improved one iota though we have spent billions,
Benghazi,
The failure after failure of PPACA.
Near permanent recession.
And yet the left has managed to turn every meme arround and blame others.
Reagan managed to govern the country quite while – despite constant investigations and conflict and he took responsibility for his own errors.
This administration has failed and blamed everyone else.
How much failure does the left need – before they accept they do not know what they are doing ?
How much failure do the rest of us need before we grasp – government is the problem, not the answer ?
Is there anyone here who can make a credible argument that 4 or 8 years of clinton will be a good thing for this country ?
“Is there anyone here who can make a credible argument that 4 or 8 years of clinton will be a good thing for this country ?”
I’d seriously like to see someone try. Even Hillary’s best argument seems to be that she’s not Trump.
I didn’t say repeatedly lying to the American is acceptable, Dave, I said politician’s always end up lying for various reasons, it’s the nature of the profession. And she certainly lied to cover up for her poor judgement in deciding to rely on what turned out to be insufficiency secure personal servers, but she didn’t intentionally lie when she said she had never received classified information over her personal email account… There’s no evidence she knew it when she made that assertion.
So yes, her statement was false, but a false statement isn’t a lie, and Comey’s testimony and official report verify that. Nowhere, not in the report, or during his testimony, did he use the word ‘lie.’
Your assertion that Putin & China & Iran, etc, we’re reading her emails may be true – but according to Comey foreign governments are reading emails on ‘secure’ State Department servers as well – did that testimony escape you? And of all the so-called top secret classified emails discovered among Clinton’s email, he said only three were marked with an alerting ‘C’ to indicate they contained Classified info, and that C buried in the body of the correspondence.
So, yes, she made a stupid tech judgement call installing the personal server in the first, and deviously tried to cover that up, but neither her negligence or subsequent ‘false’ statements were illegal, so speaks the FBI.
The Clinton Foundation is a philanthropic charity that has saved thousands of lives and improved the lives of thousands more. It’s not a charity that dispenses coffee and blankets after disasters or feeds the homeless. Look into their African AIDS initiative to see how the Federation operated to save lives there. For me, the Federation is the Clintons saving grace – a reputable organization with multiple highly regarded donors who wouldn’t be handing over multi millions of dollars. That’s a published list you should look at objectively as well.
“Is there anyone here who can make a credible argument that 4 or 8 years of clinton will be a good thing for this country ?”
4 Years of Clinton will be way better then 6 months of Trump.
Have you been hiding your head under a pillow this past month?
Haven’t you seen dozens of credible Americans – Republican, Democrat, Independent – renouncing Trump as incompetent, dangerous, unqualified, mentally unstable? Somewhere above I provided many of those names. In the last two days others have joined the list, some calling him ‘unhinged’ and ‘unfit.’ Krauthammer just described him as ‘an 11-year old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully.’ And today Michael Morell, warned that Trump “may well pose a threat to national security.”
You have to be deaf dumb and ditzy to dismiss all those diverse anti Trump commentators with facile rationalizations, but keep pretending doofus Donald should nevertheless be elected president because he isn’t Hillary.
I’ll repost this comment I posted above from Garry Kasparov, even more relevant now:
“Trump is useful as a litmus test for political decency. Anyone still backing him doesn’t have any.”
I counted Trump out when he attacked McCain early in the primaries.
I was wrong. I think counting trump out now is a big mistake.
Trump got a bump from his convention, Clinton got one from hers.
Frankly I thought both were bad, but the media seems to think that Cruz failing to explicitly endorse Trump was somehow far worse than hundreds of Sandernista;s booing and walking out.
I do not understand the Khan nonsense.
I respect Mr. Kahn’s loss of his son. But I am no more interested in what he has to say than Matt Damon. Celebrity whatever the cause does not impart Truth in sentiment.
I strongly support Open Boarders – so I should be in Mr. Khan’s camp.
But I am not – because though I support Open Boarders – that is NOT what the constitution says. There is a right for citizens to excercise their religion as the please – no matter how it offends others. But democrats are atleast as clueless on that as Republicans.
Apparently they think it is OK for muslim’s to subjugate women in the US,
but unacceptable for christians to refuse to sell wedding cakes for gay weddings.
Regardless, the constitution, Bill of Rights, 14th amendment apply to US citizens – not every person in the world who wishes to be. It is far beyond our power or responsibility to protect the rights of every person in the world from their own governments.
And finally, you can not have open boarders, and a vastly diverse pluralistic society which I not only prefer but think we are all entitled to by natural right, if you also have this vast democratic nonsense of positive rights.
When Mr. Khan and democrats are prepared to have a truly free society – one in which government is actually limited and powerless to infringe on any of our rights, then they can talk without deep hypocrisy about the constitution and equal protection.
Finally returning to my original theme – I have counted Trump out repeatedly.
But he is a Zombie. He is the undead. Apparently you can not kill him without a silver bullet.
I also thought Brexit was losing – right up until after all the votes were counted.
Again – this is not a defense of Trump. How our two parties could offer us a choice between these two Bozo’s I do not understand.
In my perfect world Trump would drop out and Hillary would go to Jail.
And we would get to vote for a reasonable – or atleast less unreasonable choice in November.
Anyway, I am voting for Johnson Again, because I will be able to live with myself for the next 4 years.
Libertarains – we are not the crazy ones this time!
Haha, Dave, Libertarians really are not the crazy ones this time. And I find Johnson and Weld to be aggressively normal in their personalities, charming even. Who knows, maybe I’ll even vote for Johnson. Probably not, but anything is possible in this cycle.
If I did, it would be probably after deciding to vote only down ballot, walking into the booth, and thinking, “oh, what the hell!”
Your vote is your own.
I have no problem with people saying they can not vote for Trump.
Like I said – I though he was over when he attacked McCaine for getting shot down in Vietnam – how is this Khan thing in any way worse.
I have read McCains story. I am glad he was not elected, though I do not think Obama is any better. But regardless of what I think about him in terms of policy, the man is a real hero. If you see the video of the 1967 fire that nearly took out the USS Forestall. McCain was in the aircraft waiting for the catapault launch when another aircraft misfired a missle. The video shows crawling out on to the wing of his plane and narrowly escaping the fire. He could have left Vietnam anytime after he was shot down – he was very very seriously injured and the north vietnamese released many with similar injuries.
But his father was CINCPAC and it would have been a propaganda coup.
Even when the peace talks were concluded McCain refused to leave ahead of his term.
While he has at times embelished some of his life story, there is still little doubt he underwent serious adversity, and he had integrity.
How many current politicians can we say that of ?
McCain got in trouble for writing a letter supporting a constitutent with respect to the S&L crisis. Clinton participated in a deal with Russia that resulted in millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Agreed on McCain, Dave I’m still planning on voting for Trump, at this point.
I would say that whether I actually do or not, is largely dependent upon whether or not he can stop behaving like a stupid jackass, which is starting to look doubtful. On the other hand, better a stupid jackass than a corrupt liar. I have no doubt at all that Hillary will remain a corrupt liar.
Devil and the deep blue sea (NOTE: I am not really calling anyone the “devil” here, just using a common phrase).
Believe it or not, I (yes, the “New Moderate” guy) was impressed by Johnson and Weld in their recent town hall. Two sane, intelligent, surprisingly personable grown-ups without baggage — what’s not to like? You know I don’t see pure free-market capitalism as a cure-all, but I prefer it to crony capitalism or top-heavy bureaucracy. Besides, they actually admitted that they could sometimes make mistakes — unprecedented!
They will be lucky to just make the debates as I understand they have to get 15% of the average vote for 5 major polls and one or two of the polls used does not even poll numbers for specific third parties. So what percentage do you need when only 3-4 polls include the Libertarians to get to 15% out of 5 polls.
The system is rigged for the two party system. If Johnson got into the debates, he would probably win over some of the “lessor of” voters and give people a “good” choice to vote for.
But that will never happen as there are too many people who refuse to look beyond the billionaire run and paid for parties that run this country.
“s. Clinton participated in a deal with Russia that resulted in millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation.”
So what? The money didn’t go to the Clintons, it went to the Foundation, which used ALL OF IT for philanthropic purposes ( less 5% operating expenses, among the lowest of similar philanthropic charities registered in the US – that’s out there in public disclosure records too, which you could see if you got off your misinformation butt).
Rick;
Please note no one says that pure free markets (that is minarchism not anarchism) makes no mistakes. It makes lots of mistakes.
Nor do libertarains claim it needs no regulation – it needs lots of regulation.
But that regulation is primarily SELF regulation.
If a price is too high – buy elsewhere. If you do not trust someone – do not trade with them. If you think a company mistreats its workers boycott them.
While I personally think that many of those forms of self regulation are themselves stupid, you may not agree and you are free to use them.
I am not personally a proponent of localism, or fair trade or myriads of other political interactions with free exchange.
But if you want to buy local – do so.
If you want to buy organic – do so.
If you want to buy green – do so.
If you want …. – do so.
And you may freely persuade others, and speek out and boycott.
And so long as you do not go running to government and impose your views as laws – so long as you do so through the free market, you are absolutely free to do so.
This freedom is critical – because markets make mistakes – lots of them.
And people do try to game the system – but so long as that “gaming” does nto involve force or fraud – the “regulation” is the natural responses of the market.
BTW even that self regulation will be fraught with error – for the most part I think “fair trade” is harmful to those it claims to help.
But so long as you do not use law to impose it by force, the remedy for those who “self-regulate” the economy in the way I do not like is the freedom of the market and self regulation system to correct its error.
Bad government regulations virtually NEVER get corrected.
I am also bothered by the claims that Putin is somehow in bed with Trump.
From the actual evidence it is Clinton that has an incredibly cozy relationship with Russia.
The russians gained substantially from deals made when Clinton was Sec. State, and so did the Clinton Foundation.
There are fairly well backed rumours that Russia does have all the emails from Clinton’s private server, Had Putin provided verifiable proof of that during the FBI investigation Clinton would be headed to jail.
So if Putin hates Clinton (which makes no sense) and wants her to loose, why wouldn’t he have gone for the knockout earlier rather than some baby taps that are more harmful to democrats as a whole than to clinton ?
It seems to me the left is incapable of beleiving anything bad about their own and cabable of beleiving anything bad about those they oppose no matter how incredible.
“There are fairly well backed rumours that Russia does have all the emails from Clinton’s private server, Had Putin provided verifiable proof of that during the FBI investigation Clinton would be headed to jail.
So if Putin hates Clinton (which makes no sense) and wants her to loose, why wouldn’t he have gone for the knockout earlier rather than some baby taps that are more harmful to democrats as a whole than to clinton ?”
Rumors fairly backed by who?
Let’s dissect your illogic.
If Putin really had those deleated emails, and hasn’t released them, it’s just as likely they don’t contain information harmful to Clinton. He doesn’t want another Democrat President, and has said so. He surely doesn’t like Obama, he certainly hasn’t been praising Hillary, but has been effusively praising Trump in the Russian Media he controls. You do know that, right? And about the phoney pro Trump Twitter accounts traced back to Russia? This in addition to the DNC hack, also a Russian operation, released by Wikileaks, a Russian aided organization.
So, either he doesn’t have those deleated emails, or as Hillary’s lawyers said, he has them but they’re personal emails without content politically embarrassing to her.
The Russians want Trump in office. And Devious Donald is their tool:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-06/senior-ex-cia-official-putin-made-trump-an-unwitting-agent/7696732
If Putin has more emails or more dirt of any kind on Hillary, there are almost endless possibilities why he may wait to “play that card”. For one, he might think it more effective to expose them closer to election day. For another, he may have to balance the impact of how much damage he could do compared to how much exposure he would give up in his ability to obtain the info. I remember a World War II story that claimed that although the Allies had cracked the “Enigma” German encryption device, after learning the Germans were going to bomb a certain church building, they chose not to put out the warning, because they felt that would give away the fact to the Germans that they had cracked the code and they would lose future information. Now this doesn’t match exactly to modern times, everyone knows countries have their cyber spies, but there still is a balance between what information you disclose often allows your opponents to plug holes. Again, the number of reasons that IF he has more dirt, but is not releasing all of it right away could be multiple possibilities.
Assange has strongly suggested that Russia had nothing to do with the wikileaks hacks, and that he is personally gunning for Clinton because he beleives she will try to extradite him to the US, charge him and jail him.
And I think that is an extremely reasonable fear on his part.
As to Putin, he says alot of things and I have not heard these credible claims that he hates clinton or obama. Frankly I think he privately loves them – he has played them beautifully.
Russia’s economy is in the tank. He would be highly unpopular but for one thing – he is able to beat the drum of nationalism – mostly as a result of unforced policy errors by clinton and Obama such as the Ukrainian coup.
The worst harm the US has done to Russia in the past 4 years has been through Fracking tanking global energy prices – and Clinton and Obama are both enemies of Fracking.
The Keystone XL is probably too little to late at this point, but pipelines to move oil from new US oil fields to refineries and markets will shave atleast $7/barrel from global oil prices. It will also substantially increase US production.
An uneasy truce has been reached at about $2/gal for gasoline – if the price rises US Fracking expands, if it drops further even Saudi Arabia can only go so low. Regardless, Russia is caught in the crossfire of the oil price war between US frackers and the mideast.
Clinton and Obama are better for Russia than any other possibility.
“Russia’s economy is in the tank. He would be highly unpopular but for one thing – he is able to beat the drum of nationalism – mostly as a result of unforced policy errors by clinton and Obama such as the Ukrainian coup.”
More regurgated boiler-plate ignorance from the robotic capitalist right.
Russia’s economy is not anymore in the tank than the rest of Europe or the US or Japan or China – all suffering from the same interlocked economic recession. And your muddle-headed charge that Clinton-Obama policy errors resulted in the Ukranian coup is dumbly counter-intuitive because if you believe what’s bad for Russia is good for America, the coup was a contributory cause for the severity of the Russian recession:
“The Russian economy risked going into recession from early 2014 – mainly as a result of the falling oil prices, the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and the subsequent capital flight.[45][46] However, the 2014 GDP growth remained positive at 0.6%.[47] In 2015, the Russian economy shrunk by 3.7% and is expected to shrink further in 2016.[48] However, the World Bank and the IMF estimate that Russia’s economy will begin to recover by 2017.[49][50]
And for all your reiterated ramblings on the failure of solicits tic forms of government why has the Russia economy and it’s business sector become so strong over the past decades, even with heavy handed government control on all facets of it?
“In January 2016, the US company Bloomberg rated Russia’s economy as the 12th most innovative in the world,[51] up from 14th in January 2015[52] and 18th in January 2014.[53] Russia has the world’s 15th highest patent application rate, the 8th highest concentration of high-tech public companies, such as internet and aerospace and the third highest graduation rate of scientists and engineers.[51] ”
And guess what, Dave almost ALL schooling is FREE, including higher education, for which 93% of students pay nothing for their education.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia
Yes, lets examine the logic. Please re-read your own post and think about it. It requires a highly unlikely arrangement of facts. It requires the russians to have failed at the easy task and succeeded at the hard one.
Putin need not have the “deleted emails”, all he would need to tank clinton would have been the classified emails – even one.
Frankly even that is more than he needs. All he really needs is to provide public proof that Russia accessed Clinton’s mail server.
That alone would have overcome Comey’s (and even Obama’s) reluctance.
Almost no one is going to defend clinton if the KGB was reading her Sec State email.
BTW experts at CIA and NSA have already stated that if Russia was NOT reading Clinton’s Sec State email that would be a miracle.
That any hostile state (and many friends) whose intelligence agencies did not access Clinton’s email server are likely to see heads roll.
Snowden revealed the extent to which we were hacking other governments – even friendly ones. Not only is it likely that Russia hacked Clinton’s server, it is likely that NSA knows they did. But you are absolutely never going to get public confirmation of that from “no such agency”. You are not even likely to get a leak unless it is entirely untraceable – even then it would actually be a crime for those in the NSA to reveal that they know that Russia hacked clinton. BTW that is not about clinton it is about NSA providing the Russians with knowledge of what we know and possibly how we know it.
How does the head of the KGB answer Putin and keep his job when Putin asks why he did NOT get all of Clinton’s email ?
There is about zero doubt that the Russians(government and hackers independently), Chinese, North Koreans, possibly Iran, probably Israel, the French, Germans, and UK all have Clinton’s emails.
Now AGAIN, If Putin wanted to tank Clinton – he could have done so easily anytime in the past 9 months or more.
Your nonsense requires that the Russians are sharp enough to hack the DNC but not sharp enough to hack Clinton’s mail server.
What is more likely is they hacked both – but the russian government is not the source of either leak. Russian hackers BTW are not automatically the Russian government, and it is entirely possible – even likely that Assange worked with russian hackers
What the KGB knows we will only find out – if they decide to tell us.
What hackers – russians or otherwise know – we are all likely to find out.
//
The incentives for government security agencies is to secrecy.
I would remind you that Churchill allowed the Germans to bomb coventry to protect the secrecy of the Ultra decrypts.
The incentives for hackers is to get information out.
“Almost no one is going to defend clinton if the KGB was reading her Sec State email.”
Why not? Comey said ALL the Department of State’s servers were vulnerable. It’s likely they were hacked too. If that came out would Obama be expected to throw Kerry under the bus?
Russia and those other hostile nations you mentioned probably have hacked 90% of the nation’s computer systems. And if in fact as you suggest they also have Hilly’s missing emails, with negative info to her, why haven’t any of them leaked them? Did they all get together and decide to keep them under wraps – talk about absurd logic, you seem to ba a master at that.
And where did I suggest the Russians didn’t have Clinton’s emails? I suggested they had them, but there wasn’t an appreciable amount of negative info in them, which is why they HAVENT released them. Or been released by the hoard of other nations you claim hacked them as well.
And as reported by numerous sources in various media sources, cyber security and American intelligence agencies have reported they now have “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee.
Additionally forensic hacking experts link that attack, and the hacking of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the fundraising arm for House Democrats, to an entity connected to the GRU, the Russian military intelligence service. Did all that escape your attention, or did you conveniently ignore information contrary to your cemented preconceptions, opting to regurgitate the antiClinton line?
Let me remind you of Thomas Jefferson’s warning: “oft repeating an untruth, men come to believe it themselves.”
You need to stop singing in that choir.
“Now AGAIN, If Putin wanted to tank Clinton – he could have done so easily anytime in the past 9 months or more.”
Or another possibility: there is something damning in the the emails he allegedly possesses, and he’s waiting to:
A- drop a bombshell on Clinton right before the election
B- keeping them to blackmail her into future concessions
Putin’s Puppet
“If the Russian president could design a candidate to undermine American interests—and advance his own—he’d look a lot like Donald Trump.”
http://slate.me/2aFowWv
Jay
First – your refutation – refutes nothing. Though it is wrong.
Russia’s economy is not very well intergrated into the world.
Energy is 65% of Russia’s exports and the price of energy has tanked.
Russia’s GDP in 2013 was 2.2T in 2015 it was 1.3T.
That is not a small problem – that is a near 50% drop.
2016 will likely be little different than 2015.
For comparison the EU went from a 2014 peak of 18.5T to 16.2T
China went from 2014 10.3T to 2015 10.8T.
So even if what you claimed was true – it would not contradict what I said.
But worse, what you claimed is not true.
China has slower than normal growth – but it is growth.
The EU is in recession.
What is happening in Russia is a depression – and is about 4 times worse than the EU. Further The EU has a diversified economy. Russia’s fundimental problem is low global energy prices.
I can not read Putin’s mind. But LOGIC would dictate than Clinton would be substantially better for Russia in innumerable ways than Trump.
Any argument that Putin favors Trump can not be based on Russia’s economic self interest, and not likely based on Russian national security interests.
You can argue that Putin will favor Trump for some other reason – but I have not heard one yet.
The Ukrainian coup and its aftermath was economically bad for Russia.
But it was very good for Putin. It substantially boosted Russian nationalism.
And it significantly improved his ratings in Russia.
This was all well documented at the time.
Again you can argue that Putin may have reasons other than economics or national interests – but you have not.
JJ;
No school anywhere on the planet is FREE.
AT best it is paid for by someone besides students parents,
More comonly it is merely paid for over a longer period of time.
Are you actually trying to sell Russia’s economy or education system ?
With respect to the US are you claiming that doubling the REAL cost of public school while the quality of education has declined is a good thing ?
BTW pretty much the same trend has occured with both public schools and colleges in the US.
Cost up, quality down.
“Are you actually trying to sell Russia’s economy or education system ?”
No, I’m refuting your generalizations that tuition free education in Russia and mixed socialist-capatilist nations is significantly inferior to our system of gouge and hound for loan repayment.
But in fact, it’s education system IS rated number 1 in the world:
Russia is the most educated country in the world, according to the latest figures from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), followed by Canada and then Japan.
The US is rated forth.
Top ten educated countries:
1) Russia
2) Canada
3) Japan
4) Israel
5) United States
6) Korea
7) UK
8) New Zealand
9) Finland
10) Australia
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/top-10-educated-countries-2013-uk-514300
I agree our system has deteriorated badly, at all levels. But not primarily as a result of government. And yes, in many instances government interfearance has been detrimental, but that is an inevitable side effect of bureaucratic expansion in expanding societies. Bureaucracies are machines – when they become too cumbersome you have to redesign them, or replace them with models that can do the job, but it’s impossible to eliminate them without eliminating the services they provide. And no, you can’t turn those into private sector operations without suffering worse inequities
But the deeper problem is the societal breakdown in discipline and respect for authority we have seen throughout our culture in emerging generations over the past half century. Students are disrespectful, routinely insult and curse teachers, are permitted to disrupt classes with minimum punishment, etc. and if course, classes are way too large: 35 to 45 students in a classroom, often with a single teacher with no aides.
I could go on for paragraphs, but dinner’s ready, and I rather eat…
JJ;
Yes, Putin could be waiting – I am not sure how that benefits him.
A bird in hand is generally worth two in the Bush.
The easiest time to take Clinton out over the emails was before Comey’s decision. Afterwards you are counting on voters.
Yes, he could be looking to black mail her later.
If there is something he could successfully black mail the president of the united states – should we elect her ?
Do you think about what you write ?
What is there so damning that Putin could blackmail Pres. Clinton that is not also so bad we should not elect her ?
I doubt he is holding nude pictures of Hillary.
Regardless, even if he is holding something and looking to later blackmail pres. Clinton – that again means he wants Pres. Clinton – not Pres. Trump.
There are ways to get Putin favoring Trump – but they are based on emotion not reason. People do act out of emotion. But we rarely bet on world leaders acting on emotion.
You are jumping all over. Frankly many of your claims – make my argument – if you think them through.
Why would Russia, Germany, or any other nation not wish to reveal that they have Cinton’s emails ?
Oh, please that is trivial. You really are clueless on international espionage.
There are multiple things of value in reading another foreign leaders communications.
One is the knowledge in the emails. The other is the advantage gained because others do not know you know what is in those emails.
Even in this instance – where we have good reason to beleive that other nations have those emails. We still do not know for certain.
Russia (or any other nation) will pay a price – though likely a small one, for revealing they have Clinton’s emails.
Just as Snowden’s revelations that we were hacking friendly world leaders cell phones harmed us.
There is value in knowing others secrets,
There is value in others not knowing you know.
There is even value is the mere uncertainty that you know.
In Putin’s case the value of revealing that the KGB has Clinton’s emails would likely exceed that of all reasons for not doing so
IF and ONLY IF Putin favors Trump.
You can make this as complex as you wish.
The bottom line is that If Putin favored Trump he would almost certainly have taken Clinton out already.
Dave:
“The bottom line is that If Putin favored Trump he would almost certainly have taken Clinton out already.”
THOMAS JEFFERSON:
‘Oft repeating an untruth, men come to believe it themselves.’
JJ;
The mere confirmation that Russia has Clinton’s emails would have given Comey everything he needed to prosecute Clinton and would have made it politically impossible for DOJ and Obama to prevent that.
It does not matter whether there is something more damaging in them.
The damage is the difference between the probability and the certainty that Russia has them.
“Clinton’s emails would have given Comey everything he needed to prosecute Clinton and would have made it politically impossible for DOJ and Obama to prevent that.”
Not according to Comey.
You’re inventing that wishful thinking outcome.
He didn’t evaluate her actions in regard to whether the emails were hacked or not.
He evaluated her actions regarding the servers and emails to see if they reached the definition of GROSS negligence, as stated in the subdivision of the law pertaining to that charge. They didn’t.
I’m bored with this topic. I went through it throughly on websites comprised of constitutional lawyers. Hillary made a dumb mistake using personal servers. She was negligent, but not to a chargeable level. You’re a petty niggling jerk to keep bringing it up.
JJ;
I suggest that you chart out all your hypothetical scenarios with respect to Clinton Putin and the emails.
Look at each possibility and based on that hypothetical and what we actually know rank it as to whether it means Putin favors Trump or Clinton.
I am flabergasted at the extent that those on the left go to deceive themselves.
If you strike a king, kill the king – Emerson.
If Putin was responsible for the release of the DNC hacks AND he has Clinton’s Sec State Emails he would have used them already to.
You do not wound a very dangerous and powerful enemy leaving them to later return and avenge themselves. And Clinton has a very well established reputation for dishing vengance out cold.
For innumerable reasons it is highly unlikely that Putin actually favors Trump.
But you left wing nuts can convince yourselves of anything.
Rick;
Compared to the crop we got this time – of course Johnson/Weld looks sane.
I mean really – Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, Bush, Graham, Huckaby, Perry, Santorum ?
I have major problems with Johnson’s position on “religious freedom” as do alot of libertarians, but no candidate is perfect.
He has also argued quiet well that while there are a lot of things that a libertarian president can do – there is an awful lot he can not. That even if we elected him we should not expect big changes, the president has very limited ability to change the law.
I would hope that anyone with even the slightest doubts about these other two, would atleast tell polsters they would vote for Johnson.
There is a small chance he might get into the debates – that would atleast force the other two statists to confront a bunch of issues they are not likely to even be questioned on otherwise.
I would also note the “were not the crazy ones this time” meme has an incredible amount of truth to it.
The good news is neither Hillary nor Trump stand a snowballs chance of getting their platform or policies. I have some respect for Stephen Moore who appears to be key on Trumps economic team. But most analysis I am hearing that I beleive actually has Trump spending significantly more than Clinton – and Clinton is spending money that does not exist. I do not understand why we are rushing headlong to join Greece.
I know everyone here reads economic papers in their spare time. Anyway Reinhart and Roggoff – not libertarains or anything close by a long shot did a paper just after 2008 on the negative economic consequences of debt.
The good news is if there is a tipping point – it is a long way off.
The bad news is we are well past the point where the debt we have is dragging the economy, and as it grows the drag will get worse.
There are alot of reasons why we had 1.2% growth last quarter, and an average below 2% since 2009, Debt is a significant one of those reasons.
The current trend line puts Oct Growth at .5% and may put us in recession by 2017.
Someone at the debates needs to be talking about fiscal sanity – and it is not going to be Trump or Clinton.
JJ;
The money that goes to the Clinton Foundation goes to Clinton’s and their cronies
CF is one of the worst “charities” in the world. The closest thing that CF does to charity is telling others how to do charity. But mostly it is their to provide a resume item and incredible pay to the Clinton Family and their Cronies
Charity Watch – the world’s most prestigious charity watchdog – and not some right wing nut group, has CF on its watch list and is calling it a “slush fund”
In 2013 CF took in 140M and spent 9M on direct aide.
“The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.”
A “good” charity would have spent approx 100M on direct aide.
While Sec. State Clinton signed off on a deal that gave a Russian GSE control of 1/5 of US uranium and shortly their after the group pledged $130M to CF.
Further CF has failed to properly file its taxes for atleast the past 5 years and is in the process of fixing them and refiling – it is expected that tens of millions of additional “donations” will be disclosed. Likely from less savory sources.
There are pretty damning stories about CF that have come from that in the tanbk for the right news organization – the New York Times.
Further there are all kinds of other complications, such as a tangled web of connections between Clinton, Clinton staffers, CF Staffers, CF itself and separate private companies that the Clintons have stakes in that are are tangled together. While there might be a few making contributions for truly charitable purposes, there is an enormous amount of “buying access” and the present and future rewards of that. We even have salaries being paid to priviledged members of Clinton’s staff as Sec. State by either CF or for profit Clinton affiliated organizations.
There is little doubt that it is incredibly rewarding to be a Friend of Bill or a Friend of Hillary.
Though possibly more disturbing is the long hitlist Hillary is know to keep of slights and enemies and her propensity to serve revenge up cold.
While some of the same can be said of Trump – for the most part it is all out in the open.
If someone gets in Trumps way – Trump is in the news immediately with his fists clenched.
Trump had a recent spat with a fire marshal – and we all know about it.
Those who did not serve Hillaries whim in the recent primaries will likely see their own Political “night of the long knives” all to soon if she is elected.
So who is your choice for president – somewhat who wears every emotion on his sleave, who body checks you immediately if you brush him the wrong way and then moves on, or someone who notes every slight for quiet by deadly repayment later, while smiling ?
“CF is one of the worst “charities” in the world. The closest thing that CF does to charity is telling others how to do charity. But mostly it is their to provide a resume item and incredible pay to the Clinton Family and their Cronies
Charity Watch – the world’s most prestigious charity watchdog – and not some right wing nut group, has CF on its watch list and is calling it a “slush fund”
In 2013 CF took in 140M and spent 9M on direct aide.”
Complete horseshit. This is what passes for conservative news gathering.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
an excerpt:
Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
But I am sure you will not admit that you are talking pure malicious crap, Dave the never ever wrong.
So in your view Charity watch and the New York Times are in the pocket of the right ?
This stuff is not coming from Fox.
Yes, charity watch eventually capitulated to the Clintons – when powerful people come at you with knives that is often what is done.
I would suggest checking past ratings.
I would also suggest reading the NYT, I would also suggest reading the tax returns.
I would also suggest listing what you think CF actually does.
Do you honestly beleive that CF went from less than ten percent to 88% in 2 years without cooking the books – and getting CW to change its criteria ?
Charity navigator no longer rate CF – it is claiming that is because of its “unusual business model” – -RIGHT. when pigs fly. They were rolled.
There “unusual business model” is we are incredibly powerful and can totally destroy you and everyone knows that is what we do to our enemies.
Regardless, They STILL spend next to nothing on direct charity.
They spend a fortune traveling the world to tell others how to do charity – or claiming to tell other how to do charity or on administration and management structured in ways to pretend it is actual charity.
The entire answer reads like you are watching a game of 3 card monte – and the clintons are dealing – and you know who is going to lose.
What you get is lots of “explanations”. Well if you use the accounting standards that are used to rate every other charity – the results look like crap. But if you use completely different accounting methods than are normally used to rank charities and report the results to the IRS – then the results look pretty good. Of course that requires completely restructuring their finances.
These are the same kind of things that Enron and MCI Worldcomm were saying not so long ago – people went to jail over their accounting.
The good news is CF is not going bankrupt – atleast not so long as people are paying for access to the clintons.
And why are you linking to any of the socalled “fact check” orgainizations. They have been in the tank for the left for a long long time.
Most of them haven;t a clue what a fact is.
Most of the time their own explanations make zero sense.
I would also note that if you actually read the factcheck org report you linked to – they do not really let CF off the hook.
I forget which one recently rated Trump “pants on fire” for claiming that the crime rate was increasing.
It is true that the long term trend in crime has been down.
It is also true that in most major urban areas in this country in the past year there has been a large upward spike in violent crime.
It is too soon to know if that is a trend, but it is defintely not “pants on fire”
But the rating was defended because Trump did not explictly state – in the past year – or in major cities.
A rule of thumb is to be considered truthful there can not be any possible way of looking at any remark from someone on the right that might not support their argument, while if there is maybe possibly any way in creation to interpret a remark from someone on the left as true then the fact check organizations treat it as true.
What the h# is “affiliated” organizations ?
The Fraternal order of Police is “affiliated” with your local police.
Do we count the work of the police as part of the charity of the FOP ?
This also works the other way in other places – to cook the books CF had to “spin off” – not count, many related entities and then spin in others.
Some of us grasp that there is a shell game of charities, for profits, and quasi for profits that are going on here.
But let me ask you a different but related question.
Do you beleive the Clinton’s have a reputation for truthfulness or word parsing and deceipt ?
If you beleive they are truthful – then you are going to beleive that they are also charitable. If you do not then you are going to read everything wondering where the part were “it depends on what the definition of is is”.
“Yes, charity watch eventually capitulated to the Clintons – when powerful people come at you with knives that is often what is done.”
Any proof of that? I read the article that I linked. You are completely wrong about what the CF does and you are resorting to unprovable conspiracy theories. You can’t prove it because it ain’t true. If the right wing horseshit you are talking about really were true then the GOP would have its real scandal. But it died in 2013 because there were no there there. Doesn’t the right wish they actually had something for once. But people like yourself who are a few bricks shy of a full load will believe anything that supports your crackpot worldview.
As well, the idea that you stated above:
“However, any idiot who can sit on their hands and do little or nothing for 4-8 years can be president.”
is an exceptionally unserious idea. Its a comic book idea. Its truly an idiotic thing to believe stated by people who have no serious idea of the US government. The loon portions of the GOP (and libertarians as well) do seem to actually believe it, and they have effectively communicated their belief to the extent that moderates (NOT the same as independents), who actually swing presidential elections, will be the death of every GOP nominee for the foreseeable future. If the GOP can cleanse itself someday of this kind of stupidity they may become a presidential party again. I’m sure the adult wing of the party desperately wishes that would happen and I honestly feel for them.
An interesting on rising crime in major cities, backing up with data, exactly why Trump says that urban law and order has decreased, and violent crime has increased. As Dave says, it’s important to use recent data.
It’s a point that many have made about the end of “stop and frisk” in NYC. Mayor DeBlasio, an Obama and Clinton supporter, has used older crime stats to show that there has been no change, but that is untrue. It’s gotten worse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-right-about-violent-crime-its-on-the-rise-in-major-cities/2016/08/05/3cf6b55e-5b11-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
You really are a robot of conservative drivel.
I don’t have time to address all of it, but for starters, yes, the Clintons have occasionally contracted with people they know and friends, and on one or two occasions with relatives. But those people were affiliated with companies specializing in large scale emergency contracting work: re-building washed out roads after floods, building shelters, etc. that’s how it works after Disasters in the US and elsewhere, people get on the phone and call other people they know, to get things rolling. The Clintons don’t benefit financially FROM the Fiundation; the foundation benefits GREATLY from their ability to charm or coerce donations from diverse benefactors worldwide.
Are some of those donators hoping for future ‘access’ to the Clintons? Probably, but so what. There’s NO EVIDENCE, NONE that previous donations to the Foundations were rewarded any government favors in return. That’s a bull crap charge, just likeyour Uranium to the Russian charge, in which you failed to note Clinton was one of nine government agency heads who signed off on the same deal, including the Department of Homeland Security. And that the Russians were prohibited from exporting any of the uranium.
You need to start looking into the news you’re being fed by right wing propagandists. You have to investigate both sides of the issues, not get one propagandistic flow funneled down your gullet like a goose fattened for Foie Gras.
Huma Abedin is affiliated with companies specializing in large scale emergency contracting work ?
I love the word “affiliated”. I also have friends who are “affliated” with the mob. It is just another not so polite way of saying “influence peddling”.
I thought that you lefties did not beleive in private charity after natural disasters – I though you wanted a better brownie of FEMA ?
Regardless, no that is not actually how it works after natural disasters.
Not in the US not elsewhere.
What you are talking about is the Haiti model – where governments and GSE’s feed billions to NGO’s who fight with each other over who gets to take credit for what – while nothing actually gets done.
Haiti received 13B in aide over 5 years for 85,000 people who are worse off than before the earthquake and today not alot better off than they were after it.
I am going to be a bit careful here because – The Clintons are not running much of a real charity by any reasonable standards.
That said it is also true that the net benefit of most real charity with regard to aide to developing countries is negative.
I would suggest reading, or listening to William Easterly – he is one of the world’s most highly respected development economist, and after a lifetime of study he has found that successful aide to foreign countries very nearly impossible. That whether from private charitable sources or governments it nearly always produces net negative results.
We have spent $600B on aide to africa in the past 45 years – with ZERO rise in standard of living.
Some of the worst failed states in Africa – Somlia, Seira Lone, The congo, received vast amounts of aide BEFORE they failed.
2/3 of aide goes to the countries with the WORST records for corruption – and that portion is rising.
Statistically Aide makes cooruption worse, blocks democracy.
80% of US aide to africa is spent in the US on US companies who whatever it is they do does not in the end benefit those it is supposed to help – and the US does better than other nations such as France or China.
Atleast 1/2M africans died of Malaria in 2015. A disease that can be treated for about .12/person. We spend Billions on Africa in 2015, and still those people died, and standard of living did not rise.
“We have spent $600B on aide to africa in the past 45 years – with ZERO rise in standard of living”.
Kind of sounds like our war on poverty. Send millions to lift the living standards of those in need, millions are wasted or skimmed for uses other than lifting those in poverty and then those in poverty are actually worse off. Would be interesting to see how the money was given to African countries, ie, direct payments to the governments, payments to organizations working to improve living standards…..There are ways to provide assistance and have that assistance do what it was set out to do. I think the Gates foundation may have a model that works fairly good, but they also require accountability for the funds given. Critics also believe that the Gates Foundation exerts too much influence over public in the use of funds so they must be doing something right.
What “right wing propagandists” do you think I am having funneled into my gullet ?
Many of my sources on economics are such noted right wing loons as Christina Romer – Pres. Obama’s first Chief economic advisor.
Paul Krugman – before he turned from an economist to a political schill.
Reinhart and Roggoff, The world Bank, the IMF, even reports on sweden by the swedish government. I cite the IPCC AR5 on Global warming –
in this argument I was citing Charity Watch – before they kowtowed to the “the Clinton Foundation Does Charity accounting different” nonsense, or Charity Navigator – before they decided the simplest thing to do was not report Clinton Foundation as a charity any more, or The New York Times.
I do not think I have heard Limbaugh’s voice in a decade. It has likely been atleast as long since I saw anything on Fox. I listen to that right wing bastion – NPR on my drive to work. I have seen atleast an order of magnitude more Rachel Maddow than Rush Limbaugh – which translates to very little of one and none of the other.
Still I would like to directly confront the central fallacy in your “foie Gras”
A truth shouted by Adolph Hitler is still the truth. I lie uttered by mother Theressa is still a lie.
We should consider the source when evaluating arguments – but that does not excuse us from evaluating them.
Pew found Fox significantly less ideologically skewed than MSNBC in the last presidential election – I would not know – I have not watched either in a long time.
Regardless, you should not take something as true because I have said it, or as false. You should confirm whether my data checks out.
Not by comparing it to talking heads sharing your own ideology – that is called confirmation bias, but by actually checking the data.
I expect you to do so – but not by checking with “politifact” or “fact check.org” – you think that people who call themselves fact checkers are somehow inherently trustworthy ?
Charity Watch really did make the claims I asserted in 2013, and Charity navigator was in a war with Clinton Foundation, subsequently both of these organizations have walked back those claims – they have not really said they were not true – just that the Clinton Foundation is “different” and if you measure it by a metric we do not use for other charities it does not look so bad. Neither did Enron or MCI Worldcomm.
I am not so sure about the “no evidence” argument – but even if true – so what ?
A judge was recently removed from the Pennsylvania Supreme court – not for provaeable malfeasance or corruption but for the mere appearance of impropriety.
That is the standard that judges – and Cabinet officials are supposed to adhere to.
Jimmy Carter is involved in alot of charity that most of us would regard as real – is there even the appearance that people donate to habitat or other Carter groups for access to the political power that is Jimmy Carter ?
Oh, and the donations to Carter all occured after he was out of office – and was not running again. Much of the Clinton mischeif occured while Hillary was Senator, or worse still Sec. State.
You want to trash trump – go ahead, there is plenty there.
You want to argue that he, not Clinton is the “lessor evil” I think your wrong and I think I can make my case, but in the end that is still an oppinion, and we are each entitled to our own – it is almost certain we will never get to see what both a Clinton and a Trump presidency would look like.
But if you are trying to whitewash Clinton you are either naive or stupid, or so ideologically deluded you can not think straight.
Clinton is the perfect proof of “public choice theory” – that however badly you think free people outside government such as in business will behave, no matter how greedy you think they are, government is made of the very same people – or worse, and there is one other difference – democrat, republican – even libertarain – “power corrupts”. Money is merely a means of renting power.
I do not even trust Johnson to have the unlimited power that Clinton and Trump seem to beleive belongs to the president.
Frodo offers the ring of power to Galadriel who responds
“In place of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen! Not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Treacherous as the sea! Stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me, and despair!”
In the end even Frodo can not let go of power.
Power corrupts – even the good – do you think that Trump or Clinton are “the good” ?
You forget an awful lot.
The “transparency and integrity” standards that Obama required Clinton to sign to take the Sec. State job not merely prohibited much of this conduct but also required its disclosure.
As is typical of the left, when someone on the right does something even a touch in the grey area – they are an evil money grubbing racist.
When those on the left dive into the swamp, there is always an excuse that those of you in the tank will buy.
I loved Clinton’s response when she was questioned on her commitment to her assertions that all women claiming rape or sexual assault should be beleived – she said they should be beleived until it was proven they could not be. Yet there is no real evidence those making claims against Bill Clinton have lied, Yet Hillary has trashed them.
She was leading a jihad against Lewinsky – despite the fact that Lewinsky herself was denying her own story – until the blue dress showed up.
I remember all the left assertions of how evil and not to be trusted all the figures associated with the Lewinsky story were.
So How did Bill Clinton’s semen end up on Monica’s dress ?
And what is the meaning of “is” ?
Dave:
The Clinton Foundation is not a charity in the limited sense you seem to be using it: it’s project oriented, and functions to reduce poverty and improve global health, “part matchmaker, helping wealthy donors connect with doers, and part active participant, directly running programs, especially in health care.”
“In 2014, the World Health Organization reported that by the end of 2013, more than 11.7 million people were on antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries. While the kinds of drugs have changed, the WHO said “in the past decade the price of individual antiretroviral formulations has decreased considerably.”
“The treatments used in the early days have fallen from a median cost of about $600 in 2003 to about $100 a decade later. A more advanced drug combination introduced in 2005 saw a similar decline.
Importantly, the WHO listed the Clinton Health Access Initiative as one of a handful of organizations collaborating on ensuring a steady supply of drugs. The partners in that effort include the biggest players, including several United Nations agencies, PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and UNITAID, a project created by Brazil, Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom.”
http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton/clinton-clinton-foundation-helped-9-million-lower-/
Get it? Lives are being saved, health and standards of living raised through various Clinton a Foundation programs. Who gives a rat ass if the money comes from nations or institutions currying favor. And if the irony escapes you of homophobic Muslim nations donating to help fight AIDS, you’re too dazed and confused for future discussion about them.
More Dave: you’re bringing up Hillary’s defense of her husband being charged with rape as reason not to vote for her, which is a default Trump vote? Really? And interjecting semen stains as part of the discussion too? Pathetic.
Ron P.
I do not honestly expect Johnson to get 15% of the necescary polls – but he has gotten to 12% atleast once and in double digits several times.
There is increasing media interest in Johnson and Stein – though she has even farther to go.
I also do not expect Johnson to get more than 4-5% on election day. Too many people hate either Trump or Clinton so much they will vote for the other no matter what.
I do not “hate” either of them. I am scared of both of them.
I am honestly less scared of Trump. He is brash, loud, but relatively predictable, and highly unlikely to really cause problems.
He is strongly non-interventionist, while Hillary is strongly neo-con.
Trump might carpet bomb ISIS – but that is the worst he would do – and ISIS has actually attacked us – I think even Johnson would go after them – with a Declaration of War from congress. But Hillary could easily suck us into a massive quagmire in the mideast,
At home we will witness the Clinton family sale of access, power and favors.
While I think Trump may greatly exagerate his own wealth, he is still not really for sale.
Regardless, there is about a 0% chance of democrats retaking the house – anytime in the next several decades.
This far whatever is going on regarding Clinton and Trump has zero effect down ballot and Republicans are doing far better than expected in the Senate.
It is still possible – though unlikely they will loose control of the senate. Regardless they are not going to be in as bad a position as they were in 2009.
2018 is likely to be a big republican year – it is an off year election and far more democratic seats or either open or likely to faces strong challenges.
Republicans have near total control over more than half the states and functional control and alot of the rest. That is not yet reflected in the Senate, but over time barring major changes it will be.
One odd Trump factor is the blue collar democratic vote. Not only does Trump have it – which is why the swing states are all so close regardless of national polls, but there is a strong possibility that democrats have permanently lost it. This has always been a big danger for Democrats. Bill Clinton got elected as a fairly conservative democrat.
Hillary was always running further to the left, but she had to shift pretty far left to protect her left flank from Sanders Warren and the like. The future power in the democratic party is pretty far to the left. The country is NOT that far left.
Democrats have been playing a dangerous game with race baiting and similar nonsense.
Eventually it does not work.
Trump may need as little as 68% of the “white” vote to win the electoral college – he may or may not get it, but if the next republican candidate gets both the blue collar white vote that normally goes democrat and the educated white vote that normally goes republican – there are not enough minority votes to win.
One of the things that has been going on is that whether we are slowly approaching a minority majority nation we will still be a significant plurality white.
Democrats must do atleast as well with minorities as republicans to win.
Winning hispanic votes is not enough, they must dominate them in the same way that republicans do the white vote. Despite the democratic demographics is destiny claim – there are numerous ways future demographics favor republicans.
And the left shift of democrats only makes that worse.
He may be getting 12% in one or two polls, but don’t the candidate have to get 15% average in all 5 polls that are chosen by the “guru” that the council on presidential debates chooses. I have seen the past 5 polls used in previous elections and I believe two of those only ask for preference, Democrat or Republican with an “other” category. If those are the ones used this time, no one other than the two parties could get 15% average of all 5.
I could be wrong in my understanding of the rules for inclusion, but this is what I think is happening.
Let me Frame Clinton/Trump in a completely different way – a thought experiment.
If we all agreed ahead of time that on inauguration day, a special prosecutor would be empowered with a hundred million a year budget solely to investigate anything they pleased about whoever was elected
between Clinton and Trump which do you think would be more likely to end up impeached ?
I think that is unlikely to happen – Republicans are not going to investigate Trump,
and they are not going to impeach Clinton – no matter what she does – which is part of the danger.
Somebody defending trump’s semi-legitimacy as a viable candidate here post a link to a video, any video, where he sounds like an adult man talking about politics in an adult informed way to intelligent people. Just one video of Trump where he does not sound like an idiot.
For me personally, GW that is why I can’t support Trump, because I have watched him, unfiltered, no spin, just him speaking, and he sounds like a blowhard. I agree with just about everything dhlii /Dave says, except I think open borders sound insane to me. (Despite the fact that IMO we have nearly open borders already, I wish we did not.) I also researched a little about the Clinton Foundation charity, I really could not find anything terrible about it but I have more questions about how much control, if any, the Clintons have over who gets those $300K a year jobs at the top. (There are quite a number of charities that pay their top officials more than $300k so relatively speaking it doesn’t seem outrageous, but the jury is still out for me.) However, I did find this one video where Trump didn’t seem too bad:
Jake Tapper is a pretty straight shooting news media guy, and he seems to think that Hillary is a liar. But, you guys are have a point , she lies very smoothly, without sounding like a blowhard:
I could really care less about what those in a charity are paid.
Frankly, mostly I could care less what they do.
So long as giving money to CF is not buying influence in government current or future, if you want to donate money to a charity that does nto engage in much charity – so long as it is your money it is your business.
I do have problems with rolling groups like charity watch or charity navigator, or reporters.
If I give money to an organization I expect atleast two things.
That most of the money will go to actual charity,
that the charity will actually improve the standard of living of those it goes to.
By those measures very very few charities accomplish any good.
But if Russian Billionaires are giving CF hundreds of millions to cleanse their souls – that is their business.
But who here believes that Russian billionaires gave CF more than 100M because their hearts bled and they wanted to advance the good work of the CF ?
I care about rolling organizations like Charity watch – because that is like rolling Goodhousekeeping, or UL or finding a way to game the ratings system on ebay.
It is damaging the information the rest of us use to make choices.
Define what you think open borders is and why it is “insane” ?
We had totally open boarders in america prior to the 19th century.
We had fundimentally open boarders through to the early 20th century – with a few glaring exceptions.
These are the periods of by far the most rapid growth in this country.
Just to be clear, there is a difference between letting anyone who actually wants to come here in. and granting them citizenship or giving them the same entitlements as citizens.
While I actually think that not only should we have open boarders, but also easy citizenship. I also think we should have zero entitlements, and severly limited government, and that a majority of voters do NOT have the privildge of expanding the power of governmnet merely because they are a majority.
I know immigration is a big issue in this election.
But the left is deceptive – Trump is WRONG about what we need – but he is offering a plan. The left not merely has no plan, but is not even trying to have one. The left wants open borders – sort of. But it does nto want the cost of open boards – as things are currently. And it is completely dodging that issue.
The left argument is that Trump is racist for proposing an alternate to the lefts approach which no one in their right mind beleives will work.
A working open boarders scheme requires either the total elimination of the social safety net, or a rigid and difficult to overcome barrier between residence and citizenship, and a divorce between residence and benefits.
It is not racist to oppose stupid.
Someone say Trump was without flaws ? Even a good choice ?
The argument is not which is evil. It is which is the lessor evil.
There are some Trump supporters who are totally in the tank for Trump who try to defend everything he says. But not all that many. And not any here that I am aware of.
But there are alot of Clinton supporters who try to spin absolutely everything – she has never actually done anything wrong – it is all a Jihad by right wing haters. Everything is made up, or totally out of proportion.
If you are incapable of seeing that Hillary is deeply flawed as a person. You destroy your own credibility.
I would also suggest that you consider that those people who seek office – particiularly high office are unlikely to be motivated by altruism of public service.
White, Black, Rich, Poor, democrat, republican, people are attracted to different things for reasons particular to their nature.
The left has been arguing that with the right leaders their schemes will work. Unlikely, but it does not matter – we will not get the right leaders.
The left likes to say the system is rigged – though trump is now echoing that,.
It is rigged – but the rigging in not by big money, it is by human nature.
“It is rigged – but the rigging in not by big money, it is by human nature.”
So how does one without money rig the system?
Really ? I have heard Trump speak many times. He is quite often not whacko.
Just as Hillary often does not lie.
There is a difference between he(or she) says things I disagree with, and they say things that are wacko or lies.
Beyond that what is your standard ?
Hillary constantly says things that are quite nuts – she just does so in a calm reasonable voice. If I offer genocide calmly and with poise – does that make me the best candidate for president. Trump on the other hand on occaison says reasonable things as if he is speaking at the reichstag – does that make him unqualified ?
They have radically different styles. I like Clinton’s style better, but that has nothing to do with substance. I trust Trump very little, and clinton far less.
Trump all the way vote trump
Because he is the lessor evil – or because you actually beleive the nonsense he spouts ?
Overall, I do think Trump is the lessor evil, but I still can not vote for him and live with myself.
Given that one of Trump/Clinton is going to win I hope it is him. But really I want a do-over.
Regardless, trashing Clinton does not make me blind to Trumps huge problems.
I would hope that Clinton supporters would be more open about her huge faults.
Tell me that Clinton is the lessor evil – and I can buy that we disaggree but you are not blind, have thought things through and made a choice based on the facts.
Tell me Clinton is the most qualified candidate ever and I think you are a fruit bat who is completely ignorant of reality.
I do not beleive that Business inherenly prepares one to govern. Nor do I beleive that holding public offices qualifies you to govern. Arguably most of the latter should be DISQUALIFIED.
Government is NOT business, it should not be run the same way.
But the objective of government is to provide the fertile environment for growth in standard of living. The techniques used by business do not work to that end in government.
But the techniques of government do not either.
Real imporovement in standard of living comes from the choices and actions of people outside of public life.
Trump for Dogcatcher!
Oh wait – has the ASPCA complained over the way Trump properties treats pets?
And then there is the way Bill Clinton treats women.
And let’s not forget the terrible way Bluto treated Olive Oil!
The way I see it, Hillary and the Democrats have been trying to score a knockout punch early in the campaign, by convincing voters that Trump is an unhinged, crazy person.
Part of that strategy is no doubt calculated to keep the discussion focused on Trump and away from Hillary’s record and her policy proposals. She plans tax hikes and new taxes, many of which will affect the middle class. Rather than cut the corporate taxes that are helping to drive business overseas, she is proposing an “exit” tax on income earned overseas. Her “fair share” redistribution tax will raise capital gains and death taxes to help pay for “debt-free” college tuition and paid family leave, among other things. Things that sound good, but will not help the stagnant economy.
Clearly, she also wants to keep the conversation away from her record as secretary of state, the highlights of which include a most definite inclination to be interventionist, as well as a failure to protect her classified information from our enemies. Clinton has basically supported pretty much every foreign war and military intervention of the 21st century, endearing her to many neocons angered by Donald Trump’s repudiation of the Iraq War.
Attacking Trump as unhinged is really all she’s got, as far as I can see. Her record is poor, her policy proposals likely unpopular with many, possibly most Americans.
Jay, you are a pretty good advocate for Hillary. Can you identify some actual accomplishments that show that Clinton is the “most qualified man or woman” ever to seek the office of president? Not titles, but actual accomplishments. Because, aside from the obvious hyperbole of that statement, what has she done that makes her qualified?
I mostly do not care about their respective economic plans. I care alot about all the issues involved. But I do not expect either trump or Clinton to get any of their “plan” through.
Steve Moore who mostly seems to know what he is doing economically is on Trumps economic team – but Trumps spouts off economic nonsense all the time.
I find those trying to compare the details of their respective plans weird.
Why do we care which of two things that is never going to happen will cost slightly less over 10 years ?
Further quite honestly we are clueless at predicting economic futures.
Welfare reform was actually supposed to be much more expensive than it turned out – still saving though, and supposed to result in much more screaming and angst.
It went incredibly – well better than anyone expected – until Obama gutted it.
Medicare was supposed to cost a tiny fraction of what it did.
While PPACA has proven to be fiscally disasterous – it has not failed in most of the ways predicted, nor succeeded in the ways claimed. Basically everyone’s predictions were complete claptrap.
There has been a big fight in congress over dynamic scoring.
And there is a v ery serious issue there.
The standard models used to predict the economic effects of government choices – are worthless.
We know that tax increases rarely bring in much more revenue.
We also know that tax decreases work far more complex than is often painted.
Changes in marginal rates, changes in tax on investment have huge economic effects – but we do not want to hear that. We want to think that corporate taxes, taxes on the rich, capital gains taxes etc are just free money – when in fact they are the most economically damaging and the least likely to produce any revenue.
Conversely we all want a middle class tax cut – but changes to middle class taxes have almost zero economic impact.
We want that to be different – I want that to be different – but it is not.
You note the US overseas corporate taxes – those are the greatest pure stupidity in existance. No other nation in the world taxes income made outside the country.
We WANT companies and rich people to make money in other countries and bring it back here. Why would we want taxes that encourage companies to keep that money outside the US ? Why would we want to encourage companies to leave the country ?
Both Trump and the left rant about globalization, but either Trump is too stupid to understand it – which I doubt or he is knowingly lying.
Globalization is nothing more than broader freer markets, less ability for government to game the system, more competition, lower costs, greater value and higher standards of living – everywhere.
Not only does globalization force companies to compete on a whole new level – it forces governments to compete in ways they never had to do before.
Globalization is driving taxes down, the scale of government down and freedom up.
It is doing this – even where that is not actually what government or businesses want.
Because that is how actual competition works.
Government and regulation creates barriers to entry,
Globalization and competition destroys them
Back to the point – why should I look at Trump or Clinton’s plans ?
Neither stand a snowbalss chance of being enacted.
Good point, Dave.
“Globalization is nothing more than broader freer markets, less ability for government to game the system, more competition, lower costs, greater value and higher standards of living – everywhere.”
Poppycock. Globalization is doing NOTHING except creating a slave labor class and a plutocracy. Because all the middle class jobs that left this country are just sweatshops in developing countries. If moving all those jobs overseas was so good for the economy, why is it not booming all over the world? Because they are NOT paying good wages in other countries. Yes, corporations left the US because they had to maintain safety standards and pay good wages – as you would think they would want to do in a “Christian” nation.
The standard of living has not gone up in this country, it has gone down as wages have gone down. What one man earned to take care of a family in the 50s now takes 2 parents working just to make ends meet. Don’t give me that sorry conservative rhetoric that the younger generations are lazy – they are just ridiculously underpaid.
Of course the USA could be the leaders we once were for the working class (when it was middle class). We could refuse to import from countries that don’t have laws protecting workers. Or slap high tariffs on them. Or other possibilities to level playing field for “competition”.
As long as there are countries willing to exploit workers, there will be no true way to have a middle class. The wealthy are not job creators – a middle class with big purchasing power is. If they have no money, they are not buying and therefore businesses have no need to hire.
The continued cry of “cheap labor” by manufacturers is really “screw working people”. The secret to the wealth of the USA after WWII was a well-paid working class.
Of course, conservatives always scream “communism” when you point out these basic facts. When workers demand fair wages, it has been labeled “re-distribution” or socialism by the right. All just to make sure things stay the same – the wealthy WANT the economy in its present state. High unemployment always means lower wages.
“The standard of living has not gone up in this country, it has gone down as wages have gone down.”
Gallup doesn’t agree.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180449/standard-living-index-climbs-highest-years.aspx
Gallup just asked if people were satisfied with their standard of living – that is hardly a scientific procedure for finding the actual standard. It also did not give the ages of the sampled – only those over 18, half cell phones, half landlines. Guess the age group of those most likely to still have landlines? Retirees. Who is mostly likely to take the time to answer this poll? Retirees. Which if you have been keeping up, this bunch is retiring as the richest generation ever.
Of course this is the same batch of people who sold our jobs overseas, helping them to get this rich.
If they had polled only people born after 1960, you would have found an entirely different answer.
Between 1990 and 2015, the UN Human Development Report, which tracks standard of living data world wide, has shown that number for the US steady INCREASING each year.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/trends
“The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.
The health dimension is assessed by life expectancy at birth, the education dimension is measured by mean of years of schooling for adults aged 25 years and more and expected years of schooling for children of school entering age. The standard of living dimension is measured by gross national income per capita. The HDI uses the logarithm of income, to reflect the diminishing importance of income with increasing GNI. The scores for the three HDI dimension indices are then aggregated into a composite index using geometric mean. Refer to Technical notes for more details.”
Moogie, I know you will not respond to this, but I am going to say this anyway.
First I agree with much you say about jobs moving overseas and good paying jobs going with them. I don’t know what your age is or how much you know about the 1992 elections, but there was a candidate by the name of Ross Perot running as an independant that received 20% of the vote.
One of his key comments was “We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It’s pretty simple: If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,…have no health care—that’s the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don’t care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south …when [Mexico’s] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it’s leveled again. But in the meantime, you’ve wrecked the country with these kinds of deals.”
Perot ultimately lost the election, and the winner, Bill Clinton, supported NAFTA, which went into effect on January 1, 1994. So how about not putting all the blame on conservatives for the jobs we have lost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Second, yes it does take two incomes to manage what one income managed in the 50’s. But do people live the same today as people in the 50’s. No they don’t. Middle class in the 50’s was a two bedroom, one bath house, one car in the garage and it usually had a few years on it. not many conveniences in the house other than a stove, refrigerator and washing machine. Air conditioning was a fan in the window, the cloths dryer was a line hanging between two trees or two post in the ground. When people bought their first house, it was basically a nice shack that was 30-40 years old and their first cars were wired together with bailing wire to keep them running. They worked up to the bigger house and better car.
Now kids want what their parents have now, they go neck deep in debt to get it, they spend tons on gadgets, do not save for anything and complain when they max out their credit cards and can’t buy the next iphone that hits the market.
And colleges have found that kids can get easy loans, so they keep raising tuition and people keep paying it. There is no supply and demand controls because the demand is there since students can get thousands each year and not until demand drops will tuition drop also. Then when they have their degree from Bowdunk U with a degree in early Egyptian mythology and can’t get a good paying job, they complain about conservatives screwing up the economy and causing job losses.
It is not conservatives, it is not liberals, it is not Libertarians, Greenees or any other political party that has screwed up the economy of this country. It is the people we have sent to Washington for years that cater to the special interest and then will not make any decisions to fix problems for fear of not getting reelected. EXAMPLE: Social Security.
Ron you have it right on about the middle class in the 1950s.
But it still took two incomes for most to survive – women generally went back to work after the kids were in school, full time or part time jobs. And stay at home moms worked family survival hours then : cooking, cleaning, shopping were way more time consuming.
It was a different world then with different expectations. Our collective mindset has changed – you can blame a good part of that on the proliferation of carrot dangling media advertising, which has convinced us all we have to own more than we need or feel like failures in gadget infested America.
This is not an exclusive American malaise. The rest of the industrial world is in the same dilemma: as standards of living rise, working class labor becomes vulnerable to replacement by other working classes in poorer nations. I don’t see a viable solution in our lifetimes, or for generation to come.
Jay according to “The Economics Daily” website, the employment participation rate in 1950 was 87% male and 34% female. In 1960 it was about 82% and 38%. In 2010 the male participation rate was about 72% and female at 60%.
And the majority of the women who worked in the 50’s were teachers and nurses. Some worked as clerks in stores, but other employment was limited and most were lower paid individuals. Their income, if they had a job, did not do much to raise the standard of living. Even teachers and nurses were not paid much.
One thing that we don’t think of when we look at the above numbers is the cost of child care when 60% of the female population works. My daughter , who lives in Salt Lake City,has two children under 4 years old and pays almost $18,000 per year on child care for those two children. With taxes and child care, her take home pay doesn’t add up to much.
And I suspect people in lower income brackets have the same cost, so their take home pay is even less.
Maybe if we looked at family net income after child care and compared the 50’s to the 00’s, there may not be much difference in adjusted income after adjusting for the buying power of a dollar between the two family income and the one family income
I mostly agree with your comment.
Yes, women were paid less for work, but my point was that extra money was usually needed to pay the bills, or afford the luxury of a TV or stereo, etc, which did raise the family’s standard of living.
Also add to your list of modern family expenses when both working: a housekeeper @ $200 a month; restaurant take out or delivered food @ $50 a meal with tip when both are too tired to cook; survailance service and/or equipment @ $50 a month; dog walker @$40 a week.
Ron, don’t forget to add that those easy student loans are now controlled by the government, so that the interest can be used to subsidize Obamacare. This was part of the ACA that no one in either party talks about.
The interest rate on these loans is much higher than the prevailing consumer rate. That’s because it’s the government borrowing the funds, and then marking them up about 4% before issuing the money to the student.
And, of course, the student has almost no control over the money, which is issued directly to the college or university. Most students have little to no understanding of what they are taking on in terms of debt, until they graduate….often with tens of thousands of loans to repay and no good jobs in sight. And, even when they do, with even public universities averaging $10K a year, it’s often impossible for them to get a degree without borrowing.
Why the Republicans have failed to make an issue of this in the past two elections is beyond me. Although, I suppose they want to be able to count on money from the indentured servitude middle class student as well.
The student loans should be interest free.
And if after graduation you enter professions like teaching or nursing or the military, a portion of the loan should be deducted for each year of work.
“The student loans should be interest free.
And if after graduation you enter professions like teaching or nursing or the military, a portion of the loan should be deducted for each year of work.”
Right on.
Priscilla;
“Why the Republicans have failed to make an issue of this in the past two elections is beyond me.”
Can you imagine what people like Moogie would say when the Republicans in congress begin trying to change the student loan program? It would sound the same as the GOP pushing grandma over the proverbial cliff.
This is an entitlement program and no politician will touch one of those with a 10 foot pole.
Moogie;
I am trying to follow the logic.
At the same time as jobs were leaving the US for china, the standard of living in china increased over 200 fold – a feat never matched in that short a time in human history.
So good jobs in the US (jobs slaving over mills, and sewing machines, and …) have gone to chinese sleave sweatshops – causing the standard of living in China to skyrocket so much that many of those same textiles jobs are now headed to places like bangeledesch.
I remember saving pennies and nickels in milk cartons for the starving millions in Bangeledesch when I was a child. Now instead of millions starving a few are dying in factory fires – and again the standard of living in bangeledesh is skyrocketing.
The recent trend is for manufacting to return to the US. Highly automated manufacturing with few well paid jobs.
But according to you the purpose of globalization is slave labor and sweat shops.
Well whatever the motives the results are:
Improved standard of living in the US because we are growing high skill high paid jobs. And because we are paying ever less for goods.
Improved standards of living in all those slave labor sweatshop countries.
It IS booming all over the world – over the past 40 years the standard of living for the entire world has DOUBLED – that is despite the fact that the population has also doubled – that means on the whole we are producing and consuming 4 times what we did before.
BTW the same is true of the US individually. China and India have done dramatically better – between them that is nearly half the worlds population.
The places that have not done so well ? The mideast, and Africa.
BTW over the past 3 decades US manufacturing output has DOUBLED.
Can you please cite a single fact that actually supports your nonsensical claims ?
Name a country in the world that has taken those supposedly good middle class jobs from us (really low skill relatively poorly paying jobs), that is not doing far better today ?
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
When you start reading sources with FACTS, we’ll be able to discuss this intelligently. The middle class has been disappearing for over 25 years!! My standard of living is not equal to my grandparents, and I have a degree, and this is true for a huge number of us born in the 60s & 70s.
Apparently you missed my critical thinking on that Gallup poll. Interviewing 13,000 people (out of 320 million), most of them over 65, hardly demonstrates that we have a “higher” standard of living.
The “standard of living” in those countries has gone from having to walk 3 miles to the river to having a community well. They probably still don’t have indoor plumbing for most people and no electricity. Certainly not what you or I would settle for. And the factory conditions are appalling. But to you workers are just disposable, as long as we have “cheap labor”. The world economy is still in the toilet, so the standard of living is nothing to brag about.
You far right conservatives never cease to amaze me how you can look at the sky that everyone else sees as blue and you will say it is green. And you will keep on saying it and saying it till the more gullible half of the population believes you.
Every.single.reliable.source. I have read in the past 25 has told of the stagnating wages in this country, the selling of our jobs overseas, the ruination of unions that protected working people and the increasing Income Inequality. But here is another one of you crying “all is well”. SMDH
https://mic.com/articles/150912/billionaires-richest-people-in-the-world-income-inequality#.CLpIZMXDX
More facts for you to ignore. Been reading articles like this for over 25 years now. but even staring you in the face you will cling to your ways. But conservatives are extremely good at that.
Ron P.
I liked Perot, but he was totally wrong about trade and so are you.
First and most fundimentally – standard of living is what we can consume.
And we can not consume what we do not produce.
It is not rooted in income, it is rooted solely in what we produce.
There is no difference between earning $7.50 and hour and paying 300 for rent and earning 15/hr and paying 600 for rent.
Losing a job making $10/hr to someone doing the same thing for $1/hour harms you – ONLY if you are unable to find another job that actually produces $10 in value/hr. HOWEVER, the world as a whole – and even our country is better off because what you produced before is now available to us all for much much less.
In economics there is a law or principle called “comparative advantage”, you should look into it.
But the gist of it is that if you want a higher standard of living you need to either produce much more of the same thing at lower cost or produce something even more valueable.
It means that if you want to be a nation of garment workers then you had better be content with the standard of living of garment workers.
You an perot complain about jobs going to mexico – and conditions down their. Are conditions in mexico in factories today worse than those in the US in the 19th century ? Is polution worse ?
We got to where we are through the conditions of the 19th century.
Those of the 19th were much better than the 18th and those of the 21st are better than those before.
Not only are we better off today than the 50’s we are MUCH better off today than the 50’s.
My tenants who are bottom qunitile, all have AC, have cars that will last 200,000 miles, have laptops, flat screens, bigger apartments than my middle class father did in the 50’s, cell phones, better medical care, better food at much lower prices.
People in the 50’s might have been happy with their lives – but the standard of living of the middle class in the 50’s was lower than that of the poor today.
People always see the past as somehow better then the present. We have been doing that throughout human existance.
It is rarely true, It has not been on the whole true in the US since columbus.
“First and most fundimentally – standard of living is what we can consume.”
You need to look at your Monahan quote about opinions and facts
You have your facts that you are using to support your position and I have my documentation to support my position on NAFTA.
http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
And there are many other sites that provide this same basic understanding of NAFTA. We both have facts to argue our point and I suspect neither of us will change our minds.
As for standard of living, I would offer that consumer debt (which I talked about with the younger generations) has much to do with the increase you comment about. According to a 2010 article from MainStreet.com the average American personal debt in 1940s and 1950s was less than $2,000. The same report links to an article in The Atlantic that states the 2010 total personal debt (non-real estate) is about $10,168. (The same article shows a total debt of $1,186 in 1948.) The key here is the article adjusts backwards for inflation so that the $1,186 amount is comparing $1,186 in 2010 dollars to $10,168 in 2010 dollars. In other words the actual amount of total debt in 1948 would have been lower — about $130 in total debt– but the value of that $130 dollars in 2010 would be $1,186. People paid for what they had or they did not buy it.
So maybe Joe Smoe drives two nice cars, has an HDTV, eats out twice a week with his wife. has internet connections and fancy smart phones and all the other bells and whistles you speak of, but our we really better off with the consumer debt we have, or was the generation in the 50’s happier because what they had they owned and they did not have to worry about making payments on time each month like so many today.
But remember, this comment comes from a credit adverse individual that will not buy anything unless the money is available to pay for it, including cars, so that can cloud my thinking alot. And that thinking came from my depression era mother that pinched penny’s until Lincoln screamed.
Jay,
While I am glad that the UN HDI index for the US in sincreasing.
I have zero confidence in such indexes.
I am not interested in Gross National Happiness indexes,
We have only one reasonable measure of standard of living. While that measure has numerous flaws, it is still the best we have.
And that is GDP/PPP per capita.
Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production
Adam Smith
We produce in order to consume. We produce and consume rooted in our own free choices.
I am not interested in someone else deciding that we would have been happier had we produced or consumed differently.
What is critical here is that the components of GDP/PPP per capita are all reflections of our choices and values.
Every other index reflects someone elses choices of what we should do.
Whether I choose to cook meals for the homeless, or go on vacation with my familiy – someone else is not entitled to decide what I should have done.
I would also note that GDP/PPP per capita factors out income completely.
I am not even interested in the explanation of why the UN uses the logarithm of income. It is irrelevant. What is relevant – all that is relevant is what we each are able to consume.
By sticking to GDP we mostly factor out inflation and all the impossibilities of adjusting income or other prices for inflation which is not merely a non-trivial process it is actually impossible.
It is one of the reasons for rejecting left GINI nonsensical claims.
Rather than use highly eroneous measures of income adjusted over time.
Try looking at the real wealth of people over time – BTW for each quintile that has atleast doubled over the past 40 years – so much for Pickettys and the left.
Jay;
“Student loans should be interest free”
Bzzt, wrong !!
Government should have absolutely zero involvement of any kind in the economy or our individual choices.
We have just seen what happens when government manipulates interest rates for home loans – do we need to repeat that ?
I do not have it on the tip of my tongue – but the data on the insolvency of existing student loans is horrendous. As government created messes go it is far from the largest disaster.
Regardless, it is alot of money down the toilet.
There are so many fundimental problems.
People do not value properly what they get for free.
We have the problems we have in the student loan program because it is too easy for people to borrow money for further education without knowing what they really are looking to do. Far too many start and quit, or finish and do not get the jobs they were educated for.
No matter how important you may think french litterature is, we only need so many french literature doctorates.
On another Blog I follow the writer has noted how the massive numbers of people persuing an education in forestry and environmental areas has destroyed those fields. Students go to college and learn about counting wolves and think when they graduate they are going to get a job saving the planet. They end up with jobs deciding whether to approve payment applications to a concession in a national park. They are completely clueless with respect to the skills needed for the job they have been hired to do, and the results end up bad for everyone.
Pumping more money into something does not inherently improve it.
It extremely frequently makes things worse.
But for most problems government has little involvement beyond funding.
The catholic schools today cost about 1/3 of what public schools do and provide and equal or better education – often serving a poor children.
My kids were cyber chartered – because my daughter had needs that traditional public schools do not meet.
But more than half her classmate were inner city minority children of poor single mothers.
I live a few miles from an extremely presitgious girls private high school.
Tuition room and board is about 30% more than the average public highschool – yet this is the cream of the crop, further students board here.
About twice as far away in the other direction is a highly regarded menonite high school They cost a bit more than half what the local highschool costs, and provide a far superior education.
Making things cheaper or free does not make them better – it often makes them far worse.
In the real world over the past 40 years most prices have DECLINED.
Some without adjusting for inflation.
Gas currently is running $2/gal. I spent 1200 for a top of the line refridgerator in 1983 that is crap compared to what I can buy for $900 at home depot today. Plastic surgey is much cheaper. Many other medical procedures that are free market or atleast competitive are cheaper.
I spent more for a phone in my dorm room in 1977 than I do for cell phones for my entire family with unlimited nationwide calling today.
I bought my first PC for $6400 in 1980, my current laptop is $1200.
I had 2-3 channels on my TV in 1970. I do not even have channels today, I watch whatever I want from tens of thousands of choices when I want.
I bought a top of the line 14″ sony TV in 1983 for $450. I have a 40″ flatscreen today that costs the same.
Yet over this period of time the price of public and college education has gone through the roof, and quality has declined.
In fact look arround. Look at everything that has gotten better and cheaper and everything that has gotten more expensive and or worse.
There is a common factor – government. Heatlhcare and education are the most highly regulated and subsidized portions of the market and they have had the worst record.
So PLEASE do not make student loans interest free.
If you really want to do poor students a favor, get government out of lonas completely.
I want any student that is going to borrow money to go to college to:
Be sure they are working to get value for what they are borrowing.
demand value from the college that is educating them.
We have spent the past year listening to protests on campus of students seeking to silence those who disagree with them and to be sure that all students going through their college are appropriately sensitized to race, gender and cultural issues.
My kids are both adopted and asian. I have a good sense of racial, gender and cultural issues.
But what I want for my children is that they are able to support themselves doing work they love. As I have been able to do.
No matter how sensitive we are to the plight of minorities, we need doctors, and nurses, paramedics, police officers, bankers, bakers, farmers, investors, inventors, engineers, architects.
If you wish to live in a tent in the woods struggling to save the snail darter – more power to you – but we can not all do that. Someone has to create and produce the medicines that keep you healthy, and make the tent, and build the roads, and …
And all of those have cost and require us to produce value.
When you make something like education free you distort the education system – you end up with students fighting over halloween costumes on the public dime, rather than figuring out how to produce more energy, or transport or consume it more efficiently.
Schockley was a pretty infamous racist, he is also a nobel prize winning inventor of the transistor. Would we be better off if he had instead learned french literature ?
Priscilla;
So which would you prefer – a smooth savvy liar that you can not tell is lying until things have gone to hell, or a loud shoot from the hip blowhard who backs away from many of the most egregious things he says long before they turn into action ?
Clinton is still getting tangled up in the email problem
She is still trying to say she was truthful under oath to congress, she was truthful to the american public and that Comey found that.
This is not even close. Comey came about as close as possible to Sirica’s ruling that Nixon was an unindicted co-consprator.
He said other people go to jail for this, but this was not a case he thought could be successfully prosecuted.
The Clinton’s are incredibly good at rolling people. They rolled CharityWatch and Charity navigator, they rolled Jay, they atleast partly roled Comey.
Again is that a skill we want in presidents – the ability to make lies sound like truth ?
Certainly not. I am not a Clinton supporter. I was making the point that she is a skilled liar, almost pathological (remember the “We landed under sniper fire” whopper?). If lying is a skill that people want in their president, Hillary should be their choice.
Pricella I dismiss ‘best ever’ or ‘worst ever’ remarks, impossible to verify because they require comparing time frames with different references.
To me she seemed an average Sec of State. Remember, that office has always been circumscribed by Presidential authority. Mostly, she was just a messinger and go-between for Obama’s policies, not a decision maker. And we don’t know how much he was swayed by her opinions or advice, with the exception of the decision to take out Bin Laden, where she apparently was a strong advocate to kill him.
I think she will be more moderate in office than Obama has been on social issues, and much more willing to negotiate with Republicans – that, by all accounts, was her history as NY Senator. Moron Trump won’t even negotiate with his own party members; imagine the hatred and revenge that would ooze out at him from both houses of Congress if elected, and the gridlock that would follow.
I’m a reluctant Clinton supporter. If Trump drops out and a moderate like Ryan steps in I would seriously consider voting for him. The opposite for Cruz. Though I applaud his courage in repudiating Trump, he’s too far to the Left of crazy in his politics, and would be more dangerous in many ways than Repellent Republican Trump
PS – if Clinton has a lock on California at voting time, I will support the Libertarian candidates in protest of our unworkable Two Party Failure.
You are right. It is unlikely that Trump or Clinton are the worst ever anything – but it is likely that the combination is atleast the worst choices in a long time.
Clinton was not the worst Sec. State. Though the is not likely to be in the top half – certainly not in comparison to powell, Rice, Kissenger, Albright, Schultz,
or Jefferson, Marshall, Monroe, Madison, Adams.
Being a bottom half sec. state – is not a resume qualifier for president.
The same is true of Senator Clinton – again there were far far worse.
But nothing to distinguish her.
The extent of the role of each sec. state is determined by the latitude the president gives them.
It is my impression – though I could be wrong that foreign relations during Clinton’s tenure more strongly reflects her values than Obama’s.
Certainly US foreign policy under Clinton did not look alot like what candidate Obama discussed.
But you get to make your own decisions their.
If you want to go with the president dictates and is responsible for everything – then you have just made Obama culpable in Lois Lehner’s criminal actions – as well as the mishandling of the VA (even after giving them billions more still ongoing), or Fast and Furious or you are saying that Comey’s conclusions really came from Obama.
I do not think Obama was directly responsible for the bad decisions made during his tenure. But I do think he is responsible for the people he put in place who made those bad decisions – including Clinton.
I choose to beleive that Clinton had broad latitude as Sec. State.
But I could be wrong – in which case Obama has greater culpability than I impose on him.
One of the things I find espeically intriguing about Clinton is that she is like Dick Cheney. He shot someone in the face and managed to get them to publicly appologize – that is power.
The Clinton’s have set up a sham charity and were called out on it, and have manged to get the watchdogs to apologize for calling things as they are – that is power.
That is also not what I want in a president.
Who is appologizing to Trump when he bulldozes them ?
“Who is appologizing to Trump when he bulldozes them ?”
His ex-wives, who had to sign non-disclosure confidentiality agreements not to disparage him publically or write tell-all biographies, in order to get their divorce settlements.
All those he threatened with lawsuits for critizing him – those with heavyweight connections who would financially back them proceeded; but numerous small fries were silenced – forced silent apology.
You keep knocking the Clinton Foundation with no factual evidence to back your malicious ideological-driven claims. To call it a ‘sham charity’ is libelous claptrap, more evidence of your frequent partisan lapses into mud-slinging idiocy. It’s impossible for you to separate objective reality from imbecilic partisan petulance. If it was a sham charity do you think these nations, corporations, philanthropists wound be donating millions of dollars year after year to the Foundation?
Donors between $250,000 and $25 Million:
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Elton John AIDS Foundation, Irish Aid, Government of the Netherlands, Fred Eychaner and Alphawood Foundation, Irish Aid, The Radcliffe Foundation,Nationale Postcode Loterij, The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, UNITAID, Citi Foundation, Barclay’s Capital, Goldman Sachs, Standard, Bank of America Foundation, Citigroup, HSBC Holdings, UBS Wealth Management, Banco Santander Brasil, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Americas, Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Global Impact Funding Trust, Coca-Cola, Anheuser-Busch, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Hewlett Packard, Humana, Microsoft, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Dow Chemical, Boeing, the Walmart Foundation (as well as the Walton Family Foundation), Toyota, Alibaba Group, Chevron, General Electric, Google, Monsanto, News Corporation (Murdoch), Allstate, Harrah’s, AIG, Freeport McMoRan, McDonald’s, Walmart.
Ron P
“So how does one without money rig the system?”
Clinton is offering some permutation of free college education. We all would love a free college education. Some of us are unable to grasp there is no free college education, or we grasp it but still think someone else will pay, or we think that if we oppose – it will be us that gets screwed and someone else that gets the freebie we have to pay for.
Democracy is rigging by human nature – the majority of us do not have the right to impose our will on others by force. That is both unworkable and immoral.
In our actual political system, our founders did not seek to purge special interests – unlike us, they were smart enough to grasp that succeeding in driving one special interest group out just created a void for another. They created a system that pits interests against each other – so that nothing can be accomplished short of near unanimity.
And if you are familiar with ethics, and law and philosophy, you would find that absent that kind of supermajority support you do not have a workable system.
It is estimated that if as few as 11% of people vigorously oppose a law – sufficient that they will resist with force, that law is unenforceable.
You should never forget that government is force. Not merely from the moral sense of when is the use of force justified, but from the practical sense of every new law requires
people – and effort to enforce. Every new law atleast slightly increases the scale of government. With each law you move further from producing towards enforcing.
Or do you think that laws and compliance with them is free ? Do you think all laws would be universally obeyed if they were not enforced.
There are myriads of factors in human nature that will “rig the system” one way or another.
The good news is that most of the time they tend to cancel each other out.
You want to bemoan the influence of the rich, and money in politics.
Without them we would have something closer to pure democracy and the country would have long ago failed.
I am far less concerned with the rich thwarting what you want, and far more concerned with they renting the power of government. our democratic impulses are supposed to be one factor preventing that – but as Madison noted unfortunately they are not sufficient.
Dave! I love it! In all sincerity I feel like you are a true Libertarian and I am just a recovering former Republican, Libertarian wannabe. Government is force. Wasn’t it Mao that said the beginning of political power starts and the end of the barrel of a gun? (I’m too lazy to check but it is a poignant quote for who ever said it.) Ok, you asked me to define open borders. I guess my concept of that is literally not controlling who comes or leaves the country. Be it Columbians shipping in enormous quantities of dope, or a Russian mobster flying in with a string of starving young massage therapist trainees that will visit awhile and be taken back and replaced with a new set of trainees, as well as boatloads of people from the Indian sub-continent just showing up in hopes of finding something to eat. While I’m in favor of dumping a lot of the drug laws, and revamping prostitution laws to make it hopefully safer for everyone involved and above ground in hopes of being better able to keep underage individuals out, I like the idea of slow, incremental change, I don’t use, nor am I interested in marijuana, however I’m pretty happy with the way changes have taken place on that subject. A couple of states try it out, see how it goes, learn and adapt. So, I wait for your response to my concerns because I anticipate I’ll like your answers.
Agree with everything you said. So our comment ““It is rigged – but the rigging in not by big money, it is by human nature.” taken one step further would indicate human nature rigs the system and money is the means to be in the position to be the one rigging it.
My point is millions of people would have no way in the world to rig the system. Even those like the Libertarians with a foot in the door can not get past the door jamb. They do not have the money to take that next step like the rigged system requires.
“Some of us are unable to grasp there is no free college education, ”
You mean in the US.
I’ve done some searching, I can’t really find any solid proof that the Clinton Foundation is corrupt. Not in my opinion anyway, but there are still many things I don’t know yet. How much to the Clintons control who gets hired and how much they get paid. Obviously if they control both, then they could both reward people they wanted to reward and perhaps even have someone who gets a Foundation paycheck to be actually working for them. Meaning campaign research or who knows what, while getting their paycheck from a charity. Again I don’t have any evidence of that, just exploring the possibility.
The Foundation operates like a corporate think tank – that means the hire people in house to do the work, which includes lots of travel, and often living in foreign countries. So you’d expect the Foundation to hire competent workers, and pay them competitive salaries.
I don’t have time to dig up the figures, but they were highly rated for the percentage of donations used for projects against overhead expenses, which included administrative salaries – only about 12%. Organizations like the Red Cross and Salvation Army have overheads in the 40to 50% range,
FYI, I’ve updated my name and picture to my current, 50 year old self- (Standing next to my son.) from mike300spartan-30 year old self.
Ron P., I spent 21 years in Texas, from age 14-35, so I’m well acquainted w/ good ole Ross. I’m 53.
Please stop repeating the same BS that the younger generation is just lazy and wants everything their parents have and max out credit cards. I went to college, but I live in the sticks and a really good paying job is hard to come by. The best I’ve done in the past 14 years is $14/hr – considered good pay out here. I left teaching, a notoriously bad paying career – and by myself I good only afford a double wide trailer for a home (on teacher pay). Now that double wide takes half my pay. I’m one of the lucky ones, I have family that can help when I have a crisis.
It is extremely discouraging to work full time for so little, to realize that I cannot afford to help kids and grandkids as my parents and grandparents were able to help theirs. It is knowing I will never be able to retire, much less do the things my parents and grandparents did as retirees. I have had to sell my stocks, my coin collection, my grandmother’s beautiful dinner room suite (which they could afford on a working man’s salary). Everything in my home was inherited from grandparents/parents. Clothes are bought at thrift stores. Cars are second hand. When credit cards are run up in my world, it is from buying groceries & other necessities when I’m unemployed/underemployed.
Imagine how people younger than me feel – that they will never own their own home, or have cars that don’t breakdown continuously, or be able to help their children.
I expect most people who think the standard of living is fine, or who blame younger ones for not being “successful” enough – are those same retirees that sent our jobs overseas.
Moogie, I don’t think I have ever said the younger generation is lazy. What I have said many times is they are an instant gratification generation that is unwilling to wait for what their parents have. Do they normally drive 10 year old cars with 150,000 miles on it? Do they have small color TV’s in the residence or large screen HDTV’s? Do they have cell phones with $75.00 per month or higher monthly fees, or do they have one of the lessor phones just for emergencies that have $15 to $20 per month fees? Do they cook all their dinners at home, or eat out 3-4 times a week? Do they buy cloths at discount stores or something like Old Navy, Abercrombie or one of the other expensive stores?
What I am saying is the older generation worked up to what they have, while the younger generation is willing to go neck deep in debt to get it now.
And you keep missing my point about jobs. Please read what I am saying. I agree with you that jobs have gone overseas. I agree with you that corporations have moved to increase profits and that has driven down access to good paying jobs. But what you are not understanding is ALL political parties that have been in control for the past 50 years have promoted trade agreements that have created the problems we have today. Bill Clinton was instrumental in getting NAFTA passed in 1994 with the democrat controlled congress, with GOP support. They both screwed this country with that agreement and that is why Carrier is moving, Ford is producing most of their cars in mexico for export to the USA and why all electric hand tools that are not Chinese crap are being made in Mexico. And if it is not the trade agreements, it is tax policy where companies can merge with foreign companies, move to places like Ireland, pay 15% tax instead of 30% plus and instantly raise net income.
So stop with the conservative BS spread by the liberal media and start thinking for yourself. Yes there are differences in the way you and I may address problems, but both of us would be much different than the way either party addresses them now.
And last, remember that Hillary Clinton supported the Trans Pacific Trade agreement while Sec. of State until October 2015 when Bernie began cutting into her Democrat support and threatened to take the nomination. She switched positions since many of his supporters did not agree with this, so now she “says” she does not support it. I would not count on that once she is elected and watch more of the jobs going to the far east.
I considered myself quite moderate, thank you, and read from sources that I consider to be moderate. Of course I realize that anything that isn’t hard left is called communist by today’s conservatives… If I have one fault its that I don’t think like ANYONE else, ever. It is a blessing and a curse.
I’m 53 and have been a teacher and have caught up with many ex-students over the years. I also have usually worked at other jobs where the majority of people are younger than me. And no, I don’t see them doing all the things you claim. I see them trying to make do with far less than the older generations. They are having to live at home with parents, or with roommates who are an even bigger problem than when I had them, because they are all so broke.
You show your age when you think they don’t have to have a $75 month cell phone. That is not only a phone (they don’t have home phones) it is also their computer, as you must have internet access to get jobs. Banking is done online. Also if you don’t pay bills on line you will probably be charged an extra fee.
When you’ve worked 40+ hours /week – just to pay bills and nothing is getting you ahead – then yes you are liable to eat out more often. But its a little burger at McDs, not a gourmet meal. I’d say most of them don’t even have credit cards because their pay is so low they don’t qualify for much. And usually if you do have one, its emergencies that eat up your credit limit, not luxuries. Or being unemployed. Our Ambercrombies went out of business, along with The Gap and Aeropostale. So they ain’t been shopping there!!
Every article I’ve read for the past 25 years has told how wages have stagnated but prices haven’t. Housing is now eating up 40% of people’s pay, unlike 25% 30 years ago. I am also amused & disgusted when it is implied that young people buy too much “Japan crap” (meaning unnecessary items made overseas). As if you could walk thru their house and find enough “useless” items that they could have bought a house with instead.
There are far more real reasons that young people aren’t doing so well than the garbage I hear from the right. IMHO, the older generation that sold all our jobs to China is just trying to make themselves feel better.
Corporations constantly seek to drive down costs, and increase profits – that has and will always be so.
But profit increases never last, they are inevitably turned over to consumers.
Walmart makes about 1 1/4% on average on every sale. It turns goods on average 4 times a year and has average profits of about 5% on total capital.
While profits are higher and lower in different markets – based on risk, they vary very little over time and very little within a given level of risk.
The fact that corporations will ALWAYS seek to increase profits does not change the fact that over the long term they never succeed, that all cost reductions are eventually turned over to consumers.
I want corporations to be as greedy as possible – so long as they:
do not use actual force (and that includes leveraging the power of government), honor their promises and are accountable for actual harms they cause. Because their greed ultimately lowers the price I pay for things.
“Corporations constantly seek to drive down costs, and increase profits – that has and will always be so…. Because their greed ultimately lowers the price I pay for things.”
Tell that to the US drug manufacturing corporations who charge Twice to Triple as much for drugs here than Europeans pay for the same medicines.
I have a major problem with trade agreements though not the same one of everyone else here.
Fear of jobs going to china or mexico is stupid.
Do you honestly think it helps all of us to protect a few peoples jobs by force – because that is what tarriffs are, for a short time while reducing the standard of living of everyone else.
Whether it i clothes of food or Steel, a lower price means the rest of of can afford more of other things.
Even if you falsely beleive there is no better use for that labor than making clothes, you are at best buying a temporary respite until they are replaced by machines.
This luddite thinking has been going on for centuries. It is fallacious.
The problem with our trade agreements is they are unnecescary.
We should unilaterally reduce all our tarriffs to a small to nonexistant value. There is no need for agreement. If other nations do not wish to follow suit – the harm is theirs. If the chinese want to export the wealth of their nation to US citizens by subsidizing steal or some other product – we should celebrate – though the claim is nonsense, China’s standard of living has increased far more rapidly than that of the US, that makes the exploitation and subsidy claim lunacy.
The real purpose of trade agreements is to accomplish through trade agreements what can not ordinarily be accomplished through legislation.
As an example US copyright law was modified such that copyrights are for all practical purposes infinite – in a time when 98% of the value of a copyright is returned in the first 18months.
To be clear this was not forced on us by other nations, our own trade representatives required the agreement include provisions that required modifications to our law.
Trade aggreements are treaties – they do not require house approval.
Further they often have fast track approval meaning the final agreement is subject only to an up down vote in the senate.
The real harm of trade agreements is inflicted on us by ourselves.
Not foreign powers.
“you are at best buying a temporary respite until they are replaced by machines.”
That’s OK if the machines are made in the USA and maintenanced by US workers.
All things in balance. Hypothetically, if a tariff on T-shirts increases the cost of T-shirts 10%, but US sewers hired to make them are spending the money they make at the local supermarket whose sales then increase 20%, so that their employees work longer hours for extra pay – won’t it be in everyone’s interest to pay 10% more for T-Shirts?
You tell us all this sob story, but you do not tell us what you do.
My 17 year old son makes $11 as a cashier at target.
My 20 year old daughter makes $15 as an EMT – that required a HS degree and a half semester course that cost $1000.
The average starting salary for a teacher in TX is 38K/year (17/hr), the average salary of a teacher in TX is 52K(26/hr).
And $14/hr is 30K/yr. I have no idea what a double wide costs in TX, but im PA that is enough to buy a 100K home. My second home cost $125K it was much nicer than a double wide, and I was making a little bit more than you are now at the time.
I live in a nicer home than you – one I have spent the past 10 years building mostly myself in my free time.
Much of my furniture is inherited – because I am old enough that both my and my wifes parents are all dead and what did not get sold we kept. Some of my furniture is my grandmothers, or her grandmothers. Much of it is quite nice – or I would not have kept it.
Some of what is new, I designed and my grandfather made, some I made myself.
I buy my clothes at thrift stores too. So does my daughter and she looks like a fashion model. My son however must buy everything new. Different people different values.
I have bought two cars new in my entire life – one in 1989 (that lasted 20 years) and one in 2015 when my wife revolted and said she was not driving a 15 year old car anymore (that was our newest).
Aside from hers every other car I own has over 200K miles on it. So what ?
Cars actually last much longer today than in the past.
Regardless, you are right – working hard is not enough. You have to work at something others value. If you produce value, often you do not have to work very hard at all.
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs – even Donald Trump have changed the world.
I suspect the worked very hard. But if success was measured in the amount of sweat they are all failures. But it is not.
If you have a job little better than my 17yr old son – why do you expect to live better than he can ?
Is someone who flips burgers at McDonalds today somehow producing more value than someone who did that 40 years ago ?
I do not know anything about you beyond what you say.
I do know that a 53yr old with an education as a teacher is not earning $14 as a full time teacher.
I left teaching years ago, for many reasons. Your son and daughter cannot possibly have qualified for a loan on a house and probably not a new car on $11/$15 an hour. Nor will they be able to in the near future on that pay. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are living at home. BTW spent half my life in Texas and still know plenty of people down there, so I know abt $$$ down there.
Most people cannot build their own furniture or homes. My grandfather did, but wealthy corporations wanted all those “regulations” people claim have ruined business…because they did not want the competition of people doing it themselves. Most people do not have the space to grow food on their property any more either – something I hear from the older genration all the time.
The wealthy of this country are who have put the “value” on jobs in this country. They have decided to keep much more for themselves and pay workers less. This is why our economy is in the toilet. Without a well-paid working class (so they are middle class) they have no money to spend on “stuff”. And you can expect this to continue until they learn the lesson Henry Ford knew over 100 years ago.
For the record, having been a high school teacher, I know for sure not everyone needs a college education. We may need more in the way of trade schools. Not everyone is a rocket scientist, and we still need our toilets scrubbed. Why do you not think that janitors deserve to make a reasonable living?
IMHO, an EMT should make far more than $15 an hour. A job that requires life or death decisions?
Arguing with him reasonably is a waste of time, Moogie.
Like Trump, he’s deaf to all but his own brittle preconceptions.
Moogie – read what I wrote.
I did not say my kids had car or home loans.
I said that the $14/hr that you claim to be making is sufficient income for a $100K house – and if you are the slightest familiar with lending standards – it is. You still may not be able to get a loan – but that would be because of how you already spend your income, not because you have insufficient income.
My 17yr old Son has 5K in the bank and wants to buy a motorcycle – not borrow for one. Buy one. Of course he is still living at home, so that is not a fair comparison. At the same time he does nto have the qualifications of skills that would let him gett a teaching job which you say you do.
Why you left teaching is your business. But your claim that Teachers can’t afford more than a double wide is complete crap – even in TX.
If you have chosen to move to work that pays less – that was your free choice, so please do not bemoan that you can not have both that choice and the income of a teacher.
With respect to TX, I took my starting salaries and average income figures from TX teachers union data – are you telling me you know more than they do ? Maybe you do. have not been to TX in 30 years. But I am far more inclined to beleive their data than your moaning.
In my area there are only a few reasons people leave Teaching jobs for $14/hr jobs. Those are not typically “free choices” and most make clients of my wifes. But that is an entirely different discussion.
I am not recommending that people build their own homes, grow their own food or make their own furniture – it is a choice. It is usually an inefficient choice.
I am self employed. When I have work I am very well paid. Most of the time I do not have work. When I am busy it is far cheaper and more efficient for me to hire other people to make furniture, build my home ….
When I have no work, I work on my home, I build furniture, I do my own car repairs, ….. Because even though inefficient it is still better than sitting on my hands bemoaning the world.
No the rich of the world do not set the value of jobs – you do.
When you buy a light bulb at Walmart or a hamburger at McD’s or when you choose not to buy. You are setting not merely the value of the light bulb or the hamburger, but the value of the time of everyone associated with providing you those things.
I told you I sometimes hire people to help with my house.
If they want too much – it is not worthwhile for me to hire them.
It is that simple. If McD’s asks too much for a burger, I eat elsewhere or make my own.
It is all our choices that determine the prices of everything and the wages for those who produce them.
Walmart sells 1/2T of goods each year. most of that is sold to the bottom half – that is 1/2T in wealth we get from walmart alone each year.
The entire Walton familiy net worth is less than 1/4 of that. If Walmart cut prices 5% the Waltons would have nothing in 5 years.
You radically over estimate the significance of the rich.
Though you are correct that many of the rich buy government influence to protect them. So disempower government, But instead you keep giving government ever more power.
Even in this election – What is Trumps record in terms of buying and selling government favors ? I am sure if we look hard enough we might find where he has bought some – though for the most part he seems to use lawyers to get what he wants rather than buying government.
Clinton on the other hand has been constantly involves in the dispensing of government favors.
If the working class has no money to spend on Stuf they certainly are buying alot of stuff. The US census says that all of us in every quintile have atleast twice as much stuff as we did 40 years ago.
BTW the uber rich while they have alot of stuff, have a tiny portion of stuff compared to total money. Most of what they have is invested – while that benefits them – meaning they end up with more money. They do not end up with more stuff, we end up with more stuff.
Moogie;
You can not pay people more than the value or what they produce.
Just not happening. PERIOD. The discussion should completely end there.
Can not grasp why you do not understand that.
If you want paid more – find a job that produces more value – it is that simple.
A burger flipper at McD’s is only worth so much – today and 40 years ago.
A cashier is only worth so much.
….
And you decide what they are worth. Not the rich.
You bemoan your problems.
What is it that you think the fix is ?
Magic ?
Are we supposed to do exactly the same job each year every year producing exactly the same thing and after 20 years be making twice as much ?
How is it that you imagine that working ?
There is no magic.
You can consume the value you produce.
Frankly you should be tankful for all those “slave labor sweatshop workers” in china.
Atleast they mean that you can buy a lot more for your $14/hr from them than you used to.
We have dumped $600B in aide to africa over the past 40 years and it is one of few places in the world were standard of living has not budged.
Extensive study of the economics of aftrican aide have lead to one inexhorable conclusion – one that should be obvious. You can not help other people. They have to help themselves.
My wife was the victim of an extremely horrible violent crime about 6 months after we were married. She was abducted on her way to her job as a church organist and violently assaulted for 3 hours. That wreaked havoc on our lives. She still sees a therapist regularly, The perpatrator was never caught.
We had all kinds of offers of help – most of which disappeared long before we were able to even know what we needed. Almost a decade later my wife started Law School – university of Pennsulvania. She graduated with honors, She clerked for a federal Judge, she nearly clerked for a supreme court justice. She has been a public defender for almost 20 years. That pays better than $14 an hour, but overall pretty bad. She had offers 20 years ago fresh out of law school for double what she makes now. But she is doing what she wants to do.
Anyway, whatever has happened in your life, even if it is horrible and the fault of others – it is still your life. No one can fix it besides you.
You can moan that life has treated you like shit, You can be right.
If you do nothing about it you will be stuck where you are – or worse.
And if you think Hillary Clinton is going to make it all right for you – you are an idiot.
She takes good care of her friends – and you are not one.
It is your life. There is no tooth fairy, no magic.
I do not care what you want from life – I leave you free to make your choices on your own – a right I wish you would extend to everyone else.
My wife and I have made our choices – we could have made alot more.
We are happy with what we have chosen for ourselves.
If you are otherwise happy with your life, quit bitching about money.
If money is so important to you – then make more – nothing is stopping you.
You’re definitely Trump-like in your temperament Dave.
Two peas in an obnoxious pod.
Jay;
No my temperament is not like trump.
Though I am not sure how relevant that is to anything.
It is one thing for my kids – who have not seen the world 20, 40 years ago to go wondering arround with a sense of entitlement – they do nto know any better – and the world will teach them soon enough – hopefully they will learn fast and the lessons will not be too hard.
But those of you who have been arround 40, 50 years who are still selling this left wing schlock should be ashamed.
You have lived through the most dramatic evidence that the ideas of the left fail that we could possibly have ever seen, and too many of you still think – next time we will get it right.
Any scheme that is this hard to make work – is a failure.
I would also note that of all of you here – I am the optomist.
The entire meme is that absent government everything is going to hell.
That is BUNK. Everything outside of govenrment is doing quite fine.
More obviously now than ever our problems are government.
I inherited from my parents a world better than their parents gave them, and I pass on to my children a world better than mine gave to me.
You are afraid of the future, you are afraid that absent government everything is going to hell. I am only affraid that all the things in government that are going to hell will overwhelm al the things outside of government that are improving.
The government is fighting over Zika funding – yet we know right now how to eliminate Zika, and Malaria, and the myriads of diseases of the TseTse fly from the face of the earth today quickly and cheaply. But we are not going to do it.
Government spending on Zika is not about doing something about Zika, it is about appearing to do something about Zika.
Most all government spending is not about fixing problems, it is about appearing to fix problems.
The problems of the world are not a shortage of experts, they are not a shortage of resources, they are a shortage of rights.
In 1938 the top 3 recommendations of a 2000 page report on Africa were:
Spray pyrethrum on the walls of dwellings to reduce malaria,
Provide vitiman A to fight malnutition,
In 2014 a UN commison produced another report on Africa and more than 50 years later the Top recomendations were exactly the same.
The concept that “liberty is meaningless without a foundation of social and economic progress” has been refuted time and again.
Freedom leads to prosperity – not the other way around.
More and more the left does nto even pretend they are about Freedom.
You keep trying to compare me to Trump – I have been clear, I think Trump will be a poor president. He suffers from many of the same problems as Hillary just on a smaller scale.
I do not care much about Trumps bombasitc nature, just as I do not care about Clintons more polished appearance.
Is a lie more true if offered bombastically or if it is well manacured ?
A part of your rant is some defense of Kids today.
Who is attacking them ?
My kids are 17 and 20. They are not working as hard as I did at their ages and they are doing better. But they are still working hard.
Is there some expectation that a cashier at Target can afford a $100K home ?
As I said before, is there any reason in the world that a burger flipper at McD’s should have a higher standard of living today than 40 years ago ?
I think kids today – my own included, are a bit more entitled. That is a natural consequence of a rising standard of living – I was also more entitled than my parents and so on.
Regardless, they will do fine – if they do not, that sense of entitlement will not get them very far.
You rant that everything to the left seems to be called communist today – not true.
What is true, is that the left is more extreme today.
I lived through the sixties. Those on the left of politics in the 60’s would be considered on the right today.
Further, we have learned alot.
Cuba is a failed state, as is North Korea. The USSR is long gone, and China has gone capitalist. Socialism in India failed and they too are shifting to capitalism.
The nordic socialism lite did not work nearly so well as the american left procliams and countries like Sweden have been slowly scaling back socialism lite for decades.
The EU has 50% more people than the US, and almost the same GDP.
Venezuela is a failing state.
Throughout the world the story is uniformly the same.
The bigger the government the slower the improvement in standard of living.
If the right calls everything slightly to the left of center communism – which I have not seen,
they would be justified. Everything slightly to the left has failed.
The flagship of the US left – Social Security is close to capsizing. FDR promised it would never require more than 2% of our income to fund, it is now taking almost 14% and running short.
Medicare D has proven far more costly than projected,
I honestly though PPACA might succeed – not because it is a good idea, but because the mess government had made of what preceeded it was so bad that maybe PPACA would be less bad.
But one should never underestimate the ability of government to make things worse.
PPACA is costing far more than projected. Insurance companies are raising rates like craxy, leaving the market or going bankrupt.
PPACA never insured the number of uninsured it claimed it would reach and is now headed backwards – soon there will be almost no way in which it is not worse than what preceeded it.
Can you name a single big government program that is actually a success ?
You would think that given that the federal government spends $4T/year that there would be obvious benefits.
So given the real world record of the left – why is it that we have Hillary and Bernie – and to some extent even Trump trying to sell us more big government nonsense that we all know has failed.
When is it that we all grasp – this time is NOT going to be different?
“Real record of the world on the left….” BWHAHAHA. For the past 40 years conservative politics has run this country, to our detriment. The money has moved to the top 10% and left the rest of us hanging.
If those at the top paid real livable wages for work, we would not need all those student loans – people would be able to afford college themselves. It is the same for so many other supposed “welfare” programs…they were created out of NEED, not vice versa. As unions were destroyed, wages went down, other laws that protected working people changed, more and more need was created. Women did not go to work because of feminism – they went to work because they HAD to. I don’t know of a single woman who really wants to leave her baby in the hands of another while she works. I find it interesting that divorce, drug usage, gangs and so many other ills have worsened as wages declined.
Since conservatives are so big on “individual responsibility” you would think they would try to ensure that we have plenty of good paying jobs so that people can take care of themselves. Instead, they are the ones that have created the welfare state by sending jobs overseas, and refusing to have a minimum wage. And btw, many of the Democrats of the past few decades are really conservative when compared to the past – I’m not letting them off the hook.
I was trying to think of people who are analogous to Trump in their level of ability to be president.
I came up with Jerry Springer, Ted Nugent, Mike Tyson, and Dennis Rodman. This is the level of thinking and life achievement that trump comes from and represents. If trump is qualified to run for president and become the GOP nominee than so are any of the above.
This is really, Really obvious.
You are right, though I think Trump is probably more qualified, they are comparable.
While each of them is loud and offensive, each has also accomplished something.
Not necessarily something I value – but clearly something that alot of others value.
So what has Hillary accomplished ?
Regardless, what is it that you want in a president ?
The left made the argument that Bill Clinton’s sexual pecadillos were irrelevant to his performance as president – and though I am seriously disturbed by his lying under oath and some of his private personal actions – aside from the lying under oath thing, the others had nothing to do with his performance as president.
I honestly do not know how or why Trump has succeeded in many of his endeavors, and I strongly suspect he has exagerated his own success greatly.
At the same time there is little doubt that he is one of the most successfull businessmen ever to run for president – even if his net worth is 10% of what he claims.
Whether I like it or not he has succeeded.
He has run and managed concurrently many large and complex international bussinesses.
And he has inarguably done so successfully.
Hillaries closest comparable is her role as Sec. State. During which she got the US ambassador of Libya killed.
To be fair she is probably not the worst Sec. State the US has had – she did not drag us into another vietnam. But she was not Rice, Kissenger, Jefferson, Powell, Adams, Schultz, Albright or Munroe.
So what is it that Hillary has done that qualifies her to be president ?
Crickets. You won’t get an answer.
Ok Dave, while you did not answer my inquiry directly, I have pieced together most of your answer from your other comments. Let me refine my questions this way. Since it seems we are a long way away from that ideal world of zero to near zero safety net, given existing entitlements, do you think we should still have as wide open of borders as possible? Then, moving into a hypothetical scenario where government is cut down to a much more acceptable size, what does one do to protect citizens from their new throngs of poor, quite possibly starving neighbors. It seems to me that the more you remove exterior walls/fences/guards at the border, the bigger the business of interior walls and guards would be. When I lived in Zaire, Africa, but for one dictator and his family stealing enormous wealth from his country, it was pretty much a government free environment. Most people where dirt poor, those who were not had walls around their houses with shards of glass cemented at the top to make it harder to climb over. Night guards were in every compound that I knew of, and if there was a crime detected, no one called the police, people just picked up whatever they had handy, Hoe, machete, whatever, and went after the alleged perpetrator. Comparing the U.S. to a Central African country is not possible, but in my mind there still is a lot of benefit to having a border and defending it. In short, my argument is that if you lack or have weak exterior borders, you are just going to clog up the interior with a bunch of borders anyway. Seems less economical, less efficient, and a drag on productivity.
To try to directly answer your question.
This is about the here and now – but it is two parts.
1).
We should not have quota’s of any kind on immigration.
To the extent that we restrict people from coming here we should do so because they are actually sick, or actually dangerous.
Immigration does not entitle one to citizenship. I have no problem with it being difficult to become a citizen. Nor are immigrants entitled to any of the benefits that citizens might be entitled to. I personally think we should eliminate those benefits for everyone.
But we can not afford to offer them to non-citizens.
So if you are not a citizen there is no safetynet.
You are obligated to the same taxes and obediance to the same laws as the rest of us and entitled to the same criminal and civil protections.
I also think that laws like Minimum wage laws should not apply – but then I do not think they should apply to citizens either.
You seem to worry about being overrun by hordes of starving criminals.
That is some fevered myth. Current immigrants legal and illegal are mostly hispanic and the patterns of crimainalty etc are no different from those of the irish, the italians, thjews, the poles, the germans who preceded them. Crime is higher in the first couple of generations, but not massively higher.
As too starvation – if immigrants come to the US do nto receive benefits and starve – they will quit coming. Hispaninc immigrantion tanked during the recession and for sometime afterwards. I do not think we are yet back to the pre recession levels.
So immigration is extremely sensitive to ecconomic conditions.
The left completely fails to grasp that most systems – from immigration and the economy, to the environment self regulate. That is actually a natural necescity. Systems without natural feedbacks are unsustainable. The left rants about sustainablitly all the time failing to grasp that things that are truly unsustainable end naturally on their own.
And like the radical drop in mexican immigration during the recession things self regulate not by catastrophe, but mostly quietly and unnoticed.
If people coming here do end up starving – no one in the world today starves but for political reasons, I actually trust that aside from the natural regulatory modalities that starvation can be handled through private efforts – regardless it is not governments business.
If you can not manage the above – then:
2).
There really is no alternative beyond some permutation of Trumpism.
We can argue about what quotas should be, but anything short of nearly everything I list above absolutely requires strict government control.
If we extend the entitlements we give citizens to immigrants we MUST have quotas.
We can not creat an unlimited right to draw from the public treasury – and that is what democrats seek.
If we have quotas we must have border control.
As best as I can tell the democratic position is – we do not want open boarders.
We do want those already here to have the same entitlements as citizens, we want them to become citizens, we do not want to secure our borders but we expect magic to keep further immigrants out.
I think this is a far poorer choice, but only my first and 2nd options are practical.
But neither of the above are what we are going to do.
Democrats are not going to get what they want, nor are republicans, and we will over strain our system and create significant problems, and likely enflame racism in the process and pit groups against each other, but we will somehow manage.
The mess we currently have has worked badly – but it has still worked for decades.
The nation has not gone bankrupt – though we clearly could have done better.
There appear to be many questions in your post.
The cost of the fundimentals of government – punishing the use of force or fraud, enforcing contracts and torts are incredibly cheap – probably on the order of about 3% of GDP based on historical data.
All the additional cost of government is in things that government has no business doing.
So so long as government does not offer those hordes you fear any more than the fundimentals there is no crushing burdern from immigration.
Better still if we tried that we would learn that even for citizens the rest is not necescary.
“The cost of the fundimentals of government – punishing the use of force or fraud, enforcing contracts and torts are incredibly cheap – probably on the order of about 3% of GDP based on historical data.”
You have any examples of governments only providing those fundamentals?
Let’s see the list…
You are right comparing a central african country to the US is difficult.
I would also ask. You write essentially about the poor robbing the less poor about internal walls and something approaching functional anarcho-capitalism – whether it works well or not is a different question, that is still what you are describing.
What you are not telling me is that this poor robbers are all immigrants from elsewhere.
In the Zaire you experienced was the requirement for walls with glass shards and private security to protect you from the poor masses or from poor immigrants from elsewhere ?
External walls provide no protection from internal problems.
I would also note that “open borders” – meaning nearly unrestricted immigration and “no walls” are not the same thing.
Though I would suggest that the need for walls is vastly dimminished if immigration restrictions are severely limited and quotas do not exist.
The right wants immigrants to come legally. If that means cross at official border crossings, and submit to medical and background checks that bar the sick and criminal, and registering. fine – and you will not need a wall. Because the only people who will not cross at the checkpoints will be the criminals. It is a self sorting system.
But any restriction you apply – you can presume those who can not meet that restriction are going to try to cross elsewhere.
Severely reducing crossing by criminals is not that hard (you can not ever totally eliminate it) barbed wire and men with guns is relatively effective, and since you know only criminals do cross outside of official crossings, it is easier to respond with the use of force.
The threat of dying tends to reduce illegal traffic – though again no high wall will eliminate it.
I would also note that the malthusian population loons ultimately LOST.
There is virtually no one credible left in population economics that does not grasp that in the long run increased population – regardless of the vehicle is a strong net positive.
I would also note that contrary to most peoples fears the most likely “negative” outcome of massive poor immigration would be:
A decrease in median income for the entire country
BUT an increase in income for nearly everyone in it.
Not only are those mathematically compatible, they are the most likely outcome.
The poor coming from elsewhere will still be poor – by US standards, because they are poor and numerous they will drag down the US median income.
But the will not drag down – and it fact will likely increase the actual income of most people already here. Further their own individual income will increase – that is a near certainty or they would not come at all.
I would strongly suggest reading
It is a long heavily documented book that is close to the current state of the art on population economics. It is mostly focused on population growth by birth.
But it touches on immigration, and regardless the same arguments mostly apply.
To the extent they don’t the long term arrives quicker with immigration.
Some other arguments for immigration: Steve Jobs.
There are only so many Steve Jobs in the world. They make up a certain percent of the population (better the attributes that jobs like people have distribute through the population in something like a bell curve) But merely being a steve jobs does not mean you will change the world. To do so many other factors must be present – freedom being a major one – those factors are most broadly present in the US.
The more people the US has the more steve jobs we have (and the more half job’s and quarter jobs). And the more freedom we have the more likely they are to change the world – and the US will reap the first and greatest benefit.
But this argument has a fuse on it.
The standard of living of the rest of the world is rapidly rising.
China has gone from the bottom of the third world to the bottom of the first world.
They have vastly increased economic freedom.
It is increasingly likely that the Chinese Steve Job’s will remain in china and benefit China first and foremost, and those odds will increase the higher China’s standard of living rises.
There are enormous impediments to China actually overtaking the US.
As a start being far more free than under Mao is not the same as being as free as the US, and to surpass us they likely have to become MORE free than we are.
They also have different culture and institutions and some of those differences effect differences in standard of living.
There are many probable reasons that China will not overtake the US.
But there is no unscaleable obstacle to doing so.
And contrary to the though of most on the left, their large population is an asset not a liability. And whereever China goes India is unlikely to be far behind.
There is only one part of the world that has improved relatively little over the past 40 years – and that is Africa. Other parts of the world have often taken one step back and two forward. South america has enormous problems – but is it still far better off than in the past.
Thanks very much for your information, My response may not do your comments justice, (I’m a little tired at the moment and kind of out of time). The internal walls, as you perhaps rightly guessed, was protection from fellow citizens as opposed to immigrants. While Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo, did have some Rwandan refugees at one time trying to flee the genocide of Rwanda, for the most part they don’t have immigrates. Lately, sadly there has been many people internally displaced. Thanks again, I intend to follow that link you provided and read it.
I do not have a sob story. Since you apparently do not read my posts closely, I will repeat I am lucky, I won’t have to worry about being homeless.
You talk about your “tenants”. That means for whatever other material goods they have, they do not own a home. Chances are if they are renting, they also do not have a new car, and even if they have one that lasts 200,000 miles you are paying for many repairs after you hit that 100,000 mark. I know, I have a Honda that went over that mark and is really starting to cost now.
I never lived in an apartment bigger than my double wide.
To say I could have bought a real house for less than I paid for this land & home is just plain a lie.
One thing I have learned since quitting teaching is that it is much more expensive to be poor than to be rich.
I come, like many others, from an intelligent hard working family, and it sickens me the way conservatives treat us. Its always something we poor people did wrong that made us poor, not the many factors of the world that are working against us. If Trump had run as a Democrat, I might have sided with him. (but probably not). Anyone making less than $100,000 a year is too poor to be conservative/Republican.
Every car is new once.
For most of my life any car I have owned has been older and had more miles than my tenants. Yes, older cars cost more to maintain – and newer cars have high car payments.
My wife is paying 700/month for her new car. I pay about twice that is repairs for my older car for the entire year. Most of my tenants have newer cars than I do.
My first car was a Honda – I had it until the body rusted out – that took more than 20 years.
During its entire life it never cost me more than a few thousand in repairs.
I replaced the engine once and the clutch many times. That and occasional tires was pretty much it for repairs.
An FHA mortgage on a 100K home with 2% down for 30 years at the current interest rate in my area is 675/month with a 2000 down payment.
I purchased my current home in 2003 for 225K it is a small house – 1800sq.ft but it was on 2.2 acres in the woods. My mortgage was under $1000. I am paying more today – because I have a 2nd mortgage to pay for some of the additions.
Today I have two additions and a barn – that are each larger than the original building.
So I have a very very large home – unfinished, and a barn that is the equivalent of a 6 car garage that I have a workshop in the lower level – and my daughter is getting ready to move into the upper level as an apartment – kind of a half step toward being on her own.
My total monthly mortgage payments are under 2000.
My rents range from 550-850/month with a 2 month down payment.
Except that my tenants for the most part either have poor credit or will not live in one place long enough or do not have the skills necessary to own a home – like remembering to pay the mortgage without being reminded.
Remember the homeowners equivalent to eviction is foreclosure.
I am way to nice, I do not evict very fast. when I evict a tenant they are usually about $2000 behind on rent and have no prospect of ever catching up.
I still end up evicting about 1/5th of my tenants eventually. I have yet to return a security deposit – not that I do not want to, but because of those tenants that leave without eviction, most leave in the middle of the night usually a few weeks before I would file for eviction.
I have had one tenant recently who would have gotten their security deposit back – but they just refused to pay the last months rent. Ended up the same – except that is ilegal. Regardless, they left the apartment nicer than they found it – and that is quite rare.
You are so naive…so arrogant…I just hope you don’t call yourself a Christian like so many conservatives do. That is what I find so hypocritical & repugnant about Republicans claiming to be the party of Christians while denigrating the poor at every chance. You reek of having been raised in privilege all your life, even if you don’t think so. I went to high school in the area around the Johnson Space Center in Houston, and my classmates think the same way – that they are just ordinary people, when in fact they are quite well to do and have had many advantages.
“Their credit is crap because of their own choices.” Most people’s credit is crap because they are not paid enough now to even cover housing and food w/o working over 40 hours a week. The median income in this country is $50,000 a year, which will not do much for a family of 4. And that is w/ 2 people working full time.
“More than half of us start out “poor” 90% of those become middle class.” Simply NOT true. If you read other sources not from the far right, you would discover most people stay w/in what ever class they were born in.
One of the biggest problems the right has created in the “pro-life” junk. If they would emphasize using protection (abstinence is great but MOST people are not doing it – even back in the 50s, more honest people admit lots of teen girls got pregnant then). The teens I’ve worked with get the abortion is a sin message loud and clear – but abstaining or protection are not so loud. Nothing condemns a woman to poverty faster than having babies she is not prepared for. And sadly I have found that if their mother was a teen parent, the chances are great that the daughter will do the same thing, unless someone does a lot of talking. Most poor people dont’ associate early childbearing with their poverty.
“There are two people on the Forbes 400 list of richest people in the world who were homeless at one time” That is .05% of all rich people. That means 99.95% were not homeless – in fact MOST of the people came from at least a very comfortable middle class background and most came from better.
“During its entire life it never cost me more than a few thousand in repairs.” A few thousand dollars is a LOT of money to people making less than $15 an hour. I know it is for me.
“and my daughter is getting ready to move into the upper level as an apartment” This is the prime advantage the children of middle class & better have, is that their parents can help them. Many of my students and foster teens were not so fortunate.
To tell me that you can get a loan on a $100,000 house (unless maybe you had a $50,000 down payment) is incredibly ludicrous. Its like the article I read last week where a doctor send she made $45,000 a year during her internship, which was $11 an hour. Rich people do math differently from the rest of us I guess.
The conservative cry of “if you don’t like what you’re paid go get another job” is incredibly stupid when there are so few jobs – or I should say a dearth of good paying jobs. Over half this nation is just moving from one poorly paying job to the next.
During the years when the working class was paid middle class wages, we had a booming economy. I could make you a list a mile long of all the things I am NOT doing and not buying because I simply don’t make enough. When we finally decide to pay working people good wages again, world wide, the economy will roll. The top 10% can only buy so much.
The corporate cry “Cheap Labor” is what screws us over. Ask Henry Ford.
Who is treating you badly ?
You chose your land, you chose your home. I am gathering you chose to leave teaching for a $14/hr job.
All I hear is you moaning that you should have more.
That is an easily solveable problem – go get a job that delivers more value and therefor pays more.
You could go back to teaching. I am not telling you you have to. I am not judging you if you dont.
I have skills that would get me incredibly well paid in Tech centers. I live somewhere where there is no demand for those skills. To do what I want I am a self employed consultant – that pays quite well but I am lucky to have work 1/4 of the time.
These were my choices – I am not blaming democrats or republicans for them.
My wide is a top of her class ivy league lawyer. Again in major markets that is a ticket to the top. She works by choice as a public defender – which after 18 years pays little more than half what whe could have gotten from a major market firm right out of school.
We made our choices for our own reasons. Maybe our reasons are similar to yours, maybe not. But they were choices.
We are not blaming anyone else.
And we know exactly what we must do if we ever decide to change those.
In my life my biggest problem is democrats not republicans.
Democrats took over the local city government – taxes went up – rents went up. So I guess that is my tenants problem not mine.
The single majro factor driving rent increases has been the city government – and my rents have increased 50% since 2009. I used to rail and bitch and moan and fight.
But my tenants did not care that I was fighting for them, and the city did not care,
So now I just pass it on as rent increases.
Once in a while I actually get too busy. I would hire people – but the total cost of hiring people makes no sense until you can afford atleast 3. Worse until you can afford someone to handle all the additional costs of employees, which is closer to 10 people, you are trading work you love for work you hate – unless you love to do payroll and taxes and government forms and ….
So growing my business is almost impossible.
And hiring help for my appartments or building my home is dancing in the grey.
How many kids do you see getting paid to mow grass any more ?
None where I am. You really can not legally do it. It you hire someone other than family to do it you are an employer and have reams of paperwork.
So you hire a landscaping companihy at a far higher rate and they send a truck and mowers and …. and do it for you and they pay the taxes etc.
Or you pay somebody under the table, or you hire somebody but keep it under 600/year so you do not have to 1099 them or …
None of this is about the taxes. I could careless about the taxes.
Do you know how much paperwork is generated to employ someone ?
I used to run a 55 person firm. About 1/4 of my time and 1/2 of another persons time was spent dealing with all the government requirements to have 55 employees.
But the amount of work to have one employee is not 1/55 of that to have 55, it is about 1/4.
That and myriads of other things like that are what is killing small business today.
When I was just out of college less than 5% of all jobs required state licensing – now it is about 1/3. I can be a landlord and can do roofing, carpentry, plumbing, electrical on my own building. But if I hire someone to help – they must be a licensed plumber or carpenter or roofer.
You can not open a nail or hair salon without a state license. You can not braid hair.
There is a difference between – you have made your own choices, and there is something you have done wrong.
As I told you – I too have made choices that leave me with less income than I could have otherwise. They were free choices and I do not regret them.
That said many people do make free choices that leave them less well off, and often they regret those choices. But that is not someone else’s fault.
My tenants mostly have crappy credit – which is why they can not buy a home.
Their credit is crap because of their own choices.
Though most of my tenants are in the bottom quintile they are not all the same.
I have a black family that is unlikely to remain long. They are climbing the ladder, they have good credit and are making wise choices and will likely be able to buy a home soon and move out.
I have a hispanic family that is further down the curve but headed in the same direction.
I have another couple that is nice enough but quite honestly can not manage any more than they have. They are not capable of doing a good job between them, they are not cabable of managing a home.
40 years ago they would likely be dead. Their low level of functionality would not have been sustainable. Now they live better than my parents did in their first apartment – in the 50’s.
I had a young white couple that was a total disaster several years ago. They had a young kid – I felt so sorry for him they fought, the police were in all the time.
They tried to heat the apartment using the gas stove (I pay gas). Because of them I do not have gas stoves anymore. I do not care about the cost of gas, I was worried about further damaging their kid from Carbon monoxide.
Today the city requires CO detecors as well as smoke detectors.
Smoke detectors are probably my most common “repair”.
Every time a tenant leaves they are all missing.
Why ? Because most tenants smoke and the smoke detector goes off, and so they take it down and disable it and never put it back.
Every time the city inspects I have to replace a bunch of smoke detectors.
My lease allows me to charge – but trying to charge a tenant is a fools errand.
I just pray that when they leave in the middle of the night several months behind on their rent – they leave the smoke detectors behind.
People are poor for alot of reasons.
When I just got out of college I was poor. I did not think of myself as poor.
But based on my income and the measures of the time I was poor.
I had a tiny home is a very shitty part of town, and there were drug deals and robberies on the street. We only lived there 6 years. When I was no longer poor – I moved.
It is wrong to paint everyone who is poor with some broad brush.
More than half of us start out “poor” 90% of those become middle class.
Some move to the top two quintiles.
There are two people on the forbes 400 list of richest people in the world who were homeless at one time – and not technically homeless, but litterally living on the street.
At the same time it is not wrong to say that peoples choices dictate their circumstances in life. That is not “blame”, it is just how things are.
We are each ultimately responsible for our own lives.
The tremendous rate of failure of lottery winners should make it clear that money does not fix the problems with our lives. That we each have to do that for ourselves.
No judgements attached, it is just how it is.
By the sweat of your brow you shall earn your daily bread
Gen 3:19
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
Donald Trump is not responsible for whatever you do not like about your own life,
And neither Hillary Clinton nor anyone else can change it.
If you actually want to change it – you must do so yourself.
Dave has been posting some very interesting comments ~he backs up what he says with a great deal of historical and statistical data, as well as some pretty convincing and relevant personal anecdotes. A great deal.
I don’t agree with everything that he writes For example, in the exchange he had with Ron about NAFTA, I was more persuaded by Ron’s argument, also backed up with data. I am opposed to open borders, and, in the past, like Mike in this thread, I have tried to get Dave to come up with a good reason to explain why he supports them. The answer always sounds like “immigration is good.” But that’s not really on point. I have no problem with immigration, but open borders is a different animal. And I am still unpersuaded.
But in this very long argument with Jay and Moogie, the essence of what I’m reading has been:
Jay: Trump is an ass
Dave: Yes, he is, but there is good reason to believe that he may be less bad than Clinton. I’m not voting for either, but here are my reasons why I think the way I do (states reasons).
Jay: You are an ass like Trump.
Moogie: I am unhappy with my life, so I vote Democrat. Conservatives are the reason that I am unhappy and struggling financially. Conservatives have ruled the country for 40 years.
Dave: My wife and I have also struggled, and still do in some ways, but we have decided that it’s up to us to make something of our lives, and we’re not counting on the government to help us, because the government is about power, not about helping people (states personal examples, other examples, and data).
Moogie: I am still unhappy with my life. And I still blame it entirely on conservative Republicans. And you are old and right wing and don’t know anything.
Both my statements about assholeness are accurate.
Anyone who still asserts Trump is a better choice than Clinton, has dysfunctions of intellect and judgement.
This isn’t only my opinion. If you look at the number of intelligent thoughtful Republicans who have loudly criticized Trump as an unacceptable candidate, there’s about a 10 to 1 ratio to the Republicans and Democrats and Independents who support him.
It’s one thing to march to a different drummer; but disruptively marching in the opposite direction into a mass of Never Trump educators, scientists, foreign affairs, economics and diplomatic savants puts Trumpsters into the same misguided intellectual camp as Flat Earthers and Creationists.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/authors-letter-donald-trump/
“Moogie: I am unhappy with my life, so I vote Democrat. Conservatives are the reason that I am unhappy and struggling financially. Conservatives have ruled the country for 40 years.”
Simply not true that I am unhappy with my life. That seems to also be a universal conservative meme that anyone who is not Far Right is unhappy with their life. That’s been said to me before. Time to try something new.
I am tired of being CHEATED out of good pay for my hard work. I am really sick of Income Inequality – MOST people are being cheated out of good pay for their hard work. This has been the way of the world for most of history. Lords/peasants. Onwers/slaves. When working people were paid middle class wages, the economy SKYROCKETED. But rich people don’t like that. Apparently they didn’t think they were as superior when they made only 30 times what the front line guy makes. The more you have the more you want. So eventually they turned things back around to having most of the money in their hands, and not enough in the working class.
Again, I could make a list of what I could buy/do if I was paid a good wage. And if everyone had more money, things would churn again. But as long as you listen to conservative BS…no things won’t change. Don’t you get it that conservatives WANT high unemployment? It benefits them in every way.
Actually, no one has denied that when working class people made middle class wages, the economy rolled. All I keep getting from this page is the same tired conservative BS of why we “can’t” pay good wages.
BTW, that nonsense that Dems try to “buy” votes w/ programs for the poor is laughable. Far fewer poor people vote than any other, which is why things keep going well for the rich.
Why would we need welfare programs if everyone was paid well?
If you are unhappy with your life – the only person that can fix that is you.
We have massive amounts of data on that – does nto matter whether you are rich, poor, american, or african.
Communists, socialists, democrats, republicans – they can not make you happy with your life. Only you can do that.
Nor can they improve your standard of living – only you can do that.
What they can do is make it worse (standard of living, not happiness).
And we know that the bigger the government the slower the rate of improvement in standard of living. So if you want a higher standard of living you need to do to things.
Produce more value.
Quit electing people who grow government to consume more of what you produce.
How can you possibly be cheated ?
Has someone refused to pay you want they agreed to ?
What you appear to be saying is that you should be payed more than you are for what you do.
Well we all think that.
Thinking that does not make it true.
If you want to be payed more – ask for more.
You will find out if you are being paid what you are worth.
But you could find out you are paid more than you are worth.
Your worth as a human has nothing to do with your wages.
What you are worth in wages is not based on how hard you work. It is not based on how you feel.
It is based on what you produce.
If you want to be paid more – produce more.
If you are producing the same as 10, 20 years ago, you should not expect to be paid more.
If someone elsewhere will do your job for half what you want – you are worth less.
And that is how it should be. That may harm you – but the NET is good for the rest of us.
We have more and better cloths today than ever and they cost far less.
That is the gain from those “good middle class jobs” going to china. The chinese are now loosing them to places like Bangeledesch.
They never were good middle class jobs.
Regardless, neither party can fix the amount of value you produce.
The only thing they can do is leave you with more or less of that value.
Well, they can also take it from you and give it to someone else or take it from someone else and give it to you. That might make you better off – but it will not get you paid what you are worth. It will just make you an accessory to theft.
Being paid more without producing more MIGHT improve your circumstances – though not likely. But the net effect will be negative – unless your being paid more causes you to produce more – and that happens the other way arround.
But if you wish to try it – tell your employer that if that pay you 50% more you will produce 50% more value for them.
If you can truly do so – which I doubt, any employer would jump at that.
We all want more. McD’s wants more for its hamburgers, Walmart wants more for light bulbs. They are pretty sharp and know exactly what the effect on their sales and profits will be if they raise of lower the price – and they have it as close as possible to where they will profit the most. They know that if they raise the price they will make more money of every light bulb they sell. They also know they will sell less light bulbs.
And all that stuff they know – it is about you. YOU are in control.
It is you that changes whether you eat at McD’s or buy light bulbs based on the price.
You control the price of the thing you buy exactly the same way your employer controls your wages. If you set your price to high – he is unlikely to buy your labor.
And the value of anything – a light bulb, a hamburger, an hour of your labor, is what a buyer and seller freely agree to.
I would like to pay less for my hamburger. But I am willing to pay the price offered.
If I was not McD’s would have to lower the price or sell less hamburgers.
You keep looking for magic. The keynesian demand side nonsense was ludicrous when it was first conceived. Demand side stimulus has NEVER worked.
Giving you more money means one of three things (all of which are actually the same thing)
Taking that money from someone else – so you are already in the hole before you have spent a dime.
Taking that money from everyone by printing money – again you are already in the hole.
Taking that money from you in the future by borrowing – still in the hole.
Every investor on the planet knows that demand is a TRAILING indicator.
When Buffet is trying to decide where the economy will be in 9-18 months, he looks at the amount of coal being mined or the train loads of coal or iron ore being transported.
Because if PRODUCERS are asking for coal and iron, in 9-18 months that will be cars, and washers and dryers.
You having more money in your pocket will NOT make a washer magically appear and the economy explode. At best giving everyone more money will make the price of everything rise, because for most things someone had to anticipate you would want them more than a year ago and produce them – before you even knew you wanted them.
Giving everyone extra money just makes prices go up – which DECREASES your standard of living
Producing goods way in advance makes prices go down – which INCREASES your standard of living.
We have tried the “give people more money” nonsense over and over again.
It does not work. But it does get votes – as you quite aptly demonstrate.
Both Trump and Clinton are promising to give you more money – if you had not noticed.
So you should be prepared to be worse off no matter who wins.
Because that is what you want. The thing that will make you worse off – “money for nothing”.
“Actually, no one has denied that when working class people made middle class wages, the economy rolled. All I keep getting from this page is the same tired conservative BS of why we “can’t” pay good wages.”
That statement is practically meaningless.
The factors effecting standard of living are:
Size of government – smaller causes faster rises.
Extent of freedom – more means faster rises.
Wages do not and can not correlate – they are derivative.
Wages greater than productivity supports are harmful.
Wages are not conservative or progressive – they track labor productivity – they have trended slightly ahead of labor productivity.
If they are ahead or behind that is bad – not good.
Frankly, there is another massive problem with your entire argument.
The objective of a high standard of living economy is to the greatest extent possible eliminate “working class” labor. It is not possible entirely, but the structure of the economy is always going to be fixed.
Those who do not produce at all or produce very little at the bottom – the poor, the bottom quintile.
Those who produce primarily by labor – the working class, the 4th quintile.
Highly skilled labor or low skilled intelligence workers.
Professionals and entrepeneurs
Investors.
This breakdown is NEVER going to change.
But the more that we can move people to higher tier roles the higher our standard of living will be.
Manufacturing is booming in the US and the jobs are very well paid – but they are few.
These are for people who can run a room full of CNC machines at one time or similar white collar non-professional tasks.
There are some blurring of lines – most of us invest. But we tend to invest significantly more as we move from white collar to professional, to investor.
The most productive people in the world are investors.
I am sure you disagree, but it is still a fact. They create jobs. Not government.
The most productive people in the world are investors?? Surely you jest, Dave. Other than venture capitalists (who do create jobs), most investors simply trade shares of companies. In other words, they’re profiting (if all goes well) from the hard work of others without producing anything themselves.
Dave, here is where I may be able to help you understand the opposing view, even if we don’t agree with that view. Imagine a young guy who paints portraits and is thinking about moving out of his parent’s basement. He usually takes one whole day to paint one of his painting. He has experimented and found his paintings fly off the shelf at $30, they slow down but still sell at a moderate pace at $40, and nearly stop at a price point of $50, but every now and then he can sell one for $50. Now we know their are rich art collectors that spend millions on a single Master painting. e also know that minus the cost of materials, he can’t make a living off of $40 a day. Thus he NEEDS the GOVERNMENT to set the minimum price for paintings at $100 per painting. Is it more clear to you now Dave? ….You see, at $100 a painting, he is going to sell zero paintings, and when he gets hungry enough he’ll find something different he can do to make a living. Problem solved, thanks to government meddling. Now if I can shift away from being silly, was there not a time in history when railroad tycoons worked together to overcharge farmers and such in shipping their products to market? Are you opposed to some government involvement in economics to prevent things such as monopolies or collusion? Also, historically speaking, I’ve felt that unions provided a valuable function at one time when competition was stifled through collusion, but most or all unions have developed into something that causes more harm than good.
Let’s play with your hypothetical Mike.
The Artist is briskly selling his paintings at $100 a pop, via the Internet.
He’s a happy Artist. But Foreign Artists in China see his paintings selling successfully, and duplicate them for sale at $10 each.
He is not protected by copyright law. Should the government therefore put a tariff on those paintings threatening his livihood?
I have also read in several comments that many of you seem to think the “poor” have all these HDTVs (you haven’t been able to buy a new standard TV in over 5 years now) eating out all the time (or having food delivered), maids, good new cars, and they own their homes. These are not the poor people I am talking about. I’m talking about the 50% of this nation that are truly poor due to rotten wages. That 50% is growing every day.
I’ve been hearing that housing starts are up. What I have not been able to find is what percentage of those homes are 1500 sq ft or less. That is what my home is, and about the size of my grandparents homes in the 50s. It is a working class size home. I would be willing to bet that only a small percentage of those homes are small. Most of those new homes are probably being built by retirees.
I’ve also been trying to find stats on what percentage of 20 yos owned homes in the 50s verses how many own a home today. My own personal experience is that few of my peers in the 80s were able to buy a home then (when we were in our 20s) and virtually no 20yos I know have been able to buy one.
Standards of Living may be up in the rest of the world, but it has been at our expense.
Moogie;
The poor 40 years ago did not have TV’s are all.
Further the argument that the poor have all these things today – is not some argument to send them all back to the salt mines.
It is something we should be celebrating.
The point you fail to get is that
There will be poor always – they exist by definition. There is always a bottom 20%, or 17% or however you define poverty.
The fact is that the poor today are on average as well off or better than the middle class 40 years ago;
So what there have not been standard TV’s for a while.
The poor in 1960 could not buy a TV. Today they can and do buy a far better TV than anyone could until recently.
Yes, there is nothing but HDTV’s today – do you not grasp that means in atleast that way we are ALL better off.
The median wage – that is the wage were 50% earn more and 50% earn less is 52K/year.
50% or us are not poor or even close.
Here is census data on home sizes over time
Click to access HousingByYearBuilt.pdf
Again note home sizes have been growing.
That means we are getting more wealthy.
Look at the changes in dishwashers, washing machines dryers.
Look at the changes in airconditioning.
Here is home ownership by age since 1982 – I can not get back farther than that.
The collapse of the housing bubble brought it down for all groups.
I would note however you have to be careful about statistics by age over time.
Because people age that means the groups do not represent the same people.
So the decline in homeownership for 35 year olds does not mean lots of 35 year olds lost there homes. It means that in 1999 when people reached 35 they were very likely to be able to buy a home.
In 2015 new 35 year olds were much less likely to be able to buy a home.
Standard of living over time – for the US and other countries.
I would note that will the improvement in China seems small – that is an artifact of the graph. China’s GDP/PPP per capita has climbed from $40/year for much of the 20th century to approx 11K/year today.
The US merely trippled.
I bought my first home in 1983 – I was 26. It was a tiny house in a poor neighborhood,
My interest rate was 13.1%.
I am not sure why it is that you think that 20 year olds should easily be able to buy homes ?
One of the other statistical misrepresentations in the GINI/Income inequality meme is:
Our education has actually declined in the past 40 years.
Given that why would you expect a person just starting out – just out of school to START out better off than their parents ?
AGAIN standard of living is the value of what we produce.
I keep saying over and over that the value produced by a burger flipper in 1975 is no different than 2016. There is zero reason that a burger flipper should be better off today than in 1975.
What does happen is that we get out of school and start out much the same as our parents did at the same age. But many things – not our education, enable us to become more productive than our parents and therefore over time our income and standard of living rises more rapidly than our parents.
And our kids will do the same.
How can anyone still rationalizing their support for Trump ignore this:
“Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump“lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”
Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.””
I do not support Trump.
Nor do I support Clinton.
I think on foreign policy and national security Trump would be bad – and clinton would be worse.
Regardless, as noted before, there have been two big shifts in this election.
Neo-cons – who normally vote Republican favor clinton. Trump is a non-interventionist.
Clinton is a neo-con. To a lesser extent that shift would have happened regardless.
Not a single candate was more of a neo-con than Clinton.
Why would it surprise you that 50 republican Neo-Cons would support the only neo-con in this race ?
Maybe you should consider your own position on foreign policy ?
Are you in favor of more interventions like Iraq, Libya, Syria ?
Those are what separates the neo-cons from the non-interventionists.
Both were going into Afghanistan – the Taliban commited an act of War against the US,
Both are likely to go after ISIS – they have attacked our own people and those of our allies.
Even Johnson would go after ISIS – but wants a congressional declaration of war.
The other Shift is blue collar workers are moving heavily to Trump.
They are doing so because of his positions of immigration and Trade.
These are the positions that I disagree with Trump the most on.
But they are not issues where Hillary is on the side of the angels
The other factor in this election is that Trump’s support among most GOP factions is weak.
He does not have strong support from social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarian republicans, establishment republicans, or Neo-Cons.
He primarily has the Tea Party republicans and Blue collar democrats.
This is also one possible reason the polls may be misleading.
First because it is unlikely Trump will lose normally red states no matter how unpopular he is there.
This election really is down to the swing states, and only those poll numbers matter.
Anyway, I hope Trump does nto win.
And I hope Clinton does nto win.
I am nearly certain not to get what I want.
But I am voting for Johnson.
Atleast I will be able to look myself in the mirror.
“But I am voting for Johnson.
At least I will be able to look myself in the mirror.”
That make two of us!!!!!!
“Why would it surprise you that 50 republican Neo-Cons would support the only neo-con in this race ?”
In 2016 there is no coherent definition of Neo Conservative.
Calling Hillary a Neo-Con is like calling her a Vegatarian because she eats potatoes with bacon and eggs.
“But I am voting for Johnson.”
If Hillary is far enough ahead in California to assure victory here, I’ll vote for the libertarian candidates. If is close, Hill-Bill is my choice.
If the left is not winning by 15% or more in california, Hillary will have a problem in the rest of the country. If she does not have a sizable lead in california, then you can still vote for Johnson as she will not carry enough states under those circumstances to win the electoral college,
Jay, seriously? Hillary will win California in a walk. You need to start making the Libertarian case!
I’m considering voting for the Jay-libertarian candidate, me.
My platform: Anti PC. Pro Abortion. Limits on Gun Ownership. No limits on Groupons. Reestablish School Corporal Punishment. Higher Taxes on the Top 1%. No Taxes on Whisky Sales. No Tax Exemptions For Churches. Free Tuition for Tech Schools. Exorbitant Tuition For Law School. Decriminalize Recreational Drug Possession. Mandatory Death Sentences for Serial Killers and Child Molestors and Fox News Commentstors who Supported Trump.
JJ;
Very bizarre platform.
If you are being honest, I can not think of a candidate that should be acceptable to you.
Anti PC. I would call it tolerating the expression of unpopular Ideas. But you can not get more Anti-PC than Trump
Pro Abortion. Each person has sole rights to their own body – including pregnant women. A women’s rights to her own body includes the eviction of a pregnancy – even if you consider that a human and even if it means its death.
Limits on Gun Ownership. Unconstitutional, and incredibly impractical.
You can buy the equipment necescary to make your own AR-15 (or far more dangerous weapons) for less than the cost of a good quality AR-15 today. There are more guns in the country than people.
If .01% of people disagree with you on some limit and are prepared to resist with force, you are going to have 10’s of thouxands of violent bloody confrontations.
No limits on Groupons. ?
Reestablish School Corporal Punishment – control of schools belongs with parents.
Higher Taxes on the Top 1% – only if you want a recession.
No Taxes on Whisky Sales – you must pay for government some how. Frankly contrary to your 1% claim it is actually politically and morally important that ordinary people pay for government and know they pay for government. When you vote for a candidate you should appreciate that when that candidate advocates for Free X – he means you are paying for it.
No Tax Exemptions For Churches- no tax exempltions for anything at all – especially whiskey.
Free Tuition for Tech Schools – there is no such thing as free. You are paying for it one way or another.
Exorbitant Tuition For Law School – do you have a clue what law school costs already ?
Decriminalize Recreational Drug Possession – lets get the words right,
legalize drug use. I will further note you still end up with the disasterous mess we already have unless you legalize top to bottom.
We have seen this in numerous other countries and with prostitution.
IF you want something to be safe, it must be FULLY legal.
Halfway measures bifurcate the market – leaving a smaller illegal market where all the problems of illegal markets continue.
Mandatory Death Sentences for Serial Killers – is this a really serious problem that needs a national law ? How many serial killers do you know who have avoided the death penalty.
Child Molestors – that would be fine if that is where it ends. But we have become so scared of peodophiles which are relatively rare, that we see them under every bush. My wife is a public defender. The largest portion of her clients are “sex offenders” none are actual peodophiles and very few are people who are actually dangerous in any way.
It has become virtually impossible to terminate a teacher for cause. So today when a 25 year old teach has sex with a 17 year old student – something that was quite common in my high school 40 years ago. We solve the problem of terminating them by jailing them. And then they become sex offenders and must register for life.
If your 19 year old daughter has sex with someone else’s 17 year old son – in many states that is a sex offence.
If you just can not make it to the rest stop and urinate behind a bush along the highway and get caught – you are a sex offender – and must register as such for life.
Fox News Commentstors who Supported Trump – and anyone who supports Clinton.
“In 2016 there is no coherent definition of Neo Conservative.”
Come on – really ?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-07/if-fact-neocons-are-now-supporting-hillary-clinton-confuses-you-read
“I have a sense that she’s one of the more competent members of the current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president.” —Dick Cheney
“I’ve known her for many years now, and I respect her intellect. And she ran the State Department in the most effective way that I’ve ever seen.” —Henry Kissinger
She says President Obama was wrong not to launch missile strikes on Syria in 2013.
She pushed hard for the overthrow of Qadaffi in 2011.
She supported the coup government in Honduras in 2009.
She has backed escalation and prolongation of war in Afghanistan.
She voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
She skillfully promoted the White House justification for the war on Iraq.
She does not hesitate to back the use of drones for targeted killing.
She has consistently backed the military initiatives of Israel.
She was not ashamed to laugh at the killing of Qadaffi.
She has not hesitated to warn that she could obliterate Iran.
She is not afraid to antagonize Russia.
She helped facilitate a military coup in Ukraine.
She has the financial support of the arms makers and many of their foreign customers.
She waived restrictions at the State Department on selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar, all states wise enough to donate to the Clinton Foundation.
She supported President Bill Clinton’s wars and the power of the president to make war without Congress.
She has advocated for arming fighters in Syria.
She supported a surge in Iraq even before President Bush did.
Huh? What? You’re saying that an aggressive military stance makes her a NeoCon?
My that simpleminded logic Trump too is a NeoCon – he wants boots on the ground to wipe out Isis, seize Middle Eastern oil fields, and bomb Iran.
““I believe you have to go in and strike Iran — not with soldiers,” Trump said. “You know, it’s not a world of soldiers anymore. It’s a world of air. It’s a world of different kinds of, you know, we’ve changed.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/20/donald-trump-in-2007-we-have-to-strike-iran/#ixzz4GwCAlhR3
Your simpleminded reductionism of definition has become tedious and just plain dumb.
I see my new grandkid (through my wife) on Skype in Israel each day and her parents, who are our loved ones. I have a big stake in foreign policy. A completely unqualified megalomaniac for US president is a personal nightmare for me. I’m sorry, the idea that trump has about the same amount of experience that Obama had is so obviously ridiculous that I cannot believe anyone would try to say that in intelligent company. The idea that Clinton is unqualified and does not have relevant experience, likewise.
trump is now given a 3% chance of winning in the 538 nowcast. Can’t go to 0 fast enough.
My fears for a civil war are not getting any smaller though.
And what experience did Obama have ?
And what experience is it that Clinton has that one would qualify as exemplary ?
Do not merely say Obama had experience – show us what experience he had.
I can not think of a single position of leadership that Obama had prior to being elected. State and Federal legislative posistions are not positions of leadership. They do not involve making decisions that you are solely responsible for and taking responsibility for the results.
Arguably Obama as president could have been a worse leader. Arguably he is a nice person. But I do not think it is arguable that he has been a good leader – in fact he has not been much of a leader.
Even the Healthcare program that bears his name was not crafted by him. The only “leadership” he provided was campaigning for universal healthcare.
Our foreign policy for the past 8 years – could have been worse. It is overall hard to distinguish from that of Bush but for two things, Obama has shown less leadership, and he has alienated our allies to no positive end.
To the extent Clinton was Sec. State for much of that time she shares responsibility. And it is my personal view that Clinton, not Obama was responsible for much of our foreign policy.
Trump has done nothing in government that I am aware of – frankly I consider that an asset. But he has show tremendous leadership – that is precisely what private enterprise is about.
That also tends to refute most of the complaints about him and his temprament. Based on his public persona – I do not know how he succeeded. but you do not succeed in business by being impetuous, brash, obnoxius, petulant and impossible to work with. And most importantly you do not succeed by lying to people. Private enterprise can not fall back to force. If McD’s poisons your burger or lies to you – you will never be back.
“It is overall hard to distinguish from that of Bush but for two things, Obama has shown less leadership, and he has alienated our allies to no positive end.”
A difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama has alienated our allies?!?
Good Grief, even for you…
“Trump has done nothing in government that I am aware of – frankly I consider that an asset. But he has show tremendous leadership – that is precisely what private enterprise is about.”
You may as well being trying to convert me to join the Southern Baptist church. It ain’t gonna happen. Your ideology has no attraction to me whatsoever and I consider it absurd. And no, I am not going to “Show you” why its absurd. Gotta do more promising stuff today!
Excerpts from the statement of Maine Senator Sue Collins:
I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country….
With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing — either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level — that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president…
My conclusion about Mr. Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities….
I am also deeply concerned that Mr. Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Mr. Trump’s tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.
Excerp from Letter from 50 GOP National Security Experts:
Trump “lacks the temperament to be President.”
“He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior… All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”
Reading this statement – how does it not apply more forcefully to Clinton.
She is unwilling to separate truth from falsehood.
Even now caught in a web of lies she is still trying to parse her way out of it without admitting what is cyrstal clear – that she lied, and that she knew she was lying.
Evidence that Clinton is willing to hear, nuch less accept or stil further listen to different views ?
Clinton does nto seem to act impetuously – she acts imperiously.
On occaision Trump says something foolish and backs down or backs away – rarely I will admit, but it has happened.
Clinton never admits or backs down from error. And given her choice would assure that no one was even able to question whether she made an error.
If Clinton is elected we are going to need a separate special prosecutors branch of government merely to assure that she is unable to subvert the constitution in secret. It should be patently obvious to all that she thinks she needs no oversight. Had she been president rather than Sec. State we would never have heard of most of her lies and mistakes.
Are these not dangerous qualities in a president ?
You can criticize Trump all you want – and I will likely agree with most every single criticism. That Trump is a poor choice is a given. So is Clinton.
Johnson is the only choice we have that is not horrible, and therefore he has my vote. I am tired of voting for the lessor evil. I am tired of apologizing for the deep flaws and betrayals of my candidate when they win.
But Johnson is not going to win. If you feel that you must vote for the lessor of two evils – you must be able to be honest about the flaws of both candidates.
Jumping up and down and shouting that Trump is Hitler is meaningless even if true is his opponent is Stalin.
“Reading this statement – how does it not apply more forcefully to Clinton.”
I agree with you that Clinton is dishonest and imperious. trump is much more so but that could be a matter of opinion.
There is much more however that Collins did not say. Trump has no intellect and no emotional self control (well she said the latter).
Dave, you hate liberal/progressive thinking more than anything. That settles it for you. Clinton is a moderate liberal therefor the worst choice for you. As well, you are opposed to the very idea of government as we know it. To top it, you believe that anyone with time on their hands can be president.
Its un-serious stuff, much as you say some thoughtful and interesting things as well, you fundamentally are living in a different belief system in which all will go much much better when there is almost no government and problems like Putin’s Russia will just solve themselves once we stop meddling.
So, I enjoy some of what you say, some of it is actually pearls of wisdom. but I cannot take your overall assessment of the world seriously. Your assessment of Clinton is completely determined by your utter non-acceptance of any validity at all of the ideas of moderates or liberals. You believe that my basic beliefs are pretty much evil and immoral and you have said so many times. I believe that your basic beliefs are incredibly naive.
I agree with everything said in the comment, with the exception of the last line, which in my opinion should read his !beliefs are blockheadedly narrowly focused.’
I agree with much of that.
But not a single thing she says is a reason to vote for Hillary.
I would have one criticism. Much of what Sen. Collin’s states is about emotions, not facts.
Emotion is a perfectly legitimate reason for making a choice.
But we should still not confuse it with facts.
We are not going to “heal” the divisions in the country. Division is natural. We have to get past the idea that we are all the same, or that we should all come to an agreement.
The means to by which we govern where there are many divergent views is that we only do what we can get super majority support for. That is how our founders structured our government. We have dismembered many of the barriers to mere majority rule in some instances to the point of mere plurality rule. Worse still we are becoming an even more diverse country – that is a GOOD thing, but it also means MORE not less division.
There is no wand to bring us all together. Many posters here have defined moderate as a willingness to compromise. I would propose a different definition of moderate, a willingness to grasp that we are vastly different, and an understanding that a some or even most of us can not impose their will on the rest by force.
Those with shared values are free to come together to accomplish whatever the desire on their own outside of government. But what we do through government must be what nearly all of us agree to do. Because none of us have the right to impose our will on others by force.
Honestly, it is only a pretense that is a “proposal”. It is the only means that a nation as diverse as the US with as vastly divergent views can possibly govern itself.
Further to get their you must accept only one value – one without which government is tyranny. That is that a majority does not have the right to impose its will on the rest by force.
That principle is also the root of tolerance. Tolerance means accepting that others will think say and even do things we do not like – and that sol long as they do not use force to do so we must tolerate it.
Saying hurtful things is bad – doing hurtful things is worse.
I would also note that Collin’s makes a big deal out of Trump’s disrepect for others.
I part company with her here. No one is owed respect. Respect is earned. Trump is incredibly disrepectful – as are those who oppose him. Further, though they do not make up the majority Trump does not disrepect his supporters. Clinton actually does – lying to people – particularly people who beleive in you and fight for you is disrepectful beyond beleif.
The differences between Trump and Clinton are primarily of style not substance.
Trump’s core constituency is blue colar democrats. Clinton’s is white colar democrats.
Their actual policy differences are mostly in details.
“Jay: Trump is an ass
Dave: Yes, he is, but there is good reason to believe that he may be less bad than Clinton. I’m not voting for either, but here are my reasons why I think the way I do (states reasons).
Jay: You are an ass like Trump.”
Well, Jay has stated many reasons and gone the route of trying to reason with Dave as well. Patience finally wears out sometimes.
Priscilla its brave of you to hold your position here as the lone poster still voting for trump, I’ll give you that. You and I are having a Very Hard Time understanding each other at election time. As an example, when I said that I am horrified by the possibility of the disaster of trump plus GOP control of congress (and the governorships to boot) you asked what on earth I was afraid of. What Disaster? What could possible be so wrong about trump as president and full GOP control of congress that I would support Clinton? You do not live in my political universe.
I do not believe that trump is a litmus test and all who choose him are terrible and unintelligent people. Simply, many people become immersed in their party culture, their ideological culture and cannot escape. That lens shuts out all other light. It does not take having a bad heart or an empty mind, instead there is a sort of addiction to believing that nothing, absolutley nothing at all, could be as bad as the other side winning. Loyalty “trumping” all (God help us, he’s even ruined a perfectly good word).
I know you did not want trump and I do not blame you or conservatives like yourself for trump having been the nominee. But you and many other otherwise fine people still believe that he could be president and judging by your comment to me you could not even understand why I and so many others think that he is an unacceptable risk for so many reasons: he knows nothing about what he is doing, has a terrible psychological profile, lies truly pathologically, can’t distinguish truth from fiction, is nasty, vindictive, spends all his time watching TV and tweeting about the humungous size of his, er, talents …. On and on. The answer to all that is that Clinton is a liar (the first one in the history of politics?), that settles it for you.
The backlash against trump from the conservative/GOP side is completely unprecedented. In the face of that you continue to write about this contest in many ways as if it were any other normal contest, the usual themes, it’s the meddling of the mainstream media (making no mention of the condition that Rupert Murdoch’s FOX house is in with its own dirty laundry), the Dem. candidate is the worst thing in the world (and before that it was Obama, and before that Kerry and Gore had your very strong disapproval). You know, it wears out, this whoever the dems run is the absolute worst thing routine that so many loyal conservatives have been performing (oh, and plenty of liberals run the same routine every 4 years). I am pretty sure that no moderate to liberal person who gets the Dem. nomination at any time in my remaining lifetime will ever escape the treatment of being called the worst most nauseating candidate possible by the world of GOP partisans.
Had Sanders been the nominee I would not have voted for him, I don’t think he could do the job. Had the general election pitted Sanders against a capable GOP candidate, Graham, Kasich, Bush, or Rubio, I would have probably voted for one of them, although with GOP control of congress I would be between a rock and a hard place. I definitely believe that control of the oval office should go back and forth between the two major parties, as well as congress, hopefully with one party never controlling everything.
Its up to people like yourself to save what remains of the older saner version of the GOP and I don’t see that you are willing to do it, you and so many others will just continue give a blank check of support to anyone who the GOP runs, anyone at all, even a completely unacceptable zero like trump, for president, while viewing anyone the Dems put up as the end of the world. Its so completely partisan, yes, it drives me nuts. I really don’t think its moderate, at all. Unflinching partisanship that continues to be become louder and more powerful is killing America. I expect to hear you respond that Obama is the reason for all that and liberals in general (and that Clinton is much more despicable than anyone in your political experience). No, in advance, no, much blame goes to all sides and sorting out who did it first or worst is futile. Blind Partisanship is the enemy.
“If you just can not make it to the rest stop and urinate behind a bush along the highway and get caught – you are a sex offender – and must register as such for life.”
The drummer in my band was found in that situation just last week. The lady state cop let him go. No registry.
An entire parade a naked people on bicycles went by me last year at noon in the capital of Vermont. No registry for them either. A police escort was provided. And that in hyper liberal Vermont, the very heart of your dreaded liberalism! What is wrong with this picture, something seems out of focus!?! A hyper libertarian ideological lens making a distortion field? Couldn’t be!
Your are hyperventilating about laws. That situation might have happened once in America, stupid stuff of all kinds happens, but much more stupid stuff will happen when we just give up on laws and government and become your version of hyper libertarian (as opposed to Ron’s much more balanced brand of libertarian.)
trumps response to the letter by the 50 GOP national security experts. Note the highly detailed listing of what our actual national security issues are.
“Well, I respond by saying that I wasn’t using any of them and they would have loved to have been involved with the campaign,” Trump said. “But I wasn’t using. I had no interest in using. Look where the country is now on national policy. Look what we are in defense. Look where we are. Look at the mess we are in. Whether it’s the Middle East or anyone else.”
“And these were the people that have been there a long time,” he continued. “Washington establishment people that have been there for a long time. Look at the terrible job they’ve done. I hadn’t planned on using any of these people.”
“They don’t feel relevant because of that and they form a group and they go out and try to get some publicity for themselves and they hope that somebody else other than Trump wins because that way they can get a job,” he added.”
Right, that must be the reason. Many loyal conservative will just jump right in and say that he nailed it, he is speaking the truth! and ignore that trumps head is completely devoid of any knowledge of foreign policy. Or, like Dave, some will think that being empty of knowledge is Great and a high qualification!
Ronald Reagan continues to roll over in his grave. Bush I isn’t lucky enough to be in his grave and avoid witnessing this mess, the mess that is a trump-hijacked GOP.
“Ronald Reagan continues to roll over in his grave.”
Why???
Donald Trump is no conservative. The majority of people registered as Republicans did not put Trump in as the GOP nominee. It was democrats that put him in. Ronald reagan was smart enough to know this. Some would say “W” might not be but I reject that idea also.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/creinstein/2016/06/25/12-million-democrats-voted-republican-primaries/
Its time for the GOP to wake up and make their elections closed primaries so people like Trump can never again hijack and election or worse, have the opposing party work to increase the vote for someone like Trump.
And maybe next time the GOP can come together one one or two candidates, and not 16, that fractured the base to the point that Trump just walked in with the Democrat votes.
On the Red State article….Seriously? No matter what happens, the Dems are at fault – even in the middle of the opposing party???? You really believe 12 million people are a part of a plot that large?? and no one has noticed or reported on it??? Whatever the author of that article snorts, I want some.
You’ve completely misunderstood the point, Moogie. In a contest between 2 people, or even 3-4 people, open primaries make little difference. In a contest among 17 candidates, when a plurality can win it all, crossover votes can be decisive. Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge this. Why do you think there are super-delegates in the Democrat system. They are the fail-safe mechanism, in case the “wrong” candidate is winning more votes. Not very democratic, but probably sensible, as long as open primaries exist.
““Ronald Reagan continues to roll over in his grave.”
Why???
Donald Trump is no conservative.”
You just answered your own question.
“Reestablish School Corporal Punishment – control of schools belongs with parents.” As a former high school teacher, I can tell you that does NOT work with the teenage group. We still had “licks” at the school I was at in 89-94. Don’t know about the lower grades. Fear only does so much.
Most conservatives keep going back to the “parents, parents, parents” squawk – does it ever occur to you that not everyone grows up with great parents?? Sadly, I have realized that people that grow up with poor parent models never realize they weren’t good parents, and start the cycle again. But I guess we can just ignore those kids.
In fact…it seems the conservative answer to most any problem faced by poor people (which is now half the country) is “it sucks to be you”.
To the commenter formerly known as Roby ( 😉 ) ,
Thank you for acknowledging that I am not intellectually deficient, lacking in any judgement, or simply an ass. I’m also not “blind” partisan. I have never denied being a Republican, albeit a moderate one, and I’ve made my case for why the Democrat Party left me, not the other way around, to paraphrase RR. But I am not blind, although I can certainly understand how, coming from your perspective, it might seem that way. I do get that.
This election is a travesty, but that is not because of Donald Trump, although, as a candidate he is lacking in many of the attributes that one might hope for in a future president. On the other hand, he has come from the private sector and the entertainment world, and his experience and knowledge is wide and deep. He is running as a populist, and, as such, he uses populist rhetoric, which tends to be unpalatable to many educated people. I can’t count the number of times that I’ve cringed at some of the things that Trump has said. I have also found him to be very engaging and funny, the latter something that has gotten him into trouble, particularly in the case of the baby that he “threw out of his rally” Even the mother of that baby knew he was joking. Nevertheless, he won the GOP nomination fairly. So, while he is certainly a big part of what makes this election a travesty, he is not responsible for creating the circumstances that led to his candidacy, He played by the rules.
Just as Jay finds me mentally deficient for supporting Trump, I find myself incredulous at how anyone can say that they want Hillary Clinton to be our next president. I won’t go through the details of her almost total lack of accomplishment, her shameless pandering to groups like BLM, her failure to be truthful in almost any important instance of her career, and her criminal negligence when it came to protecting the security of the US ~ Dave is the detail guy here, and he has done a pretty good job of that. Suffice it to say that, when I look at these two woefully flawed candidates, I see no choice but to vote for the one who may not speak in carefully poll tested sound bites, rather than the one who will certainly continue lying to the people, taking the country farther to the left, and who is very likely compromised by classified and damaging emails that are now in the hands of our enemies. In this binary choice, that’s the one I make.
And, while I understand the decision of anyone to vote 3rd party or write-in, I would only make that decision if there was some evidence that the candidate was something other than a spoiler. I won’t have any trouble looking myself in the mirror for having voted for the one candidate who could prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president.
So, there you have it. I have heard all the arguments against Trump. How could I possibly avoid it? And I have affirmatively decided to challenge my own decision, and my choice remains the same. If you or Jay, or anyone else, cannot abide or respect that, it’s fine. But that’s your choice. Debate with me, present your case, do whatever you want to prove that you are right and I am wrong ~ who knows, maybe circumstances will change, Trump will step over even the very low bar that I have set for him, and your rational arguments will persuade me. But calling me an idiot, an ass, or someone who is blind to the facts is not gonna do it. Not offended, mind you, just not persuaded by invective.
Well, first of all Priscilla you are a champion at remaining civil and calm and not being personal and even turning the other cheek to personal comments. You are gracious to other posters and can (often) admit when you are wrong about something So, you are a moderate’s moderate in style.
I have no idea of changing your vote, I’m just venting.
As to the idea that trump is just using a populist manner because that is the role he is playing, well, that falls flat for at least two reasons.
If he was good at playing roles then the role he should have been playing since the convention was the pivot to the presidential role, the role of being thoughtful and trustworthy, stable. If he is trying to play that role then he is the worst actor in history.
As well, if he is a populist the populist shtick is to stick it to the rich and powerful. He just proposed to give them a big tax break, absolutely the opposite of his words in the primary.
trump is not playing any role, he is being himself. If he sounds like a shallow idiot its because he is a shallow idiot.
The most important element in what you wrote in explaining your vote was “…taking the country farther to the left…”
This is what drives the intelligent decent conservative who still support trump, fear of the left. Mookie sees everything as an assault by the right, we are a far too conservative country according to her, she is opposed to conservatives and conservative politics in her bones. Everything she does not like is the fault of conservatives. Your style is very different but in the end you are just as opposed to liberal politics. You and Dave, the “fact” guy, share that. There is one large army in this country that will oppose anything that they can blame on conservatives till the end of time and another such army that will oppose the left till the end and both groups will play the information war every election and never think of voting for the other side.
My political views have almost no overlap with either your’s or mookie’s.
Dave’s “facts” are very often half truths or lies. But he and you both have an equal aversion to the left so they seem like nice facts to you. The Clinton foundation does not actually only spend 6% on doing good things. If you pee in the bushes you do not go on the sex registry.
Dave has cherry picked his collection of truths, half truths, and lies to support his ideas on tiny government. Yes, he is a fact guy, he is a guy who has a huge talent for ignoring the mass of facts that contradict any belief he has. People start out impressed with him and slowly lose their minds and patience. I’ve even seen your angelic patience tested by Dave.
Ah well, peace to you.
You do make a lot of good points. The populist thing may be a Jedi mind trick that I play on myself to try and find Trump less of a disappointment and an egotistical jerk. As far as his “policies” go, I would consider tax cuts for the middle class a populist position, especially when, as Trump is doing, you’re proposing to increase the tax rate on the rich. And his assault on political correctness is classic populism.
On the other hand, much of what he says is just self-centered BS, and not helpful or populist in any way. So, point to you.
I honestly don’t believe that Moogie and I are different sides of the same coin, and here is why: I differentiate between leftist and liberal, she considers conservative and right to be virtual synonyms.
I actually have liberal opinions – not often expressed here , but I have them. And more to the point, I respect true liberals, even when I think they are making little sense. The left, that extreme end of the spectrum that will do anything to consolidate power in a central authority, and that fears freedom of expression, is an entirely other thing. Now, you are probably thinking “well, the far right is equally scary” and , there I will agree with you, but I don’t believe that, when Moogie talks about the right, she is referring to that extreme end of the spectrum. Either that, or she thinks that garden variety conservatives such as myself, and right wing fanatics are one and the same.
Point to me on that one.
Cherry picking facts? Yeah, we all do it. Some more egregiously than others.
Tie on that one.
There ya go ~ tie score! 🙂 Thanks for your kind words, and peace to you as well.
Oh I don’t equate you and mookie. Mookies is spending her life looking under the street lamp for the keys that she lost in a dark field and nothing is ever going to convince her to look in the field. She is taking things personally. I probably qualify to her as one of the conservatives who are ruining America. If she has an opposite here its Dave. When they argue I sort of feel bad for both of them, they are very similar in persistence and blinders while being opposites ideologically. Just as much as I want to tell Dave that is the new moderate and not the new fanatical libertarian I’d like to tell Mookie that this is not the new daily Kos. How I wish there was an actual group of moderates here, which I of course define as people who have exactly the same opinions I do. Rick comes closest, then Ron P and Jay. Haven’t figured Mike out yet.
Not opposed to “liberal politics”.
I am the most “liberal” person here – liberal as in valuing individual liberty.
But even using “left” I am still quite “left”
Gay rights – absolutely
Legalize drugs – immediately
Legalize prostitution – yup.
Immigration – let everyone in who is not a known, terrorist, fellon, or currently afflicted with a communicable disease.
The place I part company with the left, is that the record of government is one of clear failure.
You say I am cherry picking. For the most part I am confronting YOUR arguments with data from places like NBER, Census, World Bank, IMF,
Are you telling me those are wrong ?
Are you telling me that the statistics I cite mean something different than they seem to mean ? If so please explain.
You will find that when you have real world data that actually means what you claim it to mean that is actually significant – I am easy to deal with.
I am not the one cherry picking. While I refer to mostly the same works over an over – most of the choices I use are because those are the most palletteable to the left.
I can trivially back up every claim I make with data and studies from Mercatus, Heritage, Hoover, Frazier institute, Caro, ASI, AEI, CEI, FEE FFE, and a whole raft of other sources you are going to call biased.
When I use Roggoff, Romer, or Barro, World Bank, IMF, NBER, US Census, the Fed, BLS, … – are you saying they too are biased.
I think you have accused me of being a “know it all”
That is pretty much nonsensical today. Someone who insists on always being right.
We live in the internet era. It is quite easy to be “right” if that is your value – just check your facts before you post.
I would have no reason to post most of the time, if most of those here quit spewing trivially disprovable nonsense.
What is most disturbing is that such a large body of people actually beleive things that are not oppinions or points of view but obviously erroneous assertions of fact.
The problem is much more common on the left – but it is present on the right too. Trump spouts nonsense on trade, globalization an immigration – and if he wins the election that will likely be why.
You say I ignore a mass of facts that contradict my belief – sorry, but that is bunk. That is your problem, not mine.
I have over time become a fairly extreme libertarian.
But I arrived there pragmatically. The FACTS do not support anything else.
The rarely support the left, and only slightly more often support government.
Can you name a single government program that you can honestly say unequivicollay works ? We spend $4T/year on the federal government – it should not be hard to find something good that comes of all that money.
While I would likely argue that nothing you can come up with actually works. Lets say you come up with half a dozen programs you think actually work – are they worth $4T If you can not answer unequivocally yes to that – then why are we even arguing ?
Sorry, but facts are stubborn things. Worse still the burden of proof is supposed to be on those who wish government to act.
Do you think it is acceptable to take a $ from someone else to do something that MIGHT work ?
Do you think it is OK for 51 people to take 1 $ from 49 for something that MIGHT work ?
If you can not justify your assertions on purely utilitarian basis – then you have not met the lowest threshold for using force against others.
Even if you actually beleive the ends justify the means – you must atleast acheive the ends or your real argument devolves to evil means are justified because I say so.
Forget me. Forget my ideas. Forget liberty entirely.
Are you honestly saying that bigger government has worked well ?
Whether big right government or big left government ?
How many government programs are you prepared to sit down and look at the DATA honestly and do you think having done so you will be able to say they work.
I am not cherry picking data. You are ignoring data entirely.
And just to be clear – the utilitarian argument is not the only argument I have – but ALONE it is sufficient.
I find the “cherry picking” argument hillarious.
I have offered to take anyone who wants on on any claim that there is something that government does well, so long as the measure of performance is data, not oppinion, and so long as we measure all costs as well as all benefits.
I have no takers.
I feel like Julian Simon in the simon-ehrlich wager.
I have offered you practically the terms of your own choice.
I demonstrate that YOUR arguments are fallacious and not rooted in data – and I am the one cherry picking.
This would be laughable – but it is extremely common.
So let me make it clear, the failures of government (right or left) are so pervasive, endemic and common, that there are very few examples of government success. If I ceded you highways, the internet, public transportation, public education – each of which is dubiously successful.
You still are far short of demonstrating that government does more good than harm.
If it is so hard to do that – it is you that should think more seriously about whether your views are rooted in data or really just ideology.
The problem with your arguments is not with me. It is with YOUR arguments.
To the extent there is any cherry picking – it is yours.
Dave, you know perfectly well how I meant the terms liberal and left. You have made countless posts here excoriating liberal/left/progressive ideas and people. You have called environmentalists evil and when pressed on that word doubled down. You are so anxious to have an argument with someone that you will say anything, why, you will even call yourself left or liberal as a twist if that gets your foot in the door.
There are times when I definitely admire some of your principles, particularly on racial issues and immigrants, Syrian and Mexican (although you are completely incensed with liberals on race, how is that for irony).
I am not trying to change you, your opinions, your mind. No interest at all in that. But you are trying to change my mind and we have been over the government issue to the tune of tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of words over the years. I am not interested in what you are selling and I understand very well what you are selling. You are like the encyclopedia salesman who just wants to get his foot in the door so he can make endless never say die arguments about the unsurpassable qualities of his product. (I never cherry pick You are the cherry picker is a classic Dave argument. My head hurts already.) I, on the other hand just want to say no thank you, try the next house. Ron’s calmer much less extreme libertarian ideas have more appeal to me. It was decent of you to admit that you are an extreme libertarian. But this is the New Moderate, not the New Extreme Libertarian and I am one of those moderate you have excoriated over the years, we are wrong about everything.
You can try to convert me by writing dozens of lengthy posts showing me how wrong I am about everything, but that is on you. I does not obligate me to engage. I’ve been there, ouch.
Know when to quit Dave. I’ll admit, I poked you here a few times lately, I shouldn’t have, since I value my time and sanity. I apologise. I’ll never do it again, I swear. Please sell extreme libertarianism to the house next door, not me.
I am not arguing with you about what the meaning of “left” is.
The issue is not about our ideals of a perfect world, or even about those societal change we would like to see.
My departure from the left is about the MEANS to acheive them.
What is LEFT to you ?
Is it the means or the ends ?
Is your idea of the left – big government uber alles ?
Or is it the ends – the greatest prosperity and happiness for most of us ?
Absolutely I excoriate the left constantly – an occaisonally the right too.
I ruthlessly attach the idiotic idea that people will be better off if someone else makes their choices for them.
You say you admire some specific positions of mine – mostly those at odds with the right.
But you fail to grasp my positions, my argument are all part of a consistent cohesive whole.
Are your values something you pick and choose from a menu like eating at a smorgasbord – Lets have a side of open borders, but an extra helping of protectionist tarriffs ?
Or are your values rooted in principles ?
I share more values with those on the left than the right.
But the left has no principles.
Oh, come on, cut the crap about cherry picking.
Your entire concept of cherry picking boils down to
Facts I do not like.
I admit I do not look absolutely everything I post up on NBER before posting it. As I said before I mostly use the same data sets over and over – not because there are not myriads of others that make my point, but because those datasets are the hardest for left, right and moderates to ignore because they do not like the source.
Because I use the same things over and over, I know them relatively well.
Are you claiming those are wrong ?
If you say they are cherry picked – fine, produce the large body of actual data that runs counter.
Note I said data, not talking heads, not pundits.
As I noted I did not start out this libertarain. I got that way because the more I checked the more and more and more I found the things I thought I knew were wrong.
You will note that, if you post that “the world is going to hell”
You can pretty much guarantee that I will respond demonstrating that you are wrong.
I was brought up with “Duck and Cover” I did not expect to make it to 58.
In college I was taught that in 5 years we would run out of oil and we had to be ready with sustainable living. My degree is in architecture, I studied clivus multrums, and passive solar homes – in every different climate.
I have no problems with those things. The home I designed for myself incorporates many of those principles.
But late in my sophmore year I decided that if I was going to have to kill other people to defend my passive solar self sufficient home with hyrdoponic gardens because we had run out of oil and they were starving.
I just could not do it.
Slowly after that I started to question the conventional wisdom of the left and the right. And what I learned slowly from the facts was that whenever someone is saying things are going to hell – they are wrong.
David Hume noted nearly 300 years ago that arguments that the past was better than the present are nearly universally accepted and universally untrue.
The fundimental error of most everyone here, and the left especially, is more than 3 centuries old.
Anyone here actually think 1716 was better than today ? 1816 ? 1916 ?
There is a pattern to life.
We confront a problem. Sometimes this is a new problem, but usually this is a problem that has always been there that our standard of living has risen sufficiently to allow us to direct our energies at.
As noted many times – people dying of thirst do not worry much about the cleanliness of water.
Often that problem is the consequence of past success against other problems or of scarcity caused because our past success drives us to need ever more of something.
If the problem is one of scarcity that drives prices up, which causes us to find new means of meeting demand and prices drop – lower than before.
Sometimes that problem is the consequence of past solutions. The automobile solved the massive pollution problem caused by the horse, but it brought with it a different smaller pollution problem.
Regardless whatever the problem myriads of people attack it. Nearly all fail, sometimes for a long time, but ultimately the problem is solved – and we move back to the top again.
That process is one by which life continuously improves.
That process moved incredibly slow in the past. Developing tools, moving from hunter gatherers to agriculture took more than 100,000 years. But the rate of change has been increasing in the modern era.
It increases with the number of people – because the more people their are the more ideas there are. It increases as our knowledge grows.
That process is innate to humans. It will occur with our without government.
Government itself is a product of that process, and the successive refinement of government is also a product of that process.
But let me remind you again – we fail far more than we succeed – though in the end we always succeed.
Does that pattern make sense to you ? Does that seem to generally cover the entirety of human development ?
Mostly it is a permutation of evolution – except that it is driven by the human mind specifically rather than the less structured and more random forces of nature.
In the broad sense that process refutes the nostalgic notion that the past was better than the present.
That is extremely rare in human history and never continues long.
If you recognize that as the human development process, that process is completely incompatible with the malthusian doom and gloom scenarios that result in our self destruction – we will make mistakes – but we will not end our own existance or that of others.
And we will make things better.
If you accept that then nearly all claims that something was better in the past are false, and all claims that everything was better in the past are false. All claims that something is running are are possibly true in the short run, but false in the long run.
And if you do not accept that – check the data, it will prove you wrong.
And if you think I am cherry picking – then you are rejecting the pattern of
human development.
Sorry you have things inverted.
You are trying to change me. Your ideology rationalizes the use of force constantly. You may not require that I beleive as you do, but you require that I live as you beleive.
The converse however is not true.
I am mostly not trying to change your mind – atleast not about anything except your use of force.
Whatever we differ on you are free to beleive as you wish and live as you wish – so long as you do not impose your beleifs on others by force.
You are free to do so alone, or together with all those who might agree with you. You are not free to force any who do not to join.
The only thing I ask of you – demand, is that you limit the use of force to instances where:
It is justified,
it is effective.
“he has come from the private sector and the entertainment world, and his experience and knowledge is wide and deep. ”
Tim, my plumber, comes from the private sector, and his experience with toilets and drains is wide and deep…
trump’s business experiences doesn’t apply to high elected office, period. Much background information has surfaced since he started campaigning, showing his businesses were mostly based on financial hucksterism and pyramid schemes ( hence the numerous bankruptcies) and hype. Banks and other American financial institutions have known that for a long time, and refused to finance his projects without substantial backing from foreign investors, like the Russians and Chinese – who by the way subsequently have dumped him as partner from those deals.
His other sources of income the last decade has been from his TV Production business- ‘The Apprentice’ etc – and licensing the Trump brand to investors and builders who wanted his name on their hotels and condos for marketing purposes. I have a feeling that part of his business will shrink dramatically now that his name has been significiently tarnished in the US and overseas – already happening in Dubai and Turkey where the Trump name has been removed from projects under construction. I foresee future lawsuits against him to recover fees paid for his ‘good’ name now that it has soured among the people most likely to have interest in living in a Trump anything.
This is just the tip of the negative Trump business model, Priscilla. Yes, businessmen often have to be tough in their dealings, but Trump has crossed that line from decency to cruel deviousness more then he’s honored it. You could laugh at some of his nasty machinations and crass insults as a private citizen, but not as a Presidential candidate, and we certainly don’t need a cross between Andrew Dice Clay and P.T. Barnum as President.
With Roby I applaud your temperament and intelligence overall; like him I’m frustrated by what I see as irrational rationalizations in your evaluation of Trump. I had an aunt I loved very much, kind, intelligent, well read – a talented painter of rural landscapes whose works are in an Upstate NY museum. But she had one dysfunction of intellect that drove me crazy – the superstitious belief that she had to toss salt over her shoulder, not only if she spilled salt, but to counteract bad luck or bad news. Some ingrained beliefs defy logic and reason. To me your Trump fixation is like that.
Haha, I am glad that you only find me mildly dysfunctional, Jay (and you may call me Auntie Priscilla, if you wish 😉 )
But, I don’t have a Trump fixation. I’ve explained why I’ll vote for him, with reluctance and largely because I feel that a Hillary Clinton presidency will be worse for the country. So, how that differs from your description of yourself as a reluctant Hillary supporter is a mystery to me. You seem far less reluctant to vote for Hillary than I am for Trump, but I don’t consider you to have a Hillary fixation (or perhaps you do, bwahaha! Those sexy pantsuits?).
And I get your point regarding your plumber, but it’s a poor one, in my opinion.
Trump’s experience as a billionaire construction magnate involves
leadership, economic and negotiating skills ~ all skill sets which overlap with those needed for political leadership. He doesn’t have much in the way of military experience, but Hillary doesn’t either. On the other hand, he promises to rebuild the military that Obama has hollowed out, while Hillary promises to continue Obama’s policies. The fact that Tim is a plumber invites all manner of stupid jokes about Trump, Hillary and this election, but suffice it to say that Tim’s skills have little overlap with those needed for the presidency.
I’ve said it a lot already, but I’ll say it again. This election provides no good option, but I have come to the decision that Trump is the least bad. Or that Hillary is the most bad. I don’t think that Trump will win, but maybe he will (knocks on wood for good luck).
I didn’t miss anything. A few thousand “rogue” voters? maybe. 12 million? not a chance.
Haha, ok then. I give up trying to explain anything to you.
IE, you believe there were 12 million rogue voters. Pass the doobie this way please.
Actually, in my teeny tiny town you Might have roped enough people in to make a difference. In a larger town? city? No way
In the 1968 Presidential election George Wallace, the segregationist candidate, got a shade under 10,000,000 votes.
I have no doubt. I was only 5 and do not remember it well 🙂 Hopefully, those bad times are going to keep receding into the past. Obama’s elections proves the racists are outnumbered now…but the racists are a lot louder. Sigh.
Jay,I owe you a couple of follow ups. Had a scheduled procedure in hospital today. Everything is good but too hard to write with my cell
No rush. I’m in a procrastinating mode today, and want to let my mind drift
I can only go buy info presented in many different places.
Red State–total 12 million
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2016/jul/20/hugh-hewitt/hugh-hewitt-million-ohio-democrats-changed-parties/
Ohio,, over 1 million democrats and unaffiliated alone.
I will find some more.
I don’t know if you meant to back up my claim, but thank you, you did. Over 900,000 of those voters were Unaffiliated, not Dems.
Believe me I understand all too well the appeal of Trump to rednecks!! I live here! Thankfully, I’ve not seen that many Trump signs around here…yet.
And we don’t know how many crossed over to vote for Kashich or Cruz
Jay, I can’t find a ting that shows numbers and how they voted. But since Trump has a lot of white working male support, I can only suspect he has attracted a good number of union voters that normally vote for the Democrats. Kasich and Cruz did not have the same appeal to that group because Trumps appeal came from his Trade policy.
OK teacher, I understand where you are coming from. Say exactly what you mean and do not expect anyone to interpret the statement in any other manner. I see all the red marks and scribble marked all over that statement I previously made.
So here is what I mean. Close the GOP primaries in all states with a primary to affiliated voters. Make the voters choose a party. Do not allow anyone of a different party or one who has not chosen a party to vote in the GOP primary. For caucus states, the same rules apply.
Had this happened, Trump most likely would have left the race well before the bulk of the primaries had taken place. For instance, there are 725,000 unaffiliated voters in Iowa compared to 611,000 republicans and 584,000 democrats.9Not all of these voted) Based on the votes that eliminated or severely damaged a number of GOP candidates and helped Trump into second place, had the caucus been closed, I suspect Cruz would have won by a more substantial margin and those like Huccabee may have lived to see another election, with Trump getting a smaller number of Republican votes. His momentum would have been decreased going into NH.
Point: Democrats should pick the democrat nominee
——–Republicans should pick the Republican Nominee
——–Independents and unaffiliated should have to choose between the two
Ron, you are absolutely correct (and I was a teacher, too) . Once many states decided on open primaries, the DNC wisely moved to super-delegates to choose the candidate. It is essentially “rigging’ the system, but, as I’ve said before, it’s a foolproof way to prevent what happened to the Republicans this year. In 2007, Hillary was very close to Obama in delegates, until many of the super-delegates decided to abandon her and switch to supporting Obama, who they thought was the better candidate.
The GOP has paid a heavy price for not figuring out a way to prevent Democrat and Independent voters from choosing the Republican candidate. There’s got to be a middle ground between the rigged super-delegate system, and the chaotic RNC system.
I would like to see the GOP just say, “Vote in our primary if you are a registered Republican:”
Having open primaries is like allowing General Motors to have a say in what cars Ford produces for the car market. It make no sense at all,
The other side of the argument.
The two parties control who gets elected, and with no allowances for unaffiliated and independent voters to vote in the primaries, they have even less voice in the system.
That isn’t the other side of the story though, Jay. It’s exactly the point. Independent voters do not support any particular party, so why should they get a say in who that party nominates? Should people who don’t believe in libertarian values or policies be allowed to choose who runs under the Libertarian banner? Of course not.
Anyone can vote for whomever they please. Ronald Reagan ran as a conservative Republican and carried 49 of 50 states. Don’t you suppose that a lot of Democrats and Independents voted for him? That doesn’t mean that those voters should have had a say in who the Republican Party nominated.
To put it in sports terms, if the Giants are playing the Jets, and one of the Patriots decides to suit up for the Jets that day, should he be allowed to play? Maybe not the best analogy, but it’s close enough.
The whole purpose of political parties is for like-minded people to band together for maximum political leverage. The voting choice that Dave and Ron have made is more along the lines of what would give independents more say – that is, to support a third party effort that more closely aligns with their values.
Why should they have a voice in the matter. That is why we have two parties. If you are not willing to commit to one party or the other, then piss off. I want a Republican running against a Democrat. I don’t want a Democrat running against a mentally ill Democrat.
At least the Democrats were smart enough to figure out a way to offset any impact of independants rigging their system and getting a non-liberal nominated.
Moogie
Virginia 60,000..and that does not include unaffiliated that voted for Trump
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/amazing-60000-democrats-voted-in-virginia-republican-primary/
Moogie
There are many articles available that show how Trump attracted the blue collar worker votes in the rust belt. Few of them actually give much detail as to the exact numbers. We could debate the 12 million, but the point is it doesn;t take a high percentage of voters to switch and vote for someone else in a 16 person race. And once momentum begins, the money flows to the popular candidate and the money dries up for those not getting support. IE Jeb Bush.
The GOP needs a closed primary system so republicans choose their candidate. I would support the democrats closing their primaries so the democrats could only pick their candidate. I don’t think people that will not choose a party or those of a different party should have any say in who a party runs as their candidate.
“What is most disturbing is that such a large body of people actually beleive things that are not oppinions or points of view but obviously erroneous assertions of fact.
The problem is much more common on the left ”
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry. Whew. had to catch my breath. But that argument that the government does nothing right and private sector is gold is nonsense. On many occasions the working people need to be protected. That is what went wrong over the past 40 years. The Far Right kept up the diatribe of “all government is useless” for so long that most people now believe it – even those who would benefit from government intervention. The Gov. morphed with Big Business and now working folk are getting squat.
You and some others claim that the standard of living is rising – and in 3rd world countries that maybe true – but they are not up to our standards. I can give you an equal number of “cherry picked” reports over the last 25 years showing our decline.
Sadly, with all the “gains” in the standard of living they are getting…they can’t afford to buy the products they make. And neither now can a majority of the American people. We can’t afford a 2nd car (still making payments on 1st one). Could only afford a double wide. Still can’t afford all that “affordable” furniture and other products that are supposedly so much cheaper. Still buying 2nd hand everything.
Henry Ford was a smart man. Wonder if Corporate America will ever wise up.
Anyone want to speculate as to whether trump will debate or how a trump Clinton debate will come out if he does agree to debate?
I think he has to debate or be seen as gutless but I think he will lose badly unless people have such low expectations that he manages to beat them by standing upright on 2 feet. I don’t think he can put coherent thoughts together for very long or deal with factual issues and details. I guess I’ll have to wait till September to see whether my view is accurate or a caricature that I have chosen to believe.
He’ll just do his Apprentice schtick and scowl and avoid direct answering and make the same broad charges and insults… And the media will excerp the most outlandish of them.. And not much will change.
But it’s a mistake to think he’ll self-destruct in one on one debates with Hillary. Watch reruns of the Apprentice on YouTube. He fast on his feet with answers and counter questions. And he’ll have wise ass quips ready to ridicule Hillary, provided to him by staff.
One of 2 things will likely happen: 1) If he really wants to win, he’ll crush her in all three debates. Love her or hate her, she’s really not a very good speaker or debater, and any halfway decent opponent should have no problem with her, even with the moderators propping her up. 2) If he doesn’t want to win (or if he’s really a plant!) he’ll do well enough in the first debate, to make it look like a fair fight, and then he’ll do his Apprentice schtick and scowl and avoid direct answering and make the same broad charges and insults…
“Love her or hate her, she’s really not a very good speaker or debater”
Where did you come up with that nonsensical assessment?
She stood her ground debating Obama with feistiness and coherence in her debates with him, and was willing to respond effectively even with an audience favoring him.
And in interviews with pesky FOX reporters she managed to maintain composure and coherence. But Trump isn’t Obama or newscasters operating under journalistic codes of restraint. He’s capable of entering his Mr Hyde WWF wrestling persona, with exaggerated scowls and leers, fist pounding the lectern, squishing up his face like he did ridiculing the physical disability reporter. I’m betting he will call her Lying Hillary at the dais, and make disparaging references to her wrinkles or other features.
What then? His supporters in the audience will laugh/applaud, and the moderator will make some tepid remark calling for decorum – the same old weak Chastisments we heard at the Republican debates, to no avail.
And even if Dopy Donald further demeans the political process, and further sullies the presidency in his classless fashion, you’ll stick by him, Pricilla, with the same rationalizations you’ve offered in the past. Like Trump, you’ll deny any ill will was intended, his remarks taken out of context of the larger issue : Clinton hate MUST ‘trump” all else.
I had a an internet free day, hah! As well, I live a TV free life and never saw him on the apprentice, Jay. I’d hate to think his shtick would fly with moderate swing voters who would be tuning in for maybe the first real time to the election. But what do I know? I have no complacency, this ain’t over till he loses. I won’t watch the debates live, ugg. I’ll read the reviews, the polls and watch excerpts if they are not too sickening. Imagine spending an evening listening to those two have at it. My preconceived notion is that Hillary will appear to be the adult in the room and that will be a clear win. However, idiocracy time may be upon us, perhaps Americans want Jerry Springer for president.
If so, Canada less than 50 miles away… Or perhaps Vermont could secede if Trump were to win. They always say that the great thing about Vermont is that its located so close to the USA.
Where’s Bernie?
He promised to help defeat Trump, but I haven’t seen or heard a word from him since the convention.
It would be hard not to look like the adult in the room with Trump there. At least the Trump we’re used to seeing.
I thought he was awful, really awful, in the GOP debates, making his faces and insulting people. But there was one exchange with Cruz, back when Cruz was in trouble over his “NY values” remark, where I saw a flash of brilliance in Trump’s response, an entirely different demeanor, and a natural ability to speak directly and connect with people. It was just very striking, and if he can be that guy in debates with Hillary, he will do just fine.
I’ll admit Jay, that Hillary is very well prepared for debates, and skilled at deflecting attacks. On the other hand, she’s wooden and overly rehearsed. For the most part, Obama ran circles around her in 2007, and he had pretty much zero experience doing anything, He was just more natural an articulate.
I’d like to see Gary Johnson in the debates. He might actually make a difference.
The systems rigged. Johnson has litle chance of getting into the debates. They will make sure they use at least one poll that only list Clinton/Trump/other so johnson can not get close to 15%
Grand Wazoo…you are making the mistake of since I am not Far Right, I must be Far Left. Whoa. Nope. Neither works well. When you have NO government intervention (although dhiii will disagree) you get what we have now – Income Inequality and a stagnant economy. Go to far left and you get communism, which didn’t work either.
There seem to be a number of countries that have blended private sector and government and get along far better than we are. Scandinavian countries, Germany, France…sure they have problems too but not the severe Income Inequality we have here.
“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 among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” I think this statement has caused a number of problems, as wonderful as it is. Unfortunately, all men are not created with equal abilities, equal genetics, or equal circumstances. This is where the left & right clash – Right says No Matter What, ANYONE can succeed. The Left says – Get Real, Some People are
Given More than Others.
A friend that lived on the same street I did in high school (and is a conservative now) reminded me he was the product of a single parent home. Really? His parent was college educated and could afford to bring him up in Clear Lake (home of the astronauts in Houston). Compare that to the child of a teen growing up in the inner city?
IMHO, the proper role of government is referee between the corporation and the working people. To make sure those who need help get it, to make sure workers are not just being paid slave wages (as half of us are now). To protect the environment. Remember your lovely private sector polluted Lake Erie til it caught fire. To protect consumers. Snake oil anyone?
Mookie, I don’t think that you are as far left as communist, but pretty far left all the same, I’d say Bernie left. My guess, (its none of my business) is that you will vote for Hillary but wanted Bernie.
Half the country making slave wages? That is just silly. Mookie your economic ideas drive me nuts. If all the things you have been reading for 25 years tell you the same story, that conservatives ran oversees with your proper pay, then you have simply been reading one sided nonsense that has some small grain of truth in it but is far from the whole truth. If you expand your reading to include a more balanced picture you may have a different take on everything. Better yet, borrow an economics text from the library and get a better foundation for thinking about economic questions. You are wildly unrealistic in your economic statements, the solution to all problems is not having at people who are better off than you are and telling them that they just don’t get it. Globalization by the way is not a conservative idea, its a liberal one.
I believe that how the job situation and pay situation and bank situation look to a person depend greatly on where you live, if its an inner city or the most impoverished part of rural appalachia then yes, things look desperate. I certainly do believe that there are no small number of people in this country who have had very little chance to succeed based on where they live or were born and raised, inner city Baltimore, rural poverty. Its easy to say that they should just move somewhere better but its much harder to cut ties and do it. You have a very dark and distorted view of american economics, I think its shaped by where you have lived. Where I live things are nowhere near as desperate as what you describe for most people and Vermont is not any rich state. But its desperate anywhere without a needed job skill. There are other ways as well to live comfortably. I’ve never made big money but I bought a cheap but fantastic piece of land and built my own home. Its led to a lot of freedom. I also accidently created my own job out of a sort of obsession/hobby that turned out to have an outlet. Think outside the box.
What I believe in as a job program and pay improvement program is that the government should pay a large hunk of the costs or all of them one time in a person’s adult life for job retraining, medical skills, computer skills, building skills, what have you. College is nice but in most cases all that sociology and poly sci does not provide the skills to be something that is actually needed, a mechanic, radiography, plumbing, nursing, etc.
Its MooGie, Grand Wazzoo…o, my you are wrong on so many counts I barely know where to begin!! I’ve lived in 4 different states but mostly in the South – Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Texas now I’m back in Virginia in Appalachia. I’ve lived in Houston & Dallas, worked & lived in the inner city, and I’m sure I’ve said I lived in the wealthy NASA neighborhood in high school in Houston. That school featured in the film “Dead Poets Society”? I lived there with the upper crust when Dad taught there. I’ve kept up with my inner city black students. I believe this all qualifies me as being pretty well rounded. I also consider myself pretty well read…and yes I’ve checked out economics books from the library (besides owning the few my dad had). What I noticed most keenly is the absence of a perspective of the working people. The only thing most of them say is a minimum wage is a no no. Imagine that.
Job re-training?? I’ve been a part of that. Remember I’m in Appalachia where they started 3 decades ago sending our jobs overseas. There are barely any furniture or textile plants left here. Ten years ago I was a part of helping those folks get their GEDs. Where are they working now? Walmart – probably for half of what they made at the manufacturing jobs. It is no good to “train” for non-existent jobs. We have a wealth of job skills here and not enough jobs for them.
Moving elsewhere? Yes, its hard to tear yourself away, but what really stops everyone here is the lack of money. It takes a great deal of money to move. Most here don’t have it. I don’t have it, but I am fortunate to have family that can help if I ask.
Of course not everyone is in dire straits, but I believe (no, I haven’t made a formal count) most of us will not reach the same economic level as our parents. That has also been the subject of many articles over the past 25 years. More than a few of the college grads I know are working jobs that pay less than $20/hr. And since we are now in our 50s, jobs are harder to come by. God forbid if you are like me and have had health problems and now have an “unstable” work history. I was just released from my last job in a call center for being too old and slow. (I made bonuses the last 2 paychecks, so go figure) I’m working in a convenience store for minimum wage, hoping something better comes up.
I’m hoping the world comes to its senses soon. No one yet has denied that when we paid working class people middle class wages, the economy rocked. The constant corporate obsession with “cheap labor” is what f***d us up. When they paid well, they sold much more. I don’t think you can argue with that logic. Henry Ford figured this out over a 100 years ago. Income Inequality only works if you’re part of that top 10%.
Yes, life has turned out to be a much rockier road then we believed it would be.
Only thing to do is grip the wheel tighter, and try to avoid sinkholes ahead.
This may be the model for technology-based manufacturing economic systems: a good century or so for nations ahead of the curve, then decline as other nations with poorer hungry populations catch up.
I don’t see anything either extreme of the two parties if elected can do to make life much better for us. It is what it is, as we say.
What I am hoping for is that corporations will stop having anywhere cheaper to run to in the next say 20 years. With better communication, all people will know not to settle for being treated like slaves, and will demand better pay. Hopefully we will see better standards for everyone, instead of just the plutocracy.
Moogie
“When you have NO government intervention (although dhiii will disagree) you get what we have now – Income Inequality and a stagnant economy”
Maybe the problem is TOO MUCH government intervention.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/05/red-tape-rising-six-years-of-escalating-regulation-under-obama
No thanks, the Heritage folks are definitely on the side of the business owners, I don’t read their BS.
I hope all working people are starting to realize that they have been lied to for such a long time now….we’ve been told over and over and over again the wealthy are the job creators and we have to keep giving them tax breaks. Wow, how well has that worked in the past 25 years?? As they sent our jobs overseas?
No, we the masses with purchasing power create jobs. That is just what has happened. The majority of us now just live paycheck to paycheck, so we don’t spend much. Pay us better, we’ll start buying again, which gives the wealthy reason to create more jobs. Those folks overseas aren’t paid well enough to improve the economy.
This is one of the reasons raising the minimum wage doesn’t have the dire consequences conservatives rail about. When they get raises they start spending, which negates the need for price hikes.
If anyone hears if there is a way to invest in Trumps “The Producing of a President” let me know. I may invest in that show.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Joe-Scarborough-Trump-Campaign-Scam/2016/08/09/id/742846/
I can’t wait until all the Trump supporters on the right find out how they were scammed. And they are the same ones that can not understand how people can fall for the request to send money to a foreign bank to get even more money back.
Everyday there is something new, like the comments about Somalians in Minn. He must lie awake at night thinking up who he can offend next.
Right on cue…
I’m trying this morning to find out how I place a $100 bet that he quits. Does not seem like a crazy use of $100.
God, I wish he would quit. Ha, and this is coming from someone who plans to vote for him. Sheesh.
Priscilla, Have not heard the Wednesday’s Daily Trump, but Tuesday’s brought the veiled threat.
“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know”.
This sounds a lot like the veiled threats that the southern segregationist democrats made in the 50’s and 60’s when civil rights workers came into town and they wanted those people to know their places and what could happen if they caused problems.
Grand W (Roby) said Ronald Reagan continues to roll over in his grave. And i add George Wallace is laughing his head off and cheering Trump on! I can hear the second amendment words coming right out of his mouth with that strong southern accent. HUMMM Maybe David Duke is working for the Trump campaign after all.
Hope this link come through. Goes with the scam.
Ron the link worked.
How do you do that?
When I try to copy a Facebook link, it gives me an error message?
WordPress gives me the error message, not Facebook.
You also have to paste the link into the comment you are making.
I right clicked on the story in facebook and it opened the facebook page of that person/group. Once that happened, I copied the HTTP address at the top of the page. Occasionally this does not work, but most times it does. That is why I said “Hope this link works”
Believe me Ron, the idea that Trump is a Hillary plant still bothers me. And I would not be surprised, although I don’t quite believe it.
One of the things that most disturbs me is his habit of saying or doing a series of stupid and outrageous things, and then making a serious and successful speech, as he did this week. He’s done this 2-3 times before. Now, if he goes back to alienating voters and never focusing on either a positive message or the many (many, many, many) weaknesses and flaws of Hillary, I might abandon ship.
I am not sure I beleive he was serious when he started.
But I think he really wants to be president now.
That said, I do think his grasp of the current state of the US electorate is prescient.
He recognized a fracture line in the democratic party and is exploiting it to great success.
I would also note that I think the polls are wrong. That more so than ever before people are lying to pollsters.
I have no evidence to back that up. It is just a gut feeling.
I am not sure that I even think this election is going to be close.
Todate Clinton has spent a fortune against Trump and is at best a few points ahead in swing states.
Trump has spent little.
In myriads of ways this is a very weird campaign.
I would also note that Brexits were something like 5 points off the last polls and swung more than 10% from two weeks prior.
I am not going to be happy no matter who we elect come November.
But I am expecting to wake up to Pres. Trump.
Between now and election day – is there any big negative you expect regarding Trump ? More stupid remarks I am sure.
But I am not expecting documentation of how he an Putin plan to divide eastern europe.
Conversely, there will be more and more Clinton emails from now until January.
The economy is unstable and rarely does well leading into an election.
The world economy is nearly certainly headed into mild recession.
All acts of violence anywhere favor Trump.
Another terrorist attack in the US or abroad favors Trump.
Some black man killed by a white cop – still manages to favor Trump.
Violent BLM protests – favor trump.
More cop killing – favor trump.
More crime – favor trump.
Hillary has to get to November with next to nothing bad happening and Trump continuing to be stupid.
“At long last, Donald Trump has left the Republican Party few options but to act decisively and get this political train wreck off the tracks before something terrible happens.” Joe Scarborough
Meanwhile Melania will address the media later today about Trump’s policy regarding the immigration crisis.
I doubt I even need to say that I disagree with Trump on immigration.
That said – what has the left offered regarding immigration ?
As best as I can tell, the lefts position is we do not want legal immigration – as that threatens blue collar jobs. But we want hordes of illegal immigrants avoiding even the shallowest govenrment oversight dangerously for themselves and other crossing where they can at night, and if they can manage to get a job – and we will jail anyone who gives them one, and survive long enough, then we are going to make them citizens.
I think Trump is wrong on immigration. I think the left is bat-shit crazy on immigration.
Regardless, show that I am wrong – tell me what is the obviously rational alternative that the left offers ?
Trump was excoriated for criticisng Kahn.
As best as I can tell Kahn was arguing that the US constitution and 14th amendment obligate the US government to protect those in foreign countries ?
Even my “extreme” libertarian views do not reach half so far.
What is the position of the left on immigration ?
And please, not merely some inanities about “dreamers”.
Open Borders ? a Wall ? Something in between ?
“I doubt I even need to say that I disagree with Trump on immigration.
That said – what has the left offered regarding immigration ?
As best as I can tell, the lefts position is we do not want legal immigration – as that threatens blue collar jobs. But we want hordes of illegal immigrants avoiding even the shallowest govenrment oversight dangerously for themselves and other crossing where they can at night, and if they can manage to get a job – and we will jail anyone who gives them one, and survive long enough, then we are going to make them citizens.”
More exaggeration absurdum.
Who do you include in the “left” – anyone who doesn’t want to round up and deport everyone here illegally?
To refresh your memory, I supported Trump’s initial outrage over the pourous borders, and the failure of the Obama and Bush2 administrations to do anything about it. And I was, and still am, in favor of evtending a protective barrier along the southern border – not a wall but the same kind of high tech fences now in place at border crossings now. And I’d like to find and deport MANY of those here illegally, but not ALL of them. Does that make me a leftie?
Te further refresh your memory, it was Ronald Reagan who provided the blanket amnesty that set the even larger inumber of border crossing and visa illegal immigration into motion. And Republican oriented businesses and corporation are the ones hiring them in great numbers. Are they ‘lefties’ under your definition?
The ‘rational alternative’ is to tighten the border and visa system, and conscientiously ARREST AND FINE employers who violate the law.
“Trump was excoriated for criticisng Kahn.
As best as I can tell Kahn was arguing that the US constitution and 14th amendment obligate the US government to protect those in foreign countries ?
Even my “extreme” libertarian views do not reach half so far.”
No, Kahn was passionately arguing his Muslim son war hero would not have been allowed to enter the US under Trump’s original blanket banning statement, and that Trump’s unrelenting negative attacks were harmful to US Muslims who are loyal and patriotic.
Again, like Trump, I believe criticisms of Islam are valid, and I would like to see a lot FEWER Muslims allowed to immigrate here. My agnostic antiReligionist view of present day Islam as dangerous to my safety and freedom of speech anchor that opinion. But disparaging the religion doesn’t mean disparaging reformist adherents, certainly not patriotic American Muslims who die for their country, or insult their parents for speaking out in complaint of perceived. And then disparage the family on national TV, and set of a storm of insinuation over their lives and motives. In my long lifetime that kind of unseemly behavior from a Trump was met with universal scorn, with little exception. Now it’s parsed and rationalized by the right, and even self professed Libertarians like you.
“What is the position of the left on immigration ?”
Multiple positions, depending on wide spectrum of immigration opinion on the left.
However we agree that the official Democratic Party position is to do little to shrink the size of the present illegal immigration population or make it harder to enter the US illegally for the mostly Hispanic South Americans who come here each year. Though the US has ramped up border patrolling, and anti narcotics efforts during Obama’s administration, with modest success at times
One of these days, a lot of folks are going to wake up to learn that their community or state can’t fund basic school programs, services, and expenses because their budget is tied up with paying pensions for retired public employees.
And they’ll realize that the blame lies with politicians of both parties who traded long-term concerns, in order to get endorsements and support from teachers, police, and other public employee unions.
One of the reasons that transparency in government is so important. But who cares? Trump said something stupid!!!
“While underperforming investments receive the most attention, they aren’t the real reason for the tax hikes and cuts in government services needed to bail out public pensions. In reality, the culprit is the extraordinarily generous nature of the benefits themselves, whose costs are only now coming to the surface” http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2016/08/09/shining_a_light_on_the_public_pension_crisis_1687.html
The only malthusian disaster that has any probability of proving true over the long run are the sustainability of government programs.
In every other way you can bet against pessimism with respect to the future and always win.
I guess it’s because Americans have been told for so many years that economic disaster will follow, if the government continues to spend more than it can bring in, and raises the debt to unsustainable levels. In the past, voters have punished administration that have done this, by electing the other party. This did not happen in 2012, and is unlikely to happen in 2016.
It would be interesting to discuss the reasons why things have changed.
Hi Jay and Grand Wazzoo- First Jay, back when I restated what I thought your position was on the Iran deal, you confirmed that I had essentially expressed it correctly. I’ve been meaning to get back to that. I have a really difficult time deciding where to draw the line with dealing with aggressive, oppressive, violent regimes. If we didn’t tolerate a little “badness” we would probably be reduced to having to trade with only a few Inuit and rain forest tribes. For example, I don’t have any qualms about deals made between the USA and France despite the fact that I believe they have in recent history been down right nasty to their Islamic citizens PRIOR to any of these new terrorist attacks in the past year or two. That being said, I just think Iran’s leadership is just way to aggressive and violent to have made any deal with them other than perhaps apply more pressures and sanctions if possible. If they claimed they were willing to consider changing their ways, step one for me would have been for them to release those hostages, that would be absolutely the only thing I would have talked to them about, offered nothing in return except for after the hostages are back, then we can start a conversation with them on anything else. Although, if I called the shots, it would be continue to starve the regime as much as possible, and if they still got too close to developing nuclear weapons then the USA should provide as much support, financial or otherwise to let Israel do a military strike to set back the clock on Iran’s nuclear program. Someone (Ron? or I don’t remember) said Republicans were double talking, saying POTUS should have got the hostages in the deal and then when he did, blamed him for dealing for hostages. This to me, is not a contradiction, while I was against any deal that gave a state sponsor of terrorists billions of dollars (even if it was their own money) if someone wiser than me determined dealing should be done, then the sequence makes all the difference. First the hostages, then start the deal discussions. The way it went down, it appears to be rewarding bad behavior, and perception matters as it encourages other bad actors in this world. GW- You haven’t figured me out yet? Well you are right, I haven’t figured myself out yet either. What I’m pretty certain of is that at this point in time in USA history, we are far too authoritarian, thus the ideas that Dave says are most appealing to me. My fear is no matter who is elected we are continuing to move that direction. I suspect that if we ever reached Dave’s ideal libertarian utopia, then I would be pushing against it and towards more authoritarian. But we are so very far from that right now that I’m trying to pull in his direction. Two other things about my ideas about myself. One, I like to think that I’m very cognizant of things that I’m not an expert in, which is a whole lot of things. I am not a global climate expert, I’m not a US economy expert, or a charity foundation expert. I do know some things about military for having been in Army military intelligence for a little over 8 years. I currently have been working in mortgage servicing for about 9 years , forward mortgages, reverse mortgages, HELOCs, and am quite in tune with the Feds relationship with banks. I also lived in Zaire for one school year and learned a whole lot in that year about dictatorships and hyper inflation. But overall, I’ve listed to right wing radio for a long time so all my prejudices tend to be right orientated, but I’ve become more and more disillusioned with not only Republicans but the many distortions of right wing radio. I still dislike the left, but I try to make it a habit to read their side, KOS, Huffington Post, Daily Beast and try to find the truth somewhere in the middle.
I’d suggest that you read the moderate journalists too! Oh wait, that’s like one or two guys, David Brooks and whatisname. But kidding aside, that are moderate liberals and moderate conservatives, I think, somewhere…
I was against the Iran nuke deal. My opinion was Iran had nuclear weapons already. Maybe a dozen or more Hiroshima style bombs – with all those cyclotrons spinning for a decade at least they surely produced enough U235 for a small but lethal arsenal. And only a fool would believe they are not proceeding surreptitiously to produce ICBMs.
But it’s too late now to complain about that done deal.
And my suspicion is Hillary wasn’t in favor of doing it.
Like Dave says, she has a more militaristic mind set then Obama.
As I have noted repeatedly. I arrived at my “extreme” libertarianism pragmatically rather than theoretically. The alternatives have a horrible record of near universal failure.
It is not the legitimate role of our government to “punish” other nations for “badness”.
George Washington warned us to avoid involving ourselves in the affairs and intrigues of other nations. Left and Right have uniformly disregarded that.
The role of government regarding other nations is to protect us from their use of force.
And to physically protect our citizens in their dealings with those nations.
It is not to make trade possible, easy, hard. It is not to use trade relationships to punish other nations for failing to conform to our ideals. It is not to punish other nations for their conduct towards their own people – no matter how reprehensible that might be.
Our government may not do any of these things – but we as individuals and groups are free to do as we please. We as individuals and groups can choose who we will trade with, we can speak out against whatever we wish. We can aide those elsewhere whose values we support.
To the extent Iran engages in violence towards other nations – particularly towards the US our government is free to use force against them.
It seems clear that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. Frankly it is a miracle that more nations do not have them already. The thought of a nuclear Iran is terrifying. At the same time Israel, North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, and South Africa developed nuclear weapons – though it is likely that South Africa self disarmed. A nuclear Iran probably means a nuclear Saudi Arabia. Worse still neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia seem like long term stable nations. There is excellent reason to be affraid.
But our fears do not alter the fact that the pre-emptive use of force is immoral. It is immoral as individuals and as nations.
I would further note our entire discussion of foreign affairs rests on the same idiotic foundation that government elites knows what is best for us.
Why should we beleive that men in Langley, Fort Meade, The White House or Foggy Bottom are so wise as to know what to do for the rest of us ?
Historically the record of the US with respect to foreign countries has been thoroughly abysmal. I would strongly suggest reading “The Ugly American”.
It is hard to overstate the disastrous record of the US in foreign relations.
I constantly ask for examples where our government has acted that are clearly good.
Our foreign relations are just one other area of near universal government failure.
Dave, what is your opinion on the doctrine of “peace through strength”, largely attributed to Reagan? Specifically, I mean US maintenance of the most powerful military in the world, with the most high tech defense systems (“Star Wars” and beyond) to avoid the likelihood of an opportunistic war waged by a bad-actor nation that senses our weakness, or lack of motivation to defend against them. Are Russia or China taking over that role? Or are they bad-actor nations?
I know that you don’t really “know” the answer to this, but I’d be interested in your opinion.
Actually, Mike, I’d be interested in your opinion as well, as you have recently served in the military.
Watching this election, the media, the people, posters here is illuminating.
We are told repeatedly that Trump is unfit and unqualified to be president.
Why ?
The argument seems to rest on two factors – he has never held public office, and his speech is intemperate.
I do not think that being successful in business qualifies one for public office.
Nor do I think that being successful at other public offices qualifies you for higher office.
Clinton’s record of public service is pretty bad.
Given their respective records, I would choose Trump over Clinton, as success in business is more qualifying that failure in public service.
Regardless, the argument is not compelling.
The remaining argument is that his speech is intemperate.
That is pretty obviously true.That is not an attribute I think is good in a president. But it is not a disqualifier. It seems obvious that this is his personality and it has not prevented his success in business. There is no reason it should prevent success as president.
We seem to beleive that the world will collapse if we can not deal with each other politely, that speaking impetuously and angrily is the same as acting impetuously and violently.
The evidence strongly suggests that however Trump speaks he manages extremely complex business relationships very successfully.
Looking at Clinton on the same criteria, She was a lawyer in the Rose law firm centuries ago, and appears to have done well there. Beyond that her roles have been in government and none have been anything to celebrate.
I do not think one can say she speaks intemperately, but one can say that she lies.
All politicians say things that run counter to our ideology that result in dueling shouts of “liar”. All politicians over generalize, or make remarks that are nut supported by the facts.
Accusations of these types of lying with respect to Trump abound. I am at odds with him on trade and immigration – and I think he is smart enough to know better than what he says – so clearly I think he is “lying”.
But when we labeling Hillary a liar we are not merely talking the ordinary political lies.
We are talking about lying about her own actions. To the public, as well as under oath.
I consider truthfulness incredibly important – even truthfulness in those things that nearly all politicians lie about. But a lack of truthfulness regarding ones actions separates one from society. We can survive fallacious arguments. Lies about acts undermine the foundations of the social contract.
We also have necessarily higher standards for public conduct than business or private.
Though too many on the left presume that in private exchanges there must be a winner and a loser – most private transactions are win-win – that is nearly a tautology. People are nearly by definition better off as consequence of their free choices.
Further we expect – and in fact the market requires self serving. Trumps private actions are not expected to place the public interests or any interests besides his own first.
Self-serving is the norm.
Conversely public conduct MUST not be self serving. We expect that from the police to the president that public servants must make choices based on the public interests – not merely first – but solely. It is partly because this is nearly impossible that Government is so rife with failure. When we make choices for everyone else, we not merely must avoid self dealing – but even the appearance of self dealing – as the appearance of impropriety undermines our faith in government.
More and more is coming out regarding Clinton’s conduct as Sec. State.
I do not grasp why those on the left think that self dealing in government is less heinous than impetuous public speech.
The claim that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous response to an interenet video – was a self serving lie. It was known to be a lie the first time it was uttered, in fact it is obvious that Sec. State Clinton knowing the truth actively sought a different more palatable explanation. Further, Sec. State Clinton pushed for and got aggressive persecution/prosecution of the person responsible for the video and they ended up in jail.
How anyone on the left can find that acceptable I can not fathom.
With respect to the incestuous relationship of CF and other Clinton affiliated entities, Sec. State Clinton’s actions likely violate the law. But they ABSOLUTELY violate the explicit public promise that Clinton was required to make by the Obama administration to take the position and Sec. State.
She promised that her office would be entirely divorced from dealings with her outside interests. Not only was this false but some on her staff were being paid salaries not merely from government, but from multiple Clinton charitable and private interests.
From the emails thus far released we have everything except an explict open agreement that If various parties seeking favors from the State Department contribute to CF they will receive the favors they seek. The web of public, charitable, and completely private interests is complex, in some instances that makes things worse.
There are not merely apparent quid pro quo’s but multiple entanglements. Those seeking state department favors, not merely made contributions to CF, but spent much of the foreign aide they received with Clinton affiliated entities such as Tenaco and Clinton Global Initiative.
I can not vote for Trump. His temperment does bother me. And I am at odds with him on numerous polices where I think he should know better.
But my problems with Trump are small in comparison with Clinton.
And my problems with those defending her are enormous.
Tangential portions of Trump’s remarks are spun as having great significance, no doubt at all is allowed in understanding what Trump intended.
What ever he says we must impute the most racist, mysoginist, violent intention to it.
Yet when we examine Clinton we are required to give her the benefit of every doubt – including unbelievably implausible ones.
I have met alot of people who are voting for Trump. None of them are “in the tank” for him. All grasp his flaws and chose him anyway.
The same is nearly universally false with respect to Clinton supporters.
Those of you on the left demand that the rest of us trust you with the reigns of govenrment power – yet you are incapable of being honest with yourselves. about the serious flaws of those you intend to give power over the rest of us.
As Lord Acton noted – Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts absolutely.
Given the corruption of Sec. State Clinton, I am terrified at the prospect of Pres. Clinton.
Equally important – how can Clinton supporters ask the rest of us to take them seriously with regard to all other issues, when they are willfully blind to Clinton’s flaws.
I disagree with the argument that Clinton is the lessor evil.
But those on the left are not honest enough to make that argument.
IF you are arguing that Clinton is actually good – your judgement or your morals are untrustworthy.
“Equally important – how can Clinton supporters ask the rest of us to take them seriously with regard to all other issues, when they are willfully blind to Clinton’s flaws.”
This is precisely what bothers me about the arguments presented here for Clinton. I have struggled mightily with my decision to vote for Trump (which is actually kind of comically pathetic, since I live in a dark blue state, which will likely award its electoral votes to Clinton by a landslide…regardless, I have always considered my vote seriously).
But when I read t descriptions of Clinton here, it is as if 1)The disastrous military intervention on Libya never happened 2) She is not directly responsible for the disastrous consequences of that intervention (“We Came, we saw , he died” followed by her laughter) 3) She never broke federal law as well as her own signed State Department pledge in using a secret, private server to conduct State Department business and lied repeatedly about that after she was caught. 4)she received tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of dollars in quid pro quo donations from foreign entities, laundered through a “foundation” which is little more than the Clinton family slush fund,
I could understand – and in fact I do understand – the argument that Clinton’s temperament may be less volatile than Trump’s, and that makes her the lesser evil to many. But that is not the argument that anyone has made here. Temperament is important, there is no doubt. But so is judgement. Clinton clearly believes that she is above the law, she has repeatedly promised to circumvent Congress in the same way that Obama has, and she has used very poor judgment in her role as SecState, largely due to her decision to enrich herself and her family by selling access to the highest level of American government.
“But when I read t descriptions of Clinton here, it is as if 1)The disastrous military intervention on Libya never happened 2) She is not directly responsible for the disastrous consequences of that intervention (“We Came, we saw , he died” followed by her laughter) 3) ”
Read this through. It will give you a less simple minded perspective on Libya, and perhaps a more appreciative understanding of the situation Clinton was dealing with, and the difficulties a Sec of State is confronted with at that level of decision making.
And the same criticisms leveled at Clinton for advocating the Libya intervention is what Trump is suggesting now: boots on the ground throughout the region to attack ISIS strongholds, and air bombings of Iran in response to insults and nuke treaty violations. How do you reconcile that with your continuing support of him, Priscilla?
“4)she received tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of dollars in quid pro quo donations from foreign entities, laundered through a “foundation” which is little more than the Clinton family slush fund,”
This is an unfounded allegation – no, it’s an outright falsehood – and you have ZERO proof to back that up.
‘She’ doesn’t get ANY money from Foundation donations. The ‘slush fund’ accusation is political smear propaganda, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Do you even understand how the Clinton Foundation works? Have you looked into the Clinton Global Initiave to see who has donated money to its programs? Do you know what those Inistive are or how many people are actively involved in them worldwide?
You can start here, with the donor list, and show me the quid pro quo:
Clinton Global Initiative 2015 Sponsors
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/meetings/annual-meetings/2015/sponsors
And while at the site examine other tabs to see the scope of the initiatives – not charity based, but innovation and operational projects meant to improve the health and economic lives of people in Africa and India and the US.
The Clintons don’t benefit financially from the Foundation, in fact they donate personal income to it.
JJ
Cut the nonsense.
Numerous Clinton Cronies as well as family members are very well paid from the Clinton foundation. Including Clinton staffers as State.
Further this is not about one Clinton entity – this is part of how they eventually gamed Charity Navigator Etc, There is now CF, CGI, Teneco, basically a net of charitable and private organizations.
So Some third world leader gives CF money. CF “launders” it by “paying” other Clinton owned or controled entities for “services”, then the third world “leader” gets “aide” from the state department, which then pays other Clinton entities to provide goods and services.
Remember before when I noted that 80% of US development $’s spent for foreign aide never leave the US ?
Well the Clintons figured out how to game that.
Or do you think that the Clintons have gotten their net worth to nearly 9 figures through speaking fees and book deals ?
Do you think Mr. Bill alone is worth $80M because he is really good with a backhoe ?
Like I said Jay – the left is completely in the tank for Clinton.
You have blinders on.
If you honestly think Clinton is clean – then by the same token Trump has a silver tongue.
It is deeply disturbing that there are people out there completely unable to make any assessments of the world without tilting everything ideologically.
Claiming Clinton is honest is like claiming Trump is inoffensive.
It is just stupid. Saying it makes you look stupid.
“Numerous Clinton Cronies as well as family members are very well paid from the Clinton foundation. Including Clinton staffers as State.”
So what? They hired people they knew, at standard salaries for the jobs (I looked the pay scales up for comparison, have you?) and do the work professionally ( there were one or two exceptions; they were fired). And the Foundation operates in a successfull manner.
Did you look at the names of the Foundation donors at the link (probably not). Do you think reputable contributors like the Gates Foundation & CocaCola & Pfizer & Walmart & UNITAID, would continue to contribute millions in donations year after year if the Foundation wasn’t on the level and producing beneficial results? You think they would do that if the Foundation gamed Charity Navigator as you, without a shred of evidence falsely claim, based only on wishful thinking. Am I wrong? Then get off your lazy butt and link to ACTUAL evidence. I’m waiting…
More You:
“So Some third world leader gives CF money. CF “launders” it by “paying” other Clinton owned or controled entities for “services”, then the third world “leader” gets “aide” from the state department, which then pays other Clinton entities to provide goods and services.”
Show me the evidence of Clinton ownership or financial kickbacks. Where is it? And of the total Foundation donations since its start, what percentage of that money came from third world leaders, and in what amounts? Were they a significient part of the Foundation’s donations? Previously I provided the links to those Foundation donor amounts – again get off your lazy butt and check them out, and add them up.
“Remember before when I noted that 80% of US development $’s spent for foreign aide never leave the US ? … Well the Clintons figured out how to game that.”
Blah blah blah. Another dishonest misstatement based on skewed reasoning. The Foundation provided hardly any financial ‘aide’ to individuals. They organize programs and initiatives. They don’t ‘Aide’ they consult and advise and fund projects.
“Or do you think that the Clintons have gotten their net worth to nearly 9 figures through speaking fees and book deals ?”
Well, yes. And I’m not the only one who thinks that. Once more you’re making ignorant statements on equally ignorant suppositions. A little online research and basic math would have enlightened an objective investigator. Oops, not you:
Hillary net worth $31.3 million.
Bill estimated at $80 million.
Money acquired:
B. Clinton Knoff advance after leaving office: $10 million
H.Clinton 1st book advance: $8 million
H. Clinton 2nd book advance: $14 million
“The Clintons have raked in $153 million in speaking fees since President Clinton left office, according to CNN. In all, the news organization reports, they gave a combined 729 speeches from February 2001 until mid-2015, “receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address.”
“While neither Clinton takes a salary from the Clinton Foundation (the former secretary of state is not currently working there), the two have received a salary or pension from other sources since 2000. Hillary Clinton received a yearly salary while she was the senator from New York and then again while serving as secretary of state. Her final salary while serving in the Senate was $169,300 and her salary as secretary of state (which remained constant during her tenure) was $186,600.”
“The former president receives a pension from the government along with a slew of other benefits. Clinton’s annual pension comes out to around $200,000; he also receives funds to cover the costs of an office and staff. In 2014, Clinton received about $950,000 total from the federal government. (Former President George W. Bush was paid $1.3 million in pension and expenses in that same period.”
Back to you, Dave:
“It is deeply disturbing that there are people out there completely unable to make any assessments of the world without tilting everything ideologically.”
It is deeply disturbing that there are people like you out there who cavalierly misstate facts that rely on assumptions made on faulty preconceptions. Garbage in equals garbage out.
“Claiming Clinton is honest is like claiming Trump is inoffensive.”
I’m not claiming Clinton is honest. I’m asserting your examples to back up your claim she is, are full of holes, and contradicted by the record. If she’s financially dishonest, you haven’t come close to proving it. 👎
“It is just stupid. Saying it makes you look stupid”
Your repeated unsubstianted assertions make you look intellectually dishonest. Add a dollop or two of petulant snobby superiority and your caricature is complete. 😜😜
“So Some third world leader gives CF money. CF “launders” it by “paying” other Clinton owned or controled entities for “services”, then the third world “leader” gets “aide” from the state department, which then pays other Clinton entities to provide goods and services.”
Wishful thinking.
Have any evidence for any of those charges?
Or evidence Clinton relatives or friends working for the Foundation aren’t doing their jobs, or are paid more than similar positions at other compareable institutions?
And you do know it’s common practice for family foundations to hire family and people they know, right?
JJ;
Lets Just start with Abedin.
While at State she was collecting Salaries from two other Clinton affiliates – I beleive Tenaco and CGI. That absolutely violated the directive Obama compelled his entire administration to sign.
It probably also violates the law.
It certainly creates the apearance of impropriety.
The most recent email dump has emails from Abendin to people in State – including foreign consulates asking them to “take care of” “friends”,
These friends are contributors to CF, and clients of Teneco and they are recipients of US foreign aide.
At the very least you have a massively incestuous conflict of interests.
And again need I note that Clinton explicitly promised obama in writing that there would be no interaction between her, or her staff in State and CF, CGI, or any other Clinton affiliates.
Because in the unlikely event this were somehow honest.
It looks really bad.
As to your list – do you know the difference between a donor and a sponsor
?
One of the many points which you fail to grasp is that there is tremendous overlap between those donating to CF, or CGI, buying services from Tenaco, and those Clinton was approving deals assistance and favors for at State.
They call that a “conflict of interests”
I would suggest looking up the various rules and guidelines regarding “conflict of interests”.
At the barest minimum there are disclosure requirements that were not met.
Your brain is really scrambled on this one, Dave. How did you get so much screwed up?
First, Tenaco isn’t a Clinton affiliate. I’m assuming you’re referring to ex-president Bill Clinton, who was a paid advisor to Teneo ( so was former British Prime Minister Tony Blair).
Don’t you know the difference between an affiliate and an advisor?
And you seem to be confused over the fact that the Clinton Foundation encompasses CGI. And you are wrong to assert the “friends” Abedin asked to be taken care of are recipients of US Foreign Aide.
How did you get that jumbled in there? One worked for the Rockerfeller Foundation. Who was the other who received Foreign aide- no one shows up on a Google search. The Rockerfeller Foundation does donate to the Clinton Foundation, and it is a client of Teneo – so what? Billy Jean King and Northern Irish golfer Graeme McDowell are affiliated with Teneo, are they receipent of foreign aide too?
Your assessment of Abedin’s actions is that they “probably also violates the law.”
Sorry, wrong again:
“Clinton’s top aide Huma CLEARED of ethics breaches – despite emails revealing how she took orders to open its doors to Foundation donors.”
“The State Deaprtment has claimed ‘all the rules were followed’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3733958/Clinton-s-aide-Huma-CLEARED-ethics-breaches-despite-emails-revealing-took-orders-open-doors-Foundation-donors.html#ixzz4HEca2rFK
JJ;
And trump is a boyscott, loved by women, hispanics and blacks.
You have been drinking the kook-aide to long.
If you are going to behave credulously with respect to Clinton you own Trump the same benefit of the doubt – which would make him a marvel comics superhero.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt, remember?
I got into a big argument with Roby when Trump first started campaigning, saying we should hear him out, that the early exaggerations were only for him to get attention, and he was only acting like a fascist buffoon for media time.
But it has proved to be no act. He is devious and dangerous and cruelly vindictive. And you are enabling him with your obtuse rationalizations.
Priscilla;
JJ is entirely in the tank.
He is incapable of evaluating Clinton using the same standards he does to weigh Trump.
I am voting for Johnson – that is the only way I can look in the mirror.
But if someone put a gun to my head and said you must choose between Clinton and Trump – it would be Trump easily.
“But if someone put a gun to my head and said you must choose between Clinton and Trump – it would be Trump easily.”
I’m disappointed to hear you say that, Dave. Someone with your staunchly held beliefs against using force for political objectives should nobly have said, “No, I won’t be forced by threat,” and urged them to pull the trigger. 🔫💦💐😿
JJ;
Eric Braverman – a freind of Chelsea’s was paid 275K for less than 1/2 years work before he was fired for …. seeking reforms at the charity.
He was replaces by Donna Shalala.
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.
Then we have DOJ crushing MULTIPLE FBI requests to investigate the Clinton Foundation.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-state-department-clinton-foundation/
I find it odd – try to start a 501(c)3 with Patriot in your name and the IRS investigates you for years. Engage in conflicts of interests that you promised you would not do, and an aparent pay of play scheme out of State and DOJ will not allow the FBI to investigate.
“I’m not claiming Clinton is honest.”
Coulda fooled me!
Re: Libya, I did actually read the NYT article you linked, and, unfortunately, it just reinforced my preconceived belief that Clinton was itching to use some sort of military force in Libya, to gain some cred as a potential commander-in-chief. But it was an interesting article, and it showed, again, the pitfalls of relying on bad intel.
All I said in my original comment, btw, was that Clinton had responsibility for the consequences of the disastrous military intervention. The article makes clear that the intervention was largely her idea, pitched hard to the President, who made the call based on her recommendation. And, as it turns out, it was a bad call, leading to some disatrous consequences.
I’m not saying that she didn’t have some very good reasons for the military action, but they turned out to be wrong. Sort of the same way that Bush’s reasons for invading Iraq turned out to be wrong. Nobody’s giving him the benefit of the doubt, why should she get it?
“her idea, pitched hard to the President, who made the call based on her recommendation. And, as it turns out, it was a bad call”
The arctics doesn’t say he made the call based on her recommendation; there was a consensus to invade, her vote allegedly the tipping point. And she took responsibility for the bad outcome in the media, saying it was a mistake.
The article also said it was her inclination to take action over inaction, and the fact that she isn’t reluctant to take military action jibes with Trump’s constant promise to use boots on the ground to fight ISIS and drop bombs on Iran. You OK with Trump’s military threats, but not Clinton’s inclination to use force when deemed necessary?
JJ:
Lets try something else.
What kind of conduct do you think would be acceptable in a Sec State ?
BTW that is really the Crux of the problem.
I really do not care who donated to CF or affilates or why or where the money went so long and The Clintons are private citizens.
If Russian Oligarchs wish to donate hundreds of millions to the Clintons and their cronies directly – I could care less. Nor do I care how bad a chartity CF is – beyond they fact that they are using influence to roll other private organizations that rate charities that would fail any other charity that did business as the Clintons do.
Write your own rules for conflict of interest or self dealing or public corruption, or refer to the real rules as they already exist and tell me how they have not been violated ?
Clinton and her state were to separate themselves completely from everything involving Teneco, CGI, CF, and all of Clinton’s outside interests.
Instead they were collecting 2nd and 3rd salaries from those groups as well as regularly involving themselves in decisions that directly benefited entities that were paying them, or the clients or contributors to those entities.
What is it that constitutes public corruption for you ?
Aparently nothing short of an Oligarch putting gold directly into Hillary’s hand is sufficient for you.
“beyond they fact that they are using influence to roll other private organizations that rate charities that would fail any other charity that did business as the Clintons do.”
Baloney. False Rumor momgering. You have ZERO proof that’s true.
“Write your own rules for conflict of interest or self dealing or public corruption, or refer to the real rules as they already exist and tell me how they have not been violated ?”
PROOF!
“Clinton and her state were to separate themselves completely from everything involving Teneco, CGI, CF, and all of Clinton’s outside interests.”
Teneco? What’s that have to do with the Clintons?
Yeah, she was supposed to stay away from the Clinton Global Initiative/Clinton Foundation, but she let lower level staff help other level staff get job interviews – big deal. And the African Elephant community isn’t upset about it …
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments/stop-poaching-trafficking-demand-ivory
“Instead they were collecting 2nd and 3rd salaries from those groups as well as regularly involving themselves in decisions that directly benefited entities that were paying them, or the clients or contributors to those entities.”
Reading Brietbart are you? Nothing unethical, illegal, or fattening went on. And if that’s not true, SHOW ME PROOF.
“What is it that constitutes public corruption for you ?”
Not anything you’ve asserted for sure.
Do your homework, Jay 😉
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/teneo-final-221807
Interesting and informative article, Pricilla, thanks for the link.
Love that Irish wheeler-dealer guy, he puts Trump to shame for energy and innovation and Gallic hutzpah, and he’d make a great character in a TV series like West Wing. Daniel Day-Lewis could play him. A Trump-like character could be played by Tom Arnold, part buffoon, part blunt bastard.
I for one would like to see a law passed prohibiting ex presidents and vice presidents from earring money from speaking engagements, book deals, or honorariums for a decade after they leave office.
But that’s not the way it is now. So exactly what’s the legal problem with the wheeling and dealing Bill & Hillary have done, based for the most part on their celebrity and proximity to power?
From the old time Republican perspective that the financial and economic ends justify the means, a lot of positives flowed out from Kelly’s maneuverings: jobs and opportunities galore in Ireland, and elsewhere.The Teneo Group Kelly founded directly and indirectly now employs thousands of people, 500 or more in the US. Lots of American pay checks there. They partnered and endowed Cornell University to create a business institute to train and equip the next generation of US CEOs and executives, a successful educational endeavor it seems, preparing US execs to deal with international competition on equal footing. They support numerous philanthropic endeavors and foundations, in addition to the Clinton Foundation, with money and assistance and other forms of sponsorship.
And what’s wrong with the Clintons leveraging their celebrity, in office or out, to fund their Foundation, if indeed it does good works? If the donations were given to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army in their names, only because the donors were looking to curry favor through their association with the Clintons, would that be improper too?
And do you seriously think Trump in office won’t be doing way more of the same for his buddies and pals? Are you so nieve to think he’s going to make decisions in the public interest that harms his personal business interests? Why haven’t you and others who support him asked to know if he’s going to seperate himself from those assets, and assign them to a blind trust to assure no conflict of interest?
But he isn’t going to do that. His soul is as black as his conscience when it comes to screwing people to feather his own nest. If you were as conscientiously investigating him as you are Hillary, you’d know that.
At least some good sentences have come from the Trump disaster. Here’s one from Jonah Goldberg at the National Review:
“It’s instructive to look at what prompted the flop-sweat panic of recent days. After leaving the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Trump climbed the rhetorical jackass tree and then hurled himself earthward, hitting every branch on the way down.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438816/republicans-support-trumps-behavior-until-it-endangers-their-reelection
Goldberg has been consistently anti-trump from a relatively libertarian perspective for a long time.
He is also a good writer.
Now that you have decided you like what he says about Trump you might want to read what he says about other things.
Or are those like Goldberg only plausible when they confirm your narative.
BTW Reich excoriated Clinton over the conduct in the DNC emails, and demanded she fire Wasserman-Shultz immediately and totally reject the favoritism the DNS was showing her.
Wasseman-Shultz did eventually resign. So the left is atleast capable of some modesty after their pants have been pulled down.
Well TNM friends, I am totally confused. The stock market closed at a record high today, gaining more than 100 points. The stock market is not so much a reflection of what has happened, as to what is going to happen in the next 90-180 days. I find this perplexing since Clinton is well ahead of Trump in the overall polling and is leading in most swing states. With so many people like Moogie supporting her because she is for the little man and is going to do things to help income inequality, raise taxes on the rich and corporations and tax estates, this seems counter intuitive to me. Trump is proposing tax reforms to lower corporate taxes, remove millions of low income workers from the tax rolls, reduce tax brackets for those remaining, begin child tax credits for working families and single parents and insure no estate taxes are used where the likes of family farms that are land poor, but asset rich end up getting sold to pay for the taxes on the inheritance. I would think trumps economic plan would be much more attractive to corporate executives since they would not face the 40%+ tax bracket Clinton proposes nor would they face the exit tax if they were bought by a foreign corporation.
The only conclusion I can come up with is corporate executives and financial gurus expect a Clinton win in November (90 days) and they do not believe she will do what she says she will do going forward as her plan would have negative impacts on corporate profits. The stock market reacts in a negative manner to expected negative income news and it is not reaching to that expectation.
How about some ideas as to what is happening from a financial side of this Trump/Clinton duel.
Ron, simply, the stock market does not like chaos or turmoil. The stock market is the world’s finest neurotic patient and often reacts in panic to exciting events. If the “establishment” (Clinton) wins it means relative calm and stability compared to a trump victory. (or perhaps today’s market result has little or no relationship to the election.
(This innocent and not very controversial little statement of mine will likely provoke 5 or 10 very lengthy posts from someone denying and stomping up and down on every word I said. I don’t mean you Ron!)
There is little I would disagree with.
Though I would say that the market does not likely care much whether Clinton or Trump will win. It cares more that that it is clearer at the moment that one of them will win.
Similarly I would note that there is a big difference between the market prefers stability and the market prefers solid economic policies.
I have addressed over and over that big business loves big government.
So why would it surprise that the market loves big government.
The stock market in the short run is slightly more likely to favor solid free market economics. In the long run it has no choice but to do so.
Regardless the stock market most nearly (particularly in the short run) reflects what Wall Street wants and expects. That is not necescarily what is best.
Real free markets have a great deal of “creative destruction” the stock market does not like that at all. But it is best for all of us in the long run.
So have I denied or stomped on every word you said ?
“Regardless the stock market most nearly (particularly in the short run) reflects what Wall Street wants and expects. That is not necessarily what is best.”
AH HA!!!! Exactly the answer I was trying to get.
I have said a number of times that Clinton is very friendly with the big Wall Street gang. I have heard from different reporters that she has told them basically to not pay much attention to what she is saying, but to watch her actions (meaning they will be very different).
And that is why with the expectations of a Clinton victory the stock market is looking at the fall futures to be higher and it is driving the market today. If she were to do what she says she is going to do, the market would be building that into pricing today so the big investors would cushion their losses.
Now if Trump actually pulls this thing off, we could be in for a bumpy ride for those that have been able to save some.
Ron, I think that you have confused the stock market with wall street banks. The stock market reflects tens of millions of people making individual decisions about buying/selling thousands of stocks, each with its own daily situation. No matter whether Clinton is cozy with the wall street bankers or not (breaking them up for example) that has little if any effect on the overall stock market. Something else is driving it. I’m surprised its doing well, these are not comfortable times. But I have no doubt that the tens of millions of ordinary investors as a group will feel less secure with trump and that will be a headwind for the stock market. If he suddenly seemed to be winning that would drive the market down I bet. But nothing compared to what would happen to it if he was actually in office making his incomparable decisions.
GW..This is where you and I think about the stock market and the impact on a large part of the stock market differently. There may be tens of thousands invested in the market, but the market is driven by electronic trading and manager trading decisions based on decisions by investment companies that manage the bulk of the market trades. If they see in the future uncertainty in a large sector of the market or they see negative impacts from elections, they will flee that sector or they will move funds to safety, like bonds, to preserve principle until the uncertainty passes.
Maybe they are counting on the House remaining in GOP hands to black anything big Hillary has up her smock.
Priscilla;
With respect to “peace through strength”.
How much the military spends and what it spends on is a pragmatic not an ideological question.
The defense of the the people of the nation is a legitimate role of government.
Our leaders are obligated to be good stewards of that spending – to spend enough to keep us safe but not too much as that spending still comes at the expense of our liberty.
My OPPINION, is that Reagan’s ludicrous spending on star wars etc. was justified.
Reagan saw an opportunity. The USSR was in difficult straights fiscally, it could not afford to keep up with us on defense spending. Worse still Stealth was new – and we leaked enough deliberately to the USSR that they knew we had it. A major point of conflict between the US and USSR was US overflights of Russia. We would have shot down any russian overflying the US. But we overflew the USSR routinely. The Russians were not able to successfully “intercept” SR-71 blackbirds until late 1986.
Stealth was a big deal – the USSR had just finished at great cost rebuilding its entire radar defense network and it was instantly obsolete. Stealth is defeatable, but it would have been enormously costly.
Star wars was raising the ante further. Even if only one star wars program panned out as Stealth had – the USSR could not afford to keep up.
Russia was extremely good at spying on us and stole alot of US technology without paying to develop it. But it still had to build it, and the economic resources did not exist in the USSR to compete.
But if you follow that logic – Star Wars was close to a once and done thing.
There is no USSR anymore and China is not the threat that even Russia is today.
The US still spends more than the top 10 other countries in the world on military.
We are not going to be supplanted militarily anytime soon.
GW I was an amazing demonstration of our military strength. I think it boggled the minds of even our own military.
There were some very unique twists. Sadam picked the wrong time to invade Kuwait.
The collapse of the USSR left the US with a massive tank army in Europe ready to come home – it did so by way of Saudi Arabia. We saw in the desert what the US had been preparing for if the Soviets had ever tried to invade Europe. I think we surprised even ourselves.
GW II was radically different. It was the culmination of military policy changes that had started nearly half a century before.
After the US developed 200MegaTon Hydrogen bombs the question of bigger more powerful weapons answered itself – what use is a bomb that destroys the earth ?
The next step was to be able to destroy the 200MT weapons of the enemy,
We started in the 60’s working on accuracy.
By GW II we could practically put an artillary shell down the barrel of an opposing tank or cannon – if it fired once. We had soldiers that carried riffles that could take out most tanks from more than a mile away. A B52 has a payload of about 70.000lbs. That is about twice that of an F15E. While GW I showed off the first smart bombs, by GW II we were at the early stages of being able to drop pods of 5lb bomblets each of which would identify and take out a single target.
Drones are a sort of extension of this, as are “smart bullets”.
Increasingly our military objective is assassination.
Sort of a return to our Revolutionary war roots – while both sides in the revolution has “snipers” it was generally considered ungentlemanly in europe to deliberately seek to take out an opponents officers. Americans did it routinely. While some aspect of the colonists as the worlds first guerilla warriors is over stated – particularly in the north we were more prone to snipe at british officers, and we people who were good at it and well equiped to do so. The Pennsylvania riffle was accurate to 3 times the distance of must british muskets. It had only about 1/3 the rate of fire but if you could take out the enemies officers from a distance the enemy could not engage at that was a significant advantage.
Even if you did not focus on officers if you could fire from outside the enemies range, fall back and reload and engage again you could harrass and decimate an enemy without engaging.
Anyway I am getting distracted. I think I noted before that I frequently do embedded software – alot has been for the military – one peice of software I worked on was used to great success in GW II. Regardless, I was never in the military – anapolis tried to recruit me but I am too nearsighted. But I end up working with lots of military types as a part of work and other things. So weapons capabilities are intriguing.
Regardless, my point is that we have the ability already to project whatever power we wish to anywhere in the world.
I recall some discussions about taking out Iran during the Bush administration.
It was estimated that would take 3 times the forces of GW II and 90 days.
That was well inside of our militaries capabities.
The fundimental problem was that same as Iraq – what next ?
I beleive we should have a strong military.
Though I beleive we should focus more on defense than offense.
I beleive we can have by far the strongest military in the world spending 1/2 what we do today.
I also beleive that absent a clear powerful threat like the USSR that we should deliberately scale down our military. The primary purpose of our military is deterence.
Weapons have a tendency to get used.
In every conflict there are myriads in the nation and congress who want to use this expensive sophisticated military we have built. It is supposed to be there so we do not have to use it.
Just as vietnam altered the US view of war for decades – so has Iraq.
WE can crush any enemy quickly. What we can not do is force peace and good government onto people afterwards. The only nation that has ever even come close to succeeding in that is the UK. It takes an enormous military and decades.
So to summarize. I support a powerful US military – but that means about 1/2 what we spend today. If Iran choses to develop nuclear missles. WE should be capable of taking them out before they harm anyone – and the odds are excellent that we can today.
It is irrelevant what nations have nuclear missles – so long as the dangerous ones know that they get to launch only ONCE. that it is unlikely they will strike their target and the consequences of having fired will be decapitation.
We are not likely to fight a land war in Europe or Asia ever again.
We should focus on what is likely.
That’s my .02.
Sorry that was long.
And I apologize for the absent of ideological rantings.
As I said most of the choices regarding our military are pragmatic not ideological.
Should our circumstances change – what we need to spend on military would also change to reflect those circumstances.
.
Exactly the opining that I was hoping for, Dave. Very interesting. Thanks.
On the subject of RR turning over in his grave: From Patti Davis, Ronald Reagan’s daughter:
“To Donald Trump: I am the daughter of a man who was shot by someone who got his inspiration from a movie, someone who believed if he killed the President the actress from that movie would notice him. Your glib and horrifying comment about “Second Amendment people” was heard around the world. It was heard by sane and decent people who shudder at your fondness for verbal violence. It was heard by your supporters, many of whom gleefully and angrily yell, “Lock her up!” at your rallies. It was heard by the person sitting alone in a room, locked in his own dark fantasies, who sees unbridled violence as a way to make his mark in the world, and is just looking for ideas. Yes, Mr. Trump, words matter. But then you know that, which makes this all even more horrifying.”
Words do matter.
Words like
“I promise to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.
Or
“For the duration of my appointment as secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party. …”
or
We “came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.”
or
That she had come under sniper fire in bosnia,
or
that she was named after sir edmond Hillary
or
That her email server was in “accordance with the rules and the regulations in effect.”
Actions speak louder than words
Given multiple chances, Secretary Clinton has been unable to name a “marquee” or “proudest” achievement from her four years as Secretary of State.
Even Clinton can’t think of anything significant Clinton did as Sec. State.
We went through this tripe with the McCain and Romney campaigns.
The Press and the left put every word uttered by anyone not on the left under a microscope spinning it the worst possible way.
No argument that Trump gives them plenty of fodder.
But again – I ask you to judge Clinton using the same standard as you do Trump.
If Trumps words matter – so do Clinton’s.
Patti Davis has been know to say alot of things BTW – including that her father and mother would have supported gay marraige.
BTW why is it that the left thinks that who says something determines whether it is true or not ?
If the pope says something racist – is in not still racist ?
If Hitler speaks kindly about dogs – does that mean he did not slaughter jews ?
Speaking of lying liars, read this article ALL THE WAY THROUGH, and remember it when the gun is pressed to your head to choose between Horrible Hillary or Dissembling Donald:
http://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797
One pay for play at the state department.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/opinions/clinton-emails-opinion-mcenany/index.html
And more – apparently even DOJ lawyers felt they had the basis for an investigation – and were quashed from above.
http://lawnewz.com/video/doj-blocked-fbi-investigation-into-potential-public-corruption-at-clinton-foundation/
So lets say there is no absolute proof of public corruption – yet. There is a clear violation of the agreement Clinton signed prior to confirmation.
There is clearly numerous instances that reach the standard of probable cause required for an investigation.
Do you require absolute proof before you are prepared to investigate ?
Or are you atleast prepared to accept that there is good reason for concern and an investigation ?
Or are you just going to spout the “vast right wing conspiracy” nonsense again.
“Neither of these emails involve the secretary or relate to the foundation’s work. They are communications between her aides and the President’s personal aide, and indeed the recommendation was for one of the secretary’s former staffers who was not employed by the foundation.”
How did Hillary benefit from those interactions between staff & those requesting help getting jobs? And the African asking access to an ambassador, that never happened, right?
But that African million dollar donator did in fact help smooth the way for other jobs the Clinton Foundation and CGI were behind, with up to 50,000 others in the pipeline:
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments/harambee-youth-employment-accelerator-initiative
On the Universal Scale of impropriety, this pay for play charge rates a two out of ten .
JJ;
Since you seem to need other people to tell you what to think, here is Sanders on the Clinton Foundation.
[video src="http://pmd.cdn.turner.com/cnn/big//tv/2016/06/05/sanders-sees-conflict-in-clinton-foundations-saudi-money.cnn_cnn_iphone_cell.mp4" /]
I can’t get the link to work, Dave.
But didn’t Sanders make the criticism during their contentious race, when he said other negative things about her not being a suitable president, which he since withdrew on supporting her.
This needs to be administered to Clinton and Trump.
http://www.newsy-today.com/gop-legislators-in-texas-drop-requiring-citizenship-tests-for-minority-voters-after-most-legislators-fail-test-huffington-post/
I think that we all generally agree on that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both ‘less than optimal’ candidates for president, and that we could do better.
Hypothetically, if every voter who is dismayed by their major party choices chose to vote for either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, what effect do you think this would have?
I say hypothetically, because many voters – like me, for example – won’t vote 3rd party because they consider it “throwing away your vote”. Which it basically is, at this time.
But “what if” everyone who felt dissatisfied, angry, or frustrated ~ Bernie Bros, old BlueDog Democrats, movement conservatives, moderates, etc ~ voted for a 3rd party candidate. Does anyone think it would make a difference? Could Johnson, for example, carry a state? Could he win? Could one or both of them throw the election to the House? Or would they just remain spoilers?
“it just reinforced my preconceived belief that Clinton was itching to use some sort of military force in Libya, to gain some cred as a potential commander-in-chief.”
That idea is at the level that Bush invaded Iraq to make money for his oil buddies. In other words, we have inhuman demons as our leaders who could care less about human life. Ugg (to both arguments I mean.)
“I’m not saying that she didn’t have some very good reasons for the military action…” Bravo! at last!
…but they turned out to be wrong. Sort of the same way that Bush’s reasons for invading Iraq turned out to be wrong.
Priscilla, you could not begin to articulate in any concrete specific way what the US response should have been to the Arab spring in Libya. All you have is the usual blame game. You have no idea, and no one has any idea, what the situation would have been in Libya under a very different set of decisions. Not to overthrow Qaddafi? Really? Just sit there and watch while a long time adversary of the US (Lockerbie bombing?) committed his usual atrocities? I’m sorry but if it had been Romney in power and he had done the same thing and it turned out the same way you would be defending it. I am 101% sure of that. Unfortunately there is no crystal ball that can tell us which of the various futures is worse and how the one we arrived at ranks on the scale. I find all of the acidic commentary from right and left on American foreign policy to be unserious armchair quarterbacking on issues the average person does not even begin to understand in any depth or seriousness, and the point of the commentary is pure ideological malice.
“Nobody’s giving him the benefit of the doubt, why should she get it?”
Uh, I’m giving Bush the benefit of the doubt and his team too. Lots of calm rational people are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Of course those are rarely the opinions of the people who speak most often and most loudly. I’m very willing to hear and consider the range of opinions of people who are experts and have been in Clinton’s position, and undoubtedly some of those people also criticize her actions and some will defend them.
Here is a cherry picked excerpt from a Walter Russell Mead column on Clintons legacy as SOS that is rational and reasonably weighty:
“Shaping a legacy
Clinton was an influential secretary of state and a savvy manager with a clear agenda that, at least in part, she translated into policy. So how did it all work out?
The answer: Historians will probably consider Clinton significantly more successful than run-of-the-mill secretaries of state such as James G. Blaine or the long-serving Cordell Hull, but don’t expect to see her on a pedestal with Dean Acheson or John Quincy Adams anytime soon.”
This is a far cry from the complete partisan BS that Hillary is a no talent lightweight. I realize that there is nothing at all you could read anywhere that would make you give that silly idea up. But its just an absurd partisan idea that is easy to demolish with facts.
I enjoyed the piece and found it informative you probably will too and we will both form our judgements post-hoc based on our political affiliations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/was-hillary-clinton-a-good-secretary-of-state/2014/05/30/16daf9c0-e5d4-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html?utm_term=.6db13555059a
Wait a minute…..I was responding to Jay, who said that I had a simple minded view of the military intervention in Libya, and posted a link to an article that would change my simple mind.
So, I read the article, and responded by saying that , basically, my opinion had not substantively changed.That the attack on Libya and overthrow of Qaddafi was certainly disastrous, and that Hillary Clinton had pushed hard for it, in spite of much conflicting and incomplete intel.
I did not say that she was a lightweight, and you would be hard pressed to find a comment from me in which I even implied that. She is, very definitely a heavyweight, but a corrupt heavyweight, who has no significant successful accomplishments in her very long career.
I do not care one whit that you think I am a “blind” partisan, nor that Jay thinks I am stupid and simple minded. But I find it frustrating and more than a bit ironic that you both resort to personal insults when I explain why I think that Hillary is a poor choice for president.
My opinion of Hillary Clinton is very low, and it’s my opinion. It’s a well-considered opinion, and I don’t mind having it challenged. Challenge my opinion. Not me.
Priscilla I don’t have time at this minute to find all the places where you have posted that Hillary is a lightweight, only becoming the SOS because she is married to Bill, etc, , but you have, repeatedly. I distinctly remember all the eye rolls I performed reading those statements. Make me a good bet and then I’ll go find them, later today, if the bet is juicy enough. I don’t think I am being personal, really, you are simply repeating partisan nonsense about Clinton much of the time. I guess I can’t challenge that opinion without challenging you, kind of.
(Don’t bet me voting for trump though, no matter how sure I am.)
The whole conservative/GOP world has cried wolf on Clinton so many times that I am probably going to miss some actually appropriate criticism of her because I simply cannot go digging into every FOX news allegation about Clinton, when most, like the idea that the Clinton Foundation spends only 6% on actual help to recipients (in fact 88%!) have turned out to be a pack of lies.
Ok, that’s a bet that I will take. I have said that she was a mediocre senator, and a bad SecState (WRM gives me pause, maybe I’ll changes that to mediocre also ; ). I have NEVER said that she got the SecState job because she was married to Bill, although she unquestionably hitched her wagon to his star in their early years, and he is, by FAR, the more natural, talented and successful politician, even today, at about 50% of his younger self.
Are we not allowed to point that out?
So, when you have time, find anywhere where I called her a lightweight, or implied that she’s stupid. Doesn’t have to be today, and I’ll let you figure out the bet ~ don’t bet me voting for Clinton, lol!
“nor that Jay thinks I am stupid and simple minded. ”
Not in general, but in regard to Trump your mental filtering mechinism is as faulty as the courtiers at the Naked Emporer’s court seeing fine threads and not pubic hairs ..
My opinion is als that she was an adequate Sec of State, and a decent one term NY State Senator. And she’ll probably prove an adequate President for a term.
Trump has already done terrible damage to our nation, setting a destructive climate for divisiveness and confrontation for decades to come. Can’t imagine the discord that will follow now, after his rant about rigged stolen elections in Pennsylvania yesterday. This fool makes George Wallace look like a moderate.
Todays attempt to find humor in this disaster:
Trump cannot imagine — cannot even entertain the notion — that this is Trump’s fault. He blames the media, for making him look nuts by reporting the things he says — which are nuts. Talking with Hannity, he moaned: “I’ll say something at a rally and I look out and see all these TV cameras taking every word down. No one in politics has ever been subjected to this kind of treatment.” Okey-dokey.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438962/donald-trump-media-supporters-loss
Yep, didn’t watch. I put Hannity up there in the absolutely do not watch where I out Rush in the do not listen category.
And I bet cool aide drinking Hannity went right along with him but took up 75% of the interview talking about what he thought and not what Trump thought.
But the bullies in school are the first to cry when someone else picks on them and they lose. No different for Trump
But then like I have said over and over, we have one totally unqualified, both mentally and professionally to be president.
We have one that demonstrated she can make decisions, but the decisions are bad ones, so she is marginally qualified to be president.
And we have the third candidate that has executive political experience, has demonstrated an ability to work with two parties and shown to be level headed and thoughtful in his decision making, stands for what a huge percentage of moderate Americans stand for, but due to the American way of buying into the medias BS, there is no chance he will get elected.
Hiwver, like Dave said, when I vote for Johnson I can sleep good at night. Knowing I voted for someone and not against someone makes the election process a positive experience.
Not drinking either party’s (or liberal or conservative) cool-aid is a great policy Heh, its not out of the question that I will join you in voting libertarian. If my vote was going to decide, Hillary or trump then I would not choose trump. But since my vote will not have any impact on where Vermont’s might 3 electoral votes go, I am fine with choosing two decent rational ex govs.
For you, its a perfect fit,
Todays humorous sentence is again courtesy of Jonah Goldberg and at the expense of Hannity:
This is an honest question: Does Sean Hannity want Hillary Clinton to be president? I don’t get it. And, to borrow a trope from President Obama, let me be clear about being clear for clarity’s sake: I’m not referring to the entirely valid, 100 percent correct, indisputably sound argument that it was batsh*t crazy to nominate this guy in the first place. What’s done is done and Sean Hannity will no doubt one day receive the Golden Hair Helmet for his Stakhanovite effort to get Donald Trump the nomination.
The golden sentence–> Let no one forget his yeoman service in the cause to blow up the Republican party and empty a septic tank into the ground water of the conservative movement.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438949/donald-trump-sean-hannity-does-hannity-want-hillary-clinton-win
One only needs to ask the question, “When did talk radio become popular and when do they receive their highest number of listeners?”
Rush, Hannity and all the other talking mouths are best served by a Democrat president. That’s called job security.
Well, Jay, pubic hairs (!!) aside, I wonder what you were reading in all of the posts in which I have called Trump a bad candidate, said that he behaves like a jackass, and questioned my own support of him, based on his failure to “pivot” to a more presidential stance?
Most of what I’ve tried to do is to explain why I have considered him to be the lesser of the evils, and why I could never, in good conscience, vote for Hillary Clinton.
Anyway, after a relaxing, but thoughtful, weekend at the beach, I have not changed my opinion on Clinton, although I am now moving more in the direction of voting for Johnson. Unlike you and GW, I still believe that Donald Trump is a very smart guy, with the capabilities of being a good president. I am increasingly convinced, however, that he may not want to win, and is more focused on the destruction of the Republican Party than he is on becoming POTUS. His outright refusal to take a serious stance as the GOP candidate is becoming increasingly obvious.
I’m not speculating on the possible reasons for this, if true, but it’s very disturbing to me that millions of Americans, including many of the most disenfranchised people in the nation right now, may be getting screwed over by a candidate who has not been honest about his ambitions or intentions. Just as they will be screwed over by Clinton.
So, that would leave me in the position of having no one BUT Johnson or a write in. I actually admire Jill Stein as a person, but the Green Party is way out on the fringes, so no option there, I see that some in the GOP are starting to turn to a split ticket strategy. I think I’ll just contemplate all of this travesty for a few more weeks, see how things play out, and decide what to do. It’s only one vote, after all.
I suppose a point that I’d like to make, Jay, is that many Trump supporters like me are sincerely conflicted and disturbed by the choices in this election. Far from being ‘brain dead’ simple minded, or stupid, we see the Clintons for the utterly corrupt liars that they are, but we also recognize that they may be getting played by Trump. Devil and the deep blue sea….
You have said that you are a reluctant Hillary supporter, and I understand that you consider her the safer choice, but I disagree. She is extremely ill-suited to handle the deep and destructive polarization that exists in our nation, and she may very well be compromised by yet unknown scandals that our enemies know and can leverage against her. Frankly, I don’t see how she puts Humpty Dumpty back together again. Or if she even gives a damn. Thus far, I have seen no evidence that she does.
I realize that your comment was to Jay Priscilla, but the irony here is that almost everyone here is leaning to actually vote for Johnson/libertarian. In the the end we may all vote for Johnson, despite inhabiting almost completely different ideological universes. Granted, this to a large extent is because we seem to all live in states that Clinton will win handily so our votes are not of great urgency. We would vote otherwise if our vote was the deciding one.
Anyhow, I spent an utterly delightful evening last night with a Russian family who I just truly love and admire, they are the most wonderful, intelligent, kind, talented people. If we talked about political event it would all dissolve into mutual incomprehension with no friendship being possible.
So, the moral is that if one stays away from religion and politics there is a very much larger group of people that we can all get along with or have a great friendship with. On a political blog like this one we are stuck with one subject on which you and I do not agree Priscilla, which is a pity. But I think we handle it pretty well.
“We would vote otherwise if our vote was the deciding one.” Wrong I was. Ron and Dave will vote for the libertarian team with pleasure no matter what the state of the race is in their state. I was thinking of you, me, Jay, and who knows, maybe Rick.
Amen!!!!!!!!!!One can only hope there are enough disenfranchised moderate GOP voters that turn out to make sure airhead Ross (democrat senator nominee for congress) is not elected over Richard Burr (moderate right 2 term senator). I fear there are not enough like myself that will vote to make sure the down ticket GOP prevails and many moderates will just stay home. We need fewer Warrren’s and Cruz’s and more Burr’s and Manchin’s.
As usual Ron, you’ve nailed it.
GW…”On a political blog like this one we are stuck with one subject on which you and I do not agree Priscilla, which is a pity.”
And I know your comment was to Priscilla, but I would like to interject. We are not all stuck on one subject we can not agree. For the most part in over 300 comments in this article alone I see where we agree on the major issue at hand. That is both candidates suck and stink.
Where we differ is the amount of stench we believe is coming from one or the other candidates when we have to hold our noses and make a selection. Kind of like arguing which stinks worse, chicken poop or pig poop in 95 degree 80% humid weather. Living in North Carolina I have experienced both and still can’t decide. Same with the nominees for President.
I suspect we would never agree on the poop issue nor the nominees either.
If it comes through, this is a political cartoon about the French Dreyfus affair being discussed over dinner:
“She is extremely ill-suited to handle the deep and destructive polarization that exists in our nation”
As I see it the destructive polarization has been indelibly rubbed into the fabric of our politics by the extreme ideologues at both ends of the political spectrum. In the past both have spread hate and divisiveness, but over the past 8 years Republican conservatives have ratcheted up disrespectful hatred far beyond anything I’ve seen in my lifetime, exacerbated by talk radio and Fox commentators, and coarsened by unrestrained internet bloggers and Tweeters. The Obama hatred was vicious and unrelenting, and all said and done, destructive to our country. I had and have strong objections to Obama’s racial policies, his wishy-washy response to Muslim terrorism, his expansion of PC behavior. But calling him a traitor, a secret Muslim who isn’t an American citizen, and other equally idiotic charges only has served to demean the Presidency and the nation as well.
And no matter if Clinton’s intentions are to bring the country together or not, the same king of hatred and insults and nitpicking to destroy her will continue unabated, as they did with Obama. And you too, Priscilla, whether you like it or admit it will be part of the problem, as you have been here, exaggerating her negatives, diminishing her positives, dismissing objective evaluations of the charges against her – mostly based on exaggerated opinion from right wing conservative proselytizers.
I didn’t want a Hillary presidency, but certainly not a Cruz or Trump or other far right candidate. Or left of center Progressive Democrat like Bernie or Warren. Hillary is the most moderate of the group. And the least likely to push too far from center on the issues that concern me.
And yes, the Clintons may be greedy, but I don’t consider them any more dishonest than Bush2, who has also cleaned up giving speeches, and feathered his legacy from corporate donations for his presidential library.
Or Jimmy Carter, whose charitable Foundation operates much the same way as the Clinton Foundation: project oriented, it functions to reduce poverty and improve global health, acting as a match maker between wealthy donors, including governments, connect with projects involving local contractors and participants.
I think she’ll be a decent transitional president. And hopefully Republicans will come up with a moderate candidate next time, but I’m not holding my breath.
Pure admiration. Jay. I wish I had written that. I realize this is sort of piling on and amening but you really said exactly what I believe as well.
“And you too, Priscilla, whether you like it or admit it will be part of the problem, as you have been here, exaggerating her negatives,”
I don’t believe that I’ve exaggerated anything. Furthermore, I could say you’ve gone out of your way to downplay her negatives and defend the indefensible.
We disagree politically, that’s all. That doesn’t make either of us part of the problem. Supporting or opposing any political candidate in a democracy does not make one part of the problem. It makes one part of the process.
I’ll guarantee you that, if Hillary is elected and becomes a decent, moderate, transitional president, as you believe she will, I’ll be grateful – I just don’t happen to think that that’s going to happen. I’ve always been a student of history and politics, and there were many presidents that entered the office under the cloud of low expectations and exceeded them. And, I might add, the opposite is also true. We can always hope for the former.
Pointing out the Hillary’s flaws isn’t “nitpicking” ~ it’s what we do here. This IS a political blog after all, as GW has pointed out. If we all thought alike, it would get boring. So, accept that many, including me, do not believe that Hillary’s flaws are minor, and also accept that she is likely to win, mostly because the other side nominated the one candidate that could lose to her.
I understand that calling me “part of the problem” is what you do. I get it and I don’t like it. But I certainly don’t agree with it ~ Sean Hannity I’m not.
Have you considered this conservative? He’s getting a lot of play on Twitter
https://www.evanmcmullin.com/stand_up_with_evan?splash=1
Not at all. He’s gotten a lot of play, because he’s supposed to deliver Utah to Clinton,or so I read.
I don’t know what he brings to the table in terms of leadership, experience, or character. My guess is….not much. Even if he competes in all 50 states, which is unlikely due to filing deadlines, I’d be far more likely to vote for Johnson.
Reports are that McMullin is backed by Mitt Romney. Some are calling him “Romney’s Revenge.” If that’s so, I’m disappointed in Romney. He should have thrown his own hat into the ring. But, just because I admire Romney, I’m not going to support some guy who I never heard of until a week ago.
But he sounds truly moderate.
Check out his site:
https://www.evanmcmullin.com/about
And his position on abortion: he’s pro life but even a pro abortion guy like me doesn’t get upset at his tone.
On the surface he seems to be a match for the moderate conservatism you claim to profess.
But here you are, pretty much dismissing him out of hand because he’s running but not Mitt?
And some conservative commentators think he will draw #NeverTrump voters away from Hillary and his entry could hurt her, which should be an added incentive for you 😏
Priscilla what’s your take on the links between Trump and his staff with Russia?
Garry Kasparov on Twitter: “Which is more likely and which is worse, that Trump didn’t vet Manafort at all or that he did and didn’t care he’s on the Kremlin payroll?”
And what do you think about Trump’s peculiar Putin love-athon?
Wierd post.
No more dishonest than Bush2 – that is such a high bar ?
Regardless, yes they are more dishonest.
I am unaware of Bush using his influence or office for personal financial gain.
Frankly, I think Bush2 was a bad president, but not particularly dishonest.
Certainly more honest than Clinton, Clinton, and Obama.
No one is exagerating Clinton’s negatives – they are enormous.
If you give her the benefit of nearly every doubt she stinks.
There is absolutely zero doubt at the moment – from her own emails, that she new Benghazi was an organized terrorist attack within 2 hours of its start, and before the night was through had already concocted this internet video lie, that was so bad that they had to change the video they blamed because the first one had less than 500 hits.
There is zero doubt that she repeatedly perjured her testimony to congress regarding her email server(s) and her handling of email.
There is zero doubt she lied to the american public repeatedly about same email.
There is zero doubt she deliberately intended to thwart Freedom of Information Requests
There is no doubt that she and her aides and Bill Clinton violated the aggreement they signed in return for her appointment as Sec State.
There is no doubt that friends of the clinton’s and donors to the clinton foundation received special treatement from the State Department.
Frankly there is no doubt she and her aides broke the law regarding the handling of classified documents. Comey pretty much said exactly that.
He refused to recomend prosecution because he did not beleive that absent clear evidence of intent he could get a conviction.
Intent is not an element of the crimes she committed.
Petreus and Deutch (and numerous others) were convicted on much less.
In Deutch’s instance there is not evidence that any classified material was ever provided to anyone without a security clearance.
He merely retained classifed files on his personal computer after he left the job.
And I have not yet touched on the many many things that are highly likely to be true.
No the Carter foundation does not operate anywhere close to the same way.
Lots of allegations have been leveled at Carter – but dishonesty is not one of those. Nor is influence peddling.
Can you name a single instance in which Carter accepted money for his foundation where:
it did not go to a charitable purpose
He personally benefited
there was any possibility of a Quid Pro Quo
He was even in a position to return the favor with government benefits.
Can you even find the Carter Foundation hiring Carter family owned private entities ?
God help me I was wrong.
I accused you of creating a moral equivalence between a republican committing adultery with a democrat commiting child rape and torture.
The Carter Foundation/Clinton Foundation comparison went so far beyond that. You are creating a moral equivalence between a near mother theressa and a child rapist.
“Have you no shame ?”
I have seen little evidence that most Clinton supporters are “reluctant”
JJ is comparing the Clinton Foundation to the Carter Foundation — Really ?
I am sure there are a few quiet Clinton supporters troubled by some of this.
No one, not supporters, not opponents is claiming that Trump is a good choice.
Yet, his worst trait is that he is a loud mouth.
With respect to Policy he is bad, but Clinton is worse, but is anyone paying the slightest
attention to either candidates policies ?
The last issue is that of integrity.
There is zero evidence that Trump has ever betrayed the public trust.
There is tons of evidence Clinton has.
I know the left considers all businesses to be criminal and greedy.
I am sure Trump has dones things in Business I question, but there is a vast difference between dancing in the grey areas in business.
There is no public trust involved, there is no duty to others who have little or no recourse.
Trump gets sued regularly – that is what happens when you dance in the grey areas privately – and that is what should and all that should happen.
There are no grey areas of public trust. There is nearly no remedy for public misconduct.
What do you think would happen to a private defense contractor who handled classifed material as Clinton did ?
I held a security clearance briefly.
You could not take classified materials out of the secure rooms.
As a private contractor we did not have access to the governments secure network so we could not email classified materials at all.
Had we copied classified information into an email we would have been fired instantly and criminally charged within days.
I handled very little classified material, the real reason I had to get a top secret clearance was to be in meetings with people who might discuss a project that might have classified attributes. We were not even allowed to have conversations with people without a security clearance on a topic where we might inadvertently refer to something classified.
Clinton was sending classified material to people who did nto have a clearance.
And I am tired of this “not marked” rot.
Again before I had a clearance I was told to PRESUME classified when in doubt.
That something is not classified because of the way it was marked but because of the material.
Clinton was Sec, State – most anything that occurred in her offices was presumed classified.
Her lunch menu would have been presumed classified lest someone attempt to poison her. Who she met with and when and anything she talked about would be classified.
Even mundane things would be classified. Any discussions about how to deal with another country or another leader or another ambassador would have been classified.
BECAUSE any third party knowing what the Sec. States unpublished position is on anything would have an advantage to the US’s determinent.
It is not important what Clinton said, merely that Clinton said it is enough for it to be classified in innumerable instances.
Remember her entire staff had to get security clearances.
In the event she is elected that is going to prove a huge problem.
While the election of the president confirms on them complete access.
It does not clear their staff. There is nearly certain to be a holy war over most of Clinton’s staff. It is unlikely the FBI will clear any of them given the mess at State, Nor does the president have the power to override that.
“Yet, his worst trait is that he is a loud mouth.” Really? Is that your opinion? You seriously can’t think of any worse trait trump has other than being a loudmouth?
But this crappola goes along nicely with your statement that anyone with time on their hands can be president.
Silly, absurd, unserious nonsense, typical internet blather, in endless cascades. Well, carry on. Another 10 000 words of similarly nonsensical tripe please. And then another.
GW;
Your response is absent argument
“are you serious” is not an argument.
“This crapola” is not argument
“Silly, Absurd, unserious nonsense” is not argument.
It is all pretty bad ad hominem. Is there someone that doubts you disagree with me ? I do not care if you insult me, but your response is nothing but insults. There is no argument, not merit to insult.
If you think there is more wrong with Trump than he is a Loudmouth – then you should be able to state what and then support it. You have done neither.
I have not said anyone with time on their hands can be president.
Regardless, the primary requirement for the job is to “Not F’up”
That is an enormous responsibility – and people who can not handle responsibility are not qualified to be president. But the actual task is quite simple, and knowing that with few rare exceptions not acting is both safer and less likely wrong than acting – something the current and prior president could have learned.
I doubt Trump will make a good president. I would be shocked if Clinton was not worse than the past two.
Dave, my arguments are fine. Your sophistry is as always, a failure. Who says I owe you anything that you will consider an argument? You will never consider any argument or fact valid that does not support any extreme thesis you come up with and you have a lot of them. Anyone with time on their hands cannot be president. Environmentalists are not evil. We cannot cut our defense budget by 50% and have the same level of security in the world. We cannot cut the size of government by 80% and have a modern society that functions, let alone that functions better. That’s Dave’s extreme libertarian universe based on twisting facts into a pretzel with no respect for counter facts and counter arguments. Its what you do.
Dave, you are a champion liar, your whole gig is based on lying to produce a distorted reality. The Clinton foundation spends only 6% on actual help to anyone, or words to that effect, that is a lie. When caught on it, you double down and come up with a conspiracy theory that the organization that evaluates charities changed their story under force, that Politifact is not a qualified source of information, blah, blah, blah. Liar. Liar Liar. Ironically, you say that you cannot respect Hillary Clinton because she lies. You lie so often its hillarious (pun retrospectively intended). I say that is an argument, you will say it is not. If you cannot respect Clinton for lying, then how on earth do you respect yourself? You say, as I have often noted, some interesting things, bring up some interesting facts, have interesting moments of principle, and for that reason I skim your stuff to see if there is anything especially good or anything howlingly distorted in it. But in essence you are a king liar and I have a many years old fundamental disrespect for you for that reason. When caught in a lie the result is usually 10000 words instead of simply saying, ooops like a normal person. Which is exactly what I don’t like about Clinton, yes, she does that as well, unfortunately our political system trains selects for people who can do that because telling the truth won’t get a person elected. We want to be told stuff that isn’t so and we get politicians who can manage that. It does not excuse Hillary. I don’t want Hillary. But next to Hillary we have a fellow who actually manages to lie much much more often who is a political incompetent and an intellectual ultra lightweight, who is angry, conceited beyond all belief and so incapable of being president that even many conservatives and life long republicans see it and say it clearly. He is worst feature is not that he is a loudmouth, that is one of your typical idiotic distortions of reality.
You consider Clinton worse than trump because she is a liberal democrat, which is your least favorite American political ideology, she is thus an “evil environmentalist,” a climate change believer, etc.. Its that simple. You could save yourself and us 10 000 words trying to bend reality into a pretzel and just state the fundamental truth. But you are constitutionally opposed to speaking honestly and objectively about any of your causes. Instead to love to make absurd arguments and try to trap someone into playing with you. Aaarrrg!
The Public Trust?
To qualify for a Government Position of Trust candidates MUST reach standards of conduct to qualify for access to classified/sensitive information or activities.
Under the minimum basic qualifications required, Donald Trump would be disqualified from those information flows:
* Misconduct or negligence in employment or business
* Criminal or dishonest conduct
* Material, intentional false statement, deception or fraud in examination or appointment
* Refusal to furnish testimony as required for the investigation
For every lie Hillary has told over the last two decades, Duplicitous Donald has told ten (at least). He’s lied about his businesses, his political beliefs, his social beliefs, his financial worth, his associations . He’s cheated contractors, employees, clients, and on at least one occasion cheated on his wife at the time.
He’s made numerous false statements, not only in business but to those Trump University students he swindled, and to investors in golf courses and hotels to whom he lied about his actual participation and ownership in those deals. Then there’s the documented false statements about nonexistent gifts to charity he said he made, like the phantom donations to Vets.
He’s still refusing to provide “testimony” in ongoing legal cases, and notably refusing to release his taxes so that the millions of Americans can verify there’s nothing shady or improper going on, certainly a reasonable request from the undecided electorate.
Trump lies
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies
More Trump lies
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Trump lying under oath
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/11/the_best_lies_from_donald_trump_s_2007_deposition.html
“In the event she is elected that is going to prove a huge problem.
While the election of the president confirms on them complete access.
It does not clear their staff.”
Pompous Poo Poo.
You have any evidence any top secret info that passed thru her servers was breached? Or that top secret info wasn’t breached from the so called secure servers at State.
And They’re giving trump classified briefings starting today or tomorrow on information relevant to National Defense. You think that flatter-mouthed bozo should be getting that kind of classified info?
Here, I will have an opinion that is in tune with the idea that PC and the media are bound together and not helping. In connection with the Imam and his assistant who were shot dead, all kinds of people are labeling this a hate crime and yet another instance of Islamophobia. The thing is, until they apprehend someone and provide a motive that is just extrapolation. What if the killer was another muslim (my suspicion)? Still Islamophobia? Now, most intelligent people can sort this out and ignore the media/PC activists, but still the immediate jumping to conclusions is pretty blatant.
You’re correct, of course. Just like the narrative that began the Milwaukee riots was that a white cop shot an unarmed black man. When, in fact, it was a black cop that shot an armed black man, who may have been raising his weapon (based on reports that the cop’s body cam shows a credible threat to his life before the shooting).
By the time that the details of the shooting got out there, the riots had already started, just based on reports that a black man had been shot by a cop.
Narratives in the news these days are very pervasive and very powerful. There have always been these narratives, but I think that the 24 hour news cycle makes it more likely that the narratives become more important than the facts. I’d like to say that this is because all media reporters are stupid and/or biased, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think it’s that the pressure to get the scoop, get the headline, get the sound bite, etc. causes them to short cut the process and rely on narratives and hearsay. It’s clicks and ratings that count, not facts.
The facts often take a long time to uncover ~ hours, days, maybe even weeks. But the news has to be reported NOW, while everyone is tuning in.
“Narratives in the news these days are very pervasive and very powerful. There have always been these narratives, but I think that the 24 hour news cycle makes it more likely that the narratives become more important than the facts. I’d like to say that this is because all media reporters are stupid and/or biased, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think it’s that the pressure to get the scoop, get the headline, get the sound bite, etc. causes them to short cut the process and rely on narratives and hearsay. It’s clicks and ratings that count, not facts.”
Priscilla, I can find one of our moments of agreement here.
Personally (slight tangent) I believe that when the media exploded into today’s plethora of ideologically dedicated outlets it undermined the seriousness of the entire enterprise. The blatantly partisan (e.g. HuffPost, Fox ) or sensationalist media has all the believability and integrity of Cosby’s defense lawyers, they have an obvious one sided dishonest unobjective agenda that makes them disrespected and therefore useless. The media was never perfect by a long shot but today’s media have lost the respect of the population, other that the media that says whatever a given person wants to hear. They are a big part of the problem.
GW;
Pick nearly any topic, and the assertion that the distant past was better than the present is pretty much always false.
In this instance you are ranting about the press.
Agreed there is a lot wrong with the press. But the presumption they were somehow better in the past than the present is bunk.
Half a century ago there would be no Rick and the New Moderate.
The Pultizer prize is a sap to assuage Pulitzer’s conscience, because he allowed Hearst to goad him into the creation of modern journalism – “Yellow journalism”. Between the two of them the goaded the nation into war with Spain over nothing.
And these two are the paragon’s of journalism.
No having only a few viewpoints in comparison to the myriads of the present was NOT better.
You do not like Fox, or Huffpo – there are a plethora of other choices.
You care about economics ?
Gary Becker, Greg Mankiw, John Taylor, Paul Krugman, Robert Barro ….
there are hundreds of economic blogs today by the most influential economists alive.
Nor is economics alone. Any topic you want to know more about – the information is available. You want biased left or right wing schlock – its there. You want raw information as close the source as possible its there.
The only excuse for ignorance of any topic today is lack of time.
There is alot I can criticise: all too many journalists are lazy. A hundred journalists follow the president around every day – to what purpose ? He rarely does anything significant, and when he does one or two could report it. But actual investigative reporting today is nearly dead.
But the criticism is mostly irrelevant. whatever you want – it is out there and if you care enough you can find it. The fact that there is also alot you do not like is irrelevant. if what you want if the all Hillary all the time Cheerleading channel – you have alot of choices.
Why do you care about Rush or Fox, or Huffpo ? Do you think only those views you endorse deserve expression ?
This is what freedom means – it means more, more choices. It means more lies, more distortions, but it also means, more viewpoints, and more of the truth.
Your freedom to express yourself, or to have the choice of form of expression form others that you prefer, exists only because you permit others – those you may not like, the same freedom.
Democracy functions best with well -informed voters, and that’s what’s been lost in this. Like almost, everyone who uses Facebook, I have quite a few friends who post links to “news” sites that are little more than sources of biased disinformation. The headlines are sensational, the articles poorly written and lacking in significant detail.
I rarely follow the links, but when I do, I’m flabbergasted that any reasonably intelligent person would even read this crap, much less post it for all to see.
Even many so-called legitimate news organizations have followed that pattern. It really takes some time and effort to sort through everything and find some semblance of the unvarnished facts. Most people don’t have the time or the inclination.
“Priscilla, I can find one of our moments of agreement here.”
Great minds occasionally think alike 😉
I agree with you on this too, Pricilla .
Now if you will only open your eyes to the fact that a Devious Unhinged Donald is Deranged your mental equlibrium will be restored. 😇👍
JJ;
Manafort is not on the Kremlin’s payroll.
He brokered a deal for a corrupt Ukrainian (not Russian) politician.
He was paid for that.
I doubt Trump cared.
I would also ask you to compare this to Clinton and her Russian Oligarch deals.
Clinton (and her staff) was a public official, Clinton had a duty to the country and the public. Manafort was a power broker – his only duty was to himself.
Frankly I do not care if Manafort (or Trump) is currently communicating directly with Putin.
Just as I do not care if Clinton is currently communicating directly with Putin.
I do care if money or promises are being exchanged – but we will not likely ever know that.
I also get very tired that those like you can think that the Manafort thing is a BIG DEAL,
and not grasp that the Clinton thing is many many orders of magnitude bigger.
In the left wing lexicon, a republican that commits adultery is equal to a democrat who rapes and tortures pre-teens.
I do not like Trump – not one bit, but if someone put a gun to my head and said I had no other choices, there would be no question. Trump is a buffoon. Clinton is a perjurer, liar, and crook.
Fortunately there is Johnson/Weld. They may not win, but I will be able to look at myself in the mirror on Wednesday.
Correction – of sorts.
I do not trust Manafort much but I do not trust those reporting about him either.
Regardless, his response in recent interviews, is that he is a political consultant.
He has worked inside and outside the US. He is paid by campaigns not governments, that he was never paid by the Kremlin or the Ukrainian government, that when he is paid it is not merely has own wages, but a vast array of services and costs that he and those who work for him perform and that we was not paid for brokering deals.
I am about as likely to trust Manafort as Clinton. Though there is one difference – at no time did Manafort owe the public and duty. In the event he is actually lying it is still private profit for private services. There is no claim that he sold the public interest.
Where there’s smoke there’s fire:
Manafort named in Ukrainian probe into millions in secret cash.
CNN)Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has been named in an investigation by Ukrainian authorities looking at whether he and others received millions in illegal payments from Ukraine’s former pro-Russian ruling party, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/15/politics/clinton-slams-trump-over-manafort-report/
JJ;
With respect to McCullum. Is he even on the ballot in any state ?
My guess is unless you are writing him in, he is not going to be a choice anywhere.
Personally, I would like to see ballot access improved for alternative candidates.
I would also like to see “none of the above” added to every single race, and all elections require that:
The winner get atleast 51% of the vote,
The vote difference between winner and next contender be greater than the margin of error.
And if these conditions are not met, that there must be an automatic runnoff 6 weeks later.
That would have been the appropriate way to handle FL 2000 or MN 2008. Or many other close elections.
BTW McCollum sounds like a better choice than Evil or lessor evil – but almost any name out of the phone book meets those criteria.
Bill Kristol on Twitter: “By the way:In almost all states where @Evan_McMullin is too late to get on ballot (absent legal challenges), you’ll be able to write him in.”
Bill Kristol on Twitter: “By the way:In almost all states where @Evan_McMullin is too late to get on ballot (absent legal challenges), you’ll be able to write him in.”
Priscilla;
I do not have all that much admiration for Romney.
He was a poor choice in 2012, and would be no better today.
Had he won – either in 2012 or even in 2016 he would merely be Obama or Clinton Lite.
The last thing the GOP needs is to run a democrat.
Many of my problems with Trump is that he is fundimentally a democrat.
While not a perfect match – he is closer to Bill Clinton than any other modern president.
Ron P
“For the most part in over 300 comments in this article alone I see where we agree on the major issue at hand. That is both candidates suck and stink.”
Amen!
I would note that a few are still trying to argue that chicken poop is sweet and pleasant.
More on Clinton at State, Clinton Foundation, conflicts of interests, Pay for Play.
And some questions for Clinton supporter’s.
Is this your idea of public integrity ?
Though I doubt it, it is possible that Clinton and her associates conduct was technically legal. Is that what you want from those who rule you ? People who are seeking to get away with as much as they possibly can ?
Why is it that Clinton went to this great a trouble ? Really ? What would the big problem have been for Clinton and family to have actually stepped away from Clinton Foundation etc. for several years while Hillary was Sec. State?
The position of Sec. State is not a right. It comes with strings – including a duty to the public and the avoidance of even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
If you can not do that – say no to the job.
But do not lie. take the job and try to see how much you can get away with.
Further, do you honestly beleive that Clinton went to all this effort, to break or skirt the rules without there being some significant personal benefit to it ?
Why is it that she worked so hard to skirt the rules ? Numerous members of Staff were on the government payroll and one or More Clinton entities payrolls at the same time.
Abedin appears to have been on Teneo’s payroll while on the government payroll.
That is a huge conflict of interests – Teneo is not a charity.
That is like the assistant tho the Sec. Defense being on the government payroll and that of Boeing concurrently.
Again this was all an enormous amount of effort – what did Clinton get out of it that was worth the risk to her position as Sec State ?
And in the alternative – if there is no “payoff”, then doesn’t it atleast reflect not merely bad judgement, but arrogantly bad judgement ?
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-15/huma-abedin-s-overlapping-jobs-renew-focus-on-clinton-conflicts
“Again this was all an enormous amount of effort – what did Clinton get out of it that was worth the risk to her position as Sec State ?”
That’s the point, dum dum: she didn’t get anything back from the Foundation.
And she didn’t get anything back from using a private server. She installed the home servers out of laziness and paranoia: her experience as First Lady in the White House had convinced her a private server would be more secure from the prying eyes of large government staffs, and she didn’t really understand the danger of the increased hacking risk of a private server storing personal emails as well – this was pre Wikileaks, and she wasn’t computer savvy enough to see that clearly. But also in retrospect, she was right, government servers were not secure to hacking and theft – as Snowdon made clear.
And The Foundation wasn’t set up to line the Clinton’s pocket – they were already pulling in $$$$$ hand over fist from their CELEBRITY: book deals, speaking fees, consulting fees ; same as Bush, but higher fees for them.
And the Clinton Foundation was initially set up, as was Carter’s and Bush2’s, to fund presidential libraries. And like them, expanded into philanthropic organizations.
Also your statement that the Carter charity and the Clinton charity are fundamentally different is full of hot air. As usual, you haven’t a clue how either is set up or operates, but still make dumb uneducated pronouncements backed up only by your mental flatulence.
How to Understand the Clinton Foundation:
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Opinion-How-to-Understand-the/230745
“Although it has “foundation” in its name, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity. In practical terms, this means both that it relies heavily on donations from the public and that it achieves its mission primarily by using those donations to conduct direct charitable activities, as opposed to providing grants from an endowment.
Looking at the Clinton Foundation’s financial activities in a vacuum makes it difficult to develop a sense of what is ordinary and what is truly unusual. A comparison to peer organizations provides important context. Though the Clinton Foundation is clearly unique, with a former president as its public face, aggressive worldwide fundraising, and a global agenda of public-private partnerships, this shouldn’t stop people from making this effort. In my book, the best point of comparison is the Carter Center, founded by President Jimmy Carter. The similarities both in terms of the founder’s public persona and the organization’s worldwide reach make it a natural benchmark.”
The Play for Pay charge is bull.
The Pay went to the Foundation, who Played benefactor in Third World nations.
You have any REAL proof the money wasn’t spent legitimately in those places?
You have any proof the VERY FEW contractors who were friendly with the Clintons who were hired to do work in those countries were overpaid? Or didn’t fulfill their duties?
You have a sliver, an iota of fact that Carter’s charity isn’t contracting some work to people they know? Or are paying less for salaries than the Clinton foundation? Or or not hiring friends or blood relatives to work for them? Their grandson runs the Carter charity, just like Clinton’s daughter is a Foundation exec
Good grief, Jay, give it up already. Of course the Clinton Foundation was a front for pay to play. You think that the investors in Uranium One who donated almost $9M to CGI right before the deal with Russia (which benefited them greatly) did so by coincidence? Or maybe you think that the half million $ paid to Bill Clinton for one speech before a Russian bank that dealt with Rosatom was just coincidental?
Or maybe you think it was just sheer coincidence that the Committee on Foreign Investment just happened to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One as long as the purchase was not for 100% of the company and as long as Rosatom did not take it private (of course,it was certainly coincidence that State Department approval was needed for this, and -unbelievable coincidence! Hillary just happened to be SecState at the time.).
And you would surely argue mere coincidence that after Rosatom DID eventually purchase 100% of Uranium One AND take it private, as they had agreed not to do, investors continued to donate millions to CGI.
And, amazingly enough, the foundation accidentally failed to disclose more than $2M in donations from the Canadian guy who put the deal together!
I mean, what are the odds of all of these freak coincidences? And bummer that Russia now controls 20% of what was US uranium production, huh?
But, hey, it’s Donald Trump’s campaign manager who’s all buddy-buddy with Russia, so Hill’s of the hook.
Just crazy coincidence, no pay-to-play, right? The NYT had it all wrong. I think that’s a Republican rag anyway…..
Back when I was a kid, and would try to tell my dad some BS story about how the lamp got broken, or why I was late home for dinner, he would look at me, smile, and say “Do I look like I just fell off the turnip truck?”
I was never sure exactly why people on turnip trucks were gullible, but maybe you know?
The question is which one of us is more gullible?
Let’s talk about your pay for play Accusations for the Russian uranium deal. I know about that NY Times article you linked. It caught my attention when it was published, and I decided to look into it. I wasn’t the only one to take notice, there was a lot of followup, debunking the notion the Clintons had anything to do with getting the Russian deal accepted.
In their story the NY Times said this: ‘the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies.’
The Times failed to provide the number or names of those agencies, leaving the impression Hillary Clinton and her State Department were foremost in recommending and pushing the deal. That is far from the truth:
“The Kremlin’s 2010 purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One had to be approved by the nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. That included Clinton as secretary of state, but also the secretaries of the Treasury (the chairman of the committee), Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security as well as the the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The deal also had to be okayed by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as Utah’s nuclear regulator.”
And the government of Canada too signed off on the deal. Are you suggesting ALL those agencies and Canada were paid by Russia to play, or only the Clintons?
Also, the time line for contributions to the Clinton Foundation doesn’t really align with the uranium deal, further knocking the props out of the unsubstantiated ‘pay for play’ assertions. The Politifact link covers some of it.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/
Additionally, the NY Times says they relied on information for the story based on Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash.” That was before the book was released and found to be full of unsubstantiated material. Schweizer himself admitted that he doesn’t have any “direct evidence” proving Clinton played a part in it, and that other allegations he made in the book about the Clintons are based on assumptions. So, a faulty article based on faulty information led to faulty assumptions.
It’s true the Russians paid Bill Clinton a rediculously high $500,000 speaking fee through a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin. But they’ve invited other world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conference for high speaking fees as well. What was the pay for play for Blair or others?
I think the Russians may have expected some tit-for-tat from Bill in the future, but he gamed them more then they played him -.
Bottom line, your coincidences are just that, like lines that cross in nine degrees of separation projections. There were so many contributions coming into the Foundation from so many sources that multiple dots could be draw to link them in clandestine accusation. Like the Clinton spokesman said in the Times article, no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”
And that’s the truth.
Well, Jay, I would say that we don’t know the truth. And that’s the truth, lol.
And I’m sorry about starting the whole gullible thing….I honestly don’t think that either of us fell off the turnip truck.
I think that the difference your position and mine could be – simplistically, but somewhat accurately – described as deciding between the devil we know and the devil we don’t know. (I know that you don’t consider Hillary the devil, but just indulge me for a moment).
I see your defense of Hillary’s behavior, particularly as SecState, and in relation to the Clinton Foundation as a defense that you would never put forth if we were discussing a Republican nominee. You have, in fact, gone after Manafort for much less, and ,as Dave points out, Manafort was not even a public servant if and when he did business with the Russians. I could call that a double standard, but, if I were you, I might just say, “Look, this is the way politicians operate. They all have their skeletons in the closet. At least she knows what she’s doing. Trump is a crazy person, a fool and a loudmouth, who will screw up the country.” You’ll vote for the devil you know.
I’m in the position of voting for the devil I don’t know. I’m in the vast majority of those who don’t believe that our country is “moving in the right direction,” and I see the devil I know as being part of what has brought us to this point, and, furthermore, is promising much more of the same. I’m not sure if the devil I don’t know is going to be able to change anything, but I’m no longer willing to just keep drifting, and being told that this is the way it has to be.
“Jay goes somewhat farther, and defends Hillary on every count, ”
Nope. That’s incorrect, Pricilla. I’ve taken her to task for many things.
I’m against Democratic views, hers included, on race, crime, immigration, politically correct feminist and gay over-reaching. On economics she’s been sending mixed messages and I haven’t made up my mind on that. On national defense I haven’t heard enough tough talk from her about taking out Islamic terrorist bases, but I’m pretty certain she’ll be tougher on them overall than Obama as her urging to take out Bin Ladin showed. Her view on the Iranian nuke deal is wrong. Her silence on the Milwaukee riots this week is infuriating. Her failure to denounce BLM for its antiSemetic leanings and antiIsrael rants equally disturbing.
But what I STRONGLY disagree with is the unrelenting distorted lies and untruths the Right has directed against her and her husband for decades, that you and others have swallowed hook line and ideological sinker. The adage that repeating lies often enough validates them as truth holds here: you swallowed them and now believe them with certainty.
There is NO EVIDENCE Hillary made any accommodation in policy or action with anyone who donated to the Clinton Foundation when she was Secretary of State. You can point to ‘funny coincidence’ all you like – there is NO EVIDENCE to back it up. The charges are distortions propagated by Clinton haters, the same ideological mind-hate propaganda used to successfully ratchet up Obama hatred, pure and simple.
And to other charges of Clinton lying, all long-serving politicians lie sooner or later, from necessity or inadvertence. President Dwight Eisenhower denied that the United States was flying U-2 spy planes, Bush2 lied about WMDs, Lincoln lied about whether he was negotiating with the South to end the war. Reagan lied about negotiating hostage release with Iran (yeah, he did the same thing Obama did). So, yes, Hillary may have told lies to justify her private email server (which in light of today’s news that NSA was hacked too makes her home server choice not much more risky or less secure then the State Department servers would have been). But if those kinds of political lies are disqualifying, half the seats in congress would be vacant.
Overall I’d rate Hillary’s political career as a B-minus. I’d rate her veracity as C-minus, which isn’t so bad because most politicians are lucky to score a B.
Jay I disagree, ALL the seats would be vacant. We demand to hear nonsense so we get candidates who are liars. Has to be.
What W lied about beyond all doubt and covered up quite deliberately was the cost of his 2 front war which he wanted presented to the public and congress as running in the hundreds of millions, not multiple trillions.
Jay, connecting the dots between Hillary as SecState and the foreign donations that flowed to the Clinton Foundation is not that difficult. (By the way, none of the many allegations in Clinton Cash have been disproven, merely denied, as far I am aware).
Al Capone was guilty of many serious crimes, but he had to be convicted of income tax evasion because he had the money, power and political connections to create plausible deniability, and remove himself from his violent crimes and illegality just enough so that law enforcement could never draw the connections that they needed. This is how the Clintons have operated for decades.
And, yes, Hillary is attacked by her political enemies, just as every politician is attacked by his/her political enemies. Hillary is as brutal an attack dog as any other politician, by the way. Politics is a dirty business. And they all deny that the attacks have any merit. It’s why we have to connect the dots.
An oddly twisted peice.
On the one hand it quite accurately berates the press for its bifurcated coverage – condenming those on the left for failing to seriously report anything damaging about Clinton.
On the other the tone from end to end is still primarily Trump bashing.
Interstingly those few left leaning journalists who grasp there is a problem still can not bring themselves to write about Clinton without overdosing us on Trump’s faults.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi-on-the-summer-of-the-media-shill-w434484
The idea that trump wants to lose is too convoluted. The idea that he is simply an idiot is much easier for me to believe.
Dave’s comment: “However, any idiot who can sit on their hands and do little or nothing for 4-8 years can be president.” (yeah Dave you did say that) fits well with the opinion of what Priscilla aptly called the vulgar elements. Its an unserious and typically populist opinion that must lose or we are in the deepest shit we have ever been in in my lifetime.
Those same vulgar elements used the image of Alfred E Neuman to mock Obama from the first moment of his presidency, now they have actually selected Alfred E Neuman as their candidate. I was reading their comments on the Fox news story of trumps new “expanded” campaign that elevated some pollster to his campaign manager it I understand correctly, while keeping his campaign manager?!? It would be funny if it were not tragically taking us to idiocracy 50 years early.
The communist revolution in Russia was populist revolution by vulgar elements who had no idea how to actually run an economy. Turned out great didn’t it? Populist revolutions are all pretty similar even if the ideology is different as far as I am concerned. America may not be in great shape but we don’t need to turn it over to people whose campaign is so bad that one could speculate that they are trying to lose. Lord save us from these populist vulgar elements, Lord save us from trump. Lord save us from “any idiot who can sit on their hands and do little or nothing for 4-8 years can be president.”
GW, your argument about populist movements is a good one, and in another election year, I would be likely be persuaded by this, because, in general, I am not drawn to populism, nor to candidates who present themselves as vulgarians. You and I are alike in that way, I believe.
On the other hand, America is a country that was essentially founded by a populist movement, if we are defining populism as movements based on the interests and needs of the everyday citizen and opposed to rule by a privileged elite class. Democracy, by its very nature, gives rise to legitimate populist movements, and one could call the abolitionists, the women’s suffrage movement and the civil rights movement all successful populist movements. It is part of what defines us as a nation.
The difference between the Russian Revolution and Donald Trump is that Donald Trump is not attempting to overthrow the government. He is positioning himself as an outsider who has insider understanding of the elite ruling class in Washington and seeks to take us back to a more federalist, more constitutional footing as a nation. In his best moments, as in his speech last night in Milwaukee, that comes through loud and clear. In his worst moments, he sounds, not like a revolutionary, but like….well, like an obnoxious idiot who will sit on his hands for 4-8 years.
Trump is not an idiot, any more than John McCain was a feeble old warmonger, or Mitt Romney an insensitive one-percenter. Those are narratives that become “truth.” Now, that is not to say that Trump hasn’t played into the narrative himself, which has disturbed me, and still may lead to my deciding to not vote for him.
But, Hillary Clinton is, as no other candidate, the absolute personification of the above-the-law, corrupt-to-the-core, out-of touch-elitist. Add to that, her promise to continue Obama’s practice of circumventing Congress, the fact that she will appoint leftist justices to SCOTUS, the fact that her horn dog husband will be back in the White House (talk about vulgarians), her support for Black Lives Matter and other leftist activist groups, and her deep dishonesty, as shown in so many different ways.
I fully understand yours and Jay’s position that we need someone that is experienced and speaks in the correct way, saying the correct things. But, despite my antipathy to vulgarity, I believe that it is essential for the country that it reject a card-carrying elitist, who speaks in politically correct soundbites and exhibits contempt for the average American.
I know that we are in deep disagreement on this, GW, but I don’t think that the disagreement makes us “enemies.” My dearest friend, a woman that I have known for most of my life, holds almost the exact same view as you do. Jay goes somewhat farther, and defends Hillary on every count, but my friend does not. She knows that Hillary is corrupt, but she fears that Trump is merely a “destroyer”. She would rather a machiavellian elitist, than a bumbling vulgarian. She actually dislikes Hillary enough that she momentarily toyed with the idea of voting for him. But then she threw cold water in her face, and came to her liberal senses. 🙂
Roby, “Those same vulgar elements used the image of Alfred E Neuman to mock Obama from the first moment of his presidency, now they have actually selected Alfred E Neuman as their candidate.”
I would disagree with this statement from the fact that so many people that were not active in politics before Trump came along were the ones that were instrumental in his getting the nomination. Remember, in most of the primaries he was only getting in the 30% range and winning until others dropped out. Then the choice when there were three was someone who could not get the nomination in any manner and the other was a conservative that wanted to control every aspect of your private life. (Social values crammed down our throats). Given those choices, the people then voted for the lessor of three evils. Had it been Bush, Trump, Cruz and maybe one other, I strongly believe Trump would have gone home by April.
However, if the powers to be had figured out a way to reduce the field to 3-4 candidates early, Trump would have been eliminated early as the “vulgar elements” would have coalesced behind one or two conservative candidates and we would not have the crap to choose from that we have.
The idea that a president or even our govenrment as whole could sit on its hands and do nothing for 4-8 years is not even slightly populist.
Please name a single populist ever that was not yammering for great change ?
Conversely some of our best president did little or nothing,
Though doing nothing is quite rare in government – not because doing things is necescary – but because not doing things is not even slightly in the interests of politicians.
I would suggest some study of public choice. Basically it applies the same principles the left likes to beleive drive business to government and politics.
The power of politicians derives from their ability to pass laws.
No one contributes ot a politician to have them do nothing.
No one will pay for junkets or offer them stock tips or contribute to their charitable foundations if they do nothing.
At the same time we have massive amounts of economic data from more than two centuries and accross every nation on the planet that the only thing a government can do that is better for its people that doing nothing – would be to shrink.
The claim this is some populist position is nonsense – it is also logically absurd.
Does the truth or falsity of something depend on how popular it is ?
“The power of politicians derives from their ability to pass laws.”
For the presidency, the power also derives from passing their own law via executive privilege.
And you know in your tightly wound sphincter that Trump would abuse that power even more than Obama has. Right?!?
JJ;
Am I concerned that Trump would try to go beyond even Obama – yes.
But I am far more concerned about Hillary.
Trump if elected will face a hostile press, and half of congress that hates him and the other half that is trying to figure out how not to be blamed for him.
Clinton if elected will face a mostly fawning press, and a congress essentially the same as Obama.
The historical pattern of presidential imperialism is LEFT not right.
Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon, Bush, Obama.
I know that some of you do not think of Nixon and Bush as LEFT.
But think seriously
Nixon: EPA, Clean air act, Clean Water act.
Title IX, Southern desegregation, EEOC,…
Bush:
No Child left behind, Medicare D, Sarbox, ….
This election should make clear that republican not equal right and democrat not equal left.
The majority of Trumps policies directly target centre left blue collar democrats.
Conversely though on most policies Clinton is pretty far to the left of even Trump, Clinton is the neo-con in this race – which would make her to the right of Trump.
Regardless, to directly answer your question, I expect that all future presidents will abuse their power more than Obama – atleast until we have another Nixon moment.
Between Trump and Clinton, I think Trump will do so less than Clinton, and get far more crap for it.
But we will never get to see whether I am right – because only one person will become president and whichever one it is, it will be bad.
Odd that you cite the communist revolution.
It was not by the way “a populist revolution by vulgar elements who had no idea how to actually run an economy”
They had a very clear idea how to run an economy – top down.
The “fatal conceipt” of communisim – and all other isms of the left and many of the right – including facism – which is as easily argued to be on the left as right,
is that government can run the economy at all.
Running the economy is not and never was a legitimate role of government, it has failed throughout human history in every single way that anyone has ever tried it to the extent it has been tried.
It has failed under the flag of communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, “the new deal” “the great society” and on and on.
And yes – any moron who can sit on their hands and do nothing for 4-8 years can be president and preside over a period of rising standards of living.
The only problems confronting the next president that absolutely require action – are those CAUSED by the government.
The next president is inarguably going to have to clean up the mess that is PPACA.
No matter how you feel about PPACA it can not be left alone without disasterous consequences.
It is possible we can survive if the next president does nothing about social security and medicare – but that becomes harder and more dangerous with each passing year.
Regardless, it is again a problem CAUSED by government.
The same is true of deficits. It is possible we can coast for another 4-8 years without addressing them, but our debt is an increasing burden on our economy, and though I think the US is uniquely positioned as a consequence of the global use of the dollar as the worlds reserve currency, if the economy of some significant part of the rest of the world should ever become more reliable than that of the US this country will be Greece nearly instantly. It will take only a very small increase in the interest rates the US government currently pays before our debt turns into a death spiral.
Again a problem of government creation.
I can not think of a single problem that requires government action that is not of government creation.
Can you recall what Washington did for 8 years ? What of Adams ?
In fact can you name much of consequence that most US president ever did ?
We have had 43 different people as president, Can you name one significant accomplishment for each president off the top of your head ?
Just to be clear GW – not only would anyone who could sit on their hands for 4 years be a good president, they would inarguably be a better president than either of our two lead contenders.
“I can not think of a single problem that requires government action that is not of government creation.”
The flooding of the shorelines of the East coast and Florida.
The wildfires destroying wide swaths of Southern California.
Zika
National industry price fixing
Auto exhaust pollution
Patent and copyright infringement
State cross border crime
UFO investigations (the same Federal bureau tapping your phone, Dave)
Im sure there’s more..
Enemies? Lord no! Just argumentative opinionated political adversaries on a blog.
“On the other hand, America is a country that was essentially founded by a populist movement”
Well sort of. Here is an excerpt about G. Washington from Wiki:
“A successful planter of tobacco and wheat, Washington was a leader in the social elite in Virginia. From 1768 to 1775, he invited some 2000 guests to his Mount Vernon estate, mostly those he considered “people of rank”. As for people not of high social status, his advice was to “treat them civilly” but “keep them at a proper distance, for they will grow upon familiarity, in proportion as you sink in authority”.[75]
I am not a powerful wealthy elite or connected person, but I can easily reconcile myself to the idea that there always have been and always will be elites and inner circles of power, connected people. Its philosophically offensive of course and obviously unfair but the country was built that way, by connected people and its a pretty good country, stuff works, where I live anyhow. The idea of removing somehow all the influence of powerful wealthy connected people, first, is just impossible and second, well, that was the theory behind the 1917 revolution and we know how well that worked to make everyone equal. I’ll take the devil I know, as expressed above by G. Washington if it comes with the nice life I live. So, zero populism for me, thanks, establishment all the way, please, with the elites and their perpetual connections with other elites and the unfairness that goes with it.
Priscilla I can agree with you in a second in the statement you once made that Bernie seems dim. Yes, he does. He says ridiculous things that defy common sense on a regular basis and is out of his depth when talk moves to real details of how things work. So, why is it so hard for you to see that trump is an idiot? He was born on third, he loudly thinks he hit a home run but you and other thoughtful conservatives don’t have to buy it! (the turnip truck plays no ideological favorites) He would actually be much wealthier if he had taken dad’s inheritance money and put it into mutual funds. He is a loser.
An idiot is not necessarily someone with an IQ of fifty or less, that is one technical definition, but the common definition that anyone intuitively understands is that an idiot is someone who consistently says, does, and believes idiotic things and makes a giant mess out of the things he touches. trump is super qualified as an idiot by that definition. He sounds like an idiot, he acts like an idiot, he screws up nearly everything he touches, destroying the GOP may be his crowning life achievement ergo–> idiot.
I don’t think he would be a quiet idiot as president and sit on his hands. I think he would be a loud hyperenergetic egotistical mussolini type of idiot who would leave our country as FUBAR as he is leaving the GOP/conservative movement. In foreign policy alone the damage he is quite capable of doing is unthinkable.
As well, there is good reason to believe that trump would leave Obama far behind in his go-it-aloneism and disregard for rights and the Constitution. After 4 years of trump you might very well look back on Obama’s time as the good old days as far as Constitutional rights go. As for conservatism and the GOP, he could do to those entities exactly what I believe that dim old Bernie could do to the liberal/progressive democratic interests in 4 years as president, kill them if not forever, then for generations.
Anyhow, I hope we never find out which one of us is correct about trump’s ability to be president and the degree of damage he would do.
There is much in what you say that I can agree with.
And some I can not.
Why is Trump not an idiot ?
Because even If Trump has exagerated his personal success by a factor of ten it is still huge and real. Lottery winners are often idiots – people who are incrediby successful are often wrong about many things, obnoxious and oppinionated, but they are pretty much by definition not idiots.
The left likes to claim that Clinton is the most qualified – that is barking mad lunacy.
Private success does nto inherently qualify you for public office – but it is an excellent start.
The person you are more likely to trust investing your money is the person you should more likely trust with the government.
Conversely public failure is a predictor of subsequent public failure.
Clinton is unlikely to be better as a president than as a senator or sec state.
Is there anyone saying she was good at either ?
Arguably Clinton was not a total failure at either. There have been worse senators and Sec. States – I can not name one, but I do not doubt they exist.
Moving to a different form of idiocy.
I would berate Trump for his idiotic ideas on immigration and trade.
Except that as bad as Trumps are – Clintons are worse.
And if we go beyond those – while again both candidates fall short.
Clinton is still selling us the same progressive garbage that has never ever succeeded.
Is there someone today prepared to argue that PPACA has been a glowing success ?
Is there any progressive program that has been a success ?
Clinton want to make college education free.
In a bubble – all for it. Yeah!. Except that in the real world – there is no “free”. In the real world those “free” government programs have proven incredibly expensive.
I think the experts currently tell us Clinton’s programs will cost $1.6T over a decade.
Please tell me when any proposed government program cost less than 3 times what experts told us – ANY program ? ANY Program at all ?
Clearly someone is an idiot – either it is clinton for offering this nonsense or those of us who buy it. Regardless, there is alot of idiocy here – and it is not from Trump.
The only good news – for both sides, is that no one is paying attention to policies and platforms.
Outside of student loans does anyone know what Clinton’s platform is ? Anyone ?
Does Clinton even know ? And just a few days ago Clinton’s web site was revised to eliminate the assertion that women claiming to be sexually assaulted have the right to be beleived – too many questions about Lewinsky, Jones, Broderick. and the lolita express.
Outside of building a wall and opposing Trade deals does anyone know what Trump’s platform is ?
Anyway, Trump is a blow hard, and he may even say stupid things quite often, but if the measure is “idiocy” the bigger idiot is Clinton – unless you beleive she is lying – in which case the idiot is us.
Dave the posts of yours I am most likely to enjoy usually come early in the progression of a Rick post before you have hit dogged argument mode, which you are in now. I can’t find anything that I just skimmed in your post that has any effect on swaying my opinion. You have zero chance of changing my mind. You simply wildly dislike liberal democratic ideas. So what? Why should I care? I don’t.
I find it odd that some many people who are not republicans seem to feel they can see so clearly as to give Republicans advice.
But then I am not a republican either – of course I am not giving them advice, just nothing that your observations are lacking.
Goldwater went down in flames. Yet, he permanently altered the GOP in incredibly positive ways.
I am very reluctant to pick what the permanent effects of Trump will be.
Trump has shuffled the deck regarding voting blocks. Some of those changes might be permanent, some might not.
Have neo-cons permanently shifted back to the Democratic party ?
Is the democratic loss of blue collar voters finally permanent ?
until recently immigration has not been a partisan issue – both parties had strong pro and anti immigrant factions. Is there are shift occuring there – and is it permanent ?
And separately – what exactly is the democratic position on immigration ?
As best as I can tell the democratic position on immigration is
Republicans are evil racists. That is not a position on immigration.
The other is trade. I am a real free trader – not a proponent of trade deals which I think are net harmful – but not for the normal reasons.
But neither party holds my views on trade.
Trade appears to be becoming a partisan issue with democrats becoming the party of managed trade and republicans becoming the anti-trade party.
Are any of these shifts permanent ? I do not know.
But the collapse of political parties is the consequence of ideological shifts – not one loud candidate.
Dave, I do wonder, regardless of who ends up being president for the next 4 years, if both parties are headed for a crack-up. Or, at least whether a third party will emerge as a contender, going forward. What are your thoughts on that?
A lot of interesting stuff to discuss in your comment, GW.
Re: George Washington (another GW!) ~ I don’t believe that George was ever a populist in the sense of, say Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Sam Adams or Patrick Henry. Obviously, he played a huge role in the Revolutionary War and afterward, but, if I recall correctly he was a staunch opponent of political parties, as was John Adams, largely because they didn’t like the idea that the nation needed to be divided. They had seen what populism could do, if taken too far, and they had little respect for the “unwashed masses”, who, of course, back in those days were almost completely uneducated. It was Jefferson, a true son of the Enlightenment, who synthesized elitist and populist thinking, in identifying education as absolutely necessary to a well-functioning democracy.
There is definitely, at least to me, a strong current of elitism in the arguments that I hear in favor of Hillary Clinton ~ that she is so well educated and smart, that she’s held so many positions of power and influence, etc. And a lot of opposition to Trump seems to focus on his blunt, impolitic speech, his ridiculous hair, his trophy wife, etc. So, while I understand your arguments about powerful people and their better understanding of the ways and means of power, I think that, in today’s political environment, it no longer applies. Or more accurately, those ways and means have been corrupted as power always corrupts.
As far as Trump being born on third and claiming to hit a home run, I feel exactly the same way about Hillary. She hitched her wagon to a political star and traded on his name and power. What Trump has accomplished, on his own, is certainly as worthy of admiration as what she has accomplished. Both had certain advantages, were smart and hardworking, and have become rich and powerful. It’s an argument that, if you are going to make it, cuts both ways.
“As far as Trump being born on third and claiming to hit a home run, I feel exactly the same way about Hillary. She hitched her wagon to a political star and traded on his name and power.”
Oh Good Grief. We are back to living completely separate universes. That idea is the narrativest narrative you could want. A. She was not born wealthy like trump was and B. she did not hitch her wagon to Bill when he was a star. She was as bright and accomplished as he was in school and his trajectory beyond hers in politics was driven by his smarmy charm, which we all now know was not based on a good character. Hillary and Bill are somewhat like Bon and Elizabeth Dole, they were a “power couple. Quite a bit of Bill’s success may be due to Hillary. Maybe he hitched His star to a powerful woman.
“What Trump has accomplished, on his own, is certainly as worthy of admiration.” No it isn’t! He is a smarmy con artist who has bullied everyone in sight with lawyers and stiffed quite a few of his creditors. Most of his businesses, casino’s, trump phony university, reality tv shows are nothing I respect. (Call me an elitist, but wasn’t a good bit of the the attraction of Romney precisely that he is rather elite, well educated, smooth, rich successful etc.?) If trump is worthy of admiration then Mike Tyson and Jerry Springer are worthy of it. Bleh! He inherited 40 million and had a rich family always behind him. if my facts are correct. That is NOT doing it on his own! Add in the many failures, the bankruptcies his idiotic decisions on the campaign trail. His rise in the GOP race is attributed to some sort of political genius by some people, he read the mood of the base or some such idea, but I say he was lucky to happen to be exactly the kind of wretched nit the base was looking for.
Priscilla for me, this comes down to the fact that you have a completely different evaluation system and set of standards for liberal and conservative politicians. That is your right, but you will never sell me on your set of appraisals, they are quite driven by the P word and the I word from where I sit!
“What Trump has accomplished, on his own, is certainly as worthy of admiration as what she has accomplished. ”
Priscilla, everything he’s accomplished has been based on hype wrapped in illusion.
Haven’t you followed the investigative stories about his businesses and practices over the years? Not just the recent more thorough investigations, but the loooooooooong line of stories journalists have written about him over the years? Yes, he’s made a lot of money, mostly for himself, by building a brand name, and licensing it out. He’s sort of the Woolfgang Puck of real estate: but without Puck’s charm and honesty. The businesses Trump has managed himself haven’t faired that well. He seems to be a great huxter but lousy manager.
Do this: Google ” Donald trump business failure” and pick out half a dozen articles to read from whomever you consider reliable news sources. Then tell me if you still think he has the skill set to manage America, or to choose reliable subordinates to do that for our economy, military, legal system, or any of the other serious problems facing us…
And while your at that you should check out the people he just brought on to his team to get elected. If that doesn’t end up troubling your moderate inclination, nothing will.
Whether I end up voting for Donald Trump or not, I find it ironic that Trump’s
creation of an international business conglomerate is mocked and minimized, while the almost non-existent accomplishments of a woman known primarily for
scandal are extolled as great and historic.
What exactly are these great accomplishments that make her so qualified to be president?
I’m serious.
Donald Trump has accomplished quite a lot.
http://www.trump.com/
Gary Johnson has built a successful business and been a reasonably successful governor of a state. I think he was recently the CEO of a medical marijuana company, but I don’t know if he still is. He can point to solid accomplishments.
What has Hillary accomplished in almost 40 years of public life as a first lady, a senator and a secretary of state? An accomplishment, please.
He’s also adept at bribing his way out of paying money he owes .
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/donald-trump-gave-cash-chris-christie-group-after-new-jersey-casino-settlement
And aren’t you being somewhat LAZY in using Trump’s own self aggrandizing site to back up his claims of business success? He has admitted he uses exaggeration to promote himself and his brand name as “a very effective form of promotion.” Which is another way of saying he has bullshited the public and investors his entire career, the current website no exception. The current website is an example. It fails to indicate what percentage of golf courses and hotels shown on the website are owned and operated by other corporations and/or owners who have merely licensed the Trump name. And the site doesn’t list the number of Trump owned businesses and projects that failed, or the longer list of investors who were left holding empty bags of braggadocio.
That info is out there, from numerous sources. As is data on the extraordinary number of lawsuits he and his businesses have been involved in – over 4,000, and still rising, many vindictively initiated by him to silence working people trying to recover money owed them, and avoid paying the debts.
And if Trump’s such an acute businessman why are so many successful business billionaires not backing him? The Koch brothers, quintessential donors for Republican candidates, are not. Michael Bloomberg and Mark Cuban have forcefully stated he’s a buffoon. Billionaire Barry Diller told Bloomberg that Trump is is a huckster – I’m not the only one who labeled him thusly. And Stanley Druckenmiller, billionaire hedge fund manager has said that Trump “has a kindergartner-level view of economics.”
And are you paying attention to the kind of people he’s surrounding himself with now? Far right extremists and conspiracy theorists and fascists like the people from Breitbart, and Ailes and Manafort who DO NOT represent political moderation. Where do you see even a glimmer of it in that mix?
Have you read Brietbart over the last year? It’s become the National Enquirer and Glen Beck blog of conspiracy theorist nonsense rolled into one. Do you have any idea the kind of crap were going to hear from Trump now on daily news briefings, and at the presidential debates? Accusation of Clinton backed DNC murders. Hints of Hillary lesbianism. Hillary’s failing health. And of course the Clinton Foundation’s ties to (fill in the blank).
We can survive four years of a Clinton presidency.
A Trump presidency will be ruinous.
The largest estimate I have heard of Trumps “inheritance was about 300M.
the more reasonable estimate was under 100M and most of that tied up in ways that he could not have easily “invested it in mutual funds”.
Given how well my Mutual finds have done over the same period of time – I can not see Trump having done better by investing in mutual funds.
Sanders is dim. But Clinton is not substantially better.
She is a somewhat better public speaker, but if this election were actually about policies she is way out of her depth.
Frankly, she is fortunate that Trump is the GOP candidate.
That is saving her from having to confront a credible argument on policies.
Both of them are policy idiots.
Everyone has their own crystal ball and I have been wrong about alot with respect to this election. I though Trump was toast when he went after McCain.
My Crystal ball view is this is going to boil down to the debates.
I expect with several spikes that Clinton’s lead will slowly errode as we approach the election.
Every now and them Trump will say something ludicrously stupid and Clinton will spike,.
Every so often there will be another clinton email, perjury, Clinton foundation, …. story and Clinton will drop some.
Every terrorist attack in Europe will errode Clinton’s lead.
Any in the US will do so big time – but we will likely miss that.
Economic bad news hurt clinton – we can expect alot of that.
Serious economic bad news will doom her, that is a chance but not a certainty – though I do beleive the next president gets and even shittier economy than we have now.
I think a mild recession is coming regardless of who is elected.
That leaves the debates. Clinton is an abysmal debater and not a very good public speaker. Bernie was a gift to her.
The moderators are near certain to tilt questions to favor Clinton.
Trump’s behavior is unpredictable. If he comes on as Mike Tyson he might easily KO clinton. HOWEVER, he could equally harm himself badly. The general election debates require being more “presidential” than the primary debates.
Trump has had problems when he is himself – but he mostly does worse when he tries to be someone else.
I would also note that I think Trump has a multipoint advantage.
First he has an obvious election strategy that does not require winning the popular vote.
He is nearly certainly doing worse in Red states than any republican in recent memory.
But he is still not losing them. He is likely to do better in the so called swing states than any republican. Though there are weirdities. He seems more likely to lose VA than PA.
and losing VA makes winning without a majority of votes harder.
The other issue is that I think Trump like Brexit polls lower than the vote will be.
Brexit had to have won the undecided’s 4:1 to have won as it did.
Thus far 3rd party voters appear to be hurting Clinton slightly more than Trump.
But I do not expect Johnson to get 8% in the general election.
I think he will get closer to 2%, and I think the lionshare of current Johnson voters are people who are unwilling to say they are voting for trump.
Even with respect to myself the odds of my voting for Clinton are ZERO.
The odds of my voting for Trump are small but non-existant.
There is nothing that could get me to vote for Clinton.
There are a few things that might get me to vote for Trump.
I do not thing all undecideds or johnson voters are exactly like I am.
I think most of them are MORE likely to vote for Trump than I am.
Today’s Song 🎼🎼🎼🎼 ⛏⛏⛏🎼🎼🎼🎼 ⛏⛏⛏
It’s dark as a dungeon and damp as the dew.
Where the dangers are double and the pleasures are few.
Where the rain never falls and the sun never shines.
It’s dark as a dungeon way down in Trump’s Mind!
It’s dark as a dungeon way down in Trump’s Mind!
Yes, It’s dark as a dungeon way down in Trump’s Mind!
Then there was this: make of it what you will:
http://gawker.com/the-time-donald-trumps-ex-wife-accused-him-of-brutally-1721129617
Some require alcohol to make a mess of a speech. Others… http://www.facebook.com/berkeleybreathed/photos/a.114529165244512.10815.108793262484769/1268865466477537/?type=3&theater
“What has Hillary accomplished in almost 40 years of public life as a first lady, a senator and a secretary of state? An accomplishment, please.”
Reread the Walter Russel Mead article, one part of the answer is there. Priscilla, you are entering Dave territory of being stubborn and giving me a headache. Look up her accomplishments on Wiki if you really want to know, or, again, reread the Walter Russell Mead piece where he analyzed her SOS tenure and found it reasonably successful. Many would consider being first lady, a US senator, and SOS accomplishments in themselves. She was a significant part of the Clinton administration, which was more politically and economically successful than most presidencies. Since she has done liberal democratic type things in her public life you are going, for partisan and ideological reasons, to consider her career as one big zero. Fine, be that way, be Dave-like here and refuse to concede that she has had a long successful life with many accomplishments in government. That position is partisan absurdity.
Not coincidentally, I have almost never heard you speak well of a contemporary liberal democrat in my recollection. Its not just Obama and Clinton but Kerry and Gore to name two that I remember you having swiftly dismissed in an acidic way. You cannot flip that one on me; there is fairly long list of republicans I find to be quite morally and intellectually capable of being president. Graham, Romney, Kasich, Bush, Rubio. In the past Ford, Reagan, Bush I all have received fair or better reviews from me.
BTW, I believe that I won my bet without having to do a search because you have again repeated all the same stuff that I claimed that you have been saying about Hillary, she has no accomplishments, she has ridden her husband’s career, in essence a nobody, a lightweight. You may not have said the exact word lightweight but that is the person with a long life in government but no accomplishments, a lightweight. Since you let me name the terms of the bet, your duty now, having lost it, is to read every one of Micheal Moore’s books cover to cover. OK, that is too cruel, choose one.
I sent you to Mead, a respectable source for a discussion of some of Clinton’s accomplishments, Meanwhile, you send me to trump.com to find out about trump’s achievements. Now there is a fine source of honest objective info! When I read his wiki article it was clear that he has been a jerk and a failure and a con man all his adult life (but don’t take my word for it, there is a long and daily growing list of accomplished weighty conservative people including Romney, the Bushes, Jonah Goldberg, George Will, Sen. Collins, Marco Rubio, and by now hundreds of other prominent conservatives who have said the same or worse that I have said and Jay has said and who have also belittled and mocked his seedy business empire.). That is what trump has done with his life starting from his birth on third base, or more accurately, 1 foot from home plate. You can, I guess say that I am doing the same you are doing, being stubborn, not giving the man credit for his excellent university, bankrupt casinos, and reality TV shows. In my world those are not accomplishments to be proud of. Again, there is that amazingly long list of the Romneys of the world who have the same opinion I do, so I am not just being a stubborn partisan here. Whereas the list of his supporters includes David Duke, Palin, Breitbart world, Ailes, and Coulter. Priscilla, you have taken on a tough task, you are working with very thin material trying to make a presidential figure out of trump.
Priscilla, Lets just give this up and agree that you will live in your trump can be a good president universe and I will live in my hillary can be a good president universe and we are not of the same political culture and do not speak the same political language. Peace, sincerely, Peace, but Lets Please give this up!
Yeah I’ve come to the same conclusion – it’s as useless asking her to be objective about Trump as it is convincing the subjects in the court of The Naked Emporer that no, that isn’t a trouser pull cord dangling between his thighs.
Well, its a shame. Ideology and partisanship just poison everyone who touches them. I have my own strong moderate ideological lens that is not very tolerant of thought that is more than one standard deviation from the center.
If I could just get a message in a bottle from Nov 10 telling me that trump has been thrown in history’s dustbin then I could let go of my obsessive interest in the election.
At least we manage here to be relatively decent while disagreeing. But sometime the alternate universes are so far apart that its better just to agree to disagree and talk about the weather or sports or anything other than politics.
You’re right.
Here’s not the place for vitriol.
Which is why I’m spewing most of my anti Trump venom on Twitter, where I can be gleefully obnoxious without guilt, particularly at the #TrumpSucks like forums.
You can not ask anyone else to be objective about Trump – until you are objective about Clinton.
Honestly very very few people are in the tank for Trump.
I have heard no one here cheerleading for Trump.
There is no one here who would vote for Trump if democrats came up with a sane choice.
I could live with a president Biden right now quite easily.
I am objective about Clinton.
She was a decent freshman Senator, a disappointing but competent Sec of State. She lied to cover her ass a few times, but I don’t see that level of political lying disqualifies her to be a decent president – though I am concerned with stances on PC issues where I strongly disagree with the Democratic Party Line/platform. I would have preferred a Moderate ‘GOPE’ Republican like Bush-3 or Kasich had been nominated to see where they landed on the issues.
You’re the one with skewed objectivity about Clinton, and more then skewed on your view of the Clinton Federation.
I find it interesting that you consider Mead a “respectable source.
Regardless, I have some points of disagreement with Mead – I think that US policy during Obama was primarily directed by Clinton. While I do think that Obama was somewhat disinterested in foreign policy and the lack of strong presidential support weakened her.
Which Mead notes, I think that we can view the foreign policy under Clinton as reflective of Clinton – not Obama.
Past that I have little disagreement with Mead.
Clinton will not likely be remembered as Sec. State, she was a placeholder, with a collection of small failures and no significant successes. She is forgetable.
Even if they do not result in further investigations, Clintons self dealing as Sec. State will be her legacy.
I have not asserted that Clinton was the worst Sec. State in US history – just in the bottom half.
That is not a qualification for President.
I expect much the same from Clinton as president.
She will not likely be the worst president we have ever had – but she will likely be in the bottom half.
I expect she will be worse than Obama. She will be significantly more scandal ridden.
Obama was somewhat protected from “scandal” by the constant shouts of racism.
There was little serious effort to trace the myriads of scandals in the Obama administration – and there were alot of them – to the white house.
Not even Republicans wanted a Black Nixon – no matter how racist you think they are.
Is the reason you don’t find Mead a reliable source because he differs with you on Hillary’s effectiveness as Sec of State?
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-foreign-policy-20160816-snap-story.html
Again, as comments from her tenure as a NY State Senator from Republicans and Democrats who worked with her on legislation, and now from reports of her prepairedness and grasp of issues in totality in cabinet meetings – she appears to be far more competent then you paint her.
“Even if they do not result in further investigations, Clintons self dealing as Sec. State will be her legacy.”
Accusations based on vindictive wishful thinking.
But yes, she’ll be hounded by all the Hillary haters with the same repeated exaggerated falsehoods as Obama was for not being an American born citizen or for being a secret Muslim. So no matter what she does in office the Vultures Of Conservative Vindictivness will pick it to death in and on their media, before, during, or after completion.
A cartoon is worth a thousand Trump dumb remarks
(Click the button)
(click here to view)Chan LoweTribune Content AgencyAug 18, 2016 EditorialCartoonists.com
GW;
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
I have no problems with ideological arguments.
I have argued repeatedly that compromise is quite often WORSE than losing.
Compromise solutions are nearly always WORSE than either extreme.
We learn from real failure – not from wishy washy semi failure.
I think a large portion of the mess that is our government is the result of political compromise.
Nor do I honestly beleive you.
I think, you think compromise is a tool to get what you want in half steps.
Unless you are honestly prepare to permanently accept the results of a political compromise – then it is a tactic and nothing more.
It does not make you reasonable, it makes you cunning and smooth.
I am prepared to reach political compromise on myriads of issues.
But I make no excuses, any compromise I engage in is merely a way point to the right answer.
I also have less trouble with people who beleive things that I think are stupid, than people who value compromise as some end of its own.
Elevating compromise to a principle is the most unprincipled thing I can think of.
It is saying there are no principles.
It is saying “if only Hilter would have stopped at 3M jews”.
The absence of absolute truth is not the absence of absolute falsehood.
Nor does it make all viewpoints equal.
Some things – many things are just wrong.
One of those is that we have the right to be “half tyrants”. That “half truths”, “half principles”, are not often worse than falsehoods.
“Compromise solutions are nearly always WORSE than either extreme.”
Dave, do you believe the compromises made by the GOp to avoid government closures is worse than closing the government and then losing multiple seats in congress? And I use “closing ” loosely as the government does not close. Just a handful of individuals compared to total government employment are sent home and then paid back wages when the government reopens.
I think RR would disagree with that statement based on his ability to get legislation passed through a divided congress.
Remind yourself of what your goal is when having a discussion with someone of an opposing view. Is it to win them over to your point of view? While that would be all well and good, most of us pretty much know from the beginning that that isn’t going to happen. What then? Hopefully we get to know someone’s opposing views well enough to—dare I hope for it…not fear them. A lot of blogs, IMO create and intensify fear of each other, ” People who support person ABCD are scum and should be forcibly neutered! ” Stuff like that just makes things worse. I know that some ideas I hold, if and when I share them, will make some here think I’m ignorant, but perhaps they will find they don’t have to fear such “ignorant” people as myself. So far, a lot of things Jay says I disagree with, but I try to listen, understand, and I already treasure those moments of harmony. I was shocked that he opposed the Iran deal, most likely for different reasons, we never got to far on that subject, but it made me feel pretty good that I found something in common with him. So regardless if Priscilla is walking around with blinders or not, or if GW is blind to the “reality” of Priscilla’s information. Perhaps we can learn to live among the blind and not hurt or fear each other so much.
We argue and get testy with other, and sometimes snideness overrules politeness, but even when infuriated with the dumb things we think we are hearing, there’s an underlying respect for the intelligence of the arguments presented (mostly, Trump is proving an exception 😏)that permeates the discussions.
I think the tone of Rick’s articles is the reason for that begrudging respect. His moderate reasonableness on the topics he addresses permeate the discussions, even when he’s ducked for cover.
You callin’ me blind, Mister?
I asked a simple question and got no no answer. Just a lot of sound and fury. Well, not sound.
I linked the Trump Organization website,by the way, only because Jay made the ridiculous assertion that Trump only licensed out his name “like Wolfgang Puck.” If you were to peruse that website for 2 seconds it would be obvious that Trump’s business accomplishments are significantly greater than that.
GW, I read the entire WRM article, and he credits Hillary for being in favor of getting Osama Bin Laden, and initiating an outreach to Burma, which he says has been marred by Burma’s continuing human rights violations against the Rohingyas. That’s it. Ok, fine for voting in favor of killing OBL, but that was Obama’s call, not hers. His accomplishment.
Neither one of you can name a single accomplishment of the woman “more qualified than any man or woman in American history” to be president?
Vote For Hillary, She’ll make us right with Burma!!
Priscilla, I have another question for you since you seem to be the one doing the most defending of Trump and his candidacy. Please read:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-campaign-idUSKCN10S0TY
When you have most every strategist telling you the only way to attract enough moderate voters to win is to become “more presidential”, why on earth would you remove your current campaign manager who is promoting that image and put in place someone that has proven to be even more confrontational in the political arena to head your campaign?
I keep going back to 1980 when RR was losing to Carter. He had certain things he wanted changed, but he listened to his campaign leadership that stressed military strength and economic improvements and he concentrated on that and won. That is leadership. Is Trump’s actions really leadership or just being stubborn?
Actually, Ron, I didn’t answer your question.
I think he demoted Paul Manafort for two reasons: 1) Manafort’s work with the pro-Russian Ukrainian ex-president , which, although done as a private consultant, has provided opponents with ammunition to attack the entire Trump campaign, and 2) the fact the Manafort was not giving Trump good advice.
Kellyanne Conway, his new campaign manager, is very respected as a political operative. Steve Bannon, not so much, but, it seems to me that they convinced Trump that things needed to change an fast. And, sure enough, in his first speech after the shake up, Trump expressed regret for some of the things he has said in the past. No specifics, but it looks as if he’s backing away from needless confrontation.
Only time will tell, I suppose.
I agree, Ron, and I’ve been mystified by his seeming inability to turn his campaign strategy toward those things. Well, maybe not mystified, but certainly frustrated and skeptical. My defense of Trump is not necessarily an endorsement of him. I’ve also defended Johnson as having more significant accomplishments than Hillary, and said that I’m still open to voting for Johnson, although I will likely vote Trump, simply because I think that he is the only candidate who can prevent a Clinton presidency.
Now, in the last week, Trump has made two very good speeches, and has begun laying out a specific agenda, in presidential terms. This is the kind of thing that supporters were hoping for a bit earlier in the game, but if he can “pivot” now, and stick to his message, I think he may still have a shot. If not, if he remains too confrontational and undisciplined, he will lose big, deservedly so.
I cut Trump a certain amount of slack for 1) not being a career politician and 2) fighting a “two-front” battle, against both Hillary and 2) many conservatives and Bush allies within his own party. Dave makes a very good point, which is that the neocon in this race is Hillary, and that becomes clear when you see the number of Bush-allied Republicans who are against him. They’re not the only ones, but they are the most outspoken.
In any case, Trump’s got himself into a pretty big hole, largely of his own making. If he keeps digging, I’m not gonna jump in.
How is NC looking from your perspective?
Problem is he made the “pivot”, made two good speeches and then said something to the effect “I don’t like this type of campaigning, this is not me, I like the way I campaigned in the primaries”. At which time a couple days later he removes Manaford and installs the confrontational Breitbart CEO as the head of his campaign.
As for NC, it is looking bad on all accounts. Trump looks to be a disaster in this state. We got rid of the Senator and governor that rode in on Obama’s coat tails in 2008 in the last couple elections that were total incompetents and now we have the apparent reversal taking place this election. Deborah Ross is close to an Elizabeth Warren as she is a former ACLU attorney.
We have had too many liberals move in from out of state with all the work by politicians to “improve” job growth in the state. One has to be careful what they ask for as there are always ramifications that one does not anticipate. My hope is the state legislature remains in control of the GOP since the liberal voters are in basically two areas, leaving the majority of the state conservative.
http://www.yahoo.com/news/down-ticket-4-north-carolina-000000801.html
“At which time a couple days later he removes Manaford ”
Cable news is saying they dumped him because his unsavory Russian connections had become an issue, and Comrade Trump wanted to distance himself from guilt by association.
Well I guess if that’s his story today, then that’s the story until someone comes up with another story.
No doubt, Ron, it’s never a good idea to step on your own good press. Seems as if the announcement of the campaign management shake up could have come first, wait for the hoo ha to die down and then the speech. But I have a feeling that the Manafort/Russian problem was becoming a bigger distraction, than was tolerable. Plus, for whatever reason, Trump was not listening to Manafort. At this point, so far back in the polls, he probably had nothing to lose by making the switch. Ever since he has, things have gone pretty well, so maybe he was wrong to have stuck with Manafort for as long as he did.
John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign manager, is a lobbyist for Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, so maybe Trump didn’t think the Ukrainian consulting stuff that Manafort did was so bad. No boy scouts (or girl scouts) in politics, that’s for sure.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Charlotte, and it seems that half the people that I meet when I’m there are recent transplants from NJ or NY. On top of that, we have quite a few friends that have retired to the Wilmington area. I not surprised that, over the years, the migration from the northeast to NC has really changed the political demographics. Seems like you folks are the swingiest of swing states this year.
“I linked the Trump Organization website,by the way, only because Jay made the ridiculous assertion that Trump only licensed out his name “like Wolfgang Puck.” If you were to peruse that website for 2 seconds it would be obvious that Trump’s business accomplishments are significantly greater than that.”
Are you serious? You looked at Trump’s own site to get an objective overview?
How sappy is that?
http://www.wnyc.org/story/what-means-put-trump-on-front-building/
Ok, here’s Wikipedia. Good enough for you, Jay?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization
In general businessman Trump is deep in debt, and has been for more then a decade. Large flows of money in – larger flow out. His golf courses for example: With only a few exceptions they are losing money world wide.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/trumps-550m-golf-empire-may-be-in-the-weeds-experts.html
His financial worth has always been exaggerated -by him. Forbes says Trump pumped up his assets to qualify for bank loans (subsequently withdrawn when they learned he wasn’t worth $6 billion).
Forbes lists him at $4.5 Billion, with qualification. There’s concern he has puffed up his ownership interest of properties with the Trump name, not only for credit rating, but for self aggrandizement (his ego needs fluffing as frequently as the appendages of male porno movie actors):
“Donald Trump positions himself as a real estate visionary and developer, and he’s created a remarkable brand. In truth, however, Trump doesn’t own a large number of his properties. He licenses his name to developers and offers property management services. For instance, his name is on 17 properties in Manhattan, but he only owns five of them outright.”
(From another Forbes article, I can’t post more then one link).
Of American billionaires he’s way down the list at #113. His American billionaire critics make him look like a pauper : Gates, Buffett, Bezos, Bloomberg – even the conservative billionaire Koch Brothers have given him the Thumbs down.
Jerry jones the owner of the Cowboys is worth more at $5 billion – does that qualify him for prez?
In truth, really it’s obvious, Trump’s a flim-flam artist. Is that the kind of person you want representing America?
You know, you have to build a brand before you can license it.
The point I’ve been trying to make all along, is that the man has built a very large, global business enterprise. And, at a certain point, he began building on the brand that he had built. My fear is that his presidential run is more of the same. I don’t know that, but I remain skeptical.
On the other hand, to dismiss his accomplishments as nothing but branding is dishonest and untrue. Plus, I’m still waiting for the big reveal on Hillary’s great achievements………
“Plus, I’m still waiting for the big reveal on Hillary’s great achievements………”
Oh I wish I had the discipline not to take the bait.
By the time you are stating that a former senator and SOS has no achievements its settled that you are not going to recognize anything that anyone shows you. It Dave territory. You don’t want to know and you are not going to know of any achievements. Being a senator involves daily work that affects peoples lives. Its full of achievements, no matter who does it, it could be Clinton it could be Cruz. They are not just potted plants, any of them, whether they are on our side or the other of the partisan world. Being a capable SOS of state means managing a large and vital enterprise of nearly unimaginable difficulty. Kissinger, who no one ever accussed of being less than formidable, has stated that Hillary ran the State Department it very well. Its an achievement, no matter whether the inevitable things go wrong that go wrong during the tenure of a SOS. Condi Rice is person with achievements, Colin Power, George Shultz, Kerry, all of them. Being in that highly responsible office and meeting the daily impossible challenges is a much higher level achievement than you or I have ever approached. Your thesis is absurd, I don’t respect it.
Now trump. Nowhere in your recent posts trying to make something of trumps business empire do you admit that many of his enterprises have been scams like trump university.
“”But wait, you say, isn’t he a huge business success that knows what he’s talking about? No, he isn’t. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn’t create it. And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there’s Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage? A business genius he is not.” G. Romney
When trump said of John McCain that he was a loser for getting shot down that was the end of any chance that he has the character to be Commander in chief.
Tell me that you will vote trump because you are a conservative republican and you don’t want a democratic administration and a liberal supreme court and you will be talking honestly and I will understand and respect that. Defend trumps abilities while saying that Hillary Clinton has no accomplishments and I just can’t take you seriously any longer you are in the territory of stubborn blind political partisanship. Its not moderate and its just painful to listen to from an intelligent person.
With apologies, Priscilla – but I agree with GW 100% 🤔
Is Hillary the most qualified presidential candidate ever? That depends on how you determine ‘qualified.’
Would actual time spent in the White House for 8 years with her husband, where she experienced the actual running of the government up close and personal be considered qualifying experience? We know from a plethora of stories and biographies written by others involved in the Clinton presidency that Hillary was a de facto cabinet member of Bill’s inner circle. So wouldn’t you agree she, unlike most other presidential candidates, is uniquely more familiar with what it takes to govern as president then any other candidate who has run for the office, at least in our lifetime?
And she was the Secretary of State during Obama’s first term. You may think she made lousy decisions during her tenure – though numerous world leaders and US allies have praised her preparedness, grasp of issues, professionalism and acuity. So there too she has ‘qualifying’ experience no other presidential candidate has had in our lifetime, unless I’m missing someone.
Add to that her tenure as NY Senator – where again she was praised by colleagues of both parties.
And though you’ve made up your mind she’s not HIGHLY QUALIFIED to be president, other’s with more experience and ‘qualification’ to make judgements on her unique experience disagree with you:
http://correctrecord.org/praise-for-hillary-clinton/
Jay, I actually respect your point of view. It’s certainly sensible, and, there are moments when I think – heck, maybe Hillary wouldn’t be the worst.
But, the moments pass. It’s not about whether she can do the job. I agree that she can. Her dishonesty, lawlessness, and lies have disqualified her from the honor of the office.
I get that you feel the same about Trump. I’m not quite sure about him myself (as I’ve said ad infinitum, lol). But I’m sure about her.
“Her dishonesty, lawlessness, and lies have disqualified her from the honor of the office.”
If this was a requirement for the presidency, then we would have a problem finding someone that qualifies.
Johnson–landslide Johnson winning a senate seat from Texas after one country stuffed the vote with non existent voters ballots. They did not even hide the fact since the handwritten roll of voters had the additional names in a different ink and the names were alphabetical in order (not random like people walking up to vote). That senate seat led to his becoming VP and later Pres.
Bush 43, carried Florida by a handful of votes after his brother Jeb had over 57,000 registered voters removed from the registration rolls based on them being convicted felons. As it turns out, over 90% of the voters on the hit list were not felons at all. Some of their supposed felonies were actually dated in the future. It was an overwhelmingly Democratic list of voters—over half blacks and Hispanics.
Harding–Teapot Dome scandal.
And then we don’t need to go into the Jefferson issues with sex with slaves, FDR and JFK flings with women not their wives and other issues with presidents that can be dug up and cataloged as making them unqualified for the office at the time they held office.
With the communication today, we hear it all. But to get to the point where you have enough power and recognition by people to run for the highest office, there is only one way to get that and that is through corruption. Anyone playing by the rules is weeded out early in the process if they can even get into the process to begin with.
“Anyone playing by the rules is weeded out early in the process if they can even get into the process to begin with.”
Generally, yes. But, unless we’re going to go full nihilist, there should be some standard, even for those corrupt few who survive the gauntlet.
I guess the question is whether there is a standard at all.
And if there isn’t, why do we bother?
I understand that there are the Trump/Breitbart conservatives and then there are the Romney/Goldberg conservatives and finally there are conservatives stuck in the middle with a huge dilemma. That dilemma is easily solved by saying that they just won’t vote for 12 years of democratic Oval office. There is no need to say anything more to elevate Clinton to monster status or to be blind to the fact that trump is not intellectually or morally qualified to be president. That is where many members of the conservative group with the dilemma go wrong and are losing their chance to salvage some honor for the GOP.
More “sound and fury” from Romney, he absolutely nailed trumps qualifications to be Commander in Chief and that middle group can ignore his logic and facts at their own cost:
“Let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones. Trump’s bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemies. Insulting all Muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in the urgent fight against ISIS. And for what purpose? Muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country.
What he said on “60 Minutes” about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme.
Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I’m afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart.
I am far from the first to conclude that Donald Trump lacks the temperament of be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter’s questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.
Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, while has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.
There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured.
Dishonesty is Trump’s hallmark: He claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into Iraq. Wrong, he spoke in favor of invading Iraq. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. Wrong, he saw no such thing. He imagined it. His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.
The President of the United States has long been the leader of the free world. The president and yes the nominees of the country’s great parties help define America to billions of people. All of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and grandchildren.
Think of Donald Trump’s personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as “The Donald.” He is the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn’t because he had attributes we admired.
Now imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. Will you welcome that? Haven’t we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? We have, and it always injures our families and our country.”
Jay, I agree that Trump exaggerates his worth ~ $10B seems like a lot. On the other hand, even $1B is pretty damn rich. I mean, poor Mitt was vilified for having a quarter of that, right? Real estate is notoriously hard to value, and most of Trump’s wealth has always been in real estate holdings, so I’m guessing that he guesstimates high and everyone else lowballs it. It’s probably more around the $4B range.
GW I haven’t asked you to give me the job descriptions of a senator or a secstate, but to give me one solid successful accomplishment that Hillary has had in her long career. The reason you haven’t been able to name any is because there aren’t any. Titles, for sure. Accomplishments, pitifully few. But, we can drop that now.
Now, does Hillary’s weakness and dishonesty excuse the same from Trump? No, far from it. I have said multiple times – I’m tired of repeating it, actually – that I would have chosen any other Republican over him ( well, maybe not Cruz). And, I know that I’ve said that I don’t want a leftwing SCOTUS.
I am certain of this: If Trump is elected, he will have the press digging into every move he makes, and the Congress will not bend to his will, because Trump is an outsider, not respected, not trusted. His feet will be held to the fire, every day. Will that doom him to failure? Maybe so. It would be four years and out, almost certainly losing to a Democrat. I can’t blame the GOP types who would rather see Hillary win, and get a crack at her in four years, rather than be dragged down by Trump for maybe a decade. But, he might also succeed.
Hillary? If she wins – which is certainly the most likely, depressing, scenario – she’ll be treated with the same fawning treatment from the press (“How does it feel to be the first woman president, Madame Clinton?) as she gets now. There will be no transparency and no pushback from the media. If Congress takes too long to pass her agenda, no problem. Executive orders will do, and the aforementioned leftwing SCOTUS will rubber stamp whatever she dictates. The people be damned.
No thanks… Hillary puts me in a populist state of mind. I’ll still take Trump, warts and all.
You may as well tell me that a mother who raised 3 children, none of whom became hugely successful has no accomplishments or that a teacher has no accomplishments because none of her students became rich or famous. Being a decent senator is an accomplishment, teaching is an an accomplishment, being SOS is an accomplishment, or being a parent. All involve dedication and skill and all have their days of failure and things that went wrong. The accomplishments of an SOS depend largely on luck, the nature of the challenges of the times. I can’t think of an SOS in my lifetime who did not have a very mixed record, it comes with the territory. Colin Powell was an unbelievably successful general, no one would doubt that he is a talented man, as SOS unfortunately we remember that he got taken in by Saddam Hussein’s empty attempt to make people believe that he had weapons of mass destruction. I don’t condemn Powell for Iraq and I don’t condemn Clinton for the failures connected with the arab spring. These are very talented exceptional people, when they “fail” its at a level much higher than any online quarterbacks have ever attempted.
You can argue about trumps business career, its an argument that is open to the many obvious successful attacks, but you can argue it. Arguing that Clinton has no accomplishments isn’t even an argument its so empty. Its even reminiscent of trumps claim that McCain is a loser. This kind of rot starts from the top with a so called leader like trump and infects everything and we just get used to it, its the new normal. What trump has done to us already is sickening. The sliver lining is that 2/3 disapprove of him. Yet, one catastrophic event before election day combined with an assist from Putin/Assange could give us a president whose ghost author says he has a 9 year old level of behavior and whose own campaign insiders claim he has the attention level of a spoiled 12 year old. I won’t rest until he is defeated and I wish it would be resoundingly, much as a resounding victory by one party is a bad thing that leads to hubris, which the Clintons are easily susceptible too.
I dislike the Clintons intensely but it matters that Hillary could do the job and trump cannot. Contempt for the need for an intelligent, capable, well-informed, rational president, as articulated by dave and supported by the winning GOP primary voters is an exercise in reckless childish disrespect for the presidency and the country itself that I cannot believe has gotten this far.
I’m in agreement, mostly.
I’ve never been as upset with the Clintons as you are.
But I never had high expectations for the moral integrity of politicians, with the exception maybe of Eugene McCarthy, and he dive bombed in the elections.
The Clintons amuse me, in the same way as semi ne’er do wells on TV government dramas: like they’re doing what?!? Bill also reminds me of Joe Naimath the football quarterback, whose sexlife was a constant topic of conversation in the media: but a self-effacing smile coupled with a touchdown or two on prime time coverage, and Joe was forgiven his trespasses. And so I forgive Bill his reported dalliances (at his age they’re past history now) and his apparent greediness (poor-boy compensation?).
Between Hillary and Destructive Dunce Donald the choice is clear. Maybe next time whatever is left of the Republican Party apparatus will offer us a reasonable moderate candidate – but I’m not holding my breath
I don’t think anyone could begin to guess what sort of GOP presidential nominee will be chosen in 2020 presuming Putin/Assange don’t manage to carry trump across the finish line. They’ve eaten and abused all the adults in the party, so they may be headless and rudderless and divided beyond repair as a presidential party.
Here is their best hope and my nightmare, Hillary will be a lousy president and people will be ready for a change in 2020 and whatever nutty breitbart candidate they come up with will win, because the pendulum must swing back sometime. I see not much that makes me think that the Romney/Ryan sensible wing of the party will triumph over the populists.
As I wrote in a previous Rick post, this election is not the apocalypse. The apocalypse begins the day after the election. This election is like army basic training before being shipped off to fight in Vietnam. Hellish but just a dress rehearsal for the actual civil war. I’d love to be wrong.
“Her dishonesty, lawlessness, and lies have disqualified her from the honor of the office.”
She’s nowhere near as dishonest and lawless as you believe she is.
Your overweighted view is a result of decades of conservative right wing negative propaganda. That’s the way the extremes of both parties operate, to obscure objectivity and distort their targets with a thousand misrepresentations of fact. They:
Eliminate the positive
Accentuate the negative
Latch on to the disruptive
And don’t mess with moderation in-between.
Take Judicial Watch as example. The admittedly CONSERVATIVE legal watchdog was founded with the express mission of taking down Bill Clinton in the 1990s, filing at least 18 lawsuits against his administration. They were funded entirely by prominent conservative Clinton critics, like billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, who kicked in about $8 million in start up donations.
When Obama took office they focused on him too, with protracted legal battles over the IRS targeting scandal, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, White House visitor logs – filing over 900 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and over 90 lawsuits!
In contrast, there was only one legal suit during the Bush presidency – they joining the Sierra Club to sue his administration for access VP Cheney’s Energy Task Force.
Now, of course, they’re piling on Hillary, with suits and well timed news releases to undermine her candidacy. But nothing to undermine Trump, like requests for the IRS to expedite his audit, or a louder announcement of the IRS statement that Trump could release the tax information without effecting the audit.
Hillary’s no angel; neither is she the devil you’re making her out to be. Trump would be multitudes worse for us as president; he’s already made us look like a squabbling 3rd World nation of fist-shaking semi-dictatorship candidates who we looked at with scorn growing up.
Congress under a Trump administration:
And what is the real reason for all that investigating? Fear that the Clintons will be effective moderate to liberal presidents. Rather than fight bill by bill (well they do that too, which is fine and as it should be) they fight this perpetual guerilla war of litigation and scandal mongering. No wonder Mr. I’m going to Sue You for disagreeing with me has been adopted as the GOP nominee.
Now, the Clintons are congenitally unable to resist bring this on themselves as well, which is why they deserve a lot of blame for carrying the torch for moderate liberal hopes and then perpetually mucking it up with their lawyerly hubris, but the accusations against Hillary are still out of all proportion to their actual political acts of pushing the boundaries of legality. As well, I really can only roll my eyes 360 degrees whenever I hear that they have gotten away with things and will get away with things and no one will be able to stop them. (I guess if hillary is not in jail then she got away according to trump breitbart world). Reagan had true teflon, he got away with things, he had an amazing number of real scandals that involved serious things in his administration but he was genial and sunny and we just could not bring ourselves to punish him much. The Clintons get away with very little, every move is pounced on, which is a good reason not have had Hillary as the dem. nominee. I wish we had anyone else as the dem candidate. If Hillary suddenly had a real health problem and withdrew leaving Kaine to govern, before or after the election, that would be a great day in my book. Not that I am giving any credence to the scummy fake medical history that the dark side has cooked up and trump and his spokespeople are peddling as if it were not a scummy fraud. Bleh!
Jay, I appreciate your view, and I assume that you have considered it carefully.
I’d appreciate it if you would not presume that my own view is “a result of decades of conservative right wing negative propaganda.” It is not.
I could list for you the news sites and blogs that I read, but it would be a very long list, and it would include many, many mainstream and “left wing propaganda” sites, as well as moderate conservative ones that GW likes to quote from, such as National Review and Weekly Standard, both very anti-Trump, pro-Cruz sites. GW likes to quote Jonah Goldberg when he’s bashing Trump….I’ve been reading Goldberg for years, and I read all of his stuff, including the anti-Trump pieces. He’s no fan of Hillary, and has said that he will not vote for anyone this year, BUT, if he were told that the race came down to his vote, and his vote alone, he would cast it for Trump. I read the NYT and the WSJ, I read the Washington Post….I also read John Podesta’s Media Matters, I read Daily Kos, I read the Daily Beast (one of my sons used to write for it), HuffPo, TPM, etc……like I said, it’s a long and comprehensive list. I read a lot. TV, not so much, unless its Netflix.
And if you want to go back “decades”? You haven’t been around TNM all that long, but I have often related the fact that, until the 21st century, 2001 to be exact, I was very much a liberal. I thought that Bill Clinton was too moderate. Never cast my vote for Ronald Reagan.
So, anyway, I think I’ve said all that I want to say about this race thus far, so I’ll stop arguing every little point and parrying every jab. I have defended Trump, not only because I intend to vote for him (ugh), but because I thought that it was a good idea to put those arguments out there. You guys make a big deal of being moderate, until anyone suggests that Hillary might not be a good president. (Do you think that she is a moderate?) Doesn’t matter if we say the same about Trump. If you want an echo chamber, fine. You can have it. If there’s something to discuss, I’m in. If you just want TNM to be like the Trump Derangement Twitter feed you mentioned earlier, I’m opting out.
“If you just want TNM to be like the Trump Derangement Twitter feed you mentioned earlier, I’m opting out.”
I’ll stick my nose in here and say that I sure don’t want you to opt out. You have always been very inclusive of other opinions, poster wise and inviting, even to the most dissonant posters.
If I had a dime for every time TNM has seemed to me like a conservative/libertarian echo chamber that I have no place in I could buy myself something, not something small.
Unfortunately, theTrump Derangement, if that is what it is, has affected solid people like Romney and Goldberg and that long list I keep typing out. I hold the strong belief that one can go too far in their criticism of anyone, Clinton, trump, even Putin. But trump is a special case of it being very hard to find that line, and for good reasons.
Anyhow, I’ll say to you, as you have said to me on many occasions when I was fuming from a to me unpleasant very conservative ideological tone, don’t do it, take a bit of a vacation if you need to and then continue here.
Our paths were similar, Priscilla. As is our spectrum of news and commentary reading. Which makes it even stranger that we’ve come to this firm difference of opinion.
Hypothetical: if Trump’s tax filing under audit was released, and there was information in it that strongly contradicted the assertions he’s been making – his wealth, debt, business associations, charity donations, evidence of blatent tax cheating, etc – would that change your mind about voting for him?
Revision: I have no problem with you bashing Trump, just knock it off with bashing Trump by presuming that his supporters are ignorant. Trump deserves to be bashed, and so does Hillary. But, satisfying as it is to think that everyone who may vote for Trump is a racist, ignorant, knuckle-dragging nincompoop, it’s not the case. I personally consider BLM to be a racist organization, and BLM is With Her. If you want to call me simple minded when it comes to Trump, I’m ok with that. And GW, if you no longer respect anything I write, because I think that Hillary should have been indicted, fine. But, defending your candidate, without acknowledging the evidence of real corruption is really the same as if I defend Trump’s business record without acknowledging that there are genuine ethical questions around it (NOTE:in this thread, I’ve argued that he has been successful in his career, not that he is trustworthy as a politician, and asked for the same regarding Hillary).
Anyway, everyone enjoy your late summer Sunday. I’m already dreading the end of the warm (ok, hot) weather! You’re so lucky out in LAla land, Jay!
Thanks, GW (we simulposted). I am going to take a bit of a breather.
Mark Cuban putting it in proper perspective once again
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/08/20/mark-cuban-on-clinton-foundation-controversy.cnn
Really ?
I did not see where Cuban said anything that actually helped Clinton.
Wow, 9 other people had to sign off on this.
It was a state department deal. Other agencies have to sign off on things all the time.
Regardless where those other people aware that the CF was receiving 100’s of millions related to this deal.
Cuban and others are correct – there is no absolute proof of a clear criminal criminal conspiracy. Though frankly there is more proof that there is in the normal criminal case.
There is massive amounts of questionable dealings that have been very carefully obscured from the public.
With respect to the CF back Channel – Cuban responded with a straw man.
Yes, State should respond favorably to US businessmen – who come in the front door.
So why weren’t these things going through the front door ?
To a large extent CF was NOT pushing the interests of american businessmen.
They were pushing the interests of foriegn governments, foreign oligarchs, foriegn politicians and foreign businessmen.
Many of these were people who had already tried the front door and not been able to get through.
So what is it in the Cuban interveiw that you think “puts this in the proper perspective” ?
The proper perspective is pretty simple.
Clinton Foundation is AT BEST a fairly crappy charity.
It is a part of a huge web of entities – many of which are for profit.
Its contributors are to a significant extent people far less attractive than the clintons, and substantially foreign interests.
There was clearly a very close relationship between CF and State that was available to no one else. Many of Clinton’s staff as Sec. State were also paid WELL by CF. Several are currently on the CF board. IT is hard to tell where the state department ended and Clinton Foundation began. Arguably Clinton Foundation was an unofficial arm of the US state department.
If Cuban’s argument is valid – then why doesn’t every other US charity and business have the same backdoor access to the State Department ?
There is a reason we close the back door. Whatever validity there is to Cuban’s argument – you do that in the open, through the front door.
The very existance of a back door is prima facia evidence that there are secret deals, secret preferential treatment, that things were being done outside the oversight of the people or the government. That rings had to be kissed, that the vaunted left wing nut “level playing field” did not exist.
The very fact all this was being done in secret reflects what in criminal terms is called “consciousness of guilt”.
The public business should be conducted “in public” Special favors, to the extent they should exist at all, are the US governments to grant – not Hillary Clinton through Clinton Foundation.
Regardless, presuming Clinton is elected – why should we beleive this will not continue ?
Why is it we should beleive that the presidency is not being used to reward and punish people because of their relation to the Clintons – rather than because of the interests of the country ?
“Clinton Foundation is AT BEST a fairly crappy charity.”
Why, because you say so?
Charity Watch – A rating
http://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
“It is a part of a huge web of entities – many of which are for profit.”
Prove it. And don’t come up with that phony chestnut they hired contractors they knew to perform emergency work or to staff some projects.
“Its contributors are to a significant extent people far less attractive than the clintons, and substantially foreign interests.”
How ignorant an assertion. Either that, or you’re turning out to be addle brained, unable to investigate simple lists of donors, and judge who they are and where they’re from. Or didn’t you bother to look at the Foundation donor lists, which have been published on line for years?
The majority of foreign donations are not from Muslim countries, but from Europe and Canada and Mexico: and from US philanthropic organizations and corporations and banks. Here’s a partial list of the most generous donators:
Donors between $5 and $25 Million:
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) *
Fred Eychaner and Alphawood Foundation
Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation
Nationale Postcode Loterij – Netherlands
The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
UNITAID
Between $1m and $5m:
Citi Foundation, Barclay’s Capital, Goldman Sachs, Standard Chartered
Between $250,000- $1m:
Bank of America Foundation, more Barclay’s, Citigroup, HSBC Holdings, UBS Wealth Management, Banco Santander Brasil, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Americas, Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Global Impact Funding Trust
Among corporate donors to the Clinton Foundation:
* $5m-$10m: Coca-Cola,
* $1m-$5m: Anheuser-Busch, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Hewlett Packard, Humana, Microsoft, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Dow Chemical, Boeing, the Walmart Foundation (as well as the Walton Family Foundation), Toyota,
* $250, 000-$1m: Alibaba Group, Chevron, General Electric, Google, Monsanto, News Corporation (Murdoch), Allstate, Harrah’s, AIG, Freeport McMoRan, McDonald’s, Walmart
More of the same. This is too easy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-22/donald-trump-the-mortgage-broker-was-in-trouble-from-moment-one
If he feathers his nest so blatantly now, imagine the rip offs ahead if this con artist is elected.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9?o9ix30du10s5rk9
And according to AP Clinton foundation and Clinton affiliates were feeding requests from donors to Clinton and her staff, who frequently received access they had been denied when they went through ordinary channels.
Should we just hang a B&B sign on 1600 Pennsylvania avenue ?
As I understand Trump is charging his campaign thousands of dollars for space.
I do not know what the market rate in NYC is but my guess is the prior rate was below market, and now it is the market rate.
AP found 1.8 billion dollars in donations that were uncomfortably related to back channel access to Clinton at State.
Trumps actions were inarguably legal.
AP has thus far said they have found no clear evidence of Quid Pro Quo – which would make this a crime.
The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence.
All or most of these could be wink and nod quid pro quo.
Regardless they all violated government ethics polices.
The all violate the Obama admin transparency policies.
And they all violated the separate agreement that the Clinton’s and her staff signed prior to her appointment as Sec. State.
We are now hearing the changes that are going to be made regarding the Clinton Foundation if Hillary is elected.
As one Pundit noted – as long as the organizations has “Clinton” in their name, they are a giant conflict of interests. The entire purpose of the “Clinton Foundation” etc. is to leverage the Clinton name – otherwise there never was any need for a separate organization.
There are myriads of better managed and more effective charities.
Regardless, as Clinton’s tenure as Sec. State demonstrates – the rules do not apply to her. Agreements are not merely to be violated, they are meaningless.
Why as president should we trust Hillary to behave better than as Sec. State ?
Promises are being made now that she has been caught with her hand in the cookie jar
While should we expect they will be kept ?
The Obama administration campaigned on transparency.
I think that Obama beleived that was an important value and objective.
They imposed some of the most transparent policiies of any administration ever.
I do not think they went far enough, but it was a good start.
Unfortunately as the role of governing progressed, transparency was rapidly sacrificed for expediency.
No one should pretend that transparency does not come at significant cost.
In the end an administration that promised to be the most transparent ever turned out to be the least.
But even in the opaque Obama administration Clinton proved head and shoulders better than all others at hiding her actions.
I would note that while Clinton’s email server was put in place explicitly to protect her communications from FOIA requests, the effect – and possibly secondary intent was to hide them from the government itself.
“And according to AP Clinton foundation and Clinton affiliates were feeding requests from donors to Clinton and her staff, who frequently received access they had been denied when they went through ordinary channels.”
Oooh, Clinton Affiliates, sinister accusation. What affiliates are you insinuating received access?
If Bill Clinton was on the board of directors at the Red Cross, and Hillary showed preference for introductions or access to foreign diplomats to those who promised to make donations to Red Cross affiliated charities, would you be as huffed up with indignation as you are now?
All the money donated to the Clinton Foundation was spent to aide people with philanthropic projects that have received plaudits from the international community monitoring them. This for instance:
“In 2014, the World Health Organization reported that by the end of 2013, more than 11.7 million people were on antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries. While the kinds of drugs have changed, the WHO said “in the past decade the price of individual antiretroviral formulations has decreased considerably.”
“The treatments used in the early days have fallen from a median cost of about $600 in 2003 to about $100 a decade later. A more advanced drug combination introduced in 2005 saw a similar decline. Importantly, the WHO listed the Clinton Health Access Initiative as one of a handful of organizations collaborating on ensuring a steady supply of drugs. The partners in that effort include the biggest players, including several United Nations agencies, PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and UNITAID, a project created by Brazil, Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom.”
http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton/clinton-clinton-foundation-helped-9-million-lower-/
They may have done better with an undercover candidate than relying on undercover voters. Things are really bad when you have to say your candidate is so bad that people who support him will not come out in public with that.
http://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-campaign-manager-says-polls-141820821.html
Jay, you said to Priscilla: “Our paths were similar, Priscilla. As is our spectrum of news and commentary reading. Which makes it even stranger that we’ve come to this firm difference of opinion.” I think you have hit on something quite fundamental. I don’t think it is strange at all that two or more relatively rational and intelligent people can look at the exact same information and come up with opposing opinions. Particularly when sometimes people’s core beliefs are so different. Take for example those who believe in a deity and those who don’t, That core belief is going to alter tremendously how one interprets information. Then within deity believers, do they believe their deity is good, bad, or indifferent. Personal experiences have powerful effects on how we treat information. (Story time!) The Professor Gates arrest years ago, which led to a reference to “Beer Gate” , the cop and the professor meeting with President Obama. Well, my wife, who is black, has had some experiences in her life that made her perceive the limited information she had about the situation as a clear example of police harassment. My experience, as I had once worked as a security guard and was accused of racial bias, instantly saw the cop as the one in the right, and Professor Gates, I was sure was way out of line and in the wrong. Of course neither of us knew the full story, but even if somehow we could have witnessed every last detail, we probably would have come to different conclusions.
Some things are matters of oppinion. One of the problems today – advanced heavily by the left – is that EVERYTHING is a matter of oppinion and that all oppions are equal – when their oppinion is uncommon. When it is common the other view is to be silenced.
You addressed the Gates incident.
While is it possible that we are not fully informed regarding the facts, and an understanding of the situation might change with more full understanding of the facts,
I do not see how this or myriads of similar events are matters of oppinion.
There are real facts as to what occurred.
It is my understanding someone reported a breakin to the police, at the same time Gates was returning home from a trip.
Gates was able to enter his home before encountering the police.
He was not happy about their presence,
The officer persuaded Gates to exit the home
where he arrested him.
The officer has an obligation to investigate a complaint.
But gates has the right to be secure in his property.
Once he was in his home, the officers powers to compel anything from gates were severely limited.
Luring gates out of his home was improper conduct.
The arrest itself was almost certainly improper.
You will notice I did not use “race” once. It is irrelevant.
While it may or may not have been a MOTIVE for the officers conduct,
If his conduct is legal and proper, he can be a racist SOB,
and if it is not, then it is not even if he farts rainbows.
Presuming my facts are correct, we can disagree over what the law SHOULD be,
and it is remotely possible I am inaccurately stating what it is.
But these are NOT disagreements of oppinion.
There is one set of facts – even if I do not have it perfect.
And on set of law.
The only oppinions would be
Is the law corrects as it is ?
Were the officers acts Racist ?
Neither of which matter relative to the specific incident.
An officers actions are either proper – or not.
Regardless of our guess as to motives.
Bad motives do not make a good act bad.
Good motives do not make a bad act good
If in your oppinion, the law is wrong – and in mine it often is, then change the law.
But it is wrong – actually deceiptful, to cast everything as a difference of oppinion.
As to the specifics of the Gates story, you reminded me of what I heard about the alleged “luring” by the police officer, I have no reason to doubt that “luring” or baiting Mr. Gates out of his home occurred, which makes the cop in the wrong. Towards my larger point of differing opinions, I was not saying that truth is relative, nor that right and wrong are relative. To expand on what I said before, one can be rational, intelligent, and let me throw in another qualifier, honest, and still come up with a different, and wrong opinion. For example, consider investors, while many may not be that bright, or well educated in economics, certainly there are those that do their homework, are as honest as possible with themselves before they invest their money, and one will wager the price of something will go down, while another, intelligent, honest investor will look at the same, or nearly the same data a come up with the opposite conclusion, and be wrong. It doesn’t make the one who was wrong a moron or hopelessly inflexible, it was just something in their belief system or background experience, that made them interpret the data different than the one who was right. To bring this back to the Gates story, I think when incidents that spark our conversations and/or debates about things, that we are better served discussing core beliefs as to the role and limits of police power, and what duty, if any, private citizens have in a given situation, rather than arguing what exactly did or did not happen in a specific case.
A completely excellent post Mike, my hat is off, I totally agree. I wish more people thought like you do and were as aware of the distorting lens of life and experience.
Many of the good people of all colors who descend into quasi-racism or just obliviousness to the point of view of other racial or cultural groups had bad experiences that pushed them that way, sometimes, very bad or horrific experiences. We all start out innocent and then life events shape us. We can resist however and many people use their brains and hearts and do just that.
Thanks for the compliment GW. And thanks for the concept as well.
I have a question for Clinton supporters.
Do you think that the rest of the Obama administration would have approved and blessed the Sec State running her own communications – outside of government oversight ?
Do you think that the rest of the administration would have approved of all the back channel dealings and favors for Clinton Foundation donors ?
Pres. Obama clearly had sufficient concerns to require the Clintons and staff to completely sever ties to CF while she was Sec State.
And agreement that quite clearly was violated.
Do you think that Obama’s request was pure PR ? Or that he really did not want this kind of nonsense going on ?
I think the left should be very deeply concerned about all of this.
The incestuous and convoluted scheming here is itself quite damning.
Do you really think Bill and Hillary left the whitehouse and said to themselves – lets follow Jimmy Carter into Charity ?
Even that comparision.
I do not have figures but My guess is Clinton Foundation and affiliates dwarf carters efforts in everything except accomplishment.
Do you think the Clinton’s created this complex web of interconnected for profit and non-profit entities for the purpose of better helping starving africans ?
Do you think Clinton hid all her emails – particularly the CF related ones, because she thought we would all be upset that she was engaged in Charity ?
I would likely oppose what was occuring between state and CF if it had taken place openly. But there is an argument that there is nothing wrong with government favoring donors to charity – even if I personally reject that argument.
Do you think that people would have cared at the time if Clinton was openly receiving Billions that we all could clearly see were going to Charity ?
The Clinton foundation and affiliates are opaque – because they do not want you to see what is going on.
Clinton’s conduct at State was in secret because we were not supposed to see what was going on.
I would also note that this need not be about personal enrichment.
The currency the Clinton’s are most actively trading is POWER.
They are not necescarily trading it for money.
We recently had the DNC scandal where DNC staff was deliberately trying to tank Sanders.
Whether as Sec. State or through CF and affiliates or other means – much of the DNC is beholding to Clinton. Current CF president is Donna Shalala.
Bruce Lindsey is Chairman of the Board.
Other members names that one might recall from politics or State.
Lisa Jackson
Cheryl Mills
“The Clinton foundation and affiliates are opaque ”
Sez you.
The Clinton foundation discloses all of its donors… That’s more than other presidential libraries and foundations.
“The Carter Center, which comes closest in work, also comes closest in size and disclosure. It discloses all but its smallest donors. It raised less money — $88 million — in 2012 (its most recent disclosure year) compared with the Clinton foundation’s $278 million in 2013. But it has more total assets — $584 million to $381 million.”
“The George W. Bush Foundation, which has assets totaling $391 million, lists just corporate backers with no amounts attached. It raised just $37 million in 2013.”
CF discloses what is required to by law.
The fact that State department employees were also employed by CF and doing CF business from the Sec. States offices was not Disclosed by anyone. It was uncovered as a result of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and the fact that a federal judge did not beleive it when State said there were no Clinton emails – oops.
Carter and Bush foundations are NOT comparable.
Jimmy Carter and George Bush are not selling influence.
As already noted I could care less how bad a charity CF is or who is giving it money. Or what the Clinton’s personal involvement is.
If Russian Oligrach’s wish to give the Clinton’s 140M dollars that is there business.
I care greatly that while Clinton was Sec. State it is crystal clear that not only were CF donor’s getting special access to Clinton, but that there is a full circle here.
Sec. Clinton signed off on big deals to people who were Big donors to CF.
The Clinton’s and their cronies are paid by the CF and OWN many of the entities that CF pays for services. Bill Clinton’s receives huge speaking fees – while Hillary Clinton was serving as Sec. State from people who are negotiating with the state department.
While there is no clear evidence of a quid pro quo – unless the Clinton’s were even more stupid than anyone beleives there would not be.
Further Clinton has been lying about all of this from start to finish.
Little of this would be know had Clinton’s email server not come to light.
As to Carter – lets see, most everyone knows what Carter is actually doing.
We see Carter running all over the world building homes refereeing elections. Jimmy Carter is out there in his jeans helping people accross the world. The Carter foundation is a fraction the size of the Clinton foundation.
Do you honestly beleive the Clinton foundation does a fraction of the real good of the Carter foundation ?
As i said before – except that Clinton was HEAVILY involved in all of this WHILE sec state I do not care.
I rich people want to dump buckets of money on the Clinton’s as private citizens – that is none of my business.
When the US government is for sale – that is different.
“The Clinton’s and their cronies are paid by the CF and OWN many of the entities that CF pays for services.”
Show me proof.
“CF discloses what is required to by law.”
I believe you’re incorrect. They disclose MORE then is required by law: the full disclosure of donors and the range of their dollar contributions is not required, but they nevertheless released that info. The Bush charity only releases some of their do or names, but go dollar amounts.
“The Carter foundation is a fraction the size of the Clinton foundation.”
Where do you come up with these misconceptions? You pull them out of your dark anal cavities,without actual investigation?
The Carter Center is larger in staff and affiliates, and though it hasn’t been generating the the yearly donation amounts as the Clinton Foundation, it had more total assets two years ago — $584 million to $381 million.
And yes the Carter Foundation has a lot more projects in place, but they’ve been around a lot longer.
Jay
If Hillary was caught with her hand litterally in the Cookie jar – you would claim she was cleaning it.
140M in donations to CF and 500K speaking fee to Bill and 1/5 of US uranium is suddenly in Russian control.
Couple of million to CF and Saudi prince gets meeting with Sec. State after being turned down through regular channels, and State negotiate multi-million dollar weapons sales to Saudi’s.
It goes on and on. I forget the exact line from the AP, but apparently something over 50% of CF donors received special treatment at the State department.
Dave I don’t want to spend time going over the same stuff over and over: we just got a new Border Terrier female puppy, and she’s running me ragged!
As you know from multiple posts here, the “140M in donations to CF and 500K speaking fee to Bill and 1/5 of US uranium is suddenly in Russian control” is a nonsensical accusation, as 9 other government agencies, including Homeland Security signed off on the deal independently, at a time the Obama Administration was trying to work out other deals with them via Mideast security, etc. if you’re not aware of that, here’s a fact check link to explain it in detail. I hope it stops you from tossing it around again.
URANIUM DEAL
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/
The Saudi Prince deal accusations were debunked too – I’ll dig up that info later if I have time/ energy. But even on the surface, if the Prince only donated to the CF for access to Clinton, and US Arms & Airplane mfgs (was it Boeing ?) ended up with multi-million dollar contracts, isn’t that a double-scoop benefit all the way round? US workers benefit, poor people in 3rd World nations benefit.
And what cookies, exactly, did the Clintons get out of that cookie jar?
I am not that interested in foundation wars.
Carter has been raising money for charity for almost 4 decades – I would hope the Carter Foundation was bigger.
Further does anyone doubt Jimmy Carter actually spends that money on real charity ?
“Do you really think Bill and Hillary left the whitehouse and said to themselves – lets follow Jimmy Carter into Charity ?”
Why do you think they didn’t? Because of your slanted preconceptions?
Like Carter and Bush, the Clinton Foundation evolved out of his presidential library project. Both previous presidents set up charitable foundations after their terms of office, Clinton did the same. By then, he had attained flamboyant celebrity status, and used that to profit from appearance fees equivalent to what movie stars and rock musicians were getting. And Hillary from book advances. The Clintons didn’t make themselves celebrities, the media did. Earlier generations considered that crass; but that celebrity crassness is now the standard for fame and fortune, as Devious Camera Hogging Donald has proven beyond reason.
“I do not have figures but My guess is Clinton Foundation and affiliates dwarf carters efforts in everything except accomplishment.”
Carter has raised more money overall, and has more projects in place, but his foundation has been operating a lot longer. And guess what:
“According to the Center, 3 percent of the total amount of contributions it has received since its founding in 1982 have been from donors in Mideast Arab nations.[48]”
That’s from Wikipedia. The Clinton Foundation has received less than 10% of its donations from Mideast Arab nations. That relatively low number seems to have escaped you.
The more I read about what the Clinton Foundation has actually accomplished, such as lowering the cost of medicines to recipients in third world countries, the more convinced I am that the foundation has done a lot of good. That doesn’t mean that the Clintons themselves could not use the foundation for personal gain. Jay, you often ask for evidence, which seems like a reasonable request, but let me turn it around with a question. If I just cooked up in my wild imagination that while the foundation was doing a lot of good, at the same time Bill was using foundation money to fly first class, spend nights in posh hotels, rental cars, eat the most expensive meals and get massage services all under foundation travel expenses, to attend one, 60 minute meeting somewhere, how could I possibly access records showing enough detail to disprove my imagination? Are those details publicly available? Are they even available to the organizations that rate charities? It seems they look at salaries, they look at what is given to other groups, but based on what I can tell, a “business trip” such as I describe would fall under a direct program expense. I’ll be happy to read through the details if they are available, but most likely we will just have to trust the leader(s) of the foundation. Trust the Clintons, a tad bit hard to do.
I agree, if the Clintons were padding their pockets indirectly as you describe with extravagant use of Foundation resources, that would be sleezy. But I haven’t seen evidence of that.
But then again, without Bill Clinton flying all over the world to smooze rich contributors for donations in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, the Foundation wouldn’t have accumulated as much money as they have. When you’re proselytizing big buck donors for money, you don’t show up in a taxi, with rumpled suit and hat in hand.
Its a charity for gods sake, the Clintons have donated their own money in large amounts that they could have simply pocketed. Perhaps I am just being obtuse, but how have they allegedly profited? As usual they have been oblivious to appearances and left themselves open to innuendo, but it the end they are not richer and in fact are less rich. I’m supposed to accept trump as president because of this? (no one here is saying that I am just venting.)
Have I argued that the Clinton’s are not celebrities ?
They are entitled to as much as they can from book deals, speaking fees, director’s fees, stock dividends – whatever.
I do not begrudge the Clinton’s monetizing their fame.
Do I think the CF does some Charity – sure.
Do I think that is why it exists ? Not a chance.
With respect to Carter and Bush.
Do you honestly doubt that Carter is engaged in Charity ?
Do you honestly think that the Clinton’s in anyway compare to Carter in Charity ?
Yup It makes perfect sense that the natural progressiion is from Presidential Library to slush fund.
Are saudi princes getting favorable treatment from the State department while negotiating arms deals in return for donations to the Carter and Bush foundations ?
We can fight over whether the Clinton Foundation is a real charity – it does not matter.
If Clinton was not able to build a real chinese wall between it and her role as Sec. State then she should not have taken the job. And if she can not manage that she can not be trusted as President.
Have I argued they can not engage in charity
Are Saudi Princes and Russian Oligarchs donating to Carter Foundation in return for favorable treatment by the state department.
Do you think that anyone donating to the Carter Foundation expects anything from that donation Except:
Whatever public relations benefit might accrue ?
The warm and fuzzy feelings from giving money to charity ?
Please – without doing a web search can you name a single real on the ground with the people act of direct charity the Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton’s) have done ?
How about Carter/Carter Foundation ? I can think of numerous carter projects right off the top of my head.
If you wanted to give to real effective Charity – which would you pick Carter ? Clinton ?
If you wanted a uranium deal of some F16’s who would you pick ?
“Are Saudi Princes and Russian Oligarchs donating to Carter Foundation in return for favorable treatment by the state department.”
Dumb question: two different time frames. Let’s ask if Bush2 did any favors for the Saudis in return for the $20 million they donated to build the Bush Library.
The answer is that both Bush presidents “have had personal and deep financial ties with the Saudi royal family. Author and journalist Craig Unger documents $1.4 billion that has “made its way” from the Saudi royal family to “entities tied” to the Bush family, according to Unger’s controversial book “House of Bush, House of Saud.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-tangled-web-of-us-saudi-ties/
There was a lot palsy walsy stuff going on there. And we don’t know if the Saudis directly or indirectly have supported the Bush Foundation because they dont release a full donor list.
And although the Saudis gave a similar amount to start the Bill Clinton library, that was way before Hillary was Sec of State; and they didn’t give anything during the time she held that position.
GW;
In the future can I hold you to the assertion that Goldberg is “solid people” ?
TNM clearly reflects a number of disparate political perspectives.
GW has asserted that it seems like a libertarian echo chamber.
Odd because I think it tilts pretty far left.
I do not see TNM is unbalanced in that it reflects a very narrow range of political perspectives.
My problem is that so many of the arguments made – regardless of the perspective they are identified with are obviously fallacious.
Contrary to how I am represented here – my natural inclinations lean LEFT.
Many of the freedoms I advocate for were standard fare for the left in the 60’s.
Do you know that California started down the road to Gun Control when the Black Panthers took to the streets carrying rifles ? Do you know that militant blacks advocated for broad gun rights, while Gov. Reagan passed the first California Gun Control Bill ?
Regardless, convince me that what you seek to do will:
Actually work
Will not infringe on individual liberty
And I will give it serious thought.
I have said this before and I will again. I got to a fairly extreme libertarain position pragmatically.
I am hard pressed to think of much that government actually does well.
We spend just under 8T of the wealth we produce – that is just under half on government.
Who here gets from government value equal to half your pay?
“Contrary to how I am represented here – my natural inclinations lean LEFT.”
Dave..One has to be careful on how they describe others and how they describe themselves. When a comment like this is made, the first reaction is to put that person in the category of “spend alot, tax more, regulate more and remove government from ones social values”.
Now, if one says “my natural inclinations lean right”, the first reaction by others would be to lump this person into the category of “gut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, remove all regulations to allow industries to run amuck and to impose Christian values on all citizens, regardless of their personal values”
And after reading all the comments from you on your positions, you are no where near what is defined in politics as “left”. And you are also no where near “right”. That is what is so hard for people to understand about Libertarians.
We get categorized as drug loving, anti-government isolationists which is not right. Trying to convince people that Libertarians want what many main stream Americans want is difficult. When taking surveys and they ask people if they are “Strong Conservative, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal or Strong Liberal”, no where will you ever find the category “Strong fiscal Conservative, Strong Social Liberal” or some form of that category. Maybe people would find they are closer to Libertarian than they think when they pick that category and find which party aligns with that thinking.
Now I may be completely wrong about you positions, but so far many have aligned with mine, while going further right on regulations than I may go, but they are still close to being the same.
There is a massive problem with the inaccuracy of labels.
The political spectrum is multidimensional and each of us fits into it uniquely.
But for the fat that the left has coopted the term I would describe myself as liberal – one who values liberty.
A tradition that includes Locke, Smith, Hume, Franklin, Burns, Mills, Thoreaux.
Not people who would be described as right or conservative.
I am as opposed to the right opposing its values on people as the left.
I would also note that the left has moved.
In the 60’s students we demanding the right to free speech on campus. To bring in controversial speakers. Now they are demanding the right to trigger warnings, safe spaces, and to supress the speech of others.
The ACLU fought to allow the Nazi’s to march through Skokie.
I fought to allow the KKK to march through my town – and then protested as they marched.
After we got married the city tried to shutdown the local adult bookstore.
They converted briefly to a private “club” with $5 memberships.
My wife and I both bought one. I have not been in an adult bookstore since – unless “babeland” in NYC counts.
Being liberal for me means fighting for the actual rights of people who are scorned.
The most rights any of us have are the least rights we assure the most disreputable.
I thought that was “liberal”. It used to be.
No prosecutor on earth wants me on a jury – I know what reasonable doubt means. I find it odd that so many on the left are defending Clinton’s misconduct. No it does not rise to the level where I could convict her of a crime. That said most people are convicted on far less. Regardless.
Guilty beyond a reaonable doubt, is not the standard we use for non-criminal choices. If you read in the news that someone three states away got sick from tainted food at mcdonlds – do you demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt – or do you just avoid mcdonalds for a while ?
I have supported equal rights for gays since I figured out what homosexuality actually was in college.
If I did not support equal rights for women my wife would bean me.
My kids are chinese and korean. Most of my freinds are not white.
Most are to my right.
No labels like left right do not work.
With respect to your assertions that the left is (more recently) associated with big government – true.
Even there. I have read enough and seen enough in the real world to grasp that big government just plain does not work.
I beleive that it is no accident that limited government and maximum freedom results in the fastest improvement in standard of living.
But honestly – prove me wrong. Show me that big government really has worked, that I am wrong and the few successes of government are not LESS that the odds of success by random chance, demonstrate that big govenrment actually delivers and I will change.
As I said it is not accident that limited government works best.
If big government actually worked that would be compelling evidence that the ideology was sound too.
All the theoretical and ideological objections I have to progressivism, and in favor of libertarianism ultimately rest on one foundation – liberty works, while restraining it does not.
Just to be clear – the philosophy is important. But it is most important because it explains why what we see in reality is true.
Liberty works because more free people have demonstrably done far better than less free ones. All the arguments about principles, morality and the like – as incredibly important as they are are relevant because they are the REASON that liberty works.
On the surface I agree with everything you said – your ‘liberal’ history is parallel to mine.
Our differences about government are in degree- we have different views on where the balance point rests between too much government and too little. And as populations grow, and become more complex in a world in turmoil, it becomes more difficult to keep it in balance.
This is off-topic, but I’m genuinely curious to know how my free-market/libertarian friends respond to the EpiPen issue. Does a private company have a right to charge prohibitive prices for a life-saving drug? If it owns the patent, after all, why not just let the drug be accessible to those who can pay the price?
Anyone see the need for outside controls here? (As it turns out, Mylan finally lowered the price after the public outcry — but if the public needs to protest in order to gain justice, I think there’s something wrong with the system.)
They lowered the price after the stock plunged from the negative publicity, and cartoonists nationally savaged the woman CEO who jacked up her income.
The time a medical patent is in force should be shortened.
They did not lower the price. If you are uninsured or underinsured then you get a discount and it is “only” $300.00. And if you have insurance, how do they define “underinsured”.
They halved the price by introducing a generic version
“The company, Mylan, said on Monday that the generic EpiPen would be identical to the existing product, which is used to treat severe allergic reactions. But it will have a wholesale list price of $300 for a pack of two, half the price of the brand-name EpiPen.”
So you are defending a $300.00 price tag? For a item with a documented $1.00 worth of drug and a few cents of plastic and metal for the device? In Canada you can get the $600.00 product for $200.00. And you can buy them one at a time at $100.00. That is because canada does not have all the middle men, red tape and other issues the USA has that drives drugs higher.
And how convenient that mylan has decided to produce a generic at this time. Would they be doing that had this not hit the fan? I suspect not, they would have continued to gauge the public. I am a free market person, but when the free market is not really free and is manipulated by government regulations to assist monopolies to screw the public, then that is when government needs to step in and fix their processes to eliminate the protections they give.
And now that Mylan will produce a generic, i suspect one pen in canada will cost somewhere between $50.00 to $75.00 or if you want two ($100.00 to $150.00) still 1/2 the price as in the USA.
Same product, same ingredients twice the price. Why?
I wasn’t defending them at all Ron.
How did you come to that conclusion?
I was just clarifying that the negative media coverage forced them to drop the price in effect.
Too much early afternoon Scotch&Soda? 😇
Well damn, that’s what’s wrong with trying to communicate via written text. There is no way to hear the way something is said. I looked at what you said and “assumed” that cutting the price to $300.00 was an OK price for the drug.
Please accept my apology for “assuming” again. You know what I made of myself with that!!!
The epipen was developed in 1974. Patents are 20 years max.
Any patent on current epipens is on an improvement and does nto apply to the basic technology.
I beleive there is alot wrong with our intelectual property system – though the worst problems are with copyrights not patents.
On some level I might join you in shortening medical patents
EXCEPT that I beleive that motivating legislators to act will make the problems worse not better.
The odds are far greater that if government does anything on patents we will end up with longer not shorter ones.
This is what has happened to copyrights.
The first copyright law set a copyright at 14 years with on request a 14 year extension. Today copyrights san last as long as nearly two centuries.
I do not want congress to touch patent law, because they are almost certain to make it worse rather than better.
Sounds like the market works.
If a hundred people jumped out of a burning plane and only one parachute opened would the parachute market be working?
Get the example or do I have to spell it out for you?
Rick, you might want to take some time to research the way patents in the drug industry work, how the process for approving generic drugs work, how the purchase of a drug from one company to another works, how much money the drug companies give the legislators and how legislations impacts the cost and distribution of a drug.
You ask “Does a private company have a right to charge prohibitive prices for a life-saving drug? If it owns the patent, after all, why not just let the drug be accessible to those who can pay the price? I want to turn this around and ask “If Sheldon Kaplan was given the Epi Pen patent (US Patent 4,031,893) on June 28, 1977 and it was the 80’s that the EpiPen was first distributed for public use, why is our government still protecting this product with a patent?
It is my understanding that various companies that have owned Epipen since that time have made some adjustments to the delivery system and each time a new patent is given that now extends that protection to 2025. I do not believe this type of protection is needed and the reason they can now charge $600.00 is due to the protectionist nature of our government when it comes to drugs.
You have offered a question that requires “free market individuals” to give reasons why additional regulations should not be imposed to control drug prices. I offer a question as to why it would not be beneficial to remove government regulations that allow for patents to continue for almost 40 years for the same basic item?
I want to make sure you also understand I realize that companies that take years to develop, test and spend millions if not into the billions for drugs need some protection so they can recover costs. But the current system that has been bought and paid for where politicians receive millions from big-pharma and they turn around and provide legislation that provides for 40 year patents is immoral to say the least.
Your suggested solution will never pass until money from big pharma is removed from politics and drug money is no longer used to lobby legislators. And guess what, my solution is stuck in the same trap. One only needs to go to websites like “opensecrets” and look for contributions to candidates to see how much money candidates receive as “protection money” for big pharma.
By the way, one can go inline to Canadian pharmacies and still buy Epipens for $100.00 in single dose packaging, much the same as until the last 5 years or so. And $100.00 for a product costing just over $1.00 is still too high.
Ron,do you think that Joe Manchin could have had any undue influence on his daughter’s company’s ability and/or decision to raise prices?
I know that the ACA has formularies specifying what drugs or versions of drugs may be covered by Obamacare plans. Wondering what, if any, pressure or influence a senator might have on these lists.
It’s hard for me to believe that there isn’t some connection, but that may be my cynicism mixed in with the obvious potential conflicts……..
I don’t believe that any one elected official has had any undue influence on the price of any one drug. I do believe that most elected officials will vote with the drug companies since the drug companies plow so much money into lobbying to get what they want. I would say that any elected officials that introduced a bill or supported a bill that reduced the patent protections would find reelection very hard given the millions of dollars the drug companies would pay to run ads and promote a more favorable candidate to their cause.
I also do not think the ACA has had much impact on drug pricing. I do believe that the total number of people covered by drug insurance today compared to 10-15 years ago when you began to see drug prices rising much higher than inflation has caused this problem. And the benefit managers that negotiate prices for drugs also have caused some of the increase.
This goes back to the same problem with rising hospital charges. In the 90’s we were negotiating with a benefit manager to include our hospital in their network. They had data and we had the same data that showed our hospital had the lowest charges in the area for the 10 most common inpatient services. for instance, for maternity and newborn care, we were 23% less than the next hospital in charges and we had a new facility while the other was in a 50 year old building. We were told “we can not sell your hospital in our network unless you can show a discount of almost 10% like all the other hospitals in the area.” So to get into their network, we raised rates 10% and gave them a discount since they represented a large majority of the businesses in the city. Who got the shaft, people without insurance because our gross charges had to be the same for everyone due to medicare regulations.
So when these drug benefit companies go out and negotiate with insurance companies and employers, they have to have a discount to get the employer business. Just like my EOB shows when I get a prescription from mail order firm it shows “Drug Charge, $102.00, Co-pay $15.00, paid by plan $37.55. That means that about $60.00 is discounted, but for someone without insurance, they are paying the full $102.00.
And like I said earlier, continuing a patent on a 40 year old drug is immoral to say the least.
““Drug Charge, $102.00, Co-pay $15.00, paid by plan $37.55. That means that about $60.00 is discounted, but for someone without insurance, they are paying the full $102.00”
Yes, this is becoming more and more of a problem as those people who don’t qualify for subsidized healthcare are, more and more, being forced to choose high deductible plans, because those plans are the only affordable ones. Another problem is government restriction of certain high cost drugs, in order to control overall costs of healthcare
I worked with a young woman who had MS, and it was being well-controlled by a new drug, which because it was new, was very expensive, and there was no generic version. After the ACA was passed, it turned out that the drug was not covered by her insurance, because of its high cost and the variety of other drugs available to treat MS.
The problem for my friend was that the other drugs did not work nearly as well for her, and had negative side effects. But, she couldn’t afford to pay the full cost of the new drug, which was something like $700 (!) a month. Plus, the cost of the drug would not even go toward her high deductible and out-of-pocket maximum.
She ultimately got coverage for the drug, with help from her doctor, who backed up her claims of needing that specific treatment. But there are many people out there who have insurance, but still don’t have access to the newest and most effective drug therapies for their conditions. I get the pharma companies need to recoup their costs, but it seems that, in the case of truly groundbreaking therapies for catastrophic illnesses, withholding insurance coverage is also immoral.
I am not sure what the answer to the problem is. After working in healthcare finance for 40 years, there was never a time when there was not some form of problems in paying for treatments or services. Doctors and hospitals long ago stopped accepting animals, food and other staples as a form of payment when patients did not have the money!
Right now we have a system where the insured population is paying whatever the insurance companies negotiate. We have the drug companies buying up other drug companies or buying individual drugs (like Mylan did with EpiPens) and reducing competition which increases prices. And then those without insurance or those like your friend get screwed as they do not have a voice in the negotiated prices. Only a small percentage of people fight the companies like your friend did.
I would like to see a much more level playing field with only a couple government laws regulating healthcare pricing (Drugs and Hospitals). One, much shorter patent periods for new drugs without any renewals after the original patent runs out ; two, a much faster review process for generic drugs to insure they get to market, but are also equivalent in therapies and three, all patients from medicare to self pay are charged the same price without any discounts for any reason other than low income credit vouchers for individuals unable to pay for their drugs based on income. It is highly unfair for a drug company to jack up prices on a 40 year old patent protected drug (due to minor changes over the years to the delivery process), give certain huge insurance companies with massive covered lives 50% to 75% discounts if they put the drug in their formulary and then make the most unable to pay full cost of the drug other than those on the lowest income level. I eliminate doctors from regulatory charge control as they are private citizens and should be able to charge whatever the market can handle. Now if the physicians are employees of a health system, then the same regulations would apply to their charges as those would be health system charges and not the doctors charging.
But this will never happen!
“Drug Charge, $102.00, Co-pay $15.00, paid by plan $37.55. That means that about $60.00 is discounted, but for someone without insurance, they are paying the full $102.00”
That’s a second round of price lowering for those with health insurance.
The first round saw a reduction from a median cost of about $600 to about $100. That included a more advanced drug combination introduced in 2005, which had a similar cost decline.
Plus the UNITAID organization praised the Clinton a Foundation for collaborating with drug manufactures to insure a steady supply of those drugs to places where patients had little access to the drugs. They helped set up distribution chains and additional medical facilities to dispense the treatments.
How can any rational personal dispute that this was a positive life saving CF project collaboration, and give them the credit they deserve?
Jay, what the hell are you talking about? The example I gave was for my hypertension medication and the example as to how someone without insurance is covering the discount. It is called cost shifting when a company jacks up the price, gives a selected group a huge discount and another group has to pay the full ride to cover the discount for the first group. Its like GM giving fleet discounts to rental companies and then you are paying $3K to 4K more for a car to cover these discounts.
Epipens cost $57.00 in 2007 right about the time that most employers contracted for drug coverage. Epipens have gone from $58.00 9 years ago to $600.00 for no other reason that they can increase prices, offer discounts to benefit managers and employers and screw the patients without coverage or do not have adequate insurance.
What the hell does UNITAID have to do with this????? All I see on their website is Malaria, HIV and TB. Not a thing about anaphylaxis.
First there is no difference between a private company and a private individual.
Next everything of value is inherently “life saving”
Indoor plumbing saves lives.
So you have misframed the question, which really is
Can someone charge whatever they want for whatever is theirs ?
And the answer is clearly yes.
With specific respect to epipens – though this applies to pretty much everything else.
There is no such thing as something that is indispensible or irreplaceable.
The recent increase in the price of epipens will result in competition, and/or the development of alternatives.
An epipen is an interesting device. It is not the only way to solve the problem.
There is no such thing as a problem with only one solution.
Though this is slightly tangential – as even if the epipen was patented and the drug was available from only one source – alternatives are still possible – and the surest way to find them is for a vendor to price themselves too high.
In the specific case of the epipen that basic technology is almost 50 years old – well beyond patent expiration, and the drug is over 100 years old.
It is possible that some improvements since 1974 have been patented, but that does not preclude duplicating the older design or coming up with a patent free new design yourself.
We see this “oh my god something life saving have been priced astronomically” memes from the left all the time.
If you bother to study prices, you will learn that the long term trend in the price (in labor needed to purchase it) of every is universally DOWN.
Please name a single thing that has an upward price trend (in labor needed to purchase)
over a greater than 10 year period ?
Please name a single thing that has spiked a high price and STAYED high priced for long ?
Extremely high prices are very common on new things – whether medicines or anything else. Over the long run all prices come down.
This is an economic principle – “Demand curves slope DOWN!”
Nothing will assure a drop in price more than over pricing something.
There is no example in the history of the world of price controls that actually worked.
I responded to Jay that I would support changes to the duration of medical patents – except that I beleive that if we touch patent law at all that will ultimately result in longer rather than shorter patents.
That is what has happened to copyrights.
I am extremely ambivalent over intellectual property.
First – ideas and expressions are not property. They do not share the attributes of actual property, the entire Intelectual Property concept is a deliberately deceptive use of words.
I call those on the left for deceptively using words – like force.
That does not mean we do not see the same elsewhere.
So first – the things that patents and copyrights apply to are NOT property.
Therefore the concepts that apply to property do not apply to them.
The question with respect to patents and copyrights is whether the assertion in the constitution that granting creators a temporary monopoly fosters “the advance of science and the useful arts” is actually meaninful.
i.e. to patents and copyrights advance progress ?
There has been alot of research into this and like gun control no conclusive results.
In most industries patenting is defensive.
IBM as an example studied patenting and determined that the benfits of patents for IBM was less than the cost – but they had to continue patenting otherwise they would not have patents to license in return when they were sued for infringement.
“except that I believe that if we touch patent law at all that will ultimately result in longer rather than shorter patents.”
I am in total agreement with you on this. If any bill came up to change the length of time or the process for updating drugs that allow for new patents on existing products, the drug companies would plow so much money into the coffers of the senators that appear to be leaning for shortening the period that a shorter period would die before getting to the floor and then one with longer patents would fly through.
A little history on Epipens…. “In 1973, when Sheldon Kaplan was finalizing the design concept for the EpiPen, he was approached by the U.S. Department of Defense, which was looking for a device that could quickly inject an easily deliverable antidote for nerve gas. Kaplan’s design was for a device that a person could easily stick into one’s thigh, prompting a spring-loaded mechanism to push a needle containing life-saving medicine into the user’s bloodstream. Kaplan’s invention became known as the ComboPen, and was initially used by the Pentagon before becoming available for use by the general public several years later as the EpiPen.”….Over the years various companies owned this product that the defense department paid to have developed and in 2007 Mylan acquired the rights and the patent.
Before Mylan acquired this product, Merck sold the product for $50.00 in 2004. Double that since Mylan decided that they would only sell them in the United States in two pen sets gives you $100.00. Little price changes occurred during the first few years of the Mylan acquisition, but even taking the $100.00 in 2004 and increasing it 10% each year, far greater than inflation, the cost today would be $313.00. However, not until Mylan performed a tax inversion and moved to the Netherlands did the cost of the pens grow substantially.
So I believe it was Dave that said everything decreases in price over years of existence in a previous message, not related to Epipens. But this contradicts his position as this drug continued to increase. Even applying the inflation to the $100.00 since 2004 would create a price of $127.39. So prices do rise over time for existing products and Mylan is getting all the bad press it deserves based on these numbers.
But nothing will change and we will continue to get the shaft from drug companies. And most of those are foreign companies with profits going somewhere else except America, even though American provide most of their revenues. Why else would all the drug companies be homebased in some European countries.
By the way, this is a “Trump is Melting article”. Now Trump commented almost immediately after hearing Kaepernick refuse to stand for the national anthem and said he should find another country to live in. Did anyone hear him say anything about price gouging by Mylan? I searched and could find nothing on the web.
I agree with you on all you said.
Imagine that ! 😇
The other issue you have here is government – you knew I was going to say that didn’t you ?
Particularly in the medical area approvals are so hard to get, take so long and cost so much money that they significantly delay not merely the time to market for the original product but also of generics.
It appears all the patents etc. of relevance on the epipen have expired.
It is likely that no competitor arrose because the market is too small to justify getting through the approval process – even where patents have expired.
I do not know what the cost for medical devices is, but getting a new drug to market often costs $1B.
Left wing nuts like to rant that drug companies spend more on advertising – of course they do. If you spent $1B to get a drug to market you damn well better sell an awful lot of it.
Generic approvals are easier that new drugs – but they still are time consuming and expensive. We do not see generics for everything that we could – because it is often not worth the cost of getting approved.
I was very tangentially involved in the release of a generic Nitro Glycerin tablet.
The FDA changed their rules and shut down the generic.
That boosted the price of the original.
The new FDA rules would have taken 3 years to get through and the generic producer decided it was not worth the hassle.
There was alot of politics involved – the non-generic was from a big US company and the generic was from a small foreign company.
But hey – the left and the right seem stupidly in agreement right now that keeping low skill US jobs is so important.
So how about your epipen ? Are you willing to accept $30 epipens – made in China, if that means some US company loses jobs ?
Here is a pretty good article on why the epipen problem is a Government problem.
It adds far more detail to what I have already said
Ron P;
Patents can not be “renewed” in the US.
I beleive they are 20 years from the application date.
One of the laws that can go away is that requiring that no one who accepts payment from the government can charge someone else less for that service.
This has been a killer in healthcare – as it prohibits hospitals and doctors from discounting services to poor people.
There are regular stories of doctors ceasing to accept medicare – so that they are free to provide services to indigent patients at lower costs.
And I am pretty sure there actually are a few doctors that still take chickens.
Though the destruction of the barter economy has been another “benefit” of government, which has more recently declared war on the “cash” economy.
I do not personally use cash much anymore – but the more the government tries to force me not to the more inclined I am to do so.
I feel like I am back in school and each word written is being scrutinized. Yes, you are right, patents can not be renewed. But companies do extend patents through what is called “evergreening”. I will let you read the article I attached as it explains the issue much better than I ever could.
What I don’t understand is why did the government issue a patent on a device it paid for the development of and how can a product be changed enough to keep a patent going on something that was created in 1977. A patent is good for 20 years, so that takes it to 1997. How did they get another 20 years???
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/08/is-the-us-patent-office-to-blame-for-the-epipen-price-hike
Clinton Foundation Is Not a Scandal. It’s a Phenomenal, Life-Saving Success.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/08/25/clinton_foundation_scandal_aids_relief_work_is_a_success.html
You link to an article in Slate that starts by claiming that Matt Yglesias debunk an AP story ?
Really ? Now the left media is attacking itself ? I mean you really want me to beleive that AP got it wrong ?
Further one needs to be very careful with statements that Some Charity spent x$ on Y or was very successfull.
Measured how ? The Aides initiative that Yglesias focuses on is definitely something there was alot of CF effort on – but what did they actually do – besides have lots of very high salaried staff meet with lots of other people to talk to them about doing things.
CF’s staffing is extremely top heavy and high for charitable work.
Probably because it is a sinecure for Clinton Cronies.
Charity experts advise being very careful about self aggrandizing claims of any charity.
Here is the global aids/HIV diagnosis/death rates for the past 40 years.
Issues like this are not unique to CF or charity – spending money rarely has a noticable effect on any actual problem
This is no difference from PPACA saves lives and its opponents want people to die – not true.
With respect to AIDs – CF has spent money on it. Whether that money has really been spent on much that is useful is a different question.
Regardless of all the money spent on Aids by everyone – there is no noticeable world wide effect on trends. If anything Aids is proving to be tenacious and appears to be continuing to kill over the long run at fairly close to constant rates.
There are several reasons this matters:
The first is getting together and spending lots of money talking about aides and patting each other on the back for spending money on aides is not actually doing anything.
Another is that charitable aide is and has always been (not exclusive to Clinton Foundation) a very effective means to engage in corruption.
In the past 40 years $1T has been spent on aide to africa – with nothing to show for it.
Lots of money has been given to lots of charities, Lots has been given in foreign aide.
Very very little of that money actually leaves the country of origen. In the US – which is better than most 80% of US aide dollars are spent inside the US, on US goods and US staff, often providing services that never leave the US.
If what leaves the US – the majority is pocketted by foreign dictators.
Often what actually turns into direct aide actually HARMS the people it is targeted at.
Again most of this is not unique to CF.
Before the Clinton’s foreign aide and much foreign charity has been and ineffective racket.
Very good points about charities in general. I don’t personally consider myself much of a “Yin-Yang” philosophy guy, but there seems almost an inescapable connection between things that are really, really, good, like Mother Theresa type sacrifice groups and sheer graff criminals trying to mirror and sucker people out of their money standing virtually shoulder to shoulder next to the good ones. I remember years ago someone was showing me a map of New York City, I had never been there, she pointed out areas that were extremely rich, areas that were middle class, and areas that where very poor. What I found fascinating about it was it seemed to my eye, that there was ALWAYS an extremely poor area adjacent to an extremely rich area. Seemed almost symbiotic. I drew the rash conclusion that the rich areas “needed” the poor areas to have a place to buy their drugs and other vices. And thus the poor area was there because of market demand for it.
“there was ALWAYS an extremely poor area adjacent to an extremely rich area. ”
The classic 1930s Hollywood Dead End meme.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_End_(1937_film)
“With respect to AIDs – CF has spent money on it. Whether that money has really been spent on much that is useful is a different question.”
You really are a tedious bore. It’s like arguing with a constantly flushing toilet – you don’t listen, you drown out the facts with a gurgling flush. I posted this in the comments above, I’ll try one more time:
“In 2014, the World Health Organization reported that by the end of 2013, more than 11.7 million people were on antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries. While the kinds of drugs have changed, the WHO said “in the past decade the price of individual antiretroviral formulations has decreased considerably.”
“The treatments used in the early days have fallen from a median cost of about $600 in 2003 to about $100 a decade later. A more advanced drug combination introduced in 2005 saw a similar decline. Importantly, the WHO listed the Clinton Health Access Initiative as one of a handful of organizations collaborating on ensuring a steady supply of drugs. The partners in that effort include the biggest players, including several United Nations agencies, PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and UNITAID, a project created by Brazil, Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom.”
That’s from a Politifact article, I linked to it above. But here’s a more thorough article that shows how successful the Clinton Foundaton continues to be in lowering costs to users of the AIDS medicines.
http://www.unitaid.eu/en/resources/news/198-unitaid-and-the-clinton-hivaids-initiative-announce-new-price-reductions-for-key-drugs.
Whether that money was spent on anything useful is NOT really a different question.
If I give $1M to my church to care for the homeless, and a year later the money is gone, but no homeless person has been sheltered or fed and there is no measurable evidence of the church having accomplished anything, but they are busy celebrating all the work they have done for the homeless. That they have met with community leaders, and had meetings to discuss the problems and potential solutions. That they have raised the community conscience on the matter of homelessness.
Maybe you would feel differently – but I would be complaining about fraud.
This is typical of the left. All you are concerned about is emotions and intent. Things no human can actually know about another.
In the real world we are judged on our actions and on their results.
And if we are smart we determine peoples intentions by they actions and results.
As I noted before – $1T have been spent on aide to africa in the past 40 years with no improvement.
In 2013 the UN produced a list of the top issues in Africa and their solutions. In the 1930’s a british colonial commissioner produced a similar list. Neither the problems nor the solutions have changed in nearly a century. But lots of people have benefited. Corrupt african leaders, aide workers, there managers and the organizations that sponsor them.
I noted that we spent over $8B in Haiti after the earthquake – that would be the equivalent of the rest of the world spending 16T in aid to the US.
The Clinton Foundation touts its involvement in Haiti. The earthquake happened, vast amounts of money was spent and Haiti is little better off that it was immediately after the earthquake.
The really really good charitable organizations, The catholic church the mennonite central commission, possibly the Carter Foundation, are not particularly effective. Most of the rest are arguably as much of a problem as the corrupt leaders.
The fundamental claim regarding Clinton Foundation is that it is a jobs program – for the Clintons, for their friends, for their chronies, for people they hope to put into responsible positions in government when they come to power and will expect a return for the sinecure they were provided at CF.
The left seems to think that as long as money is being spent, and the label “charity” can be ascribed to that spending. That it is not necessary that actual good is being done. Only that the appearance of doing good exists.
This criticism is not unique to CF – which at most I think is more egregiously self serving than most charities. It is a common problem with charities. Nor is this criticism unique to charities – this is little different from many of the criticisms I have made of government. And infact these are related and intertwined. Much of the money to Africa and Haiti was from governments. Much of what Clinton foundation is involved with is the nexus between charitiable organizations and government.
There is an entire foreign aide ecosystem – it is inarguably corrupt. It does not serve those it claims to help – it often actually harms those intended to help.
What is unique about CF is that it has profited by closing the circle.
Government Aid to foreign countries results in money in the pockets of non-foreign companies and foreign leaders. Donations from companies and foreign leaders results in government aide to foreign countries.
How stubbornly stupid are you?
Did you read the UNITAID article?
They’re a multi national organization formed by Brazil, Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom to provide innovative approaches to global health. Did you read the positive life saving results attributed to the Clinton Foundation to achieve those reductions in medical costs to treat AIDS? You think they invented the positive data?
You really are turning out to be a blockheaded Trump-like moron, a rationalizing idiot who wont give credit where credit is due, one of those #NeverHillary one-sided cement brains unwilling to accept reality if it’s different from your arbitrary views.
You: mulish, pig-headed, doctrinaire, stiff-necked, obdurate, inflexible, pain in the ass jerk.
Dave you have failed here. Jay has patiently picked apart all your phony facts. I don’t know where he finds the time or patience.
Your phony facts are as worthless as Sen McCarthy’s list of names. You hate the left, OK we get it. You can’t make an actual factual argument about the Clinton Foundation that holds water, though you’ve been trying for a month. You’ve literally been wrong about everything but you are still cheerfully flinging pure BS.
Fanaticism does not entitle you to your own set of facts. You have lost.
GW, I think you’re being unfair here. There are literally dozens of well-researched articles criticizing the Clinton Foundation’s role in Haiti. And, while it’s true that many of them may be from journals that are biased against the Foundation, it is just as true that many of the “facts” supporting the foundation’s spending are also from biased sources.
The Washngton Post is generally regarded as a mainstream news source. According to its fact check of Trump’s lawyer’s claim that “hundreds of millions of dollars was raised for a hospital that was never built” it gave 4 Pinocchios. The article doesn’t let the Foundation off the hook,however. In the same article:
“The Clinton family’s charitable work in Haiti has been a mix of success, disappointment and controversy.”
“The Government Accountability Office found poor planning and unsustainable outcomes for taxpayer-funded projects through USAID, such as a $170 million power plant and port for the Caracol Industrial Park, which the Clinton Foundation promoted.”
“Hillary Clinton’s younger brother had connections to a mining project in Haiti, raising suspicions among Haitians about the Clintons’ motives. Luxury hotel projects paid by the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund promised construction jobs — but for Haitians, it represented another disconnect between Clinton-backed efforts and the realities of one of the poorest countries struggling to rebuild after one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the Western Hemisphere.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/13/did-the-clinton-foundation-raise-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-for-a-hospital-in-haiti-that-was-never-built/
So, I would say that neither glowing reports of the Foundation’s work, nor claims that it does nothing are factual. There are real questions about the amount of money taken in – investigations have turned up years of tax returns that neglected to report millions in foreign donations – as well as how donated funds have actually been spent. There’s a real likelihood that we will never get the straight answers to these questions, but that shouldn’t stop people from asking them, nor from defending the Clintons, if they so choose. It’s easy to claim that each side is using “phony facts”, but the reality is that neither side really has access to all of the facts.
“So, I would say that neither glowing reports of the Foundation’s work, nor claims that it does nothing are factual. There are real questions about the amount of money taken in – investigations have turned up years of tax returns that neglected to report millions in foreign donations – as well as how donated funds have actually been spent. ”
I can live with this assessment. Dave on the other hand has provided really bogus facts from the get go that have failed every fact check as far as I can tell without painfully reading every single word of the exchange (so I may be guilty of hyperbole here by not reading every word) and ignored all the positive evidence of money spent in earnest trying to do good things. All those plans may not always turn out to fix things drastically, but the money has been spent earnestly on do gooding. Its the kind of thing that Dave would likely support if it were not that it is was a product of a family from his dreaded “left.” The libertarian argument here could easily be “its the Clintons and donors money, they should be free to spend it on do gooding as they like.” That sounds pretty libertarian to me. Instead there is an ideological filter at work turning every action of the CF that can be “suspected” by someone to be sinister into something that is actually sinister. Until someone comes up with something evil deed that actually stands up to scrutiny and is not just some political operative’s hopeful suspicion I am tuning this out!
The Clintons have given tens of millions of their own speaking fees into the the CF. How can this be a get rich scam for their family? They could just keep their speaking fees and give that to the family members if that was the goal. This alleged scam is the most round about way of enriching the Clintons that I can think of, it fails the Ocam’s razor test. I think they have more than enough money for their needs and are doing charity work that they believe in, its a normal ex presidential idea.
The scandal machine has tired me out on this one. People who just don’t want a liberal democrat as president are using this as a weapon instead of talking about what their real issue is, e.g., the tax code, immigration.
“The Clinton family’s charitable work in Haiti has been a mix of success, disappointment and controversy.”
It’s been mostly successes.mfirst, remember the initial investments were overseen by the Bush AND Clinton Foundation- they worked tighter jointly, equal number of co-chairmen, advisors, etc. the Clintons didn’t make decisions on their own – that includes projects that succeeded and a few that failed
“After the earthquake, Clinton united with former president George W. Bush to create the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, which distributed $54.4 million in the two years after the earthquake. Separately, the Clinton Foundation has spent more than $30 million in Haiti and led efforts through the Clinton Global Initiative to persuade private companies to spend vastly more.”
That’s from a Washington Post. Read it through and you see a mix high in successes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-haiti-development-plans-succeed–and-disappoint/2015/03/20/0ebae25e-cbe9-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html
On that first Clinton-Bush push to help Haiti they funded 70 projects, large and small. Most seem to have helped the Haitian people, but when your predisposed to damage the Clintons as you are, Priscilla, actuating the negative is your reflexive response.
Objectively anyone who has been watching the guerrilla political warfare from the Conservative Right the last 20 years knows the game plan has been to insidiously undermine the Clintons at every opportunity. They adopted the same strategy when Obama came to power: character assassination by a thousand cuts. The idea is to create as negative a persona as possible and embed it in the public consciousness. Yes,Democrats do it to – but nowhere as persistently as the Right. Tarnish by accusation enough times and those accusations become fact in the public mind by default.
That’s fine, Jay. As I’ve said previously, I understand that you respect the Clintons and believe that they are unfairly accused by the vast right wing conspiracy.
Like an objective Moderate, I respect some of the things they’ve done, am critical of others.
The Foundation is their main redemptive accomplishment. The criticisms thrown at it are unreasonable, unjustified by fact, stained by ideological hatred.
Priscilla;
With respect to connections – there is usually no way to know.
I would note that a couple of decades ago Sen. McCain was censured by the senate for writing a letter to a regulator basically as a reference for a constitutent that was being chased by regulators.
This is far less egregious than anything Clinton has done.
There is one sort of good thing about this.
For the most part the focus is where it belongs – on the politican or government worker.
Contrary to the left – it is not money that corrupts – it is power.
You have two choices here – either everything was on the up and up – even though enormous effort is made to hide things, or this is not merely politically corrupt, but an orgainized racket of political corruption.
It is unlikely anyone will reveal a clear quid pro quo – one may not exist.
Everything may be a wink and a nod – and trust me.
Donors may make small donations – see what results it gets them and then make bigger ones, or they may talk to others who say – donate to CF and state will give you what you want.
Or nothing may be said at all. Donors may give money in hope of special treatment and still be treated normally, but beleive they have received special treatment.
All of this is why the left has the standard wrong.
It is the politicians we need to hold accountable.
If you are selling widgets and the guy buying from you says – build me a pool and I will buy 1M widgets – is that corrupt ? Nope.
What if he does not own the business ? Then he is defrauding the owner not you.
I adopted my daughter from China. The bribes were literally itemized. The adoption would cost $X – including specifically two cartons of Marlboroughs and a bottle of Remy Martin, as well as a large amount of cash in brand new US $100 bills.
Was I corrupt for paying ? Or is the problem with the politicians and government officials profiting from their government jobs ?
This should make clear – we do not need a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United. Oddly about a privately made anti-clinton film.
WE need laws that hold government officials accountable even for the appearance of impropriety.
In the long run if you want to end government corruption – you end government power.
No one pays to rent power that government does not have.
Who would care who Sec. Clinton met with if she did nto have the power to dispense valuable favors that the public pays for ?
Regarldless, is the left prepared to enact laws that require dismissal for even the appearance of impropriety ? Criminal sanctions for actual impropriety and the meaningful means to incentivize non-partisan investigation into public corruption.
The best we have managed is special prosecutors – and they are rife with problems.
What we really need is a full time independent arm of government charged with investigating and prosecuting corruption in government. With the resources to do so, that will seek out corruption from top to bottom regardless of party.
The DOJ and FBI can not do that.
Congress really can not either.
My suggestion is a permanent public corruption unit in the Judiciary.
And a legal standard where the mere appearance of corruption results in dismissal.
If you want honesty in politicians – you need police that they can not control themselves.
BTW I think an effective public corruption unit would radically reduce government spending – there would be less incentive to try to reward cronies – as it could cost your job, or even land you in jail. There would be less lobbying.
But all that is why it also will not happen. One thing politicians are bipartisan on – political corruption is not THEIR problem – it is other evil people seducing them. It is the system.
It could not possibly be them.
Jay;
You have not answered most of my questions but you have raised more.
It is inarguable that most aide today is ineffective and even harmful to those being helped.
What is it that you are prepared to do to address that ?
I do not care all that much about actual private charity unconnected to government in anyway.
If you wish to give effusively to the ABC charity and they spend money on themselves to no good effect – that is your business.
But when government is involved it is different. Approximately one in 6 people in the US are employed by government. While government provided the order necessary for the rest of us to produce wealth, government itself does not produce wealth. So 1/6 of us are a drag on our median standard of living.
What is your plan to assure that when government acts – whether in charity or otherwise it does so effectively ?
Many of us are tired of this intention fixated emotional bunkum.
How is it that you plan on assuring – whether there is a democratic president or a republican one, that the money spent on the VA, or the TSA or foreign ?
The left seems to constantly beleive that good is accomplished merely by spending more money.
Are you prepared to discuss how the government needs to be regulated to assure that it actually delivers value for what it takes from the rest of us ?
Most of us would be angry if the government took millions from us for roads – and no roads were built.
It is pretty much indisputable that in myriads of areas of government action little is accomplished for the much that is spent.
Besides spending more money on more things – what does the left suggest to assure the rest of us that we are getting value for what is being spent ?
I noted before that I arrived at my extremism pragmatically.
Clinton as an example wants to make higher education free.
If we are going to do that – what assures that costs are controlled, that value is delivered. That a real benefit is provided.
The left seems to believe that 280 volumes are necessary to tell the rest of us how to go about our ordinary lives. What needs done to assure that those in government do their jobs correctly, that we are getting value for what is being taken from us.
And then there is the case of tea party GOP governor and trump supporter Paul LePage. I knew zip about him till this morning but just read his comments and history. How bad does the crazy wing of the GOP have to get before people wake up? I’d print out his phone message to a legislator he incorrectly thought had called him a racist in its full glory but I don’t want to ruin the NM record of never having seen certain words posted. (Words I use all the time when I work on my car I admit.but that is a different context!).
We are deep into political crazy land.
I just spent 3 days in NYC and environs. I met not one single Ass****. Nothing but good attitudes from members of any race or nationality and I met many. I must have heard 50 languages and did not meet one jerk or witness a single crime. Ironically I unexpectedly walked by trump towers and saw several other trump facilities on the drive out.
Out hotel was staffed 100% by minorities, a Nigerian, an Indian, blacks, hispanics. Nothing but friendly professional attitudes, good hardworking people. If NYC is dissolving into crime and chaos I somehow missed any signs of it. Perhaps I am Mr. Magoo and need better glasses….
Lepage is the governor of Maine – if you are just learning about him where have you been.
Maine is strange and so is LePage.
Whatever you think of him – main voters have elected him – twice I believe.
Which is twice as often as Hillary has ever been elected to anything.
Regardless, I care about what people do far more than what they say.
Given that the left seems to think it is reasonable to use force against anyone for most anything they want – who exactly is crazy ?
You can get treated well or badly anywhere.
I had an auto breakdown in the boonies in Virginia and was absolutely shocked – nearly everyone that passed me offered help. The shop that eventually fixed my radiator leak – custom crafting a part because it was impossible to get the correct part on Sunday and he charged me NOTHING. All pasty white people as if that matters.
Yesterday, My daughter had what should have been a relatively minor auto accident – backing into a car at low speed in the parking lot of a body shop.
Unfortunately the Car was a brand new 2016 Shelby Mustang – an 80K car and the owner completely lost it. I was nearly beaten by his hispanic employees because I asked to photograph the damage, Tempers got hot and the police had to be called to calm things down. The officer politely allowed me to take all the pictures I had asked.
Four big hispanic guys and two whites and I was afraid for my daughter and at times for myself.
As to Crime and violence – after decades of declining there are some narrow steeply rising trends in most major cities in the US.
There are many things in the US that are improving and some that are not.
Violence in major cities is increasing.
In general alot of factors relative to big cities is declining – though not uniformly everywhere.
1st and 2nd quarter Growth has been revised down. The only thing keeping us out of recession is consumer spending and that is debt fueled and will not last long.
PPACA is failing – you can say whatever you like – it can not continue much longer as it is.
Deficits appear to be rising again – much sooner than expected.
SS and Medicare are in the red. SS is drawing on those IOU’s even they will run out soon enough – of course that does not matter much – there is no money saved for them. They just drive us deeper in debt.
The further in debt we go the harder it is to get out.
And the more of a drag it is on the economy.
A large number of out states and cities – mostly blue are also deeply in debt and many insolvent.
Small Business starts are nearly non-existant.
Labor participation is nearly as low as before women worked.
Our cost of K12 and college education has doubled – while quality of education has declined.
Pretty much all our problems rest with government.
The left seems to think that big government is the solution to every problem – you would think that men lived in caves prior to FDR.
“I was nearly beaten by his hispanic employees because I asked to photograph the damage, Tempers got hot and the police had to be called to calm things down. The officer politely allowed me to take all the pictures I had asked.
Four big hispanic guys and two whites and I was afraid for my daughter and at times for myself.”
Dave, its hilarious, you are a machine for contracting whatever I or anyone else you are arguing with says. I don’t know how many times you have been described here as having a ridiculously rosy outlook, everything is getting better, crime goes down, life improves. Many, many times you have been the one Defending hispanics against a current of the accusation that they tend to be criminals (which I have respected you for!) . Many times you have argued that things are getting better all the time, including violence.
Ha, but let ME post a rosy picture and suddenly you discover negative things to say about all the things you normally are the rosy one on. Its hilarious, you just need to contradict, you hard wired to contradict me, Rick, any moderate or liberal. Its a 100% solid pattern and there are very few patterns in this world that are 100% Whatever I say, you will argue the opposite, dependable as gravity. It could be why you get so few takers and take so much criticism. A pure contrarian at all costs. By this being an automatic Dave habit it dilutes out the whole impact of being a contrarian at well chosen times.
Just to be clear the increases in violence are VERY recent, narrow, and limited primarily to most large cities. I do not think NYC is one of those.
The left made a point during the Clinton impeachment that Clinton’s sex life had nothing to do with his performance of his job as president.
While personally I think character does matter – alot.
There is still a point there.
I think Barak Obama has proven to be a more decent person overall than I expected.
That does not alter that he has been a poor president. Marginally distinguishable from Bush.
Clinton was an undistinguished Senator and a pretty poor Sec State – that is her public record.
Trump has no Public record. His private record is turbulent – at the same time it has also been successful.
He has been near universally verbally offensive – but as the Left noted with Clinton, that is not really part of the job.
Do you care if the president talks trash if we could get 3-4% growth ?
Or do we want a president “sensitive” to every agreived group and keep up the 1% growth.
Here is another for you. There does not appear to be anything illegal here.
But those on the left seem to fixate on intent rather than law – and here we have both intent and action.
I do not think ANY campaign finance laws are constitutional.
Never the less, the law right or wrong is the law.
The intent of campaign finance laws was to limit the ability of big donors to influence politics with their money.
The clear intent of what is occuring here is to circumvent the law.
So again for those of you on the left. Is this what you think is moral ?
Are only those on the right not allowed to circumvent the law ?
If you actually beleive in campaign finance laws then you need to close the loopholes.
If you do not or can not, then you should just throw away the laws.
All this looks like is hypocrisy and gamesmanship.
And more of the pay for play that we are increasingly used to with the Clinton’s
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-dnc-contributions/
JJ;
I deemed Haiti to be a failure – as have most developmental economists long before I had a clue that the Clinton Foundation had anything to do with it.
Nor am I particularly blaming the Clintons for the failure in Haiti.
For the most part I care very little about the failure of Aide regarding Haiti – regardless of whether it was CF or other private charities.
So long as the money of donors was being spent and donors were free to give or not.
If you personally donated to Haitian relief – holding those you donated accountable is your responsibility not mine.
Where I care is when public money is involved.
Though I do find it interesting that you and CF are celebrating Haiti as a success – yet by nearly all measures Haiti is little better off than the day after the earthquake.
More than $8B – the GDP for Haiti for an entire year in aid and nothing to show for it.
You say that CF was involved in 70 successfull projects.
That makes me wonder what “involved” means and what “successful” means to you.
Maybe there were 70 successful projects in Haiti, but for the most part it was a very expensive photo op for celebrities and politicians at the expense of Haitians.
It is a beautiful example of the lefts approach.
Talk alot about feeling the pain of others, Spend alot of money – mostly on yourself, take pictures, go home and declare success.
My primary concern about CF is the incetuous relationship between it and its donors, and government.
My attacks on its credibility as a charity – are attacks on YOU, and your gullibility.
Rather than read my CF press releases – why not tell me some things they have actually measurably accomplished ? What trends have they reversed or atleast altered ?
In fact what trends have any charity or foreign aid reversed or altered ?
When people seek to hire me – they want proof of things I have actually accomplished, not what I say I did.
Your Bullshit detector seems to be on overdrive when those on the right speak of anything.
But you get platitudes like “we participated in over 70 successful projects” or we were involved in making aides drugs more affordable,
and you become credulous.
You want proof there is fire beneath the smoke beltching from Clinton, but aparently if CF says we have done marvelous and good things you take those at face value.
JJ;
With respect to character assassination.
I like Bush. I like Obama. I do not like Trump, I do not Like either Clinton.
My assessment of any of the above as president of potential president is independent of my personal views.
Character is based on what you do far more than what you say.
Bill Clinton was mostly an effective President.
He also lied under oath as well as publicly to the american people – that is bad character.
Further whether you beleive the tame version or the more extreme version, Bill Clinton is not someone that most fathers would trust with their daughters.
He is not a model for male conduct towards women.
I am hard pressed to think of any prominent Republican that has ever treated women so badly.
All that is character. The right did not make Bill Clinton lie – he did that on his own.
It did not make him treat women as he does.
Hillary trades in government power – that is not good character.
She too has lied to the american people and lied under oath – not good character.
She has condoned and defended Bill conduct and attacked Bills Victims.
Donald Trump has poked fun at disabled people.
Hillary has tried to destroy women who were telling the truth about her husband.
One of the things the emails gives us is that Clinton was personally the source of the “an internet video made them do it lie”. She concocted it before the attack on Benghazi was over, and she knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack at the time.
Worse though she shifted the blame to a different video, she pushed until so guy who put an offensive video on Youtube ended up in jail.
Are these your ideas of character ?
Obama lied about his healthcare plan, and some of his speech as president actively incited his followers to engage in bad conduct.
But for the most part Obama’s failures are not of character, they are that he is leaving the nation very little better than he found it. Something very rarely true of any president.
If you have republicans that treat actual women like dirt – bring them to everyone’s attention. I will be happy to excoriate them with you.
If you have Republicans that make promises to the public they never intended to deliver on or that they know when they say them are false – please raise them to our attention.
I have no problem holding them accountable.
If you have republicans that break the law, that perjure themselves. Expose them so we can excoriate them.
I am not questioning that such republicans exist, nor are the off in hiding. Most have already been exposed and punished. Are you prepared to hold your own accountable ?
Richard Mellon Scaife died in 2014 – Bill Clinton gave a eulogy – they had a decade long friendship before he died.
As to that “vast right wing conspiracy” ? Were the people going after Clinton for his treatment of women wrong ?
“If you have Republicans that make promises to the public they never intended to deliver on or that they know when they say them are false – please raise them to our attention.
I have no problem holding them accountable.”
That sounds like Trump. Funny how little you’ve said here to excoriate him, but how much time you’ve spent excoriating the Clintons. If push comes to shove, you’ll squeak out a tepid “I don’t really like Trump either” addendum to some long winded anti Hillary tirade, then back to another long winded accusation based on assumption manufactured from your own slanted observations.
When, in the last months here, have you held Reoublicans accountable for anything?
“Richard Mellon Scaife died in 2014 – Bill Clinton gave a eulogy – they had a decade long friendship before he died.”
So what? They had decades long confrontation and animosity before that. Scaife pushed for Bill’s impeachment, remember? Slandered him in his newspaper. Spent millions of dollars to undermine his reputation. But recently backed Hillary for president. How do you reconcile that turn around?
The sarcastic and denying phrase Vast right wing conspiracy irritates me (I guess its supposed to, like all sarcasm) . There is no conspiracy involved here, conspiracies are done secretly, this campaign to smear the Clintons for stuff they did not actually do and other general lies could not be more public (fake medical records and other breitbart “journalism” anyone?). Nor is it right wing, its simply conservative. So, there is a vast conservative campaign against the Clintons, in other words, politics, an election. They go way over the top very often and criticism of that fanaticism is extremely well justified. No, this is not just a modern thing (I am remembering Dave’s example of wild hyperbole directed against I think it was Adams, 18th century) and it is not only conservatives who do it. But the fanaticism of the worst elements of the anti Hillary campaign is striking. An entire convention chanting “Throw her in prison,” a trump advisor who has stated and restated that they should “shoot Hillary for treason”? Its disgusting to this moderate.
Here’s the thing, GW….among conservatives, there is undoubtedly a deep well of antipathy toward Mrs. Clinton, but it is not necessarily based on over-the-top allegations or beliefs. Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that you and Jay are correct, and there is not a scintilla of corruption involving her emails nor the role of the Clinton Foundation ( a 501c-3 charity, by definition non-partisan and non-profit). Let’s also assume, for the sake of argument, that Hillary never lied about the reasons why our consulate in Benghazi was left vulnerable to attack nor lied to the parents of those killed in its defense . It’s just undeniable that the many of the apparent facts contradict Clinton’s explanations, and that she has not been forthcoming with the truth. Maybe for good, reason, maybe not. But the truth is important to most people.
Now, the “throw her in jail” or “shoot her for treason” are over the top, for sure – especially the treason stuff. But the smoke around Hillary is pretty damn thick, and it’s hard for most people to believe that there is no fire.
I find myself in an almost untenable position, in terms of justifying my position in this election. Neither of the major party candidates meet what I consider to be the baseline level of character and judgement necessary for the job. No other candidate has any chance of winning even a single electoral vote. So, my decision to vote for Trump has been based on his promise to nominate constitutional conservatives to the the high court and my belief that any attempt executive overreach on his part will be constrained by the Congress and the media.
I completely understand those who reluctantly support Hillary for similar reasons. What I don’t understand is the pretzel twisting mind games that most of her defenders are willing to play, in order to claim that she would make a good president, or the smug accusations that anyone who opposes this great lady must be ignorant of her greatness, or poisoned by right wing propaganda.
I could maybe buy that she has learned her lessons and, going forward, would be adequate in the job, based on, as you have said, her “connections to power”, and her previous jobs. That strikes me as doubtful, but possible.
To accept the premise that “there is a vast conservative campaign against the Clintons” that explains all or most of her bad decisions, scandals and lies? To paraphrase the old joke, that’s like asking “are you gonna believe Hillary or your lying eyes?”
Hi Priscilla, my computer now incorporates the devious function of a pop up that appears when anyone comments here. Instant connection! I am working on an especially minding numbing translation, which is due, So, this gives my ADD self the perfect excuse to put it down for a bit, which I shouldn’t! I don’t blame you, a non ADD sufferer would reply to yu later, its all on me and my discipline!
I am sorry that you are sort of outnumbered here and have weak cards with trump infecting the GOP. I feel your pain, I do, really.
I don’t think that Jay or I think that Hillary would be a great president, simply a better and more qualified one that trump, speaking for myself. I am no more a Hillary supporter than you are a trump supporter. We are all suffering.
My point was that the vast right wing conspiracy phrase, when invoked by someone from the left of center has one meaning, but from the right of center it has a different meaning, a sarcastic one. I don’t believe much in conspiracies. This is out in the open. Part of it is normal partisan politics part of it, lead by the trump-breitbart-coulter-limbaugh-palin world is utterly over the top and they are taking decent people with them, leading them into the world of their disgusting behaviors and principles.
What I would like to do to trump or see happen to him for the damage he is doing to our country and culture is unprintable and would make me sound as deranged as the right wing nutters if I type it out. So I won’t.
OK, I’m back to work, hang in there, try to do as much unpolitical living and thinking as possible, the election will be over someday.
Having a free minute here, I’ll add, if it was the GOP candidate who had a similar history/situation to the Clinton foundation I have no doubt that liberals/democrats would not let it lie quietly. Whether they would be chanting “throw him in jail at their convention, I doubt it, but they would be chanting it on campus for certain. How I would feel if the tables were turned I have no idea of.
I do not have anywhere near the antipathy to elites you do, or at least I simply accept that they have always and will always exist. Its a good thing to make a stink about their actions I’m sure, it is at least some kind of restraint on them. But the meme of the last decade, which came to its culmination in the Sanders and to some extent in the trump campaigns that big money and elite must be taken out of politics and then we will have a great situation again is to me one big bag of hot air. But, I’ve said that. Clinton is being held to the standards of that meme, as if other presidents through history never were from the connected society of money and power. It is unprecedented of course that a party nominee would be the wife of a former president, with his presidential attachments, a foundation, friends, enemies… I don’t like it, its a bad thing, we are not Argentina. But that is what is.
Think of Clinton this way. She choose Kaine, not a popular choice with the bernie populists, more of a centrist. She is courting disaffected GOP officials and voters and they are responding. SHe owes more to the center than to the left, platform of coerced rainbow fantasies notwithstanding. The Clinton instinct is that power lies in the center. That I completely like about them. I say that a Hillary presidency will reach out to the moderates and the moderate faction of the GOP, if there will only be something left to reach out to. If the GOP members in congress go after her in the same vein as the GOP base demands in this election that will be much less likely of course. I hope more than anything that the adult GOP can be reconstituted or Clinton and the Dems will have noone to compromise with, there won’t be any acceptable middle ground.
While not an exact parallel, I can’t help but think of the show Hogan’s Heroes when I think of Donald Trump. When I was a kid I loved that show. It was exciting drama to a 6-10 year old, plus it had not so nuanced comedy, that I could understand and find funny. Many decades later I heard comments that that show could be perceived of negatively for making light of the horrors that were World War II. A little reflection and listening to other opinions and you could make the case that mocking and making the enemy look stupid might not be so wrong. I also learned that the main German characters were played by Jewish actors, I believe the “Colonel Klink’s” real world family actually fled from Nazi Germany. Yet I can’t help but think in hindsight, during a time with so few channels, and a time when there were far more Holocaust survivors then there are today, how many might have been traumatized by just seeing those German military uniforms on the T.V. Ok, so Trump says crazy outlandish things, some funny, some quite disturbing. At this point, let me interject with a clarification that my perspective is Trump, or as I saw on another website, tRump, is too flawed in character to be POTUS , but IMO Hillary is also too flawed to be POTUS. Ok, so then for me, the only question is should I be laughing at all the crazy political upheaval that he has created, or should I be sad and somber about it? My inclination is to laugh, as it was when I was a kid with Hogan’s Heroes, I’m like “Yah!, he is unfit, but hurray that people picked someone that they knew was unfit over the slick, lying, promise you one thing, deliver something different, politicians that seem to think they can trick us endlessly with their same old snake oil.” In that way I cheer for Trump, but also my heart is sad and sober, that we have such a messed up political system that we seem to only have a choice of which poison to pick. I guess it is probably just a matter of attitude and perspective. During World War II, the Supreme Court had one of its more infamously wrong decisions about internment of Japanese-American citizens, and we can all say, oh such a bad Supreme Court, but was it only the Supreme Court that allowed such an injustice to happen, or was that decision backed by the will of the majority of society? If the Supreme Court ruled we could imprison Japanese Americans today, would we do it? I don’t think we would, If they ruled we could lock up Muslims on only suspicion, I fear we, as a society, might go along with that right now. (Wow, did my stream of consciousness drift off of what I started to, or what?) But where I end up is, it would be great to have good and wonderful leaders, but it is much more in our power to be good and wonderful individuals to stick up for Japanese, Jews, Muslims, or anyone who is oppressed in our country. I may not get my candidate in the White House, I may not get people I like on the Supreme Court, but I will determine within myself to promote love and understanding among people so that no matter what one President or 9 judges say, we will not tolerate and actively oppose people oppressing other people.
“so then for me, the only question is should I be laughing at all the crazy political upheaval that he has created, or should I be sad and somber about it?”
There is a difference between “crazy political upheaval” and mental instability and gross incompetence. Based on the article I have linked, a put Trump in the mental and gross incompetent group. One may accept Japan having nuclear weapons and one may support South Korea having nuclear weapons, but when one supports Saudi Arabia having these weapons, many would say this goes over the line. I am in that group since S.A. has been linked to many radicals, one that killed over 3000 of our citizens on 9-11. Yes, Iran most likely will get these weapons and that is as bad as Pakistan having these weapons, but supporting another middle east country getting them is insanity.
End times talks of fire and brimstone. Give all these countries more nuclear weapons and the prophecy may come true sooner than later.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/29/trump-i-hate-proliferation-but-it-would-be-better-if-japan-saudi-arabia-and-south-korea-had-nuclear-weapons/
Great answer Ron. I’m waiting for a large number of retired military officers to speak up at some point about trump’s fitness or lack thereof to be commander in chief. My wife’s son, daughter in law, and granddaughter live 50 miles from the Syrian border in Israel. It brings it home to me just how serious foreign policy is. Literally, I would be a more fit commander in chief than trump, along with many other Americans. This election is a nightmare.
Well good Lord GW, I would expect most anyone to be a better CiC than either of these goons running. All one has to asked on any level is “Would you buy a used car from either of these individuals”.
At the risk of a huge pile-on here, I will ask a question: Why is it ok for Iran, an avowed enemy of the US, which has promised to used these weapons to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth,” to have nuclear weapons, but not Saudi Arabia?
We have allowed and encouraged Iran to develop nuclear weapons, despite their avowed intention to use them against our allies (and us!), and despite the dangerous change in the balance of power that a nuclear Iran would create in the Middle East. The Saudis, who have made it clear that, if Iran is to go nuclear, they will too, have no reason to trust us any longer, and every reason to fear Iran.
I would cite this opinion piece from CNN, from over a year ago. Fareed Zakaria mocks the idea of a Saudi nuclear weapon, but it isn’t really necessary for them to “develop” anything ~they can simply buy the technology and materials. Zakaria mocks this idea as well, and insists that the Saudis won’t be able to do that either. On the other hand, The Saudi’s have already signed a pact to increase nuclear cooperation with South Korea, and the S. Koreans will begin building nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia this year.
“Is there a widespread belief that Saudi Arabia faces an impending national security threat, which would motivate it to want to develop a nuclear weapon? In short, yes. Iran has pursued an intrusive, insurrectionary policy in Arab countries with Shia communities, some of them directly surrounding the Kingdom. A nuclear Iran would be viewed as a direct threat to the Kingdom, and a response of equal measure would be considered prudent, necessary and justified.”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/middleeast/obaid-saudi-nuclear-weapon/
Now that the era of Pax Americana is over, we cannot really tell our allies that they cannot develop weapons to protect themselves from their known nuclear enemies. It really doesn’t matter what he says. It doesn’t matter what Hillary says. What matters is that, for some time now, the US has helped to destabilize the region ~ The overthrow of Sadam Hussein, the overthrow of Moammar Khaddafi, the greenlighting of Iran’s nuclear program, the failure to stop ISIS, etc.
I am not defending Trump, and he is dangerously ignorant of foreign policy. But we have seen a lot of dangerous foreign policy blunders over the last 10-15 years, which have created the circumstances leading to this frightening place.
Priscilla, I never said it was OK for Iran to have a bomb. But now that they are getting it, does that mean we need to support other countries to also get it? If one gang in Los Angeles get shoulder fired missiles, should we think it ok for the other gang in the turf war to get that same weapon?
I suspect Hillary probably believes the same as Trump, but she has the common sense to keep her mouth shut. People try to compare Trump to Reagan. In my mind there is no comparison. Reagan, even when he was developing Alzheimer’s knew the right things to say. Trump is a mouth engaged most of the time with a brain engaged only on occasion.
Hopefully the GOP can retain enough control of congress to offset whatever either of these jerks wants to do. At least if Hillary is elected and the house is in GOP hands, the house will be so involved with investigations into e-mails, clinton foundation, etc,etc that she will get nothing passed.
“Trump is a mouth engaged most of the time with a brain engaged only on occasion.”
Ha, best line of the month! 😆👍
I think the operative principle was that nukes should not proliferate, in nations that are friends or foes.
As technology advanced and more nations acquired the wealth and means to build them, that non proliferation strategy was/is bound to fail.
Like guns, the more there are the more they will be used, for defense and for assaults.
I’ve been forcefully critical of the Iran deal. I’m certain Iran already has nukes like the ones we dropped on Japan. And that they are continuing to developed sophisticated nuclear missives and weapons. (See this: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-fordow-idUSKCN1140YD). I’ve also said the only way to ‘persuade’ them to stop their nuclear ambitions is to do what we did to Japan in WWII – destroy them and then rebuild the country from the rubble.
Our ‘ally’ Saudi Arabia would be dangerous as a nuclear power: it’s core fanatic Muslim beliefs make it a likely candidate for unstable leadership, and for the possible surreptitious transfer of radioactive weapons to terrorists.
Hillary has a better grip on how all this works than Dunce Trump. A scandal-ridden Clinton administration in office is better for our safety and well being over the next four years than the bumbling stumbling unprepared no-nothing Trump fiasco that’s sure to follow him into office.
Ron P
No sane person would try to claim that trumps rhetoric is tolerable.
But how is being a loud mouthed buffoon the same as being mentally unstable of grossly incompetent ?
He has been tremendously successfully privately.
I do not understand his success. I am not sure in some instances I like his success. But he has not accomplished all he has accomplished by being mentally unstable and grossly incompetent.
Even getting to the top of the Republican ticket is an incredible accomplishment.
Who would have bet on that a year ago ? I certainly would not have.
He ran one of the cheapest presidential primary campaigns in a long time – and won. Even his bombast has gotten him millions of dollars of free press.
He attacks his enemies directly rather than through proxies – an knocks them back on their heels.
He has completely disrupted the normal political divisions and electoral map of the country.
When is the last time a republican was more likely to win Pennsylvania than Georgia ?
“But he has not accomplished all he has accomplished by being mentally unstable and grossly incompetent.”
Mike Tyson accomplished boxing’s highest pinnacle – World Champion! – and earned multi millions accomplishing it.
Does that accomplishment equate with him becoming Governor of a State? Or even the Dogcatcher?
Trump’s business experience qualify him for a narrow slice of the business pie: real estate and self promotion. His many other business ventures outside of that expertise have failed. Or haven’t you taken the time to investigate those bumbling inept often-unsavory failures?
Sorry if I stepped in on your response Ron.
“When is the last time a republican was more likely to win Pennsylvania than Georgia ?”
Huh? What?
The polls show them dead even in Georgia,
Hillary’s 8+ points ahead in Pennsylvania.
Your analogy is flip flopped
Dave, I do not relate corporate success to being mentally stable. There have been many people that have ran successful businesses and been mentally unstable,. And when I talk of mental stability I am talking in the Richard Nixon form where he was paranoid and thought most everyone was out to get him, thus the tapes of all conversations and the breakin to the democrat headquarters. I also can relate this to the Clintons and all the questionable deaths that have occurred in relationship to them.
.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/another-clinton-associate-found-dead-bill-hillarys-body-count-increases/
Maybe I will put Trump in the Aaron Burr mental category when someone or something crosses them and they do a Hamilton on them. The fuse to set them off and the reaction in each case is different. I would rather have our nation in the hands of someone like Hillary where her reaction is one of reluctance to so something compared to what I perceive as Trumps reaction to go overboard the other way.
That’s just my personal opinion and I do not try to convince anyone that I am right. I think overall Trump would have a better agenda than Clinton, but my trust in his reaction to any one issue that could cause his fuse to blow would have us end up in a pot load of crap.
And I also think Trump involves himself in insignificant issues much like Obama in “news of the day “issues. What the hell is he commenting on Colin Kaepernick for when he is losing to Clinton by close to 10 points in some polls, questionable in North Carolina, close in SC and GA and is even losing Arizona? Is there not priorities at the stage of the game?
Ron, I don’t think I said that we should support nuclear proliferation….and it wouldn’t matter if we did, because we’ve abdicated any influence that we have in preventing a Middle East arms race.
By signing a treaty with Iran that gave them the go-ahead and the money to ramp up their nuclear weapons program, we gave up any leverage that we had over the decision of countries like Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states to begin the process of ramping up their own. Why would they listen to any American president, Trump or Clinton? Iran has already used American money to purchase the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system and deployed it around their largest underground nuclear facility. This makes it impossible to take out Iran’s nuclear program using the military option. The US is worse than a paper tiger, we’re financing the Russian-Iranian nuclear alliance.
Trump was answering a question which asked specifically about South Korea and Japan, both targets of nuclear-armed North Korea and China. He stumbled around a bit in his answer, but basically said that they have a right to defend themselves and that we can’t protect them anymore.
Basically, in his clumsy way, he told more truth than most people can handle, which is that the US policy of preventing Japan and S. Korea from defending themselves should be ended, if we are unwilling or unable to defend them.
Thanks for the feedback Ron. To shoot off on another, slightly different tangent, who wants to chime in on who is to blame for N. Korea having nukes? As I have previously stated, I have had years of Right Wing Radio, so naturally I have been “taught” that it is all Bill Clinton-Democrats fault, and with a busy life, that is one of many topics I have not invested in researching.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_North_Korean_nuclear_program
Try and piece it together for blame here, and numerous nations can divide it up.
Mike, I suspect if one looked at all the countries that have nuclear weapons and tried to place blame one would find that they would have achieved that goal with or without America’s intervention if they had that as a top goal. Some countries, like N.K. and Iran just do a better job at manipulating leaders like Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama. That is what sociopaths are good at and they will achieve their goals one way or the other.
If Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia or even Jordan want nuclear weapons, they will find the way to get them regardless of who is president of the USA>
“If Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia or even Jordan want nuclear weapons, they will find the way to get them regardless of who is president of the USA”
Living in the real world is a very odd thing to do in an online political forum, Ron. Very strange behavior indeed!
I have no doubt that a truly sophisticated and massively educated and experienced person could make a sensible critique of the policies of different presidents regarding nuclear non proliferation and that some policies may have been better than others. But no objective standard exists to judge that without some injection of opinion and ideology. As to any of us understanding the details and subtleties of preventing nuclear proliferation, there is no chance at all. We amateurs will understand quantum theory sooner, since it is based on firmer principles.
We can all just repeat what we hear on the ideological news of our personal favorite ideological flavor. Or we can be more objective and say that no one who actually understand the ins and outs of this in an objective way is going get their opinion through the noise of ideology, and it will in the end just be an opinion that can be discounted by any Tom, Ashley, or Harry who will consider his or hers just as valid based on watching their favorite news. People in general will believe that their party has an advantage, is wiser, smarter etc on this issue.
Personally I have no idea, I just have to pray that our professionals at the State department who inform the SOS and POTUS are as well informed as possible. Those people last from administration to administration, bridging elections and ideological victories. I’m sure many will mock these life-term State dept. professionals as grey typical bureaucrats, I don’t. They are the best and brightest, which makes them brighter than me. It does not mean that something that they do cannot be judged a serious mistake in the light of time.
Basically, we have had nukes for 70+ years and even used them but we are telling other countries that they cannot do that. Why should they care that we don’t approve? Especially countries that don’t approve of us?
If Iran nukes Israel we will use out nukes to obliterate every vestige of their government, secular and religious. We have way more ability to destroy if push comes to shove. Same with the Korean situation. Of course that is rational thought, it does not have a guarantee of working on brainwashed fanatics of a religion or ideology.
I don’t expect that there is a 0 chance that this all ends very very badly someday.
Hey Mike, my apologies for jumping in on your question to Ron.
I think that the reason that Clinton is often blamed for N. Korea obtaining nukes is basically the same reason that Obama will be blamed for Iran. Both pursued appeasement in the face of aggression.
During Clinton’s first term, he appeared to want to confront the little dictator, Kim Jong-un, but after sending Jimmy Carter to negotiate a deal, he agreed to giving North Korea a couple of new reactors and $4-5 billion in aid. God knows, the people of N. Korea needed the aid, although it is doubtful that they received any of it.
In return, we got a promise from Kim Jong-un, that he would give up trying to obtain nuclear weapons, and would be nicer to his people. Promises, promises……
During the Bush administration, the N. Koreans admitted that their promise had been a lie from the start, and they now had nukes, which they proved by detonating one.
I’m far from a warmonger, but I believe that pursuing appeasement in the face of aggressive warmongering nations never leads to any good. Unfortunately, the next president needs to deal with the reality that neither N.Korea nor Iran has been appeased.
Short of Nuking them, what else could B. Clinton have done?
Manufacture an excuse to invade?
A ground war next door to China?
Selective bombing next door to China without their permission?
What, exactly, would have had better results to stop them from going nuclear?
**KimJong il
“Short of Nuking them, what else could B. Clinton have done?”
Refuse to even sit at the negotiating table until N.Korea signed back on to the UN non-proliferation agreement and submitted to UN inspections?
Insist on transparency and verification mechanisms, to prevent NK from continuing to secretly enrich uranium?
Listen, I will say this, Jay ~ I don’t know that the Bush administration was any better at dealing with NK. Certainly, they were no more successful. But, by the time Bush came on the scene, the deed was done, and NK had nukes, so it was a different problem, requiring different diplomacy.
And that is my point about the Iran deal. By the time the next president takes office, it will be too late to “rip up the agreement on Day One”. And I don’t see Clinton all of a sudden deciding to admit that the deal was a mistake and the the new arms race is already out of the gate.
The Presumption of Guilt Only Applies to Clintons
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-clinton-foundation
Conflating myriads of unrelated things.
The media is going to be drawn to a story. There is no story that will draw the attention of hundreds of millions in charities today – except stories about the Clinton foundation.
Of course the media is biased. While there is some strong media bias towards the left,
overall those biases only effect the margins.
A media outlet – right or left is going to cover it if Clinton is billowing smoke.
No matter have let titled the media is it is going to look where there is smoke for fire.
Powell is not running for office, nor is carter or bush. There could be a raging inferno in any of these places, only a few wonks would care alot.
I have already noted that I think that the Clinton Foundation is worse than the average charity. I am not sure how the fact that there are other charities that perform badly changes much.
I have also noted that charity on the whole performs abysmally. Does it matter alot whether a Charities direct aide is 10% or 90% of its contributions if the effect of direct aide is nil to actually negative ?
Further – If Russian Oligarchs, and dictatorial despots profiteering of the misery of their own people wish to give copiously directly to Bill and Hillary private citizens – I have absolutely zero problem with that.
To the extent I have addressed any of the above issues, it is more to correct misrepresentations than specifically to cast aspersions on Clinton.
The fundamental issue is the incestuous relationship between the Clinton’s private activities – whether for charity or personal profit, and Clinton’s role as a steward of public trust.
There should be no interplay of any kind between ones role as a public servant and ones private activities.
But that is an impossible standard.
Regardless, the fact that we can not keep the dust of private influence out of public service does not mean that because most politicians wallow in mud puddles that there is some moral equivalence that allows others to cavort in oceans of tar.
Reporters and media may never find the explicit quid pro quo that bursts Clintons vast clouds of smoke into a billowing forest fire.
That does not matter – what we already know about. What is completely undeniable is WRONG.
No parent is interested in “the other kids did it too” when their child is caught cheating.
We have a vast litany of misconduct by Clinton. Much of which though she tried very hard to hide, is now in the open. Much of which there is no public disagreement on the facts.
All of which is WRONG.
Have others done it – certainly. In most every instance Clinton has taken someone else tip toeing outside the lines as a justification for bulldozing across the lines. Regardless, there is little that Clinton did as Sec. Start that we can not find some other public official somewhere who also did on a much smaller scale.
There is no everyone does it excuse.
Even if the Clinton’s absolutely did not in any way personally profit. Even if the Clintons backdoor access to the state department solely benefitted Mother Theresa’s Missionaries of Charity – it would still be WRONG.
It is likely there has always been backdoor access to the state department.
But Clinton built a superhighway.
If Trump is elected some people will still benefit from backdoor access to the whitehouse.
If Clinton is elected the front door to the white house might be closed or unused.
As always the most effective solution is to reduce the power of government.
Who cares who comes through the backdoor to the whitehouse, if there is little of nothing for them to gain. But so long as the federal government has gifts of great value to bestow there will always be people trying to get those gifts for themselves. The least we can do as a nation is expect Clinton’s to be embarrased that the Clinton foundations was auctioning off access to her as Sec. State.
“I have already noted that I think that the Clinton Foundation is worse than the average charity. ”
You’ve been misinformed.
As for the rest: snore.
Jay,
You have already made it clear, that If Clinton had actually done what the donald said he could get away with – you would respond
“snore”.
For more – in the event you care.
In sworn statements subject to perjury if false in the Judicial Watch FOIA case that started the email release Clinton stated that all work related emails were turned over to the state department and that no work related emails were deleted.
The FBI investigation has absolutely revealed this to be FALSE.
Thousands of work related emails were not turned over to State,
And work related deleted emails were recovered by the FBI.
Though there was alot of deleted material that was not recoverable.
Clinton and her attorney’s aware that they were under court order to produce – not merely deleted information, but used very sophisticated tools to attempt to make what was deleted irrecoverable – and mostly they succeeded.
But I guess you have no problems with that.
BTW if a normal person does that – they go to jail.
There is very nasty law regarding the preservation of evidence one a law suits starts. There is also law regarding preservation of private email.
The court might not require you to turn over information that you do not think is responsive to a litigation demand for evidence – but you do not get to decide what you keep and what you do destroy.
Likely the problem here is because of another lie told by Clinton.
The FBI determined that Clinton identified work related emails using keyword searches of headers.
Clinton swore – both to the courts and to congress that her attorneys read every email to separate work related email from personal email.
Because the used keywords on headers they missed alot.
But worse – she lied about it.
At what point does the extent of the lying start to trouble you ?
We have tens of thousands of emails that will be made public before the election, and tens of thousands more that may never see the light of day.
It is already clear that those emails Clinton did not turn over were those that demonstrated the incestuous relationship between CF and State.
So what do you think is on the emails that were deleted and have not been recovered ?
In the midst of litigation what would you be so affraid of seeing made public that you used sophisticated drive wiping software to obliterate any trace ?
BTW in a criminal case they call hiding evidence – consciousness of guilt.
It alone is more than sufficient for a conviction – even if you do not ever recover the evidence.
As an example if your spouse is shot in the head with a gun,
and you are seen throwing an object into a smelter where it is destroyed.
They jury is allowed to conclude that was the gun that killed your spouse and the you were destroying it because it would implicate you.
My homage to Marco Rubio, who just said if elected he might not finish out full term as Senator, intimating it could interfere with another run for president.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0UgfYPWAb3Q
Jay;
With respect to nuclear weapons – why are we, the brits, the french, the russians, the chinese, the israeli’s the indians the pakistani’s the north koreans allowed to have them – but no one else ?
I would prefer not to see other nations added to the nuclear club.
I do not see where the US or any other nation is justified in using actual force to prevent another nation from securing nuclear weapons.
I would also note there are actually two independent critical technologies here.
Nuclear and missle technology.
A hiroshima style bomb – particularly the uranium bomb is technically very simple.
That does not make it easy to build. Further it weighs about 5 tons.
Making it lighter requires even greater technical skill.
A V2 is relatively dimple today – but only has 1/5 the capacity needed for a Uranium bomb and a range of about 200 mi
Basically the creation of a useful nuclear weapon is a complex task requiring massive resources.
We have no ability to prevent any nation that truly wants a useable nuclear weapon from acheiving that.
Since we discovered that a nuclear weapon was possible – only two have ever been used in anger – both by the US against Japan.
No nation has ever used a nuclear weapon against an enemy since.
Both india and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons despite world opposition.
Despite animosities with each other neither have used them.
It is hard to think of a nation less stable and predictable than North Korea.
Further they have impoverished themselves to the level of a third world nation,
Yet, they have nuclear weapons and have not used them.
In the past several decades Anti-Balistic Missle technology has improved greatly.
We are at a point at which a nation with nuclear weapons would be very foolish to use them. Using them would be an unsuccessful act of war that would unite the world in demanding regime change.
I find a great deal wrong with the Iran deal. Regardless, a nuclear free Iran is and was only acheivable by force.
The use of force against another nation because the have or will have a weapon we do not want them to have is not moral.
Our fear of Iran does nto justify the use of force.
If their conduct in other areas was not sufficient to justify the use of force the addition of nuclear weapons does not change that.
We were wrong to invade Iraq – even if Sadam has a WMD program.
Nuclear non-proliferation is not a “principle” it is a wish.
Other nations with nuclear weapons would be a cause of fear.
But not a justification for the use of force.
Comparing Clinton and Trump on nuclear weapons is meaningless.
There is no evidence Clinton has done anything to delay a nuclear Iran – and again short of war that is not an objective inside her or Trumps power to acheive.
Put simply Clinton is no more going to acheive the impossible than Trump.
It is not impossible that Iran might abandon nuclear ambitions, or that other nations such as Saudi Arabia might choose not to follow.
Nuclear weapons are a significant burden on a nations economy.
But that is a choice each nation must make for itself.
If you beleive that Clinton is more likely to avoid a nuclear Iran than Trump – then you beleive Clinton is more likely to use force against Iran (otherwise you just beleive in magic).
I do think that it is more likely that Clinton will drag us into a significant war with Iran or other nations, than Trump will – but I do not think that was your intended conclusion.
Regardless, at this time the wisest thing for the US is to direct resources toward making the use of nuclear weapons by other nations both ineffective and dangerous for them.
The Cold War strategy was Mutually Assured Destruction.
The strategy today should be that whatever nation uses nukes will be destroyed without succeeding in harming others.
That is doable.
Non-proliferation today will only occur if nations view nuclear weapons as more of a liability than an asset.
“Basically the creation of a useful nuclear weapon is a complex task requiring massive resources.”
The Hiroshima bomb weighed half as much as a VW Beetle. And the only massive task now, with most of the specs for it available on line, is fissionable uranium, which Iran must have stashed away by the truckload. And you don’t need planes to deliver those kinds of bombs. You could transport them hidden in freight on ships and detonate them remotely. Or float them on rafts into a major harbor, or just release radioactive material derived from processed uranium into a city water supply.
It’s feasible we already have some devices like that stashed away here in a warehouse or other location.
“Ted Taylor is a physicist who spent part of his professional career designing nuclear weapons. He designed the smallest bombs in the US arsenal. In the early 1970s he began to speak out publicly about the dangers of nuclear power and plutonium production: “It’s all too easy for a madman, a terrorist or a criminal to build his own atomic bomb,” he said in 1972. “I’ve been worried about it ever since I made my first one.” Dr. Taylor believes that the spread of nuclear power and the increasing production of plutonium is the world’s number one problem, although it is not recognized as such. An excellent early book on Ted Taylor’s life and the American plutonium stockpile is “The Curve of Binding Energy” by John McPhee.”
I read that book when it was published, it warns against even easier ways to construct nuclear weapons. That was a sound foundation for my beliefs Iran already has them.
Unless a VW Beetle weighed 5 tons or Wikipedia is very wrong – both of which I doubt – you are wrong.
I worked on a project that involved installing alpha, beta and gama ray detectors in US ports. That was 10 years ago. I would be very surprised if those are not in place.
Refining Uranium is a task that requires a nation. Uranium makes a crappy dirty bomb – for that you want something more like plutonium – which is even harder to produce.
Somebody attempts to smuggle a nuke or dirty bomb into the country and gets caught – we are tracing everything back to the nation that sourced it.
I keep trying to tell you that producing nukes is expensive – one reason is all the security.
What happens if Port of Los Angeles detects a dirty bomb in a cargo container and we trace the material back to Iran ?
That would be an act or war and that would likely result in force regime change.
You have been reading too many clancy novels. It is not trivial to transport nukes. They are detectable unless incredibly well sheilded.
Lets try this a different way.
Al Qeda shot its wad with 9-11.
They got really lucky in that they were successfully able to hijack several large nearly empty tanscontinental planes with a very small number of hijackers armed with box cutters.
And they were very lucky that the math actually worked in terms of taking down the buildings – the impact of the planes was not sufficient, nor was the burning fuel. They had to catch the furnishings and paper in the building on fire to get enought neat to cause a structural failure.
Regardless, 9-11 was simple compared to getting nuclear material, smuggling it internationally and getting it into place.
You want to bring it into a harbor on a raft ?
Been reading to many WWII spy novels.
How are you getting it accross the atlantic ?
The people who own ships aren’t likely to loan them to terrorists.
But lets say you get a ship with a nuke on off the coast – you think it is trivial to off load it into a barge.
Nothing you are talking about it impossible – even if you grossly underestimate the weight of a hiroshima weapon and seem to think that Uranium is as dirty as plutonium.
But it is very hard. The most sophisticated operations we have seen from terrorists have been small bombs and automatic weapons.
Who is it you think is selling ISIS uranium or worse still plutonium ?
Remembering anyone traces this back to you and you are really F’d.
It is possible to produce very lite nukes. It requires even higher levels of technology. Frankly the only nuke that anyone ever built that they fully expected to work first time – was little boy.
I used the Hiroshima bomb deliberately.
It is horribly inefficient. But it is RELATIVELY simple to make – though very heavy and extremely reliable. It is likely to work without any testing.
Plutonium weapons are far harder.
Making a weapon light and reliable really can not be done without testing.
You test – we know.
There are lots of places that you can make weapons grade plutonium.
And if you made it – it can be traced back to you.
If Iran makes plutonium and gives it to terrorists, they will be held accountable.
That is my big point here – If you are a nation and you want to make a nuke – fine. But you can not fly it somewhere and drop it, launch it on a missle, or even put it in a cargo container with a high probability of getting it to go off and a low probability of being held responsible.
No one is saying a nation can not make a nuke.
But it can not do it without anyone knowing.
The best chance of making a “secret bomb” would be a hiroshima type bomb. that seems to be what the Iranians are trying to do.
Without a massive testing program – you end up with a big inefficient bomb. With testing you broadcast to the world what you have and if you have it you will be accountable if you try to use it.
Even flying a 5 ton bomb arround is a nontrivial task.
google “little boy weight” and the answer is 9700lb – just under 5 ton.
A 1970 VW beetle weighed 1900lb.
No one wants weapons grade Uranium dumped into the water supply – but u235 is NOT particularly dangerous to handle – which makes it much easier to make a bomb out of but nearly useless for a “dirty bomb”
http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/uranium.html
You’re right, I got the weights wrong – but the theory of dangerous terrorist use correct. Much smaller but as lethal bombs could have been made way back in the 1970s.
http://www.ccnr.org/Peaceful_Atom.html#feld
Read your own link.
Start with once “you’ve got plutonium”
This is not stuff that ordinary americans can safely handle without killing themselves. Tiny amounts kill you, horribly and quickly. Handling it, transporting it, doing pretty much anything with it is very difficult.
States can do it. Terrorist cells – not so much.
Yes there are vile things you can do – a dirty bomb made with conventional explosives and radioactive medical waste would be incredibly scary.
It still would require skilled handling – just not nearly that of Plutonium,
And the effect would be orders of magnitude less.
Nothing is impossible. I am not trying to tell you there is absolutely zero risk.
Only that there are far more effective and cheap ways to do incredibly vile and scary things that do not require working with chemical, biological or nuclear materials all of which require enormous skill and are tightly if not perfectly controlled by governments.
One excellent test for the odds of something happening is – has it happened before. Obviously there is a first time for everything, but outside of Clancy novels, how many instances of nuclear or biological terrorism have their been ? I think that a japanese red brigade cell managed a sarin attack in the Japanese subways. But that is about the most technologically sophisticated terror attack I can ever recall – and Japanese red brigades are not your typical mideastern terrorist.
If you want to be affraid – be affraid of what is likely.
The likely events are the ones we have already seen. More lone wolf ISIS sympathizers with an AR-15 hitting a crowded venue.
Some guy with a box truck mowing people down.
Bombers like the unibomber and Boston Marathon bombers.
Repeats of OKC are much harder. Among other things people of middle eastern descent buying massive amounts of fertilizer and diesel tend to attract attention.
There are alot of really nasty things that a well educated white guy might manage – but there are just not that many Phd white terrorists.
Even 9/11 is not likely repeatable:
Finding educated mideasterners willing and able to come to the US
live clandestinely for months, learn how to fly airplanes and willing to commit suicide is hard. 17yr olds who will strap on a bomb vest are a dime a dozen but that is not going to get you a big strike in the US.
Finally the 9/11 attackers violated the unwritten code that if hostages would just behave eventually government would rescue them.
Two of the 4 9/11 planes were likely brought down by passengers – who grasped that they survival – as well as that of myriads of others was in their own hands and no one else’s.
It is unlikely that 5 guys with box cutters can take over a 747 today.
Again I am not saying do not be affraid.
But quit worrying about extremely low probability events.
It is 100% certain that some day a civilization ending asteroid will strike the earth. But the odds of that tomorrow, or in the next several lifetimes are near zero. Hopefully by the time it is likely we will be able to avert it.
But now worrying or directing resources at that problem is waste.
There are lots of things that if absolutely everything went perfectly terrorists could do. I can concoct a Clancy like nuclear scenario. But they all have requirements that are just highly unlikely. Access to resources that are outside of what ordinarly people have available to them, a combination of education, and skills that very very rarely occurrs in people prepared to kill lots of others.
Jay;
Absolutely – lets just quote all the charities praising each other as to proof of how great a charity CF is.
First – whether we are talking charity in general, CF in particular, government idiocy such as PPACA or any other such left wing nonsense. Let us dispense with the LIE of life saving (or killing as the case may be).
I have already noted – and most NGO’s charities and governments even admit that aide to africa in the past 40 years has total $1T and accomplished nothing.
Yet if we were to listen to all these assorted self serving comments – there must be billions of people now alive who would not be otherwise.
This is complete bunk.
To the extent there is any truth at all – the truth is that more people are dead because of the left.
We can fight over DDT – but the fact is that it does nto matter.
Malaria and related fatal or dibilitating diseases have been exterminated throughout much of the world. There were even very nearly exterminated in parts of africa and india.
They are back and millions have died from them.
Why ? Because it does not matter whether it is DDT, or draining swamps – whatever the rest of the world did to eliminate these problems – the developing world is prohibited from doing by left wing nuts.
The left constantly advocates for what it calls sustainable living – which is really just a return to the caves and a nonsensical value system where Tsetse flies are more valued than people. Those of us in developed countries pay lip service to such nonsense, those so motivated drive their priuses, buy fair trade coffee, and eat locally grown organically raised eggs. As they plug in their hair dryers and watch their flat screens.
But we actually try to force those people in undeveloped parts of the world to live this lifestyle that we will not live ourselves.
Get a clue – the left does not save people from anything – more frequently they kill people.
Whether it is PPACA – yes there are more people insured and healthcare is more expensive (duh), but ER visits are up, the poor are NOT more likely to have insurance, life expectancy and average care is unchanged, any claims that people are alive who would otherwise be dead are pure fiction.
The same with this african Aides nonsense.
I gave you the figures – there is no change in trends.
I keep telling you that actually doing good for others is extremely difficult – for the most part people have to improve their lives on their own. You can not do it for them.
Which is why greater economic freedom has actually “saved millions of lives” and Charity has not. People with the freedom to do so – make their lives better on their own.
Anyway, so you know – the next time you spray out “saved millions of lives”
I read that correctly as “killed lots of people”
But that is all a part of a bigger left wing nut big government fetishist problem.
Programs are created, billions are spent, nothing is accomplished, but we can not kill off stupid or failed government programs – so we make up stupid crap – like “saved millions of lives”
There has been no change in the population trend line in africa since 1970.
Africa has the lowest life expectancy in the world – about 50 years.
Life expectancy has remained unchanged since 1980 – while that of the rest of the world has risen by a bit short of a decade.
In central africa life expectancy has actually declined.
So Again – what is it that CF and the rest of that $1T over the past 40 years has accomplished ?
I do not want to hear this self congratulatory bunk. Whether it is in Africa or the US, whether it is charity, government, or private – you wish to make claims – show real results.
I can strongly document significant improvements in myriads of valued attributes in those nations in the world that have increased the degree of economic freedom.
There are very very few instances world wide where charity – or government has measurably accomplished anything (the near eradication of polio, and the eradication fo small pox would be a few actual accomplishments of government or charity).
Show me something that can be proven by real data that correlates strongly with whatever you are claiming.
“Comparing Clinton and Trump on nuclear weapons is meaningless.
There is no evidence Clinton has done anything to delay a nuclear Iran – and again short of war that is not an objective inside her or Trumps power to acheive.” ~ Dave
Yes, this is the point.
Ron, I get your point that Trump appears to not have the common political sense to keep his mouth shut and not tell the truth about the terrible and dangerous situation that the world finds itself in. Hillary would certainly have answered that question more smoothly and diplomatically.
But Hillary actually had the chance to pursue different policies, yet chose appeasement. By all accounts, Obama mostly deferred to her. And she has been wrong over and over. So, what has her smooth diplomacy accomplished in this post-nuclear age? And what are the chances that she will be any less wrong going forward?
As you know Priscilla I hate the Iran deal,
But this guy makes a point about the deal that he thinks justifies it: inhibiting future plutonium production
Of corse I think Iran is producing it now.
You can’t assume Hillary doesn’t learn from mistakes.
No, Jay, I agree you can’t assume that. Given the polling that shows a likelihood that she will be our next president, I sure as hell hope she’s learned something.
Jay;
I have not honestly looked at the details of the Iran deal.
I have not done so, because I do not expect Iran to keep it.
Our choices were simple – regime change by force, boycotts and shouting, or the best deal we could get and the hope that the Iranians would abide by it.
I would have picked boycotts and shouting. The use of force absent an act of violence by Iran is not moral. I think that Obama got a really lousy deal.
But I am not angry with Obama over the Iran deal. what difference does it make what deal you get if you do not expect the other party to keep it ?
What I think we need to do regarding Iran is:
Engage with them. Anything we can do to increase the freedom and prosperity of Iranians undermines the extremists in power.
Further as scary as Iran is – and they are scary. I am more concerned about Kim Il. I think the Iranians want to project power. I actually think that their use of terror is a sort of poor mans Nuke and that the possession of nukes may REDUCE their use of terrorism. Possession nukes gives you the ability to project power. It is also provocative. Other nations must beleive that you are not going to just lob off a nuke at the first insult or they may be provoked into pre-emptive measures. I reject the argument for invading Iraq, but that does not mean that the same argument would not win broad support if Iraq was both nuclear and strongly supporting terrorists.
Defend against them – continue ABM development such that the odds of a nation like Iran or NK successfully launch a nuclear strike is near zero.
The power of a nuke diminses rapidly and the cost became waste as the odds of being able to successfully use it decline.
One of my earliest conflicts with Obama was over backing away from putting ABM’s in poland.
I mostly agree with you.
From the start I said it was a sham deal, and Iran had no intention of keeping it.
But I doubt enabling more prosperity in Iran or liberalizing their secular views will change Iran’s nuclear ambitions – similar internal shifts in Pakistan and Russia didn’t shift the balance there much if at all.
Priscilla, GW, Jay, and Ron, thank you all for your responses to my N.K. nuke question. Priscilla, since you apologized for cutting in, it tells me I was not clear enough that I was trying to elicit a response from anyone or everyone. Yes, I wanted as much response as possible thank you. While it seems by majority of the 4 responses, a somewhat fatalistic position that countries are going to do what they are going to do (very well expressed IMO by THEE Grand Wazoo) I think while Jay hits home the point that really stopping N.K. may have required medicine worse than the disease, You Priscilla, make the point that paying billions of dollars to a dictator regime seems quite unwise. Let me pile on that point by saying it sounds to me down right insane, and to those here that want to say Trump has a form of insanity, you may be right but it will be hard to top giving a ton of money to Iran, which is arguably the most destabilizing terrorist nation on the planet. Ron, to follow up on your comment, prior to your post, I had been thinking about Saudi Arabia, over the decades they have had enough wealth and connections to have probably pulled of getting nukes if they wanted them, thus I agree with you and I also conclude that the reason that they don’t have them (presumably) is they actually do not want to have them. They, being more specifically defined as the royal family, I’m sure there are plenty of other radicals in that country who would love to have at least one to use on a certain neighbor. ..Now, back to Trump, I don’t really think he would really order a nuke strike because someone insulted the look of his hair. But I do think he has demonstrated the “ability” to make a statement or posture a position that could be so inflammatory that it could do a lot of harm. I could see him trying to leverage a nuclear threat in an attempt to get his way on something and his threat could trigger very real problems. Ok, Dave being the only “daily poster” that as of my writing did not comment on N.K. ..just for fun, let me try to guess his position. He has emphasized how difficult it is to secretly pull off making an effective nuke, so I’m going to guess that he believes we, with some co-ordination with other countries, could have prevented N.K from getting a nuke, but being a hard core Libertarian (which I admire) he wouldn’t want our government strong enough or meddling in other country affairs enough to have stopped them. Feel free Dave, to rip apart my speculation about you 🙂 — Thank you all my new political discussion friends, from your somewhat brainwashed conservative, libertarian wannabe, Mike. P.S., If it sounds like I’m trying to make things personal, yes, I admit it, it is on purpose, because agreement or disagreement over monetary policy or a particular political figure will not hold people together through any future crisis. It will be, If anything, trusting and/or caring about others, even if they differ in beliefs. This is my unapologetic, main intention of sharing my ideas with you.
Heh, I’m highly enjoying your posts Mike, you are equally cynical of right and left and that is my favorite flavor of post, as I have a thick moderate lens that is quite prejudiced against any thought other than moderate or slightly left or slightly right. I sometimes imagine that this kind of ideological lens (mine) amounts to no lens at all, pure objectivity! but then I know that is actually bullshit, I’m as intolerant and closed minded about my chosen part of the spectrum as an intolerant rightly or lefty. (although being right or left does not automatically make one intolerant, there are so many loud counter examples that its easy to forget that. Priscilla is an example of a tolerant (to other posters) righty. So, she is always driving me nuts with her righty thought, but endearing herself by being very tolerant to other posters. Then there is the JB type…., well, you have not encountered him. )
I’ll make a big effort to be understanding of righties and lefties if they play nice, but reserve the right to be unimpressed and unloving if they don’t.
GW,
I have a tendency to define right and left relative to the scale of the govenrment they support. That really is a fallacious two dimensional view of politics and ideology.
One of the reasons I do not agree with most of the “moderates” here and constantly accuse them of being on the left, is because their answer to every problem is more government.
On every issue where the left actually seeks to increase individual liberty – I am a “lefty”
Of course those are increasingly uncommon – I fully expect the left to become drug warriors tomorow as there is little left of any concept of individual rights on the left.
Regardless, my point is – what is critical to me – and what I think matters with respect to our future is individual liberty – not left or right.
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. ”
Ronald Reagan 1964.
NK already has nukes. What they do not have is the ability to accurately deliver them over long distances. Ultimately they will get that.
NK is possibly the scariest nuclear power on earth. They are NOT predictable, they are in constant danger of failing as a nation, and there is enough of a possibility that they could use nukes in the event of a USSR style collapse that knowing how to deal with them is difficult.
I do not have the answers.
Thus far they have blackmailed us repeatedly into providing them aide.
That will likely happen everytime they approach catastrophe and that will happen regularly.
My personal instinct is that back during the Clinton administration we should not have come to a deal. We should have let them fail and prayed that they were not able to nuke anyone while they collapsed.
As we move forward in time, we rely more on their not being totally nuts and less on their being unable.
All the above said – If I had been Bill Clinton in the oval office – I would have struck the same deal he did and prayed that sometime in the future things were different.
All the above said NK is only dangerous under two circumstances – they are threatened, or they are in danger of collapse. So long as those are avoided they will rattle sabres, but I expect nothing else.
Overal I think a nuclear Iran is LESS dangerous than a Nuclear NK.
BTW I do not think there is some “libertarian” view on nuclear weapons.
To the extent their is, it is merely that the US and other nations have no right to prevent other nations from going nuclear – and every right to prevent them from USING nukes.
We should focus on making the cost to have them high and diminishing their value.
I do expect that A nuclear Iran will be followed by a Nuclear Saudi Arabia.
That scares me more as i think that Saudi Arabia is ultimately going to collapse.
So is Iran – but Iran is not going to go from a mostly stable theocracy, to anything MORE likely to use nukes. Saudi Arabia’s collapse will be followed by a real mess – and that is not a time we want nukes to be lying arround.
One last observation that I have made before.
One complaint about libertarianism is that there are no working examples.
While that is crap – there is no “perfect” libertarian state, but the more libertarian a state is the more successful it is.
But there is a real world example of PURE working anarcho-capitalism.
One that is highly unlikely to ever change.
It is the most important political arrangement on the planet.
It is the relationship of nations to each other.
There is no “world government”. Whatever international law is, our obediance to it is purely voluntary. There is no global police force.
There is alot wrong with this anarcho-capitalist arrangement.
But very few are willing to even discuss replacing it.
I sure hope this links up and you all can access. We need some levity during this election.
Ron, it tells me “The Facebook post is no longer available. It may have been removed or the privacy settings of the post may have changed.” However, I though the earlier posts to Monty Python and the “Baby face” posts were mighty funny.
Well sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Tried most everything I knew to copy the picture and could not get it to come through so I could post. Even went to google and found the actual picture and it still would not save in a format that I could post.
“A Monmouth University poll released Monday had similar findings, reporting that nearly one-third do not have a favorable view of Clinton or Trump.
“The number of voters who cannot bring themselves to voice a positive opinion of either presidential nominee is more than three times higher than in any other election in recent memory. This is unprecedented,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute. “This is truly extraordinary. It seems like a significant number of voters are backing a presidential candidate about whom they cannot say anything positive.””
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-unpopular-poll_us_57c6fe23e4b0a22de0936fae?section=&
And yet they continue to buy the two party cool-aide and refuse to consider anyone else that may be much more qualified.
You need someone charismatic enough to dominate the media to have any shot at success as a third party candidate.
That ain’t happening now.
Guess I should have said the “Media cool-aide”. I am sick of this campaign as there has been nothing said yet that tells anyone what the candidates will do in a positive manner. In NC, we are bombarded with negative ads about e-mails, benghazi, where shirts and ties are made, clips of racist and obnoxious speeches.
Not a word on how the deficit will be cut, how the debt interest expense will be covered when interest rates go up, how social security is going to be amended, how the screwed up healthcare system that now has as few as one company in a state offering coverage is going to be fixed and many other issues that face this country.
All I have seen even here (and I have been one to also comment negatively) is how bad Trump is or how the clintons are marked due to their foundation. That is not going to fix our future problems!
Ron;
There is plenty out there is you want it, that answers every question you have about what each of the candidates intend to do.
No one is paying any attention to it.
Do you really believe either of these candidates are going to do what they have promised ?
Clinton’s proposals are absolutely atrocious. For the most part they are nothing more than pandering for votes, which is fortunate, because actually doing what she promises would be disasterous.
Regardless, why would you expect Pres. Clinton to be difference from Sec. State Clinton, from Sen. Clinton from First lady Clinton ?
What we can expect is more of what we have seen, More secrecy. More cronyism. More politics of personal gain. More gaming the rules, More lying. More political corruption, more self-interest.
Clinton’s team of economic advisors is terrifying. She has a strong advocate of MMT. MMT is a modern retread of the nonsense that destroyed the wiemar republic, Zimbabwe. It is the lunacy that a country that controls its own currency can not default.
She has Stiglitz who atleast has a nobel. But has been pushing hard on Income Inequality. I am sorry but I have no respect for anyone in a field of intellect who has looked at the data and still thinks IE is a problem.
We are angry and complaining right now because we have had by far the weakest recovery since the great depression. Another two quarters of sufficiently weak recovery and we will actually have a WORSE recovery than the great depression.
Over the past 40 years the standard of living of each quintile has doubled.
Arguments that can not be falsified are religion not reality, not science, not logic, not math.
I have myriads of ways to repudiate IE claims. If you still adhere to them afterwards, you are a religious zealot trying to impose your scheme based on faith. You are no different from islamic fundamentalists except that your god is not anthropomorphized.
Regardless, Clinton’s economic team makes crystal clear that a Clinton administration will not care about debt, deficits, fiscal or monetary responsibility.
I am radically at odds with Trump over free trade – but Clinton is barely distinguishable from Trump, except that Trump yells louder.
Trump’s economic team is very good, but not perfect. It includes Steve Moore and Art Laffer. They overemphasize tax cuts.
Taxes are very important, but the strongest correlations to growth are negative correlations to SPENDING not taxes. The economy can at best be fooled short term by tax cuts – just as it can at best be fooled short term by “stimulus”. Ultimately the economy grasps that all spending will have to be paid for and adjusts according. The fundimental problem with Clinton’s team is they do not beleive that all spending must ultimately be paid for, that is the root of MMT and why it is a very stupid and dangerous economic school.
Bother Trump and Clinton make zero sum arguments on most everything.
That pits the rich against the poor, the US against the world.
That is again a major point I do not understand about the so called moderates here.
There are a few real zero sum issues in the world – monetary issues are zero sum which is what is wrong with MMT. the Financial markets are close to zero sum – which is why the financial crisis was inevitable and the housing bubble is the problem.
But many many other things are not zero sum.
My happiness does not come at the expense of yours.
My prosperity does not come at the expense of yours.
If China benefits from Trade with the US, that doe not mean the US loses.
If illegal immigrants benefit from coming to the US those already here do not lose.
If the rich get richer, that does not mean the poor get poorer.
Must improvements in the lives of whites come at the expense of minorities ?
To me zero sum thinking is ANTI-MODERATE.
Yet not only do both Clinton and Trump paint every issue as us vs them, but so does TNM.
The answer is not the left, right or even compromise.
The answer is that the issue is NOT zero sum.
My prosperity does nto alter the opportunity for yours.
Anyway back to my real point.
If you want to know where each candidate is on the issues, what their ideas are – that information is readily available.
But both sides have made sure this election is not about ideas.
This also means that horse race polls are going to be unstable, and possibly meaningless.
This election will be decided most likely by what those who hate BOTH do on Nov. 8.
And I do not think that we have the political understanding to know what way those who are holding their noses and voting will go. But I have been wrong on that before.
For those who seem to think I know or pretend to know everything.
I will absolutely freely admit – anything I write about how other people will vote is ouija board speculation.
Just found a good T-Shirt for the election on the Libertarian site.
“You can vote for the nut on the left, or you can vote for the nut on the right. I am voting for Johnson!
Wonder how Trump would relate to that????
I must have drunk the 2-party Kool- Aid® because I really do view presidential elections as binary affairs.
That said, I think that, if the GOP had nominated someone other than Trump, and Trump had decided to run as a populist, we might be seeing a genuine 3 party election, which I would define as an election in which all 3 candidates are capable of winning electoral votes.
Gary Johnson, as far as I can see, is doing what the Libertarian candidate always does~ offering an protest/spoiler option for those who don’t want to vote for a major party candidate.
RIght now, he’s not out there, focusing on states that he could win (I would assume that would be New Mexico or Colorado).On the other hand, he has made an issue of the debates, and, if he were to get into them, I would change my position on him, because then I think that he would be a legitimate electoral “threat.” I don’t see it happening, but it would definitely be a game-changer…..
A couple of weeks ago, Dave expressed his support for having a “none of the above” option in presidential elections, and requiring that (in addtion to 270 ev’s?) the winning candidate clear the 50% popular vote tally, or we’d presumably have a do-over. (Dave, correct me if I have mischaracterized your position). That would almost certainly impact this election, far more than a 3rd party option. Interesting to contemplate……..
Priscilla;
My “none of the above”, greater than 50% of the vote and a greater margin of victory than the margin of error were all mostly focused on elections that are already determined by popular vote. I did NOT consider them with respect to the electoral college.
BTW the electoral college is itself a similar feature.
The actual objective of my suggestions is NOT to enhance majoritarian democracy.
It is to make electing activists harder and to make sure that the results of an election have the “consent of the governed”.
I also STRONGLY support voter ID for the same reason.
I would also eliminate ALL electronic and mechanical voting – despite the fact that my profession is embedded software.
Because transparency, and legitimacy are very very important.
I may have written this before but I would hand count votes – under the watchful eye of the public. I would use a system like jury duty to bring in vote counters.
Voting is SUPRA constitutional. It is outside the scope of government or the constitution.
The legitimacy of the government comes from the consent of the governed.
Bush/Gore 2000 was very traumatic for me.
We survived President Bush – we would have survived president gore.
But the prospect of an extended period without a decision was dangerous.
SCOTUS got rightly excoriated for interfering BUT the FL courts were equally required to stay out. FL should have named a winner when it was legally obligated to.
Recounts could have continued AFTER, but the burden would have been on the challenger to demonstrate a different outcome.
But more important than how to handle what did happen, is how to avoid it.
I do not as an example think that Voter ID will alter the outcome of elections.
I do think it will make us more confident in the results.
This also goes to the current Clinton mess.
The standard for govenrment is the “appearance of impropriety”.
We can not convict clinton – without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
But she should have been removed from government and should not be elected, merely because it “appears” that what she did was wrong.
I would have removed Bill Clinton from office for lying under oath – even though Gore would then have been president and likely won in 2000.
I might have removed him merely for lying to the public.
Right now I can not conceive of voting for Trump.
I disagree with him on too many things – mostly things that are not discussed much publicly.
But I can not imagine anything on the planet ever getting me to vote for Clinton.
She has seriously abused the public Trust.
Those here and elsewhere that pretend that has not occurred seriously bother me.
You want to tell me Clinton is the lessor evil – I disagree. But I can understand that view.
But please do not try to tell me she is honesty or push this “vast right wing conspiracy” nonsense again.
I am highly likely to vote for Johnson on Nov. 8. So that I can face at myself on Nov. 9.
But he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
Though a large enough protest vote could shake things up.
Among other factors if the Johnson vote is larger than the margin of victory for either of these two, then BOTH democrats and republicans are going to have to seriously consider how to capture the libertarian vote in the future.
One quasi good thing that Trump has done, is shown that this democraphics is destiny crap is nonsense. He has created a voting block different from Past republicans.
He has lost groups republicans typically won and won groups they typically lost.
A Woebegone Assessment of The Donald
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-losing-garrison-keillor-20160831-story.html
At work I can access this site and read posts but my employer (understandably) blocks our computers from certain things which prevents me from writing until I get home. This is also probably good in that I end up listening more than speaking. I was reading some comments on some old articles. I laughed quite a bit at Priscilla’s line, perhaps paraphrased: Just because we are all smart here, doesn’t mean we know what we are talking about. If I ever start my own website, I might use that as a banner heading. I’m really smart, but I don’t know what I’m talking about. I also noticed what I call the “Dennis Rodman Effect”. Once in a game I saw Dennis Rodman get a technical foul for doing nothing…other that half looking upward, half rolling his eyes. I was stunned, really?! You call a foul, and then the guy who feels it was a bad call, merely looks up and…bam! Technical Foul! So it was wrong by the refs, they were overly sensitive to anything he did and they overly reacted. But what got them sensitive the Rodman? All the previous times that they felt he really did deserve it. Enter JB and others reactions to Dave/ASmith, ok, I see it, he is dogged and persistent about his ideas, perhaps even predictable at times. Sometimes JB gives some cute ribbing..story of Zen Master and Professor, once, that I found, JB explodes with the F-word, not that we all can’t handle the F-word, but it shows a frustration that means the banter games we play was no longer fun at that moment. From relatively new eyes, a number of you really react harshly, really quick, with Dave. Or as I say, the Dennis Rodman effect. I’m going to have to google and see if that has already been coined by someone, or if that is an original of mine. I don’t know, just because I’m perceptive doesn’t mean I know what I’m talking about. 🙂 —I really tired tonight but feel compelled to share one other thought, Dave referenced how we really don’t know each other, illustratively he says for all you know, he could be an 8 year old girl. Of course we can distort our appearance and names as much as we want on the internet, but I would argue that in some ways, free from our visual judgments we make about people by their clothes, their jobs, their appearance, on line, you potentially can know someone better by learning their thoughts and values, free of all the visual bias that is so hard to overcome even when we try. My speculation is Dave is really a 22 year old supermodel and she desperately wants to be respected for her ideas rather than everyone just always kissing up to her for her looks, so she takes on the persona of a older, someone financially successful man with some abrasiveness to ensure she gets real feedback rather than everyone just trying to say what she wants to hear to get a date with her….I’m sorry, everyone here picks on Dave and then the new guy comes in and starts teasing him too. With the deepest honesty I can muster, Dave, I wouldn’t tease like that if I thought it would bother you, I hope you found it funny too, and I apologize in advance if it did bother you.
Thanks Jay! I thought your prior video to Marco Rubio was also funny. I looked up Dennis Rodman Effect and found some people using the term for other things, but not for how I used it.
Dave knows his stuff, and is – almost – unfailingly civil. I’m not a libertarian, but I agree in theory, with many libertarian principles. The problem that I have with libertarians is that, too often, they don’t acknowledge political realities, and, when they do, they become “liberals who don’t understand economics” or simply less authoritarian conservatives. Or, like Gary Johnson, a libertine centrist, who admits to smoking a lot of weed. I don’t agree with Dave on a lot of things, but I have learned a great deal about “small l”libertarian thinking from his posts.
Priscilla;
Politics is definitely one of the things I do not understand well.
Though I do not think alot of people do.
Bill Clinton does. Barack Obama does.
Often that scares me.
The people who want to be president (or hold any political office) are the ones we should want least in a position of political trust.
I would further note that “libertarian” does NOT mean people who beleive exactly as I do – any more than “conservative” means people who beleive exactly like you do.
I have enormous problems with Gary Johnson – and I could care less how much pot he has dones. But as wrong as he is on many issues – he is still 100 times better than Evil and Lessor Evil (assigned to clinton/trump as you prefer). Further though he stands zero change Johnson would likely make a good president
My point is that there is no litmus test for libertarian.
I talk constantly about arriving where I am pragmatically – which is absolutely true. But I am still a “philosopher” as a sort of personality type.
I need to make everything fit into a logical rational scheme. Or maybe I am more of a scientist – looking for the equivalents of newtons laws for human behavior. That particular personality type is common among libertarians – because people who can not accept contradictions who do not allow emotions to trump logic (way to often people confuse that with not having emotions) tend heavily towards libertarianism.
I can not personally understand how anyone can be a progressive.
It is an ideology that requires the destruction of meaning in words to be able to exist in ones brain without the contradictions causing ones head to explode. Conservatism tends to be less self contradictory, but for the most part only because as Reagan said
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
If you are interested in how our personalities tend to determine our politics I would again sugest Dr. Haidt’s work on moral foundations. You can take his quizes that will rate numerous attributes of your personal moral values and then compare you to others – including by ideology.
Conservatives and progressives are nearly opposite – i.e the things conservatives value highly progressives value weakly.
Libertarains are totally different – neither conservatives nor progressives value individual liberty like libertarains do. However libertarians share some other values strongly with progressive and others with conservatives.
Regardless, I am trying to make a distinction between MY views and libertarianism.
I really strongly beleive the things I say – and I believe that the evidence is there to confirm that the world really works best that way.
And that deviating means it will work more poorly.
But just like conservatism libertarianism engulfs a wide range of values.
Get rid of the anti-immigrant and anti-free trade stuff and the Tea Party would be libertarian as an example.
Sorry,. I did want to address “political realities”.
The most important political reality to me is that I think that the fact that the libertarian ideology most accurately reflects human nature means that in the long run it must prevail.
The right has lost the “culture wars” – unfortunately losing a few things that were actually important in the process – otherwise we would not have all this Political Correctness, Safe Spaces, Trigger Words and some ideas are too offensive to express nonsense.
I do not as an example beleive in slavery – but I think that if you are unwilling to listen to someone attempt to give a strong defense of slavery, then you are cheating yourself. If your principles are so fragile they can not face confrontation, they are pointless.
Regardless, the world grows bigger, and more complex, and more interconnected, and more complex, and did I say more complex all the time.
Government keeps attempting to grow to keep up – but it can not.
We are becoming more free and less free at the same time.
But we are gaining freedom faster than we are losing it.
Larger and larger hunks of our lives are either completely outside the scope of government or atleast only nominally inside.
I buy things from China all the time. I do so successfully. There is little in the way of law to assure that I get what I want, that I do nto get ripped off – and yet all this works – without government.
I do not buy much that I am not “allowed” to, but lots and lots of things that government prohibits are readily available – often without going to china.
I know people who buy antibiotics on ebay without perscription. There are myriads of other examples of things you are supposed to go through government sources.
I do not shop on Silk Road – but I could easily enough.
We are all getting more and more used to free exchange with very lite govenrment supervison.
And we are increasingly past the point were government could successfully step in and stop it.
Freedom is addictive, and we get angry if it is taken.
Also note that there is a cost to government restrictions of liberty.
That cost is the scale of our government.
If were pass laws to ban large sugary drinks – we must enforce them or they are meaningless.
The left completely fails to grasp this.
We have all this BLM conflict with police – well the police are merely enforcing the laws – often laws passed by the left.
All laws require FORCE.
I know peoples eyes glaze over when I say that – but it is true.
Even if you do not buy that storm troopers are coming to take away your 64oz drink, all laws, mean even if only to a small degree another straw of law enforcement onto the camels back.
Government is failing – because it tries to do too much.
PPACA is a disaster. Republicans should celebrate it. It is just a gift from democrats to republicans that keeps giving and giving.
It appears to be in the beginings of the “death spiral” – higher premiums mean fewer sicker participlants, means higher premiums means …..
Medicare is already essentially bankrupt. SS is already drawing from the general fund and will run out of IOU’s soon, regardless neither are sustainable.
The global nature of the economy is bringing competition to government.
We go livid abotu corporate inversions – why do they surprise us.
The socialists of europe found they had to drop corporate taxes to make their economy work, and they have attracted our businesses.
Corporate taxes keep the foreign profits of US businesses from flowing back to the US – why exactly would we ant to do that ?
Regardless, the point is even governments are slowing starting to have to compete on price/value. That will only get worse.
As governments are required to become more market competitive – we start to talk about real world anarcho-capitalism not merely libertarianism.
The politics of congress that I do not understand are irrelevant with market forces overwhelm them.
And I want to re-itterate. The “free market” is not GM and Walmart”.
It is us. It is those big entities – increasingly including government striving to give each of us as much of whatever we want as possible.
Because contrary to the left meme – we can destroy them easily.
But they can not really harm us.
So yes, I ignore some of the politics.
But my ideology is rooted in the natural laws of human behavior.
Which do you beleive – that governments will change how people behave ? or People will change how govenrments behave ?
My apologies, Dave. I did not mean to lump you into the category of “libertarians who don’t address political realities,” because, in general, I think that you do address them. Maybe not always with specifics (for example, I still don’t understand the logistics of your open borders stance) but you appear to be more grounded in political reality than many other “extreme libertarians.”
I guess I would point to Ron as a pragmatic political libertarian.
When I say that libertarians don’t acknowledge political realities, I’m mainly referring to the fact that progressivism has dominated politics since at least the 1930’s, and maybe before, with breaks of conservative and/or libertarian speed bumps. Rolling back a century of big government ~ SS, Medicare, welfare, etc ~ may be a libertarian dream, but it’s not politically feasible, short of some sort of revolution.
That said, as we move closer and closer to a socialist-style welfare state, a political revolution may not be so far fetched.
Mike;
I have actually been “bullied” in my life.
I have also been used to taking and defending unpopular stands – even when those stands were not “libertarian”. I am a big boy.
Again a point of departure re the “new moderate”. We all have to live together in the same country without killing each other. We do NOT have to agree or get along.
I do NOT see conflict as evil, or even to be avoided.
At various times I have leaked out enough of my personal details on TNM that a persistent person could find me and know who I really am.
I post less anonymously here than most of the rest of the web.
If you find posts by jbsay@thebrokenwindow.net elsewhere on the web – they are me.
Yes, I used to use Adam Smith – but in too many places it is used by someone else.
Also many sites have rules requiring using your own name and nearly everyone recognizes Adam Smith as a pseudonym. Almost no one connects John B Say with Jean Baptiste Say – of “Says law” or better known is “the law of supply and demand”.
If someone wishes to email me at the address above. I will be happy to provide them with even more information on the “real me”.
Most of us understand atleast some of the reasons for being anonymous.
One of the first things my wife and I taught our kids – was that they could say whatever they wanted anywhere they wanted on the web. We encourage them to speak out – even it the do nto agree with us. But DO NOT DO IT UNDER THEIR OWN NAME.
They are growing up, going to college, seeking jobs. I am a landlord – do you think I do not check out the face book pages of prospective tenant ? I turned one applicant down because there was drug paraphenaila, Cash fans, and gang colors on their face book page.
Again something people do not get about individual liberty.
I have no problems with individuals discriminating against people for exactly the same reasons that government may not.
At the same time I grasp that people might wish to discriminate against me.
One blog I follow is globally aclaimed. It has won innumberable “webbies” for science.
But the blogger has a private company in an unrelated area and he has lost several large contracts because his clients do not wish to be associated with controversy.
To my clients, I am a very mild embedded software developer who holds no strong opinions on anything. Rarely, when I get the right signals from a client I will open up a little.
While I am NOT a 22 year old super model. On the web I get to say what I think, to be real without worrying that it will effect my ability to pay my mortgage.
Though I will note, that I am not completely Jekyl and Hyde. There are lots of places in the real world you can be who you are. the problem on the web is not that you can say what you think, but that anyone – even people you never intended can find out what you said.
Was it not Machiavelli that said ” “Oh that my enemy would write a book!” somewhat tongue in cheek perhaps because he wrote one himself. These days it seems we all write books about ourselves and unfortunately 1) people sometimes exploit that 2) sometimes we are unaware of the books, be they security cameras, data breeches, or even all the small print we click on and agree to in order to get a free burrito at Freebird. A couple days ago I was considering getting the on-line app for Freebird burritos, I often do not read the terms but I did this one time. Good Grief! There is so much stuff they want you to agree to , I said forget it. Thanks for the feedback! I don’t know if it will be later tonight, or in a month, but it is a pretty safe bet I will use that email connection you offered.
Mike;
How do you “exploit” writing a book ?
If you do not wish to buy or read some book – dont.
You can certainly exploit the selling of it:
I’m currently reading the biography of Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow, and it’s interesting how frequently the thinkers and politicians of the 18th century, and before, used pseudonyms when writing some of the most important political essays and books in history…The Federalist Papers, for example.
As far as anonymity goes, I am known “in real life” by both Rick and JB (who hasn’t, of late, been commenting here, but I hope he will return after the election, if not sooner!). So, although I wish that I could be the 22 year old supermodel, alas, I would be quickly called out as somewhat older than 22 😉
Dave, I’m happy to answer your question, but I believe we may be dealing with a syntax error. (I’m not certain it is a syntax error because I always thought that syntax was what made cigarettes so expensive.) What I was trying to convey is the writer of a book can be exploited by the reader of the book. The two main ways this can occur is if one has an enemy, the enemy can learn about you, assess your strengths and weaknesses and find ways to defeat you, be that in a tennis match, business endeavor, or just perhaps attacking you mafia style by figuring out where you are at, from the book you wrote. The second way the opponent can exploit your writing of a book is that enemy can distort your words, your meaning, and when someone challenges the enemy, they can say they are right :”See, he said that exact thing in his book.” I then went on to try to make the case that the volumes of information collected on people, with security cameras, data breeches and such, was sort of like a “book” about us that we may not be fully aware that was “written” about us. Again, tying it to the same problem that people could use that book against us. Yesterday I saw a post on facebook: “Dance as though no one is watching, and write emails as though they will be read aloud in a deposition someday.”
Slowly but surely, step by step, inch by inch, Dave’s picayune (no I don’t refer to a Scandanavian mining tool 😊) nip picking will drive you nuts. I guarantee it.
I guess I do nto really like the word “exploit”.
Clearly I inverted your meaning regardless.
If you write – those who read are free to use what you wrote as they please.
I get annoyed that sometimes people do not read what I actually wrote – but they are still free to read as little of much as they wish and to pretend it means something different than I intended.
I complain alot about mangling the meaning of words.
This is not a semantic complaint.
Words are how we think. How we communicate.
The world changes and words change with them.
Meaning varies from person to person.
But when we seek to communicate and understand ideas like government, precision is important as otherwise we distort our thinking and our communications.
This is again an argument for limited government.
AGAIN government is force.
We should be PRECISE and careful about the use of force.
Ambiguity and complexity is for everything that is NOT government.
One should not confuse the narrowness of my views on government and the precision I demand for communication and thought about government with some broader demand for perfection or precision.
The world is not perfect, it is not perfectable – though it is improving constantly.
Conversely government must be as perfect as we can make it. To do so it must be limited and small.
Complexity and ambiguity belong in our free relations with each other – not in government.
When I express my thoughts in a public forum – they are no longer mine.
I would prefer people to read them as I intend, but they are free to do as they please.
I have a bad habit of writing run on sentences. We also lose tone of voice in blogs. Thus it is quite easy to be misunderstood. I agree that the more precise we are, the better.
Dave, “We are all getting more and more used to free exchange with very lite government supervision.” I take it you are referring to people of the United States as opposed to most of the world’s population which are under oppressive authority. I don’t know the percentage of world population China and India have combined, but while Indians may have more freedom than citizens of mainland China, people of India criticize their government at their own peril. That is a whole lot of people, plus many other nations that are quite oppressive. If we stick to just the United States, I have a hard time telling which direction we are going, in some areas things seem to be trending towards greater freedoms, but there seems to be plenty areas where we are on the downside, I am very concerned about the growth of government, and I dare say it seems both parties are pushing to more and more state power, which you correctly mention is all connected to force. The son of one of my cousins got charged with a serious crime for wearing a belt that was made essentially out of toy bullets. Eventually the charges were dropped, but not until after a large sum was spent by my cousin on attorney fees in defense of her son. I have recently been reading some of the past articles from as far back as 2013. I’ve read your comments as well as others, I like most all of your ideas. I doubt I’ll ever be bothered by any questions you throw out. But, if for some reason I ever did become annoyed by your questions, I would either let you know I was annoyed, and not answer. Or, I would simply not answer without telling you why. I would like to challenge you on your idea that conflict is neither evil or to be avoided. Sure, competition tends to bring prices down and help most everyone, but I sense you are talking about a broader sense of conflict than just competition. So, with that being said, when you are saying conflict is not to be avoided, what parameters to conflict, if any, are you speaking? In my imagination I’m envisioning two people turning into one parking spot at relatively the same time, and rather than one just yielding regardless if they were in the right or not, having a polite, calm, two hour debate in the parking lot as to who actually was entitled to the parking space. For me, I’d rather back down, even if I believed I was right. I don’t believe my bending on minor issues leads me to bending on major things like paying a kidnapper. I told my wife many years ago, if she was ever taken hostage, I would fight to my death trying to rescue her, but I would not pay the hostage taker any money for her release. (She did not like my answer, by the way, but that is another story.)
Mike;
No I am talking about the enitire world.
Yes, far too much of the world – including the US is less free than it ought to be,
but with few exceptions the world is more free today than 40 years ago.
The nations of the USSR are not as free as the US – they are more free than under Breshnev.
The PRC is not free. But is vastly more free than under Mao.
India is not free but it is more free than under Nehru
The nations of south and central america are not free, but they are more so than under various Junta’s or socialists in the past. Spain is more free than under Franco,
South Africa is more free.
There are still tyranical dictators – but there are far fewer, they are for the most part far less powerful.
Further this is all a virtuous circle. Even small increases in freedom lead to more prosperity and more desire for freedom.
Those who are starving – care about food.
People who can feed themselves care about freedom.
As China and India discovered, freedom increases our ability to feed ourselves.
You refer specifically to India and china and correctly noting they score low in freedom today.
but they are orders of magnitude more free today than 40 years ago.
And that is at the root of my argument – whether india or china, or the US – where freedom has actually been declining slightly for a while – the long term and inexorable trend is to increasing freedom and we are past the point were gtovernments have the power to resist that over the long term.
Let me qualify my remark about conflict.
Conflict is not INHERENTLY evil or to be avoided.
This is much like what I have expressed regarding compromise.
Conflict and compromise are both tools.
They hold no moral value of their own.
One of the foundational principles of human society – the root principle of the social contract is that humans sacrifice the right to initiate violence against others in return from the expectation that others will not initiate violence against them.
Free Will is a core philosophical concept. The 99.99% of people who beleive that hold that the initiation of force against the free will of another is morally wrong.
That is a core moral principle that nearly all humans share.
Conversely resisting the immoral use of force by others is NOT immoral.
My point is – whether it is a dispute over a parking space, rescuing hostages, or a disagreement over legislation whether compromise, conflict or capitulation are appropriate rests on the morality of the underlying issues.
Compromise is NOT in any way inherently morally good.
Conflict is NOT in any way inherently morally evil.
I am sorry about your cousins son.
The case does nto surprise me at all.
Similar cases are extremely common.
My wife is a public defender. She sees these all the time. I am glad your cousins son eventually prevailed – that is not common.
My wife had a case where juveniles were dropping eggs off an overpass onto passing cars.
Something most of us would disapprove of and some of us would want illegal.
The juveniles were convicted of “assault with a deadly weapon” – this went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court – and the conviction was upheld.
Many – though not all of this “bad law” involves conflicts with police officers.
If you have been reading my past comments, while I have problems with Black Lives Matter, I am in agreement that we have a problem in that we defer far far too much to law enforcement.
The police have a very difficult and dangerous job. I respect the difficulty in their work.
But our law has addressed their risk by continuously increasing the power of police.
That does not work – greater power does not make police safer – but it does make the rest of us less safe. It is incredibly easy today in an encounter with police to end up in prison.
If an officer shoves you – and you shove back – that is aggrevated assault.
Most – but not all of the egregious cases I see, are more like the egg case than the seatbelt case. i.e. the person being charged and convicted was doing something that most of us think is wrong. But the scale of what they are charged an convicted of is completely out of whack.
We have enormous disincentives to proper functioning built in to our legal system.
If you end up in a confrontation with a police officer that results in violence – police brutality.
Even if there is absolutely no legal justification for the officers actions – it is highly likely you will be charged with a crime. Why ? Because so long as you are found guilty of something, the law is such that you are likely to be barred from filing a civil lawsuit seeking damages.
That puts enormous pressure on the police, DA’s, and even the courts to find you guilty of something.
Mike;
Just to be clear my remarks regarding careful communications are not intended to be demands.
Outside of using force – either directly or through government as a proxy, we are free.
I ASK people to be clear in their use of words in their arguments because:
It improves our own thinking – as I noted most of us think in words muddled use of words results in muddled though.
It improves communications.
Perfect clarity is achievable.
One common argument technique I use is to confront people on the false or implicity presumptions in their arguments. One of the most common versions of that is their failure to grasp that all law and government action is the use of force.
I our speech we very commonly do two things – we bless the use of force unaware that we are even doing so – by saying government must solve this problem.
Or we false imply the use of force where no actual force is present – when we claim employers or businesses “coerce” us.
Misrepresentation of the use of force is important, because the use of force is only narrowly justifiable. Misunderstanding whether force is present alters the moral weight we give to the differing position.
But we never communicate with perfect precision – above I made a statement and left a dangling assertion at the end that otherwise we are free.
Strictly that is not true. But I elected (or was careless) not to be more precise. Too much precision sometimes impairs communications to.
Mike;
I do not think I have a leg to stand on criticizing someone else’s use of run on sentences.
I like all your responses, I’ll have some feedback later, but I must avoid a conflict with my wife right now who is pushing me to go out and mow the lawn.
After time to reflect, I have a feeling that perhaps the freeness or oppressiveness that people live under is perhaps analogues to the stock market, A step forward here, a step back there, big move up, sometimes a big move down, but over the long trend of decades, generally a trend upward. Of course I note some problems with my idea, the biggest is most likely that it is not data driven, it is based on the “scientific principle” of conjecture from emotions. While I think you made some solid points about the last 40 years, if you go back farther, to the time native American Indians dominated the Americas, from what I have read, it seems many of the tribes were incredibly free. Their chiefs, as I understand it, did not have that much power, no police, no jails. Obviously not all societies of the Americas where structured that way, Aztecs and such had a lot of “structure” and their human sacrifices were performed perhaps with a tad bit of force. With most of the ancient societies I know of, it seems a leader/king could have someone killed on a whim. But again, there were many groups of people that we know so little about, for example the pygmies of the African rainforests, I believe the presumption is that until recently, their society was pretty much the same for centuries, but we really don’t know. Perhaps it is a good time to interject and say, what is the point? If we have correctly or incorrectly discerned the trajectory of human freedom, does it matter? Well, if it is upward, then perhaps it provides us with encouragement to keep fighting for more freedom. If not, we still may fight for freedom, but with a poorer attitude about a battle we may be losing.
It is very important to be careful how we reason about the past.
It does not matter whether we are talking aztecs or climate or dinosaurs.
As we go back in time the quality and quantitiy of data diminish rapidly.
Thermometer records of temperature have existed for less than 400 years. An even today the trustworthiess of records of north america and siberia are vastly different.
Climate scientists like to tell us that current changes are “unprecidented”.
The truth is that we do not have sufficiently fine grained measures of past temperature to say that. In the past couple of milienia we are lucky if proxies will tell us the average temperature of a year at the location of the proxy. If we go back to 10,000 years we can only tell by decade we do not have to go back very far to get to where we can only measure change by century. So how can you say no 40 year period in the past had temperature changes this rapid – if you only know the average temperature for a century ?
This does not mean we know nothing about the past.
Again using climate as an example, while we can not know short term rates of change – we can know long term ones, as well as relative differences to today.
Whenever we are looking at the past we have to think about what can we know and what can’t we know, and how well can we know it.
There appears to be significant debate over the pre-columbus population of north america.
Estimates range from 3million to 40-80million. We do know that long before the US sought to “settle” the west diseases introduced by very early explorers ran though the new world decimating populations.
This makes trying to know the real structure of american indian society difficult.
In europe the plagues killed off 1/3 of the population. In north american the devastation may have been as high as 9/10ths.
I constantly rant that we must be careful comparing dollar denominated information over decades – even after adjusting for inflation. Why ? Because we can not actually make accurate long term adjustments for inflation. The effects of inflation are both broad and uneven. But we can make comparisions by factoring money out.
Mike, Dave,
I recall reading, a couple of years ago, an article about a survey that indicated that Americans felt that they had less personal freedom than citizens of countries that we might objectively consider to be “less free” than the US. I can’t remember all of the countries that ranked higher than America, but I recall that Australia, Ireland, Canada, and even France were in there, and several others. The US didn’t even make the top 20.
I would not consider this a very scientific survey, particularly since it was about “feelings” and didn’t define “freedom” in any specific way.
But it does reflect, I think, both the left’s belief that minorities are still very oppressed, and that the civil rights movement has been unsuccessful, as well as the right’s belief that the white middle class is being desimated – caught in a vise between the rich, who control politicians of both parties, and the non-working- poor, who have become government dependents.
I don’t know that it matters whether these beliefs are objectively true or not. If a critical mass of the population believes these things, it’s going to be reflected in their political behavior.
So, it may be objectively true that I have freedom of speech ~ but if “offensive” speech is no longer tolerated in the workplace, in academia or in politics, is it really a freedom?
Most of the “indexes of freedom” have been ranking the US outside the top ten for possibly as much as two decades.
As important as I consider freedom to be, there is not an objective means to measure it. That said those indexes are the sources we have.
Measures based on polls and self assessments are worse still.
As an example satisfaction with US healthcare is much lower than in Canada or Europe. But on objective measures of quality – particularly those things that should mean consumer satisfaction, like speed of delivery of services, quality of rooms – basically all the things mcDonald’s does to improve the experience of buying a hamburger – beyond the hamburger itself – the US is far ahead.
What the polls measure is that americans are used to getting what they want and are as a result demanding, and canadians and europeans are less experienced in getting what they want and are happy with what they do get.
Just to be clear. The US has been the world leader in freedom for many centuries. That is why there is no nation with more than 10m people with a higher standard of living. But as we are no longer the worlds leader – other nations are catching up, and some have even exceeded us.
Hong Kong and Singapore have come from poor fishing villages to higher standards of living than the US since WWII.
One of the things I have argued previously is that:
Government can be growing – at the expense of our freedom – i.e. we are loosing more freedom all the time.
AND our standard of living can be rising, and our participation in global markets increasing such that we are concurrently gaining freedom.
In fact we can and are gaining freedom faster than we are losing it, and have been for a long time.
That does not mean the losses are not real or unimportant.
And there are further complexities. Even our “loss” or freedom is not absolute.
As government passes more and more laws limiting our freedom, to a very large extent those laws are ignored – often we do not even know they exist.
We lose a very small amount of freedom when a law is passed, we lose larger freedom when the law is enforced.
The situation we have with respect ot our laws is bad and dangerous.
The current Clinton mess gives a mirror into why.
Comey executed prosecutorial discretion in choosing not to recomend prosecuting Clinton. There are legitimate reasons that discretions should exist. But it still shoudl be severely limited. If we are not going to enforce a law most of the time – and that is true of most laws – those laws should not exist. Further rigorous enforcement of law is a part of the process of eliminating bad law. There is no outcry against bad law that is unenforced.
Regardless, when we have massive numbers of laws and they are selectively enforced. We reinforce the proposition that the law does not apply equally to all.
That said even with massive numbers of law, and limited enforcement, we can still be freer than in the past. That is am immoral and unethical arrangement, as well as a dangerous one.
You bring up a good point about Comey. The head of the FBI exercised prosecutorial discretion, despite the fact that he was not supposed to be acting in a prosecutorial role. A few days previous to his announcement, the AG, who actually IS the country’s chief prosecutor, met secretly with Bill Clinton, former POTUS and spouse of the presumptive future POTUS, and subsequently said that she would accept the FBI’s recommendation as to whether or not she would bring charges, essentially abdicating her own prosecutorial discretion.
So, we have an investigation that turned up clear evidence that laws may have been violated by a Secretary of State married to a former President, and no attempt on the part of anyone in the executive branch to enforce those laws, nor any attempt on the part of Congress to impeach anyone in the Justice Department for failing to do so. Minimal outcry in the media, and the reinforcement of a belief on the part of many citizens that, had they behaved in the same way as Hillary Clinton, they would have been arrested and tried for criminal behavior.
So the danger is that, if and when Mrs. Clinton ascends to the highest position of power, she can make sure that this selective enforcement of the law continues ~ and, does anyone doubt that she will? A further danger is that a minority of the country will consider their chief executive to be a lawless one, and that those “dissidents” will become the targets of selective enforcement, increasing their perception, as well as the objective reality, that they have less freedom.
“A few days previous to his announcement, the AG, who actually IS the country’s chief prosecutor, met secretly with Bill Clinton, former POTUS and spouse of the presumptive future POTUS, and subsequently said that she would accept the FBI’s recommendation as to whether or not she would bring charges, essentially abdicating her own prosecutorial discretion.”
You seem to be insinuating a surreptitious deal was worked out, between B.Clinton, the AG and Comey. Is that correct?
To ‘meet secretely’ implies the meeting wasn’t by chance, but planned ahead. Any proof of that?
By running together the Tarmac airplane meeting with the AGs announcement she would accept the FBIs recommendation to charge or not, are you suggesting the fix was already in, and that’s what Clinton informed her at the meeting?
That would also suggest Comey is an unprincipled opportunist who had already god that to Clinton, and who would subvert the law for some as yet unexplained advantage.
I think Hillary made a stupid judgement call, setting up her own private server, and even more troubling were her attempts to cover it up. But her careless mistakes did not deserve criminal prosecution, for the reasons Comey delineated. Hillary had no intention of harming the US – the PRIMARY focus of the Espionage Act provisions covering classified and confidential documents is to prosecute those who intentionally steal them for foreign powers. The vindictive cries to prosecute and jail her for making dumb judgement calls are 99% politically motivated. If administrations were switched, and Rice was Sec of State in place of Clinton, and she did exactly what Hillary did, do you think we’d be seeing the same kind of Avalanche of Outrage from the Right?not a chance in hell.
Jay, I’m not insinuating anything, I’m saying that the meeting between Lynch and B.Clinton gave the appearance of conflict. They met, in a private plane, while Hillary Clinton was under investigation by the Justice Department. It doesn’t actually matter whether it was a planned meeting or whether it happened by chance, it should not have happened. If they wanted to have a friendly little tête-à-tête, they should have stood on the tarmac, in full view of the press. Or, better yet, exercised better judgement and decided not to meet.
James Comey was once a prosecutor and he knows full well that the definitions of “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence” are virtually the same. He also knows, as do we all, that ignorance of the law is no excuse, so that Hillary’s flaunting of federal laws requiring her to make all of her official correspondence available to FOIA requests and turning all of them over to the State Department upon her resignation, as well as handling classified information according to strict guidelines can’t be excused by her claiming that she didn’t know that all of her actions were illegal. It’s also a bit odd that Hillary herself, as the object of the investigation, was not interviewed under oath.
Connecting the dots is something that prosecutors often do. It’s called circumstantial evidence. If Condoleeza Rice had done the same, I would absolutely have wanted to know the truth, and I certainly would have cast a skeptical eye on any accidental tarmac meeting between say, John Ashcroft and George HW Bush, if Ashcroft’s Justice Department were investigating George W Bush, or Jeb. It would give the appearance of conflict that would undermine the investigation.
And we all should worry about that, regardless of our partisan leanings. Equal justice under the law is key to our system. Once people begin to believe that some are above the law, it undermines the system entirely. I would not want that, regardless of party.
I
I agree that B.Clinton likely had motive when he interjected himself on the AGs plane.
Snoozing for benefit is his second nature, his way of life. It was ‘improper’ and strongly projected an illusion of impropriety. And that was the reason Lynch said she’d accept the FBI recommendation – to avoid avoid accusations she would not act with impartiality.
Therefore when you say “The head of the FBI exercised prosecutorial discretion, despite the fact that he was not supposed to be acting in a prosecutorial role” you misstate the process. He ADVISED and recommended a course of action – not to charge based on the evidence and testimony he and other FBI lawyers and investigators examined. Historically the FBI has contributed their advice in high profile political cases. To maintain a tradition of political impartiality they make recommendations to proceed or not proceed after weighing the evidence.
“the definitions of “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence” are virtually the same. ”
Thats like saying poison mushrooms and edible mushrooms are virtually the same, except for the poison.
Gross Negligence is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.
Gross Negligence was only invoked once in a case involving espionage to prosecute someone. Here’s the case.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-the-other-gross-negligence-case-comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266
Doesn’t matter, Jay. No reasonable person could listen to Comey’s detailed description of Clinton’s negligent and obstructive behavior, not to mention the likely hacking of highly classified information by hostile nations, and not understand that this woman has big secrets to hide, and has gone to great lengths to hide them, putting her welfare above all else.
The point I was making is that she has gotten got away with it. Hillary has behaved as if she is above the law, because she IS above the law. Comey said as much : “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”
Whar do you think he meant by that?
You misquoted Comey. I’m sure that wasn’t intentional. Here’s the accurate
quote:
“To be clear this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions but that’s not what we’re deciding here. “
He meant they would be sanctioned from their jobs or positions, demoted or fired. You and similar Hillary haters would reflexively project a more negative conclusion.
“You misquoted Comey….To be clear this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. ”
??? The quote Priscilla gave was word for word identical and your interpretation of what he meant was exactly what Priscilla was implying. So, I’m lost on this post.
I agree with anyone who thinks that Clinton got away with something that a subordinate would not. Which needless to say is bothersome even to those who won’t vote for trump and blood in the waters for conservatives.
Its the way of the world, once you are at the top the standards change for the reason that if we throw the president or SOS jail or fire them when the make major transgressions we will be doing that to nearly all of them.
I was probably (don’t clearly remember) on the side of impeaching Bill. In retrospect that was insane, it was a trivial use of impeachment that made it easier to do it again for insufficient cause. When we get to the point that we impeach them all, what exactly will impeachment mean? Because we can do that, but as we know impeachment does not remove the president and takes over all else, its practically a congressional shutdown.
Sorry. I used the word ‘misquoted’ in the sense she chopped the last part of what he said, adumbrating the full meaning. She asked what I thought Comey was saying to the first part, without providing the full quote in context
Also I’m not sure I agree with your assertion that underling subordinates wouldn’t have ‘gotten away’ with it, meaning absolved of criminal prosecution, because in fact her subordinates, who were involved in the process even more than Hillary (weren’t they responsible for receiving and filtering and in some instances altering the confidential status of emails they sent to her?) were not charged under the provisions of the Espionage Act.
I agree fully with you assessment that impeaching, firing, prosecuting top officials for mistakes or lapses of judgment made in good faith is a trivial undermining of government.
However, if trump is elected President I would fully support impeaching him for outlandish hair comb over, as his ludicrous image undermines our reputation in the world, or for redundant mindless utterances when interviewed by the press, as presidential gibberish threatens our security as a nation.
Exactly, Jay. I read this after my reply to Mike. But I believe that impeachment was, and still is, the appropriate option.
OK, and let’s impeach Bush2 for the Iraq War, based on gross incompetence and lies, which demonstrably caused multiples more damage to our nation’s security – and 37,000 American lives – than Hillary’s careless negligence, which so far has not harmed anyone but her.
If a Trump is elected President it will be the end of America as we knew it – there will be riots, insurrection, which will lead to over reaction by Trump and his minions, muzzles on the press, and military law evoked, squashing our liberties.
I’m sure you think that’s far fetched, but the writing is on the wall. Trump is Mussolini re-incarnated. He has only surface belief in democracy as it was understood by past generations of American leaders – and no center of moral balance to restrain his combustible mouth or reflexive inclinations for revenge. He has demonstrated this as his nature time and again – a petulant man with adolescent restraint.
It’s severely depressing to contemplate the defacement of our image as a nation of reason and rectitude with a second rate narcissistic habitual liar like Trump, who may show up to his inauguration wearing a baseball cap emblazoned with the words ‘President Trump’ and a military jacket with medals and bandoliers
I’m actually not a hater. I am a partisan, and I have repeatedly admitted to that. I have a certain amount of pity for Hillary, despite her high crimes and misdemeanors. At almost 70, after suffering serious health crises, and even now, seemingly lacking the energy to campaign as much as she should (although running against Trump has helped,because she can sit back and let him implode), she seems more driven by a compulsion to win, rather than a desire to serve.
But, in the end, I feel more sorry for us.
I commend you for presenting a new perspective.
Though I somewhat criticized it. It is still important to find as many ways to look at things as we can. Then we have to look at the relative quality of each different vector, as well as hwo well it fits with our other trends.
I would also note, that cave men were more free than american indians.
Freedom is a critical component for increasing (not absolute) standard of living.
But it is not the ONLY component. Population is also a major compenent – more people mean more ideas, mean more rapid growth. Standard of living is also recursive. A high standard of living is a prequisite for a higher one. No matter how great the freedom of american indians, improvement must start from their current standard of living. To us there is little difference between american indians and european settlers. But the standard of living, the level or technological sophistication of most american indians is below that of late prehistorical societies. They were primarily hunter gatherers, they had little agriculture, most had no written language, they had stone tools.
“I would also note, that cave men were more free than american indians.”
“Freedom is a critical component for increasing (not absolute) standard of living.”
Those two assertions contradict each other. The cave men who you say had more freedom than American Indians had a far lower standard of living.
Jay, I believe Dave’s assertion that Freedom being a critical component for increasing standard of living does not contradict one group having more freedom but still having a lower standard of living. A component is not in itself achieving the end product. I could have a key component to a radio, and still not yet have a working radio. I may have a much better potential to achieve completing the assembly of a radio once I have a key component. That being said, I shall recuse myself from the caveman- American Indian debate because, although I have not yet revealed this about myself, I am actually a troglodyte. I certainly can reference links were I have been classified as such by other bloggers, if someone wanted to verify my claim. I figured it would come up eventually so I thought: “Why not now, rather than later?”
“That being said, I shall recuse myself from the caveman- American Indian debate because, although I have not yet revealed this about myself, I am actually a troglodyte. I certainly can reference links were I have been classified as such by other bloggers..”
A wit of the first water you are. This comment is worth the price of admission. I suspect that you have a writer in you.
“Jay, I believe Dave’s assertion that Freedom being a critical component for increasing standard of living does not contradict one group having more freedom but still having a lower standard of living.”
No, he’s made that blanket statement numerous times, and it’s a leaky boat that doesn’t hold water. The problem with Dave’s assertion is that it’s based on wishy-washy terms/definitions/ from which he comes to blanket conclusions that don’t hold up under scrutiny.
What kind of Freedom is he talking about? It seems he means freedom from government laws, but laws also protect and nourish our standards of living. What components of standard of living is Dave including in his assertion? Is his standard of living equation based only on economics -how many chickens does an average family have in its cooking pots? Or a broader definition like the Human Developement Index the UN uses to determine overall standard of living: life expectancy, health, education included as well as earnings, etc, to determine those indices ?
Laws, and associated regulations (the curtailment of freedom according to Dave), have nevertheless aided and raised all those HDI components. So far as I can tell, there’s no validity to his assertion., it’s just a vapid social phlogiston theory without merit
Ok, you were attacking the entire premise while I was looking at the narrow construct of the “either/or” component issue. Before clicking on your latest comment, I was guessing you may have been coming at me for my empty, snarky, Republican talking point, about Clinton’s health and memory. I really don’t consider it a valid attack on Clinton, but it does remind me of Ronald Reagan’s “I don’t recall this, I don’t recall that.” I thought at the time that that was a cheap excuse to get out of a jam. On another website, someone pointed out that allegedly one of the investigators became convinced that Ronald was telling the truth, that the investigator had obtained medical info about Ronald’s onset of Alzheimer’s and was really forgetting everything. On a side note, since I had, in a sense, jumped to Dave’s defense, I remember Priscilla stepping in on Moogie, asking her to tone it down a bit. JB had been pretty harsh on Moogie, and perhaps Moogie had stepped it up to another level, but boy did Moogie ever not take kindly to Priscilla’s comment. I once read something about “Peacemakers” I don’t remember the exact quote, but the gist was that peacemakers often end up with bloody noses. I expect my nose will be bloodied a few times. (Not in this case, I perceive that you were only clarifying where you were coming from and not attacking me.)
The buzz I get from a compliment like that GW, is stronger than some illegal substances. I’ll float around on it for awhile. Did you mention you do translations of some type? I am fascinated with foreign languages, however, I did not assume (if I even remember correctly) that it was necessarily language translations. One could translate computer code, or perhaps some other form of use of the word translation.
Translations of Russian science papers. I’ve been doing it for 10 years now, for one client dependable client. I have an employer but am considered self employed by the IRS. Best job I ever had, I work at home, my boss is far away and appreciates me in any case. I escaped life of publish or perish in academic science and got instead my freedom, to pick a current topic here. The freedom this gig brought me is incredible, I manage my own time and have lots of my own life to spend on family , music, my house and land, (or commenting online and reading political news too much if I am not careful or wise) etc. I enjoy the work too, its usually interesting. A hobby/obsession (Russian) turned into a great job. I lucked out
Cool! There is a story about a soldier attending the Defense Language Institute(D.L.I.) for Russian that I love to tell. (I went to D.L.I. for a couple other languages, but not Russian). Anyway they have a scoring system from zero to 4, with plus marks, meaning for example you could score for example a “1” or a “1+”, “2” or “2+” etcetera. So this soldier takes his speaking test at the end of the course is scored a “1” . He challenges his score so they get a second professor to listen to the recorded tape of his speaking test. The professor said he was very impressed, the size of his vocabulary, the smoothness of his speaking, he said he would score it a “2”…if he could have only figured out what language the guy was speaking.
Jay, Priscilla, would it have mattered if the Justice department had pressed charges? She certainly would not have been found competent to stand trial. What, with all that brain damage from the concussion and all. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-tells-fbi-she-could-not-recall-all-briefings-on-preserving-documents/ar-AAiqsXV?li=BBnb7Kz
One thing for certain, Mike, you won’t have a second career as a raconteur. 😎
She in fact did suffer a severe concussion. She had double vision after effects and it took weeks to fully recover. I can identify with that long recovery. In a preseason college basketball scrimmage I got my legs knocked out from under me and smashed the back of my head against the hardwood floor. The concussion landed me in the hospital for two days. I was disoriented and dizzy and could not balance on one leg, and had a persistent head ache. Even at that young and healthy age it took weeks for me to resume team play. But my mental abilities came back quicker and I was able to resume classes without a problem.
Your link to the story makes clear she didnt necessarily forget the security briefing, but may not have been there to attend it because she was spending only a few hours a day at State then.
Our posts kind of crossed paths, yes, I was only taking a cheap shot that had no merit. Now I’m going to have to go look up what “raconteur” means. Any chance it is related to the word “recount”? As in recounting events to fit a biased political view? No need to answer, I’ll look it up. I hope to continue tomorrow.
Jay, I certainly would not want to go through such an injury. You went back to playing basketball, did you, at that time, feel you played more cautiously after the injury? I know a lot of young people have a certain “devil may care” attitude that tends to go away to some degree as we get older. While it is not the intent of basketball to knockdown an opponent, it is in football. I don’t want government interrupting anyone’s freedom to play football, but I feel guilty that I find it so entertaining. I live near Austin, Texas, and Sunday the Longhorns beat Notre Dame in Austin in a thrilling overtime game. At least two players took hits that made them stay out the rest of the game. There is just so much violence in that game, I feel like I shouldn’t be supporting it in any form, but I find it hard to resist.
“did you, at that time, feel you played more cautiously after the injury? ”
Well I did stop watching the opposing team’s cheerleaders out of the corner of my eye after that 😊👯.
But no ‘cautiousness’ recollection post recovery.
What was wrong with your own team’s cheerleaders? Is this a trace of some ancient impulse for mixing genes betweens tribes?
“Jay, Priscilla, would it have mattered if the Justice department had pressed charges? She certainly would not have been found competent to stand trial. What, with all that brain damage from the concussion and all.”
Heh. Good question, Mike. I think that the more appropriate consequence, in this case, would be impeachment. It is possible to impeach public officials after they have resigned or otherwise left office. You probably remember that many anti-war types were calling for the impeachment and subsequent trial of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W. There is only one case of it happening, and that was after the Civil War, when the Secretary of War (now would be Defense Secretary) was impeached for bribery and narrowly acquitted.
I think that one of the reasons that Comey did not recommend indictment, but took the unusual step of presenting a rather devastating case against Clinton, was because he did not want to be responsible for the criminal indictment of a presidential candidate, not to mention that any trial of Hillary for the email scandal would, almost of necessity, require calling Obama as a material witness, And, obviously that would cause constitutional crisis.
On the other hand, it would be, and still is possible for Hillary to be impeached for her actions as secretary of state, even if she is elected President. But, that would also cause a dangerous destabilization of her presidency, at the very least. It should have happened long ago. It’s too late now.
Congress has a right and, I believe, a duty to impeach and try high level officials when they misuse and abuse their offices and the law. It’s a fundamental component of our checks and balances system. But Congress has essentially abdicated that power, for fear of political blowback. Are they cowards? Most of them, yes.
Priscilla, I can understand your point of view and you have said some reasonable things here about why this turned out this way with Comey and Clinton. The problem is, name me a SOS or president in our lifetime who the loyal opposition could not find reason to impeach? Name the pristine example of an unimpeachable president? Nothing covert, no lies, no coverup of any kind nothing that someone could not consider to be an violation of the Constitution? Bush I is my favorite presidency, but he invaded Panama and got all those civilians killed to enforce the Monroe doctrine to a ridiculous extent. An impeachable travesty. Ford, as well is an example of a presidency that was not sour or divisive.But he pardoned Nixon, there must have been a deal, it needed a full blown investigation, something dark was behind it.
You cannot govern this country if you use impeachment that way. Reagan surely deserved it over Iran Contra, there is no argument at all that what he did was Constitutional. Would Reagan have shared a beer with Tip Oneil if Tip were trying to impeach him in the darkest language?
Meanwhile we have actual problems to solve, budgets to submit and balance and if the loyal opposition is forever gong to be finding the always present justification to impeach how the devil is anyone going to get any work done.
There is the shining ideal of honesty and integrity and transparency and then there is the real world. Democrats decided to let the Ford pardon lie and heal the country. Would they do it today in the present climate of all out war fought with internet warriers and Fox and Huffington, Salon, Breitbart?
We are headed for being ungovernable, the point of government is war on the other party. We got there little by little, Iran contra, Clintons scandals, Bush’s wars, the financial crisis, the Dem sweep of the 2008 elections, the tea party and most of all, a separation into what you could call the Fox/Breitbart camp and the NYTimes/Huffington camp with the aid of computer technology. I see a dark and divided future for America where little by little it becomes impossible to do anything sensible to keep the country going.
I share your somber prognostications.
I’m somewhat more optimistic, GW. Not much more, mind you, because I generally agree with everything that you’ve said. In addition, I think that, if the threat of impeachment were real, public officials like Hillary might think twice before flagrantly violating the law and putting the nation’s welfare at risk. And, she avoided impeachment, well, then, the likelihood that her corruption would be discovered when she’s president might give her pause.
And, as I’ve said multiple times before, I believe that Donald Trump will have the threat of impeachment hanging over his head, every day of his presidency, in the unlikely event he should win. The establishment of both parties oppose him, as does the media ~ and, to a large degree, that is a good thing. The restoration of consequences for abuse of power would be a positive thing, and it will never happen in a Clinton presidency (again, anyway!), which will further erode our constitutional system. That + SCOTUS = why I’m voting Trump.
*IF* she avoided impeachment
“…. name me a SOS or president in our lifetime who the loyal opposition could not find reason to impeach?” Answer is: Jimmy Carter, he was arguably a very lousy president but his honesty and integrity while serving as president could not be assailed even by his opponents.
“….Name the pristine example of an unimpeachable president? ” Before I stop my daily devotions to the shrine of Calvin Coolidge, what do you have on him that makes him less than pristine?
I know of no scandals involving John Quincy Adams either, other than his opponents hated him for how good he was.
I was just assuming that all here could read my mind; I meant in my lifetime.
But the fact that you had to go back to Adams supports my point I think.
Yeah, Carter would have been my answer too. But there was carcinogenic aflotoxin in his peanuts I am sure.
As to Coolidge and Adams I will ask my father the historian, he can story tell for hours about all the presidents, a walking encyclopedia. And funny as hell too.
About a decade ago I was taking a college class and I made some reference to a historical event and a lady in the class mentioned she had not been born when that occurred. I challenged her, I said, that happened when Regan was president! She said: “I know, I wasn’t born until after Regan.” Man! Did I ever feel old then, and that was ten or so years ago. Now I’m feeling like a dinosaur. Had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated, I would have been born while he was POTUS.- 1965, the year they took all the silver out of dimes, quarters, half dollars. If you ever find a dime or quarter that is older than 1965, they are all worth 10 times their face value or more. Of course what you will do with getting $2.50 from a quarter is up to you.
“…muzzles on the press, and military law evoked, squashing our liberties.” Implied deep within that large compendium known as the second amendment, is a remedy to the projected problem of which you speak. (For more details, you could see my comment on the bottom of “Wild Card” debate which none have rebutted.) …Of course they haven’t rebutted it because no one read it, but that’s beside the point. 🙂
I’m young again! According to my gravatar. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0891/8314/products/11_1024x1024.jpg?v=1462546577
More sneaky Donald a Trump scamming uncovered.
How Donald Trump retooled his charity to spend other people’s money
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-retooled-his-charity-to-spend-other-peoples-money/2016/09/10/da8cce64-75df-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html
To better understand Trump’s scheming nature you have to understand his admiration for his Father, Fred Trump.
Father:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump
Even more despicable scamming discovered of Trump ripping off 9/11 recovery money and claiming he used it to help New Yorkers.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-trump-didn-post-9-11-funds-helping-people-article-1.2786879?utm_content=bufferc2b72&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
The link you gave does not accuse Trump of ripping off recovery money. It accused him of bragging that it was from his generous helping of others that qualified him for the money rather than having qualified for it from damage loss. Even the accusation that he was bragging is tempered by the fact the article quotes him using the word “probably” . Now Trump is a certified liar, but in this case, to qualify his statement with the word “probably” makes it hardly even worth mentioning IMO.
You need to rethink it, Mike.
Follow the money, as they say.
Trump got the government under false pretense to give HIM $150,000 9/11 money, to cover rental costs in HIS property.
He says: “It was probably a reimbursement for the fact that I allowed people, for many months, to stay in the building (40 Wall St.), use the building and store things in the building,” Trump told Time magazine in April.
in other words, he covered his ass to make sure he was paid rent by businesses under duress post 9/11.
But the govt program wasn’t set up to function that way:
He ‘recuperated’ money under false pretenses. And by exploiting a technicality: the government program was designed to help local small businesses get back on their feet — he certainly wasn’t a ‘small business’ in the real sense of the term. And we taxpayers ended up paying for him consuming that small businesses tax money to cover his own bottom line.
To my mind that’s scamming. I’m surprised you don’t find it – and him – as unsavory as I do. 🙁
More Despicable Donald Unfulfilled Promises
https://twitter.com/sopandeb/status/774812460629065728
Jay, I find Trump unsavory and unfit to be president, I don’t know how to quantify my fear of him doing a terrible job as president compared to your level of distain for him. But that particular story you linked to, as I see it, is much more about bad government than bad Trump. Either by ineptness of design, or by calculated cronyism ,Trump, as you said yourself, technically qualified for the money he got. The haphazard nature of who qualifies for government assistance and who does not for some government programs is often nonsensical. For example, the Home Affordable Modification Program is one I am very familiar with. Sometimes it helped seemingly needy homeowners and sometimes other needy homeowners did not qualify. While at other times, seemingly high income individuals qualified to save sometimes over a thousand dollars every month in mortgage payments with reduced interest rates and direct payments to principal reduction at taxpayer expense. I admire anyone high minded enough to pass up on thousands of dollars of government money that they qualify for, but reject it because they know they don’t need it. But I don’t criticize too strongly those who take money that they qualify for even if they don’t need it, I criticize the politicians who create programs that pay out tons of money to people who don’t need it, at the expense of others.
” I see it, is much more about bad government than bad Trump”
Our perceptions are not aligned.
I see it this way: At a neighborhood tavern I drink too much, and leaving the bar I drop my wallet on the sidewalk.
A person standing nearby sees the wallet and pockets it.
Technically I’m at fault for carelessness.
Legally and morally the ‘finder’ is obligated to make a good faith effort to locate me, as my name and phone number are are in the wallet.
This finder, in Trump like fashion, flip flops the phone digits to intententionaly call someone who obviously isnt me. He leaves a provocative message on the answering machine: “Hi, if this is Jay, call me back, I have something to tell you about your stupid drunken carelessness.”
He leaves a callback number, with two digits flip flopped.
He’s made a cynical good faith effort to comply with the law.
And no matter how ‘incompetent’ the effort, he IS operating under the law. Further, with puffed up chest he brags about his good intentions and moral character, in trying to locate me after finding my wallet, telling his pals what a good guy he is.
Of course I’m at fault for being a careless drunk. And California Penal Code 485 PC is at fault for only requiring a reasonable attempt to locate the owner – but not turn in the found wallet to police authority.
So would you shift the burden of blame in this example to me, or to the fuzzy wording of the law, away from the shifty crafty conniving of the sanctimonious bragging finder?
We’re in total agreement the government as an entity in present day America needs an overhaul. But let’s not put the deceiving conneiving hobbled horse before the wobbly government cart. And to paraphrase esteemed baseball manager Leo Durocher, nice opponents of Trumpistic babble finish last. At this point, I’m not willing to give Trump or his supporters the benefit of polite doubt: for me the gloves are off until the election is over.
Jay, “Provocative message…hobbled horse, wobbly cart..” I found your analogy both funny and compelling. I think I have moved closer towards the way you see it after reading your post. But you are right in stating our perceptions are not aligned. In the analogy you made, I see the government being the drunk that drops his wallet every single night with millions strewn everywhere, even the most honest of citizens might get tired of raking up and returning all the cash spilled on their yard every single day. Of course neither of the two major party candidates will fix that problem and while I don’t consider any 3rd party viable as of yet, even if hypothetically a third party did win the presidency, I doubt it would change much either. But I don’t mind voting for a third party that loses. I see a losing third party much like perhaps a losing football team that previously lost 15 of 16 games, and the next season wins 6 and loses 10. It is an improvement and heading in the right direction. I’d be surprised if Johnson and Stein combined pull in 10% of the popular vote, but I hope they do, and I would consider that an indication we might be heading towards a government a little more representative of the people.
“But I don’t mind voting for a third party that loses.”
The assumption there is that both candidates are equally bad but neither will harm the nation worse than the other.
And Third-party candidates haven’t won a Presidential election in our lifetimes.
They can shift national attention to particular issues, but again, those don’t seem to have much lasting effect. Did Wallace or Ross Perot leave behind any positive change for more democratic government for their followers?
Third-party candidates can take votes away from major political party candidates, influencing the outcome of elections, but if the 10% shift away from the primary candidates favors Trump, how does that help you?
I have seen over 600 comments on this one subject arguing over which candidate is the worst candidate for president. I have seen very very few arguing which one is the best. Who is the worst liar. Who is the most corrupt. Who is the most racist. Etc, etc , etc. I have said since the beginning I would not waste my vote on either of the two major party candidates as I see nothing that indicates to me that anything will change once either of them gets to the oval office. One will continue to offer solutions that drive the debt higher, increase taxes on many, waste more money on ineffective government programs and remove or degrade rights guaranteed by the constitution. On the other hand, programs that will never see the light of day will be offered by the other candidate which will provide us with four more years of leadership without a direction.
There is at least one media outlet (owned by a larger national company) that recognizes this fact and has taken a position that few may be willing to express. But they say everything I have said in the past and only solidifies my thinking. If only more people that are fiscal conservatives and social liberals would do the same, maybe we could get a government that actually stands for programs most people want and not programs the corrupt politicians, large corporations, billionaires and people living on handouts want.
At least these people have some common sense
http://www.journalnow.com/opinion/editorials/decision-gary-johnson-for-president/article_7351cdb6-327e-5cf0-b0d2-9bff7ab6d874.html
National elections have become a 2 and 4 year catastrophe that I begin to dread a year in advance. I knew the 2016 presidential race was going to be nasty and I dreaded it but I still dramatically underestimated it.
Political candidate signs are everywhere in Vermont, but I have NOT SEEN A SINGLE TRUMP OR CLINTON SIGN!!! Few or no bumper stickers either. None that I remember. An enthusiasm factor of -100. That has to be a bad thing for democracy.
The networks have fancy graphics each election like Decision 2016. This cycle they might be honest and choose Calamity 2016 or None of the above 2016 or even Death Spiral for American Democracy 2016.
No signs of bumper stickers here in my Los Angeles residential neighborhood, not typical of past elections.
I think this may be a fear response for both party supporters- the growing hostility is palpable, and people don’t want their car winds smashed or their doors splattered with hate grafetti
Same with North Carolina. The only bumper sticker I have seen is on the back of my car.
“We’re screwed 2016”
Voting for Johnson is like going on the Cabbage Soup Diet – exercises in futility.
Might be, but at least I can sleep at night knowing I did not have to pick between the worst turd in the septic tank. I will know when we have more crappy government that I at least voted for someone who believed in what I believe in, (Fiscal conservatism, social liberalism) even if their chances of winning were worse than winning a billion dollar lottery.
And when one says voting third party only takes from another party, well what the hell do you think most people voting for a third party wants to do? Your voting for what you believe in and trying to defeat another candidate. In this case, both of them and if one happens to win, big deal, they are both crappy.
I understand your reasoning, and the impulse that drives it Ron.
But a protest 3rd party vote decision on a presidential election isn’t like jetissoning NBC and CBS because you hate their programming, and opting for PBS.
The Presidential repercussions that reverberate back at us under Clinton or Trump will not be the same. You may be right that a Clinton presidency will be more of the same-old do nothing platitudes, but you are sure as hell are going to see way LESS social liberalism and a more confused financial conservatism from Trump. The status quo for 4 years under Clinton is far less dangerous and frightening then what we will see happen to us under the cantankerous leadership were sure to see under Trump.
“The status quo for 4 years under Clinton is far less dangerous and frightening then what we will see happen to us under the cantankerous leadership were sure to see under Trump.”
First of all, my vote for Johnson is not a protest vote. Many may vote for him because they are protesting the choices given, but mine is a conscience decision that Johnson/Weld would be much better for this country compared to the other two. How can that be a protest vote when I do not buy into the fact that we have to live with a two party system. The constitution does not provide for two parties. In fact it does not provide for parties at all. This is something that has been forced upon us over many years and is now a means by which those in money power guarantee their survival by insuring there is only two individual that have to be bought and paid for.
This is the first time I have seen any media outlets ever endorse a third party candidate. And this shows how dangerous both candidates are. I do not want to be in the position of “What if”. I do not want to defend my vote to myself when Clinton does the liberal crap she proposes or Trump does some outrageous thing that really screws us up in foreign affairs. Clinton and Trump can only do so much domestically to screw us up since congress has some control, but in foreign affairs, they have much less say. That has been documented through the actions of Obama and how the USA has acted in foreign affairs and how we are viewed today. Putin can almost resurrect the soviet union and we would do nothing to stop it, as well as the UN being neutered by China in the security council.
I have always been one to go against the grain when I believed in the positions I took. From my teen years until now, I could care less what other people think or do. So when they say my vote is a protest vote or a wasted vote, so be it. I can live with that since I am voting for what I beleive in and not waht others want me to do.
“… Trump does some outrageous thing that really screws us up in foreign affairs. Clinton and Trump can only do so much domestically to screw us up since congress has some control, but in foreign affairs, they have much less say. ”
Exactly.
I went shopping for that bumper sticker of yours, but I choose “Giant meteor 2016, just end it already” instead. But I will buy the We’re screwed 2016 t shirt.
Glad to have a like mind recognizing the humor we need in this election. And we are adding to the economy also with all these huge purchases!!! Do you think we are making America great again? Hopefully the bumper stickers and printing on the T-shirts are American made.
I can’t read the future.
But Im pretty sure Trump would have less chance to stop Putin reestablish the Soviet Union than Hillary, even if he wanted to, which I doubt. I believe he’s heavily indebted to the Russians – the reason he’s not releasing his taxes; nor will he if elected.
In the present balance of international power in the world, the US is not dominant enough to truly confront Russia, or China, or even North Korea without strategic alliances with other nations.
Trump is a destroyer of alliance. He’s good at licensing his brand, horrible at joint management. His foray into Chinese partnership ended quickly, when his partners unceriousmoniously dropped him out of their business arrangement, without even the courtesy of telling him personally – he learned about it in the newspapers. His business deals inside Rusdia also fizzled (I’m betting that will change now). Negotiating business deals is NOT like negotiating international treaties and/or other diplomatic relationships. The protocols are slow and tedious and require persuasion and patience – not the strong-armed persuasion Trump has exercised in the past to bribe and ramrod his real estate deals.
Like I said yesterday in my comment, there have been over 600 comments made in this one article Rick posted and the largest majority, (over 90%) have been how bad clinton and Trump are. You just added another that, if needed, would further convince me to vote for Johnson.
Maybe you can post something positive (or repost something if I missed it earlier) about the Entitled Bitch that might sway someone to vote “for” Clinton instead of posting all the things you have about why voting “against” Trump is the right move. And defending the clinton Foundation or anything about the CF does not qualify.
Positive things the ‘Entitled Bitch’ has done:
For me the event that stands out was her response to 9/11 as a NY Senator. She was at Ground Zero the next day, with Guilaini, and there many times afterwards, interacting with the First Responders. There are numerous articles about her interactions with them at the time, and their positive widespread praise to those visits, and to her efforts to provide Heath care for those first responders – she and her co Senator from NY We’re most responsible for pushing through that legislation, and other financing to rebuild NY as well. That’s all part of the 9/11 historical record – you can Google it and see for yourself all that she did to aid the city. As a Senator she also helped expand health care and family leave for military families, and she garnered the reputation as an ameriolating presence in the Senate, who facilitated legislative action.mthsts also part of the historical record of the time, before it was trampled by the psy-ops of the right.
And some of the things she did as Sec of State you can analyze positively ( or negatively if, like you, you’re predisposed to trash her). Like her role negotiating a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and role in killing Osama bin Laden. Dept of State insiders have written that her management of the State Department was positive – it was reported in disarray during the Nush Administration. And she was crucial in helping to implement those tough sanctions on Iran with other nations participating which led to the Nuke Treaty with them – I thought the treaty a horrible idea, but if you think the opposite,you have to applaud her diplomatic efforts in helping effectuate the process.
Her proponents also say as Secretary of State she was key in rebuilding America’s leadership and prestige overseas after the Bush years. She restored our alliances with the EU and key Asian allies as well as key relationships in Africa and Latin America.
Thanks Jay for this information. It still does not change my position on her as there are so many other issues I find as disqualifications. 10 reasons for instance:
1. Support of loop sided trade agreements.
2. Her support of the current form of health care coverage that is melting down each year. (NC appears to be heading for no exchange plans for 2017 and premiums are going through the roof). And I do not support the GOP plan to repeal and replace as no replacement has been offered.
3.Her position on the Keystone pipeline that makes the use of less safe rail transportation of canadian oil into the USA a requirement.
4. Her position on free college education. (There is nothing free!. Someone pays)
5. Her vote against John Roberts as chief Justice. (Indicates her liberal leanings for SCOTUS since he is anything but conservative given some of his past votes)
6. Her vague position on the infrastructure bank that the feds would help pay for the billions in expenditures. (I have no problem with a plan to improve the infrastructure, but i do have problems when the plan is not clear as to how we pay for it).
7. Her “exit tax” for companies merging with a foreign company due to our tax policies. (How about updating our tax policies where foreign earnings are taxed in the countries they are earned and when those earnings come into the home office in the USA, they are not taxed!) We are driving companies out the the USA due to our tax policies and we need to be doing things to encourage investment in the USA, not blocking those already here for exiting and causing others to not come into the USA to begin with.
8. Her positions on trade unions and workers rights in right to works states. (I do not believe anyone should be forced to join a union if they do not support the unions as a condition for employment)
9. Her support for a higher minimum wage (Walk into Sheetz or other fast food places and see how many people are not employed due to kiosk for ordering) Minimum wage should be set by the economy, not the government.
10. LGBT positions. I support equal; rights for LGBT, but I do not support infringement into straights rights. Transgenders using bathrooms of the opposite sex before they complete a sex transformation is unacceptable to me.
Ron, she’d be intellectually capable of conducting foreign policy. Unlikely to get much of anything liberal through congress, especially since she has no more charisma than wilted lettuce. Since Congress is GOP held and likely to stay that way, she would balance that. The Clinton family place in the spectrum is center favoring. Until she shows otherwise in the office I will believe that she is not going to be wildly liberal. She has to make a token effort at the progressive platform but it has no chance in congress. If she were to be seriously ill we’d get Kaine, who we all agreed here was a more palatable choice than the Big Giant Meteor duo.
The debates and voter turnout will likely settle this election, its still Clinton by 5 as far as I can figure, which is a lot in this era. trump cannot be president, most Americans seem to know that.
I’ve managed to cut my political news intake down again by 95% recently. I just want this to be over.
“The debates and voter turnout will likely settle this election, its still Clinton by 5 as far as I can figure, which is a lot in this era. trump cannot be president, most Americans seem to know that.”
That does not make and difference for the most part. Just give all the red states to Trump and all the blue states to Clinton and then hold presidential elections in Florida, Ohio and maybe one or two other tossup states to determine the winner.
As for her liberal leanings, one will know first thing how she will position herself. If she appoints Sandra Day O’Conner/Kennedy type moderate justices for approval by congress, then she may signal her moderate positions for the coming 4 years. If she appoints airheads like Kagan/Sotomayor, then it will be war between her and congress for 4 more years.
“Just give all the red states to Trump and all the blue states to Clinton and then hold presidential elections in Florida, Ohio and maybe one or two other tossup states to determine the winner.”
Probably 10 states would do it. The rest of us have our knickers in a twist for nothing.
Oh God, what a wonderful world that would be! The rest of us would be spared completely.
Jay- trying to pick between the lesser evil makes me feel like Vizzini of Princess Bride in the “Battle of Wits”. The problem is that the Iocane powder is in both glasses. Nevertheless, I will attempt to give you a more reasoned answer to your question later tonight.
Love that scene! 👍
Just what percentage of the population do they think is dumb enough to buy this crap. She has been coughing for weeks. Are we to buy the fact that her doctors have not listened to her lungs and taken chest x-rays with the deep cough has had in a number of campaign stops.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clintons-health-scare-creates-major-campaign/story?id=42022038
Just another example of her being a liar, this time about her health earlier or they are lying about something now. IMHO, there is no way someone is running for President and doctors are not checking them out when issues like she has had are not thoroughly investigated.
The problem with Clinton, as I see it, is that you simply cannot believe a word she says. And, worse, news outlets such as the NYT and WashPo are perfectly content to simply take the word of Clinton and her campaign flunkies, print it as gospel truth, and attack anyone who dares to dispute it.
The health crisis is a perfect example. Drudge Report, which exposed the Moica Lewinksy scandal during Bill’s presidency, has been hinting for weeks, maybe months, that Hillary is hiding significant health concerns. Matt Drudge doesn’t write anything, his site is an aggregation of links from a variety of news sources, coupled with headlines and pictures that often indicate his take on the stories linked.
But, up until yesterday, nearly every single story about Hillary’s health ,or the lack of transparency about it, were proclaimed by mainstream news organizations as “conspiracy theories.” Now, all of a sudden, as the DNC leaks info that they are meeting to consider “replacement options” in case Hillary has to drop out, those same outlets ranting about conspiracy theories are now questioning the Clinton campaign’s transparency.
The Clintons lie about all things, big and small, they are paranoid and secretive to a fault, and that will not change if the second one of them is elected president.
“The Clintons lie about all things, big and small, they are paranoid and secretive to a fault, and that will not change if the second one of them is elected president.”
Eh, overdoing it, overplaying your hand. They certainly are lawyerly and hide in grey areas a lot even for politicians. Yes, they lie too. Lie about all things? That would be your party’s candidate.
The first of the Clintons was a rather good president according to a strong majority, though it pains me to admit it..
I’m sorry, does Clinton have cancer, heart disease? She has pneumonia. That gets over with. But it will make a great conservative news cycle.
Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories and your party’s candidate thrives on them, not to mention a lot of your party’s media. A key Breitbart figure as the campaign manager? the party that denies climate change and houses quite a few who deny evolution? Sorry, you are stuck with it, you are a member of party that has a large anti-science and a large conspiracy theory element. When trump releases his actual health records (or his taxes) let me know.
But if by some chance Clinton does fall actually seriously ill, then she has a competent person to back her up and it will not grieve me if we have a president Kaine. A president trump is unthinkable.
WOW. I had not heard the story about a replacement being strategized by the DNC. Been on vacation for a week and did not hear any news.
“The Clintons lie about all things, big and small, they are paranoid and secretive to a fault, and that will not change if the second one of them is elected president.”
And we all know what happened with the last super paranoid president we had in office that we knew was paranoid.
Symptoms of paranoia and delusional disorders include intense and IRRATIONAL mistrust or suspicion.
Surely you don’t have any doubt that Republicans and others have been out to get Hillary for decades.
I was commenting on the DNC report and not paranoia. That was Priscilla. She will have to answer that question. I was only commenting if the paranoia is there which President was the last that was truly paranoid about political enemies. I called her an “entitled Bitch”, not a “paranoid Bitch”.
I doubt she is paranoid. I can not image what a Paranoid Entitled Bitch would be like. Even the rats would escape the whitehouse basement if any were present.
Sorry about the misplaced comment, Ron.
After a while my eyes blur, looking at my tablet screen, and I tapped the wrong reply button.
Who lies more frequently, and to a greater degree, Clinton or Trump:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/
Jay, are you sure you are not working for Gary Johnson. You are one of the best coming up with reasons neither of these two people should be President.
I would like someone else to be president, a balanced RADICAL moderate, like Rick.
But that ain’t gonna happen.
The sub-par Clinton or the dangerous disaster Trump will be president of the US for the next four years, unless death or resignation or impeachment changes that game plan.
I repeat one again: we can survive 4 years of Hillary; surviving Trump is way more uncertain.
GW and Jay, I will grant that each of you make good points. Bill and Hillary do speak in lawyerly ways to avoid being pinned down. And the GOP is, of course, the opposition and is always looking for evidence to use to defeat them. Often overreaching.
But neither of those things negate my bigger point, which is that you cannot believe anything that they say, or, to acknowledge GW’s point, anything you THINK they said.
Here’s an example: Last week, Hillary did a Facebook video thing (that was also posted https://www.facebook.com/humansofnewyork/photos/a.102107073196735.4429.102099916530784/1362236273850469/?type=3&theater )
She was purportedly trying to show a more personal side, telling stories, explaining how sexism had shaped her worldview, etc. She told a “true” story about how she had taken the LSAT’s during her senior year of college, and was subjected to harrassment by the boys in the room, who told her and a friend that they “didn’t need to be there” and that they could do something else (like get married? I wasn’t sure what these enlightened Harvard guys would have mean by that…I mean, this was 1968-69, not the 50’s, after all) So, she says this:
“One of them even said: ‘If you take my spot, I’ll get drafted, and I’ll go to Vietnam, and I’ll die.’ And they weren’t kidding around. It was intense. It got very personal.”
Problem is, grad school deferments, including law school deferments, ended in 1967, when Hillary was a sophomore. The boys taking that exam would have had to have known that. If there was anything that male college seniors of that era knew, if was how to get a draft deferment. If that was their goal, they would have been taking the MCAT’s, since medical school deferments were still possible.
So, that part of her story was a lie. Or a “mis-remembrance” at the very least. For me, it calls into question the entire story. Would the story have been a good one, even without the phony “I’ll get drafted if a girl takes my law school spot” addition?
Sure. It was a totally unnecessary bit of BS. But you can’t believe anything she says…..
And by the way, I consider myself to be a hater. I hate sardines, rap music, the far right, the far left, many other things. What exactly does this word hate mean anyway? I can’t stand the thought of it, it makes me ill, I dislike it, there are shades of hate up to I wish someone would have a coronary. Some political things I hate the thought of, others its more personal, I hate the person directly. Trump, Micheal Moore. Oh, it sounds bad to be a hater. But its not a word to be a despiser or an extreme disliker or any of many other unwieldy constructions. So I will settle for being a hater. I hate the campus left. I don’t wish they were all dead, but as an entity I hate it, the world would be better off without it. Ditto the real wacko right, Breitbart qualifies, Rush, Coulter, all that. Its the height of political correctness not to be able to hate certain ideas or personalities while its fine to hate squash. Squash is not destroying the moral compass of my society.
Not to worry. Apparently, I’m a deplorable……
She said 50% deplorables.
You’re in the other half: confusables. 😊
Well, only if you are in THAT half of the trumpies. When you were in gym class in HS and the teacher said OK some of you have been guilty of passing smutty letters around about me and no one is leaving here until the guilty parties confess did you feel guilty even if that was someone else who was doing that? Cause it WAS someone else but all feel guilty anyhow.
Haha, I do get it. And, since I know that I am neither racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic or easily confused (unless I’m driving), I assume that Hillary’s nasty swipe at her opponent’s supporters was mainly a way to energize her own base. I watched the video of her making the now famous/infamous remark at a pricey fundraiser with Barbra Streisand and other Hollywood millionaires, and they got a good laugh at the rubes.
So, I didn’t take it personally, because it wasn’t directed at me, but rather at Hillary’s voters, to keep them in the Hillary Basket. 🙂
Here’s the thing. None of this crap would be necessary if Hillary made the case for electing her positively, without reference to Trump, and vice versa.
Since voters tend to strongly dislike both of them pretty strongly, it might help to focus their campaigns on policy positions. Trump has made a few policy speeches…..has Hillary (I’m not saying she hasn’t, but I’m not aware of them)?
Health and age were big issues in 1984, 1996 and 2008. But, as far as I know, Reagan won and Dole and McCain lost because of their positions and/or their records, not because of their advanced age.
Heh, left in an extra “strongly” there…
To amplify my hater comment (which was brought on by Priscilla be named a Hillary hater a few days back, which I knew would go over badly) the eskimos, they say, have something like 40 words for snow. Different types of snow, wet dry, crunchy, blue, etc.. We should have such a detailed lexicon for the range of emotions from dislike to pure hatred. When one is a true violence-advocating white or black supremacist that is hate I. When one hates brussel sprouts that is hate XXXX(forty).
If I say that that hate both parties that is hate in the region of hate XXV.
When you were called a Hillary hater Priscilla, I thought it was accurate but could be taken in a pretty non insulting way probably but would not be. I hate trump, you are entitled to hate Hillary. My hate level towards trump may be stronger than your hate level to hillary. OK, we can be politically correct and say that you really, really, really strongly dislike hillary, or even use a whole sentence or paragraph to clarify it. So cumbersome. Jay hates Cruz and trump. So do I. I only would not call you a hillary hater for reasons of not wishing to needlessly stick a pin in you, I know you don’t like the term.
But, list some of the things you might feel free to say you hate, e.g., needless absurd laws like “motorists must turn on their windshield wipers when it rains” (Vermont has that one). Make of list of all the mild little things you hate, rainy days on the weekend and such, and then compare your emotions and negative feelings to those about Hillary. I think you will find that if you can admit that you hate cabbage soup you Really hate hillary, but not nearly so much as you hate nazis. We just need a better vocabulary for dislike-hate. Otherwise labeling someone as a hater sounds like its labeling someone as a Nazi. I’ve hated the Yankees for decades, but I never wanted to see them eradicated other than on the field.
We are in total agreement on this, GW. I don’t have any trouble with someone saying that they “hate” Trump, provided, of course, that they’re not planning on assassinating him or otherwise exacting bodily harm on him or his supporters.
But, the truth is I don’t hate Hillary. I actually felt sympathy for her when I saw the video of her collapse the other day. I honestly believe that she is driven by such a compulsion to win the presidency, that she is risking her health, and possibly her life, to do it.
Hating Trump is politically correct, not incorrect. It’s always politically correct to “hate” Republicans, because all bad things are their “fault”. Think about the things that were routinely said about Reagan; that he was stupid, that all of the poverty and homelessness in the country was due to him, that he wanted AIDS patients to die, etc. Yet, when anyone brought up Ted Kennedy’s role in the death of MaryJo Kopechne, that was irrational hatred of the Lion of the Senate. Or mentioned that Majority Leader Robert Byrd was, for years, a member of the KKK, even becoming a Grand Kleagle, it was slander.
We’re all spectators in the blood sport of politics, and hate is part of it.
But, like you, I would prefer not to censor my words and would LOVE (not really “love”, but you know, same thing) to have a “political hate” word. (And, yes, I am a Yankees fan, as well as a NE Patriots fan! How perfect, right?)
Not as many degrees as SNOW, but here’s a bunch of synonyms just for DISLIKE
hatred, disgust, hostility, loathing, disapproval, distaste, animosity, aversion, antagonism, displeasure, antipathy, enmity, animus, disinclination, repugnance, odium, detestation, disapprobation
And the list of assigned attributes for dislike are inexhaustible: like Douche Bag, Detestable Dumb Bell, Deadbeat Dick Head, Driveling Dingleberry, Disgusting Desembler – the letter ‘D’ an easy paste on for Twitter heads, like #DeplorableDonald now trending there.
“hatred, disgust, hostility, loathing, disapproval, distaste, animosity, aversion, antagonism, displeasure, antipathy, enmity, animus, disinclination, repugnance, odium, detestation, disapprobation”
Unfortunately I cannot stick “er” on any of these to make a description of myself in relation to so many political objects. I cannot live my life as an animuser so I am resigned to being a hater.
You could be a loather, or a detester (acceptable words apparently as the spell checker didn’t flag them).
Or like me an afternoon imbibER of Irish Whiskey or other spirits of revival
Don’t know how it happened , but apparently one of my more detailed comments, with 4 separate links, did not post. Is there a limit to the number of separate links you can get in one comment?
Apparently 4 links are too much, let me see if I can get two. I can tolerate a lot of nastiness from a politician, but Trump is too nasty too often, examples are his John McCain/POW remark and his mocking a journalist with an impediment. That and he is just as corrupt as any other politician. Link one: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/theres-one-flaw-in-trumps-plan-to-show-hes-not-racist.html and link two http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foundation-irs-illegal-campaign-donations-2016-9
Google “trump foundation donors” and check out the three top stores to see what a disreputable dick Donald is.
A statistic reported yesterday indicated the MSM had over 100 reporters investigating the Clinton Foundation full time; only 1 full timer investigating Trump Foundation, at Mother Jones. Go figure, right.
Ah, at two links, it goes to “awaiting moderation” rather than outright rejection. Ok, I’ll post other one with two links also, and I guess we then just wait on moderation….
And now I apparently can’t repeat a link, even if it is just one. I guess I’ll have to try another day.
One link limit per comment, Mike.
You can add links to your replies one at a time – tedious but the only solution to the WordPress blog setup.
And moderation takes forever, as Rick rarely is available to moderate these days
Maybe Trump will fix it when he takes over the Presidency.
Nah, Hillary’s probably going to win. She will fix the internets.
Ok, in my comment awaiting moderation I gave two links about how bad Trump is, and why I can’t vote for him. With Hillary, I have been unable to post the links, but basically her talk about starting a war with Russia because of Russia’s alleged cyber attacks, show how she can be just as careless with what she says, as Trump is with what he says. The bigger problem is how much of a hawk she is, her proven track record of pro-military intervention makes the possibility of the US getting more entangled with more fights in more places unacceptably high. To use hyperbola, it seems like deciding between Mussolini or Stalin.
The big difference is Hillary won’t go to war with Russia or any other major power without bringing in allies to back us, like she did with the Iran boycott. Whereas Truculent Trump is likely to shoot from the hip as president with his WWF mentality
You actually have no idea about that. Plus, Republican presidents generally get authorization from Congress to declare war. Libya was an unauthorized war, not to mention a huge mistake. And it was Hillary’s idea.
So, the shoot from the hip candidate, when it comes to warmongering, is more likely to be Hillary
Trump’s not a Republican, Priscilla, or any other recognizable rational political creature.
Haha, fair point!
Here is a little test that you might find intriguing. If interested and brave enough, take it and share with the group.
https://www.crowdpac.com/surveys/presidential-candidate-quiz/60?r=QENdv
(If the link works. many of them do not on Word Press when I add something)
I was 67% Johnson, 36% Trump and 19% Clinton. (Does not add to 100% since some things candidates overlap)
That is another reason I can’t vote for Trump or Clinton. The only time someone doing anything at 36% and having it acceptable is in baseball batting averages. You would fire an employee if they only accomplished their task 36% of the time.
I was 49% Johnson, 42% Trump, 37% Clinton.
Now that is what I call a “True Moderate”. You found the right place to troll and I understand your acceptance of Trump given these numbers.
I’m not a troll, lol!
But I do think that it’s probably most likely that I answered the key questions in a very balanced way. For example, I agree that abortion should be legal, I think that in today’s economy and culture, we need paid childcare leave, I believe that immigrants should assimilate and that citizenship is not a privilege given to all who come here……none of that fits neatly into a basket, of moderates, deplorables or otherwise.
Also, I think that, because of the overlap of issues, most moderates are most likely to have Johnson come up first.
Like I’ve said, my problem with Johnson is that he can’t win, so I see the election as binary. He would certainly have a better chance if he were allowed in the debates, but that’s not going to happen. If it does, I will definitely be open to reconsidering.
Sorry. I used the wrong verb in that sentence. Yes, you are not a troll and I did not mean to use that. Was thinking about something else when I made that comment and just had a mental fart overcome my thinking.
YES<YES< YES< I know. someone voting for Johnson is overcome with mental farts!!!
No, I just think that you probably don’t know what Aleppo is 😉
By the way, until Johnson got asked that question, I didn’t know either. Then again, I’m not running for president. On the other hand, when Hillary was asked about Libya at the CinC forum last week – Libya, of all places! – she didn’t seem to know that it is currently in a state of civil war. And, if Donald Trump knows anything about Aleppo, I would be as shocked as Mike Barnicle was at Johnson.
I was 57% Clinton.
The other ratings didn’t show.
Go back to the web site and when your score comes up, page down 1/2 a page or so if you did not do that. It lists all four candidates and your comparative score.
This does seem to be accurate given my score, Priscilla’s and now yours. Explains why we think about the candidates as we do.
My scores:
37% Liberal
42% Authority
57% Clinton
34% Trump
0% Stein and 0% Johnson
Where you are 42% in favor of authority, I am 41% on the side of liberty. In this we seem to be polar opposites. Something like this can explain much about why we comment about candidates like we do and why we support one or the other, Sure beats commenting about someones thinking in a negative manner when we understand other peoples thinking. We may not agree, but we understand their positions.
I’ll do it, but tommorow. Da wife has me for the day starting now.
BTW, the comment about the Paranoid Entitled Bitch and the White House Rats (A name for my next rock band if I can find a willing female vocalist!!!) was a source of great pleasure to my humor gland.
The Paranoid Entitled Bitches…weren’t they a punk group in the 80’s?
There was a film festival movie entitled “Paranoid Girls” this past spring. not sure about a punk group in the 80’s. Was not into punk rock so have no idea.
You may have to move out of Vermont to get a gig with that name.
Is repeated exaggeration lying?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/
Is ignorance bliss or BS?
From Trump interview yesterday about financial conditions:
“I believe it’s a false market,” Trump said of the current state of American stocks. “I don’t even invest in the stock market.”
Trump’s personal financial disclosures to the Federal Election Commission clearly show that he does in fact own millions of dollars in stock.
“The Trans-Pacific trade agreement with China is hurting our country economically,” he. Said in denouncement of China.
But the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not a trade agreement with China. It includes 12 countries and none of them is China.
Meh, I’m sure he was talking about speculative investing, although I agree he worded it poorly. If asked, I would say that I don’t invest in the stock market either, although I own many shares of stock from programs at two previous corporations where I worked.
Trump is not as articulate as I would like, that’s for sure. Although, I doubt very much that it would matter if he were.
It’s this kind of “gotcha” BS that I hate about today’s politics. After Hillary’s “deplorables” remark, all any reporters want to do today is to ask Trump, Pence and all their surrogates. “Do you think this one’s deplorable? How about that one? How about that one?” It’s all part of the game to put Hillary’s lies and corruption on the back burner, while attempting to paint Trump supporters as racists.
The fact that Trump is doing as well as he is, with the entire weight of the mainstream media, working overtime to destroy him and malign his supporters is evidence of how many people want someone, anyone, other than Clinton to be the president.
Ron, that test was quite fun. I tried to be as honest and serious about the questions as I could be , I was happy with the results..97% Johnson. I did not see the other scores, I took it a few hours ago, now I’ll take it again and see how close I get to the same results. (And I’ll look for the other scores more closely)
Mike, I forgot to post all of my scores and transposed one of my numbers.. 76% Johnson, 50% conservative and 41% liberty. I think this is pretty accurate given what I have seen so far.
It’s all good, when I click on your link, it actually shows your results, then from there I just “retake” the test. It was fun, I wish I could have seen what I had scored with the others when I hit that 97% Johnson, I wish I could lower my Trump score to around 3% like I got with Clinton. Anyway, thanks again for the link. Jay, thanks for the joking around. Honestly, if I had to bet money right now, I would bet on Clinton to win. Did you all see that story about the Linked in guy who will match 5 to 1 (up to a max of 5 million) of a Veteran’s fund raiser, if Trump releases his tax returns prior to the 1st debate?
Embarrassingly fickle I guess. I only scored 84% Johnson the 2nd time, with Conserve/Freedom split of 70/41….Trump 19%, Hillary 3% and Stein 0%.
I just retook the test.
I Chose Neutral for every question.
Results:
53% Clinton
0% Liberal 0% Conservative
37% Trump
36% Johnson
7% Stein
Humm. So, what does that mean? If you have no opinions on any of the issues, you’re Pro Hillary?
I think you are on to something there Jay, who is more neutral on absolutely everything than someone who is dead? With Hillary getting a landslide of the dead votes in Chicago and elsewhere, it would seem she is a lock to win! I’m getting my airline ticket to England where I can legally wager on the election, $100,000 on Clinton to win. What is the payout? (Let me check..) She is at minus 2.2 (for easy math I’ll make it 2.5) nets me $40,000. Minus trip expenses of $3k, then tax repercussions..$9K…net 28K profit. Oh and a tip to Jay for that great info, say $1K? Awe, I forgot I have to make another trip after the election to cash the ticket…too much hassle. Never mind.
Just fly there a few days before the election to place the bet. The odds will tighten by then, you’ll have a better payout, plus a nice London vacation, but don’t forget to wear warm clothes.
Not sure why this would be 53% Clinton unless she is strongly against small government and strongly in favor of higher taxes, more government regulations, etc and when you pick neutral you fall right in between both positions. A couple positions she may not have made her positions known, but Trump and Johnson has, so that screws the results just a little.
Genius Jay, that would cut my travel costs in half, I feel foolish for not thinking of that, plus with all the additional scandals that Hillary will be involved in by then, maybe I’ll get even money. But with all those voter I.D. laws being struck down, she should clinch it, no matter how many times she needs to vote for herself. I’m not falling for all that hype about her health problems, her only serious medical condition is she is highly allergic to telling the truth.
You need to take a physical to get into the military, no? And many other occupations require a standard physical before one can get hired. You can’t buy life insurance without one.
So, why not require a physical for POTUS? We’ve got a 68 year old woman who can’t stand up after being in 77 degree, low humidity weather for an hour and a half, and a 70 year old man who brags about eating fast food.
At this point, I won’t believe Hillary’s “medical records” even if she releases them. I’m sure that they are being carefully doctored (pun intended) as we type. And who knows with Trump? He seems to be very healthy, certainly has the energy of a man half his age, but has he had prior health issues that could occur?
John McCain was shamed into releasing over 100 pages of his heath history. Hillary has no shame, but voters should not be put in a position of possibly electing a person with a serious chronic neurological condition or any other disease which would impact their ability to serve.
And, speaking of voters…the voter ID thing is freaking ridiculous. Everyone should be required to present picture ID, period.
“We’ve got a 68 year old woman who can’t stand up after being in 77 degree, low humidity weather for an hour and a half, ”
She has been campaigning for god know how many hours a day for a year or more. Its cumulative and the stress that any candidate or worse nominee goes through is more then I can imagine. You or I could get a cold from being around people and being under stress, but not a presidential candidate? I would not do it for anything. We’d all be seriously ill.
Jeez how could a person who has been in a thousand crowds kissing babies etc. have possibly come down with a cold that turned into low grade pneumonia? This is just unbelievable, lets all ask Dr. Oz,. maybe he can explain it. Conservatives are milking this. She may even get (and deserve) some sympathy, so its a dangerous tactic. Yes she is risking her health running for president. We are lucky Anyone wants to do that, no normal person would.
“At this point, I won’t believe Hillary’s “medical records” even if she releases them. I’m sure that they are being carefully doctored (pun intended) as we type.”
You are now directing partisan cynicism and preparing an accusation of dishonesty at her doctor(s), people you do not know. Relent for a moment.
I agree with you. Candidates for president should have an independent medical examination, conducted by a team of doctors, not by their personal physician. Personal conditions, like syphilis, bladder dysfunctions, etc, should not be included in the report – only medical conditions that could effect a candidate from performing the duties the office requires.
A more immediate important disclosure is the candidates tax records. There, hidden disqualifying information needs to be revealed to prevent someone from becoming president who could damage the safety and welfare of the nation. when presidents dies in office, as frequently had happened, mechanisms are in place to replace them; but if a devious dishonest ne’er-do-well is elected without proper vetting, the consequences could be damaging long term.
That’s why it’s crucial we see Trump’s tax history. He has spent his entire business career subverting and/or manipulating laws and procedures to further his personal business interests. I’m 100% sure he’ll do that if elected – he’s already stated he won’t turn them over to a blind trust to – as Bloomberg did when he was mayor of NYC – insisting his children will run them.
Does any rational American believe he won’t be directly involved in their operation? Or that his decisions as president won’t be effected by self-interest?
I agree with both Priscilla and you (and I should have said so in my first attempt) that there should be a government run health exam of the party nominees, perhaps even before they are nominees. It has not been done before, but that is no reason not to do it now. But I can see the slippery slope too, does health include mental health, which is more to the point of the presidency? A brain scan and tests for Altzheimers and Parkinsons? The brain is the more important issue and will we subject candidates to brain exams including psychological exams? We sort of should but I doubt we will. If they die or are seriously ill there is the VP. If they have Altzheimers liekk Reagan we just have a fuzzy president. And god only knows what a psychological exam would turn up on either of this years candidates, enough material for a whole psychologists convention between the two of them.
Politics IS a blood sport. THat’s why I hate it. I separated my self from it yesterday and had a beautiful day and I’m gonna do the same today.
Nope, nope, on the partisan stuff this time, GW. I wouldn’t believe Trump’s doctor either. ( I certainly don’t believe his lame excuse for not releasing his income tax records) But he hasn’t been collapsing and otherwise showing signs of illness. I will have to respectfully turn the partisan label back on you regarding this one. Hillary’s displayed signs of serious illness, including telling the FBI that she could not remember many things because of her prior concussion, which occurred because she – wait for it – collapsed at her home. How many times does the average person collapse – or faint, if we want to use a gentler term?
And speaking of the FBI, is James Comey becoming another J. Edgar. This is a very interesting exchange the other day. Chaffetz is asking why the Director of the FBI gets to decide what Congress can see. The answer is interesting. Also, Hillary’s IT guy, who set up her server, just defied a Congressional supoena, despite having immunity. Are you going to claim that that partisanship should trump Congressional oversight? Because that’s what’s happening.
Well, I cannot claim I am never partisan, I am partisan too, yes.
As an example, today the news (god help me I read it) contains a story of a group that hacked Colin Powells emails. I’m against hacking, or drooling over the gory stuff you find when you hack anyone in a high position. But I like the stuff they dug up about Powell’s comments on Benghazi and the Clinton E-mails. So, I am a %$#@&^% partisan hypocrite.
Politics, it just morally poisons all who touch it.
Powell also said Trump was a disaster unqualified to be Prez, or words to that effect.
Also today Devious Deceptive Donald backed off his promise to release his medical report on the Dr Oz show. He is #DeplorableDonald to the core.
A bunch of websites commenting on what is wrong with Hillary. I was just thinking, maybe a Clinton election would be a blessing in disguise. She is elected, she develops health problems that preclude her from finishing her term, Kaine takes over, congress has nothing on him to investigate and they have to do what they were elected to do and stops all the wasteful time looking into Clinton’s past digressions.
You’d think the #AnybodyButHillary crowd would have to shut up.
But of course within days negative mud slinging would be heaped on Kaine, any and everything slightly negative would be dragged from his past, and exaggerated into another storm of hateful misinformation.
The Alt-Conservative talk radio and blog vultures would swoop in for the kill – that’s their job – and vitriol will immediately fill the Hillary Hating void
You are right on with that. Lord only knows what they would say about Jesus and his teachings if he were running for President.
Oops, forgot the link:
Unless you are a politician or own your own business, you are put out to pasture somewhere after the age of 60. Seems to me the same standard should apply to the person that wants to run the most powerful (?) country in the world. Since 1900, no president has been over 65 years old when first elected other than Reagan who was 69 years old and he developed the first stages of alzheimer’s while in office. Hillary Clinton will be 69 and Trump almost 71 when taking office. If reelected, the will be 77 or 78 when leaving office unless they die first. When did age not matter?
The aging time line has extended over previous generations. People in their late seventies are now generally as robust as they were in their mid 60s in the 60s and 70s.
Bottom line: better an invalid than an Idiot.
(click here to view)John ColeScranton Times/TribuneSep 14, 2016 EditorialCartoonists.com
( reposting this, other post went in moderation with the link to a relevant cartoon)
The aging time line has extended over previous generations. People in their late seventies are now generally as robust as they were in their mid 60s in the 60s and 70s.
Bottom line: better an invalid than an Idiot.
“When did age not matter?” ~ Ron P
Good question. I have thought, for some time, that the baby boomer generation is in serious denial about the limits of age. The idea that anyone over 60 is not more prone to injury, disease and other “ravages of time” is just scientifically wrong, but I still regularly see articles claiming that this vitamin or that vitamin, this exercise or that exercise, this face cream or that face cream, will keep those ravages at bay. Check out 62 year old Christy Brinkley’s Instagram and you’ll see a preternaturally youthful and beautiful woman who could easily pass for 42. And of course there are the 60 and 70-something rockers who are still out there, their numbers dwindling by the day, singing about fighting The Man.
I guess my point is that aging gracefully is not really valued in our culture. You either get decrepit, or you stay young by refusing to age somehow. And demanding that elderly – gulp!- people in their late 60’s and 70’s submit to invasive tests if they want to take on the most important job in the world, is somehow offensive to them. But it’s just a realistic precaution.
And, so many chronic, age-related diseases are completely manageable. So, what’s the problem? The problem with Hillary, is that she’s displaying some disturbing symptoms of perhaps an unmanageable condition. So, her refusal to be transparent seems ominous. If she’s merely suffering from acute pneumonia, a curable disease, why the secrecy?
First let me say there is no one that ages gracefully. Botox, plastic surgeons, hair dyes, hair transplants and other cosmetics cover up any imperfections in both women and men that become much greater over time. Even RR used hair dye (tried to deny that) to look younger. Few men with gray hair look good like Cesar Romero and Alex Trebek. But orange does not work either at 70.
Yes, in America growing old is an inconvenience for the younger generation. Unlike many cultures where growing old is regarded with respect and older generations are viewed as ones with wisdom, we view the care of anyone older as being a bother and something that needs to be placed in the hands of the government or others.
I doubt one could expect any illness that keeps one from performing the job of President could be kept a secret for long given the leaks and information overload that comes out of Washington today. Just like the rumors about Parkinsons and Clinton, someone along the way will have to say something to prove this incorrect before it becomes the October bombshell.
Jay commented “Bottom line: better an invalid than an Idiot.” Amen!
I just find it ridiculous that we have to choose between what I consider the two worst people that could ever have been chosen for this position. It is one thing to be against ones policies, but to have two people that are the worst “people” to hold the office, it makes me almost throw up. I would never have anyone like Trump nor Clinton as a friend and would prefer not to have anyone like them as neighbors. That is how much disdain I have for both of them. (GW..Refrained from using “Hate”)
One other thing….if Hillary really is suffering from something like Parkinson’s, wins the election, gets worse and can’t perform the duties of the president, how likely is it that we will know that? Will we end up with Bill playing the role of Woodrow Wilson’s wife?
You need to read up on Parkinson’s.
The advanced stages are impossible to conceal.
Although Hillary is exhibiting some early symptoms – dizziness, unsteadiness or her feet, coughing – she’s not showing others: no signs of typical tremor of the hands, arms, legs, jaw and face, or slurring of speech, and though she fainted when trying to enter her car the other day, she stumbled in a forward collapse; the ‘postural instability’ sign of Parkinson’s is a tendency to be unstable when standing upright.
None of these symptoms were on view two weeks ago when Hillary gave an hour long speech, on her feet at a podium, to the VFW convention. Her words were spoken clearly, coherently, at at times forcefully, indicating an alert mind in command of language and ratiocination.
Also, Priscilla, even in advanced stages of Parkinson’s cognitive changes are generally mild and controllable with medication.
“It is estimated that, at any given time, of all people with Parkinson’s, about one quarter to one third have mild cognitive impairment (MCI) while another one quarter to one third have dementia.
Symptoms of MCI are mild and will not interfere with a person’s ability to function at home and work. ”
http://www.pdf.org/en/cognitive_impairment_pd
Parkinson’s is a terrible disease, with some overlap of the symptoms of Alzheimer’s. My wife’s sister died of it. I as it happens spent today editing a number of papers on both diseases (I edit the words, not the science, but I do understand the basics of the science). A diagnosis of Parkinson’s would merit dropping out in my opinion. Briefly in both diseases the brain is able to reroute signals and mask the symptoms. By the time the symptoms are clear the brian has exhausted that ability and the course of the disease is rapid. THere is of course variation, but both diseases are extremely debilitating and make the sufferer incapable of a normal life in the symptomatic later stages.
I have at this point no reason to believe Hillary has it though. I’d be overjoyed if she dropped out and left us with Kaine, and I would think that Kaine would likely beat trump by more than Clinton and be a much more accepted president, at least initially. Just because the usual very unreliable culprits on the right are spreading theories is no reason for me to start celebrating a Kaine trouncing of trump, delicious as the idea is. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, so anything is possible.
If I were those guys and I REALLY believed that Clinton is seriously ill, I would be playing it down not up, since there is no reason to believe that the (properly) despised trump would be competitive with a fresh candidate that they have not had enough time to smear. I’ll bet that they know they are full of it, this is just red meat to rouse their partisans and perhaps sway a few swing voters and deflect attention from their wretched candidate.
Agreed, GW, that the smart move for the Trump campaign is to keep Hillary in. It’s hard to imagine a worse candidate than either one, so he is well-served by her staying in.
On the other hand, will the DNC allow her to stay in, if they think she’s tanking? I think they’ll wait and see how the first debate goes.
Also, I’m reading today that Johnson is doing so well in Colorado, that he’s cut into what was Hillary’s lead there, and now Trump leads. I would expect that that really cinches it as far as Johnson getting into the debates. If he were hurting Trump, maybe, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Blood sport.
Polling is being done feverishly as we speak by both sides to see how Kaine would fare. Its seems obvious, but it probably isn’t really, that he would be stronger.
I think staying in is up to billary, not the dnc, and I can’t imagine them passing on reoccupying the White house and getting more silverware. And revenge. She’d have to be dying.
Since the person I will be voting for is not going to win, I think the next best thing is for Hillary to win and serve 4 years. Then congress can investigate, investigate and investigate. Once that is done, then they can investigate some more. That will mean they will do nothing else of importance for 4 years, so they will not be screwing up the country with any more laws.
being an optimist does provide some positive outlooks.
You and I share our opinion of trump and for the most part, our opinion of hillary. A little island of sanity in a crazy world you are Ron.
Democrats should be pushing Pense into the race more prominently, accentuating the duel team concept of a Clinton-Pence Presidency.
That will provide a level of assurance to wavering Hillary supporters that the VP is capable of running the government, and force Trump to shift negative focus away from her to Pense.
Isn’t it too late to change the ballots for president in most of the States?
Jay, thank you for the primer on Parkinson’s. Unnecessary, in my case, because my mother had Parkinson’s, and I could probably write a book on the disease. I’m still friendly with her neurologist, who is now retired and widowed…we invite him over now and again. He’s a walking encyclopedia on Parkinson’s and its treatments, even now. He’s one of those people who has aged gracefully. A lot of luck involved in that, right? I also have a good friend who was diagnosed with the disease about 15 years ago and now suffers from the dementia that you seem to think is controllable with medication. Not so much.
I brought up Parkinson’s because it’s all over the internet. And, although there is reason to suspect that Hillary may have the disease, there is also reason to doubt it. I’m a skeptic and a cynic…. If she’s got it, we won’t find out for a long while. Even in later stages, it usually can be temporarily masked with the right drugs, until the disease is quite progressed. My Mom never had the hand tremors that are commonly associated with the disease. She did have balance problems, and something that they call “freezes”, when her legs would just kinda stop working, out of the blue. She never had much trouble speaking,but her speech got softer and slower. And she did have difficulty swallowing, which often led to coughing jags. She was prone to aspirational pneumonia because of that. But Hillary has bacterial pneumonia, according to her doctor.
That video of Hillary collapsing at the 9-11 ceremony looked a lot like a freeze to me. So, it made me wonder. You are more than welcome to dismiss my observations, because I really have no idea what ails the woman. I know one thing – I would never wish PD on anyone. I hope that Hillary is as healthy as she says she is.
“But Hillary has bacterial pneumonia, according to her doctor.”
And this opens up another topic of consideration. Seems to me that if a campaign wanted to completely clear the air, they would have their physician expand on the bacterial issue and the vaccines used to inoculate someone to prevent this. Everyone over the age of 65 is asked or directed by their physician to get two vaccines. If I understand the medical information correctly, one covers 13 strains of bacterium and the other covers 23 strains. Those are the ones that cause most all pneumonia cases in the senior age group.
Now I wonder has she had these shots and if not, why not? And if she has, then it seems to me that clarification of what these vaccines cover and what they do not would help clear the air to her medical problems
As this develops, the way they care handling the issue just keeps adding more doubt to the accuracy of the information they are releasing. Somewhat like the later years of RR administration and Nancy Reagan was prompting Ronald when questions were ask and he was trying to answer and they kept saying nothing was wrong.
Well, soon there will be a debate. As of a month ago it would have been the case that trump would have very low expectations on his side, anything better then complete fact free idiot would be a win. By now both candidates have such low expectations, one is an idiot, the other brain damaged, frail, half dead, can’t speak without lying, remembers very little. (neither, however has been called a hermaphrodite al la Dave’s example from, I think, Adams) All either of them have to do is be better than these impressions painted by their opposition to score.
We shall see.
This Wall Street Journal article describes all Hillary’s medication including what’s she getting for pneumonia:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/09/14/doctors-letter-a-detailed-look-at-hillary-clintons-health-medications/
Jay, I guess I fail more times than not to clearly state my thoughts on paper or on the internet sites. So I will try again.
When you are a candidate for any office and you are thought of as being untruthful, secretive and not open in your thoughts and actions, the last thing I think you would want to do is provide one more issue for people to attach to that thinking.
So the doctors said she had this issue and then they said what she was on. That does not eliminate the question that many over 65 of age may be asking. How did she get this when most all doctors almost require their older patients to get the pneumonia vaccines to eliminate the chances of getting it.
So my thought would be to be open and eliminate any further discussion, have the doc’s state clearly at the beginning of this discussion 1) we recommended her to get the vaccines and she refused or 2) she got the vaccine and the strain of the bacteria that she now has is one that is not covered by the vaccine or 3) she got the vaccines and even with this taking place, it is not 100% effective. Then release the info on the drugs prescribed. That would have stopped many of the questions that surround this issue today as releasing information in bits and pieces like they have is like curing dehydration with one drop every 15 minutes.
Interesting. I wonder how you catch ” a mild non-contagious
bacterial pneumonia”? Especially since, according to the letter, she has had the pneumonia vaccines ( Prevnar and Pneumovax).
Also, she had surgery to place ear drains in January of 2016. No disclosure during the primaries.
So, one wonders what else hasn’t been disclosed. I think that a big problem for Hillary is going to be that, going forward, every time she is absent from the campaign trail for more than a day or so, many people will begin to speculate on her health. It’s definitely not what you want, especially at this late stage and with Trump apparently surging in the polls.
I go back and forth as to who I would want to win. I’ve discussed the reasons why I’m voting for Trump, but I also lean toward a Clinton victory with a GOP Congress. That would be my preference, were it not for the precedent set by Obama’s E.O.’s, which built upon Bush’s E.O’s before him. Obama essentially declared that Congressional inaction is valid reason for legislation by fiat, and the GOP Congress whined and squealed, but did not challenge it.
So, I don’t know. I doubt that Hillary would get away with half the stuff that Obama’s done. But, just because I doubt it, doesn’t mean she wouldn’t……..
Hillary’s term as a NY Senstor showed a willingness to work across the aisle with Republicans to pass legislation. Then, Republicans described her as a positive non confrontational adversary who was willing to listen and learn.
I don’t think she’s going to be Obama like as President: I think she will be left-leaning but moderate and centrist. That doesn’t mean she won’t be vilified by Republicans as she is now. They will do everything they can to undermine her, as they did with Obama – party vitriol will be the operative Republican strategy to the detriment of governance – the same as their stupid refusal to accept Obama’s moderate SCOTUS judge for consideration.
” That doesn’t mean she won’t be vilified by Republicans as she is now. They will do everything they can to undermine her, as they did with Obama ”
That’s partisan spin, Jay. You probably learned all about “checks and balances” in school. Also, about how compromise is necessary to pass important legislation in a two-party system. Maybe even about how Congress holds the power of the purse, meant to be a restraint on executive spending. This is not about Republicans vilifying Obama. This is about a broken system.
Plus, look at this campaign so far. What has Hillary made it about? Helping our cities? Reforming education? Creating jobs? Resolving divisive issues like immigration?
Nope. All about Trump. Trump is a racist. Trump’s supporters are racist. Trump is insane. Trump’s supporters are sexist. Trump is a liar. Trump’s supporters are homophob
I’ve heard that candidates should always attack the opponent, not the opponent’s supporters. So, why would Hillary be breaking that rule? It’s a “rallying the base” strategy. Hillary needs the Obama coalition in order to win, and that requires getting out the black, Hispanic, femaie and millennial vote. Certainly, very few independents or Trump supporters are going to be swayed by Hillary insulting millions of voters. They want a uniter, or at lest someone who pretends to be.
For a long time, Trump was playing into the vilification game. He’s stopped, and the more “normal” he seems, the more mean-spirited Hillary will seem. The tax return thing may be a winner. Maybe that’s the October Surprise. But, without some positive message, I think Hillary just gets weaker regardless of Trump’s taxes….that there is stuff in his returns that may be a little sketchy is probably already presumed. I could be wrong.
Sometimes you make the most infuriatingly idiotic statements, Priscilla. Are you actually suggesting Hillary is the one responsible for deteriorating the national discourse in this election? That she’s the one basing her campaign on personal attacks, and not policy? How did you come up with that nonsensical inaccurate assessment?
She’s made DETAILED policy statements on all those issues you noted, and about two dozen more, all available for viewing on her website
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Clinton made ONE negative statement about 50% of Trump’s supporters, for which she quickly apologized. An apology that Trump and his supporters and enablers like you have ignored, so they can accent that one qualified negative. Trump on the other hand has accented the negative from the start, for anyone and everyone who doesn’t kiss his wide ass. That includes Hillary supporters and Democrats in general, or have you forgotten his insulting remarks about Mexicans as rapists, etc. Are you suggesting that wasn’t confrontational to a large swath of Democratic voters?
Additionally, he has called Democrats ‘crazy’ – not just 50% of them – blamed them for the rise of ISIS, and called all protesters at his rallies “horrendous thugs” – offering to pay the legal bills of anyone who stood up to them.
And how in the world can you overlook the vicious, undignified, bullying ad hominem attacks he’s made on his opponents during the primaries: insulting Cruz and his wife; ridiculing Rubio for sweating; constant personal remarks against Bush, and Carly’s physical appearance, etc etc etc.
And his boorish name calling continues in unrelenting nastiness at Clinton: constantly referring to her as Lying Hillary, and Hillary ‘Rotten’ Clinton, and as ‘evil.’
Is this the kind of trash talking asshole you want representing the United States as President? Is this the kind of petulant cry-baby double-talking habitual lying nincompoop you want to see with his hand on the bible, swearing the oath of office?
Electing trump is equivalent to spraying graffiti on all our national monuments in one wide swoop, an ugly defacement of our nation’s history.
Shame on anyone who votes for him!
“I’ve heard that candidates should always attack the opponent, not the opponent’s supporters”
That has backfired BIG time for Hillary. I have moved from Johnson to Undecided and could very likely vote fro Trump as i see myself as one of those rebels that she called “Deplorables” I even am thinking of getting one of those t-shirts. If there are many like myself that were either voting a protest vote for Johnson or were undecided that are now leaning Trump due to this comment, it might be the straw that broke Hillary’s back.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Trump could walk out on the stage on election night and say “Hillary Clinton, you’re fired!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Voting deplorable Trump is deplorable Ron. If the shoe fits, wear it.
“Voting deplorable Trump is deplorable Ron. If the shoe fits, wear it”
So now your scooping the shit from the septic tank just like Hillary. Good move, I have uncovered your true personality. Seems like that was along time coming, but now we know.
Deplorable Ron fits like a glove. You have moved me from the undecided to solidly Trump.
Un oh, looks like the shoe fits a little too snugly. 👞
And imagine, a little shove from me, and it tipped you into the Trump camp. Is it really that easy to dislodge you from your many professed statements here NOT to vote for Trump or Hillary? despite all the explanations you offered detrimental to Trump as a candidates as reasons you would NOT vote for him, is petulance is overriding one negative statement from Hillary, and one from me, and you’re jettisoning your previous reasoned assertions?
My oh my, you’re surely turned out to be a sensitive soul, so easily offended that you’d change your your vote for that.
Well, at the risk of infuriating you still more, my answer to that would be, yes, she is making her campaign about Trump.
I’m NOT saying that she doesn’t have detailed policy positions, but she’s not talking about them. If it weren’t for the primary debates, I wouldn’t know what they are. And I still don’t know much. All I’ve heard from her is that she has experience and that Trump is a racist tyrant.
You’re doing the same thing to me that she is doing. Accusing me of WANTING a trash-talking asshole for president, despite my repeated explanations of why I intend to vote for Trump, which have nothing to do with trash talking or assholishness.
Criticizing Hillary, or saying that she is making big mistakes on the campaign trail is not tantamount to defending some of the stupider or more boorish things that Trump has said. But, the truth remains that he has been the one making policy speeches, while she’s out there talking about the “alt-right” (maybe 5 % of Trump voters, and he can’t help what they do, just as Hillary can’t help the fact the the Communist Party of the USA supports her) and deriding 50% of Trump voters as deplorable and the other half as idiots. I understand that many liberals think this is true, but it’s not a smart play to broaden your appeal as a candidate.
Take a deep breath!
Priscilla, this is like knocking your head against the wall. Romney said one thing about 45% of the voters (or some % in the range) and all hell broke out in the media and he was trashed for many days after that.
Hillary calls us “Deplorables” and that is fine with everyone and little is said other than from those that do not identify as liberals. There is not even much talk of this on Fox other than a few guests that have taken a position on stage or in other public forums.
like I said, this moved me from Johnson to undecided and if Trump is neck and neck with Hillary in NC, I will vote for Trump.
She apologized a day later for “deriding 50% of Trump voters as deplorable and the other half as idiots”
But you won’t let that go, or hold Trump to the same standard of reckless utterance, which would require 20 times more apologies.
Where are Trump’s apologies?
Where he his denouncements of what you claim are only 5% of his hideous alt-Right supporters? Why did he have to be pressured for so long to renounce support from David Duke?
Not only hasn’t Trump denounced the all-Right idiots supporting him, he hired an alt-Right cheerleader to be his campaign manager.
“The association precedes Mr Trump’s hiring as his campaign manager of Stephen Bannon, former boss of Breitbart News, a reactionary news website that Mr Bannon reportedly described as “the platform for the Alt-Right”, and which has covered the movement favourably. Already Mr Trump had echoed the Alt-Right’s views on Muslims, immigration, trade and, indeed, Vladimir Putin, whom Alt-Righters ludicrously admire for his supposed pursuit of Russia’s national interest. Pressed about these shared prejudices (and tweets), Mr Trump has denied knowing what the Alt-Right is, even that it exists—unable, as usual, to disavow any support, however cretinous, or to apply a moral filter to his alliances or tactics.”
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21707201-how-donald-trump-ushered-hateful-fringe-movement-mainstream-pepe-and?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/pepeandthestormtroopers
If you support Trumpyou’re responsible for the full package, the same way you’re feet would be held to the fire for turning a bus load of tourists over to an inexperienced crazed idiot driver on a dangerous mountain road.
“If you support Trumpyou’re responsible for the full package, the same way you’re feet would be held to the fire for turning a bus load of tourists over to an inexperienced crazed idiot driver on a dangerous mountain road.”
Over the top. 40% as of now choose him in polls. They are not a monolithic group and you cannot damn them all with a broad brush.
I’m not sure why Ron has felt that deplorable applies to him but in general the too pointy comments, which are piling up. are a mistake. I’d stop digging. When in a hole, stop digging.
“They are not a monolithic group and you cannot damn them all with a broad brush”
Sure i can, and justifiably.
Hypothetical: a jury of 12 convicts a man of 1st degree murder, and gives him the death penalty. After he’s put to death evidence of his innocence is uncovered.
Are you saying I can’t condemn all 12 with a wide brush for their incompetence because some were tall, some were short, some were educated, some were not? If I’m a parent or relative or friend of the wrongly executed prisoner I can’t blame ALL the jurors for their incompetence?
My feelings on this match Gary Kadparov, the Russian chess grand master and vocal critic of fascism and of Putin who last March wrote: “Trump is useful as a litmus test for political decency. Anyone still backing him doesn’t have any.”
And if I remember correctly you pretty much said the same thing to me, when I was more sympathetic to Trump early on, before it became apparent what a disaster he is as a candidate and person. Remember how angrily you chastised me then, in much stronger terms then I’m using now?
Oh yeah, I lost it for sure, but in response to your comment about obliterating entire civilian cities to teach a lesson to the Islamic world. Maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong but I have steered clear of criticizing you since you came back as my penance.
Another exchange in my memory was between you and either Dave or JB who were damning all Clinton supporters in fiery terms. You wrote something to the effect of “40% of the population support Clinton. Can you really insult all of them?”
I think that trump is an abomination and it saddens me to see good smart people tolerate what he is doing, but I think that sardines, the Jerry Springer show, and Rap music are abominations. Not everyone does. You say po ta to and I say po tay to is going to have to apply.
I’m not. I’m back in the Johnson camp. Just got envious of those that could wear that t-shirt.
And when someone calls out a large portion of the voters and further divides this country based on personal issues, then I begin siding with those called out. To bad the candidate is unqualified.
But just because he is a unqualified and makes some outlandish comments does not make anyone who supports him “deplorable” But when Hillary is president, she will not be worried about this group of people and we will continue to be as divided as we are with Obama as president. There does not seem to be anyone that really wants to bring us back together as a country and work for the good of our people in either major party..
If elected, the Democrats will try to support 30% of the people and 70% will be left out.
If elected, the GOP will try to support 30% of the people and 70% will be left out.
And when either of the parties are elected, the same 40% that are not left or right will be left out by both parties, just like always and they will be the ones expected to carry the freight for either parties agenda.
Jay “And imagine, a little shove from me, and it tipped you into the Trump camp”
You caught me. Yep I had a mental meltdown there for a minute. Got caught up in the “Deplorables” and my rebel 60’s side came out.
When i walk into the voting booth and have to choose who to vote for, I suspect I will not be voting for either major party candidate.
No problem, Ron, we’re all edgy and easy to anger.
And I blame that on – you guessed it – Trump, who has agitated the emotional climate like a villain provocateur at a wrestling match
My advice to Hillary, time to snatch control of the Media and focus it Trump’s taxes.
Trump has figured out how to deflect attention from his refusal to release them – by throwing fresh red meat to the media with new outlandish statements or accusations every time they come up.
The taxes are his Achilles heel.
Best way for Hillary to do that now – an Ultimatum she refuses to debate unless he releases them.
The media, which has multi millions of ad revenues in the pipelines for the debates, will definitely pay attention, and not let Trump easily wiggle off the hook.
I see that strategy as a win-win for Clinton. The stronger Trump’s refusal, the more suspicion and speculation it will garner over what he’s hiding; and if the taxes are released, the labyrinth network of dubious information there will provide negative fodder in the weeks leading to the election not focused on Hillary’s deficiencies, as it is now.
“Best way for Hillary to do that now – an Ultimatum she refuses to debate unless he releases them……I see that strategy as a win-win for Clinton.”
I would love to see her try this and Trump and his campaign would jump on this like flies on poop. “She has lost her lead because people are not buying into her big government and high tax policies. She can not defend her positions in a debate, so she is throwing out this smoke screen so she does not need to debate and answer to her positions she has taken. She can not defend Obama’s and her policies and she fears any further major discussions on the subjects will only further cause a decline in her support among voters…..I’m Donald Trump and I approved this message”
I already thought of those Trump counter claims. The media will have too much debate ad revenue at stake to let the Trumpsters get away with that. They’ll press Trump on the taxes, hopefully with the same verve they’ve focused on Hillary’s emails, and it will become a prominent issue.
Hillary can counter the criticisms you mention with more forcefull public appearances, on stage, standing, answering reporter questions. And do what Trump does when asked questions she doesn’t want to answer: skip away from the questions to focus back on Trump’s hidden taxes.
If a pervasive aura of suspicion can be raised about the taxes, that has to hel Clinton and hurt Trump. And if some detrimental Trump tax information is leaked – like he owns Big bucks to Russians – that would tip the polls back in Hillary’s favor.
The whole idea of trying to change someone’s vote in this kind of discussion is beyond me.
Basically we’ve been on the same subject with shifting participants for most of a year. Nov. 9 will come and then we can all say which choice we made, if we want to.
Whichever one wins I be happy the other one didn’t, but not happy about whoever being president. (But One choice still seems to me far worse, yes.) I can’t do anything abut someone else’s choice or anguish myself about it.
Here its another gorgeous day, life is short….
Good article. Number of different references used as sources of information.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/hillarys-medication-could-explain-health-scares/
I think we need Rick to just write a two word article: Part Two, then we won’t risk breaking into the 1,000 comment range. Then it won’t take so long to load and scroll down. Anyway, if I was to advise the Clinton camp, I would tell them to get their surrogates to hammer at the angle of the tax return issue towards that proposed donation by the LinkedIn guy. Ok, Trump, there is no rule to release your returns, but are you going to pass up a contribution of up to 5 million to veterans? Don’t you like veterans Mr. Trump? Are you going to deprive them of all that help because of how bad your returns look?
Of course for Trump, I would advise him to hold out. There is honestly no upside for him at this point. How many voters that favor Trump, and are not turned off by his rhetoric, are going to withhold voting for him because he is “breaking the mold” by not doing what all the other politicians do in showing their taxes? Perhaps 7 or 9 in the entire country? And the anti-Trumpers? Would it change their vote if he did reveal his returns? Dear Mr. Trump, both G.W. and Jay have pledged their vote to you provided all three of the following conditions are met: 1) You become the last human in the Galaxy, 2) Hell freezes over, and 3) You release your tax returns.
Tips to avoid long scrolling:
Scroll down to Recent Comments near the top right, pick one of our comments shown, you or me etc, and click on it. That will get you near the bottom of the current blog topic.
Or: if you’re getting the email notifications, REPLY to most current. Thai usually ( not always) takes you to bottom. Then just cancel the REPLY for a fresh comment box
I’m new to this website, and very happy to find that a moderate movement is out there. Thanks Rick. I’m voting against Trump for all the reasons above, and completely frustrated that the other choice is Clinton. Assuming she is not pulled down by her past, we will have to muddle through the next 4 years, as long as the obstructionist Republican leadership and Trump have not damaged the Republican party to the point where majority control is lost. The next 4 years are the best opportunity for a third party to become a reality.
“The next 4 years are the best opportunity for a third party to become a reality.”
Since you are like many others that really do not support either candidate, do what I am going to do. Vote for Johnson and help start the “real” third party reality. We have to start somewhere and there is no better time than now.
Wouldn’t you need 30% to 40% of the vote to fracture away enough to form a new 3rd Party?
My best guess is that 9% to 10% will vote for the uninspiring alternatives out there now.
And neither of those two have the chrisma to keep those voters intact.
Somehow I am thinking in English and writing in Mandarin as my points are not getting clearly stated.
When I said “Vote for Johnson and help start the “real” third party reality” the key words in this sentence were “start” and “real”. No movement becomes an overnight success. Prior movements toward third parties were one shot wonders based on negative movements. George Wallace and segregation. Ross Perot and anti trade. We have the negatives in the GOP agenda this time around, so the movement to get people to vote on a positive agenda (Johnson) seems to be much different than prior third party movements.
If the Libertarian party can increase their votes this time around, continue to attract candidates like Weld in the future and begin getting moderate Libertarians elected to local offices, they may have a chance to capture state legislative seats and then federal seats. Rand Paul, Ron Paul and other like them may not be required to run as Republicans when their true platforms side with Libertarians more closely.
But we do live in an instant gratification society and I can see the point that if you have no support today, you have to have 40% support tomorrow or you will never succeed. But you have to try somehow and the Libertarians have crawled fro years. This year they could be walking and in 4 years they actually could be “running”. They just need to get the largest percent of unhappy voters to be interested in their positions.
The other thing they need to overcome is the liberal media and the conservative media starting off almost every interview with the Marijuana issue. They use that to degrade the candidates at the start so many find them to be “questionable candidates”. In 4 years marijuana could be much less of an issue than it is today requiring the media to ask more substantive questions and showing how their positions are much more in line with most Americans. Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal.
I agree we need a strong third party to counteract the wobbly over-excesses we have now.
But I’m pessimistic it’s going to happen without some charismatic leader rising to lead it.
And beware the make up of that new party – I doubt it will be libertarian in the positive sense of that term – more likely the mix of alt-right and dissatisfied working class you see supporting Trump if he loses. And if he wins, where do the #NeverTrump Republicans end up? Not in the Libertarian lap.
I see the nation in political turmoil for a long time.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of a Hillary supporter, I would probably agree that she should hammer away at the tax return issue. But I’m not sure that that is the smartest move at this point. A few reasons for this:
Everyone, on both sides, assumes that Trump, as a billionaire real estate tycoon, is going to have had accountants who’ve employed every trick in the book to keep his tax bill as low as possible (remember Warren Buffet and his secretary), He’s already said as much, early on, and neither his supporters nor detractors are going to be much surprised if this turns out to be the case. Unless there is evidence of actual lawbreaking, which is unlikely, there is not a lot that’s going to move the needle.
If there is, in fact, something damning in his returns, the smart play, it seems to me, would be to wait until closer to the actual election to spring it. Doing it now, just gives him time to recover from whatever “it” is.
There’s a risk of creating hysteria over a nothingburger, and having it make Clinton look foolish, or, worse, turning the spotlight back on the Clinton Foundation returns. Trump may be using the issue of his returns as a red herring. Even if he isn’t, the fact that he has been a private citizen until very recently, provides him with a legitimate excuse to stall.
I could be wrong about this, and Trump’s returns may be a bombshell ready to explode. But, if they aren’t, and Hillary makes a big deal out of them for little or no return, she looks bad. She’d be better off making the case for why she would be a better president. Battling over who is more corrupt seems to play into Trump’s wheelhouse.
No, there’s something damning there he doesn’t want revealed, and it’s not the amount of taxes he paying or not paying.
I just find this whole tax issue a snipe hunt. The ones that believe that any successful business man is not going to do everything to lower their tax liability have their heads up the butts and are the ones voting for Clinton no matter what.
If the taxes are an issue, then on the other side I find anyone living off the government for as long as the Clintons lived off the government a problem. They lived in government “mansions” and never owned a home of their own until they bought the multi-million dollar estate in Somewhere N.Y. that only a small percent of the 1%’ers could buy using moneys earned while in government employment. This is far more of a concern to me than Trumps taxes. This seems like a much better target for an anti-career politicians campaign ad for someone running as an outsider than an Anti-trump ad attacking him on his taxes.
If Trump is DEEPLY in debt to Russians (all Russian wealthy businessmen are under his thumb) you don’t think that is relevant as a conflict of interest to th US if Trump is President?
Or if he’s in debt to people with mob connections – don’t sneer at that possibility; he was involved with those people, setting up his casinos in Atlantic City?
He’s concealing something, and it isn’t low tax payment – he’s previously bragged about being paying as little as he could, and that didnt hurt him at all.
And I don’t understand what you’re talking about when you accuse the Clintons of living off the Government too long??? Are you saying the money we spend on presidential retirement packages is too much, and that should be reduced? Did the Clintons receive some extra allotments recent previous presidents did not?
1) If Trump is wrapped up in something with the Russians in some unsavory endeavor or he is under the control or has connections to the mob and it is clearly visible in his tax returns, then he is not only a sociopath, he is a dumb sociopath and that is hard to be. (look it up, most sociopaths are of a higher IQ than average). I have a hard time thinking that anyone with the money Trump has would not have tax attorneys and accountants that would make sure that type of stuff was not in his returns,
2) I saying that when a family does not have enough money to buy a home, is elected governor of a state, lives off the people of Arkansas, moves into the White House and then has millions to buy a home in an exclusive neighborhood in N.Y. that only a small percentage of people can afford, then they have been involved with politics way too long and used their position and influence in a way that 99.9% of the people would never be able to achieve. even most politicians. How in the hell can the Clintons relate to any poor or middle class American and know the pain and suffering many go through to work themselves into a position to buy their first car, first house or pay for kids education. They are no different than Trump in his inheriting millions to start his empire. At least many politicians start in the middle class before getting rich in government and they can relate somewhat to what the average American goes through daily.
3) Libertarians have been labeled a fringe party for too long as most people look at them as being pot smoking radical rebellious anti government isolationists. They can either change this image through better candidates like Johnson and Weld or another third party may be able to emerge. But right now, the Libertarians are on all 50 state ballots and with the protectionist system we have, that is not an easy thing to do.
If he’s not hiding something seriously detrimental to him, why isn’t he releasing the taxes?
You haven’t offered one reasonable explanation for that.
Do you believe he should release them or not? Yes or no?
Your rationalization that he’d be smart enough to hire devious accountants to hide negative info is faulty. The government has forensic accountants of their own who have decades of successful experience investigating that kind of deception, and putting people in jail.
What’s he hiding, Ron, and why are you playing ostrich on this?
The Clintons got rich on the celebrity now attached to holding high political office. Their initial huge input of cash came from book advances, and then from the kind of exorbitant fees for public appearances entertainment stars are paid for showing up to smooze at corporate events. Although none of that was at taxpayer expense, we do pay the costs of lifetime secret service protection for them & their spouses.
The money Trump will rip off for his own personal gain as president will make the Clintons look like paupers. He was at it already today, calling a faux press conference to renounce his Birther claims about Obama – but spending most of the time touting his new hotel, a huge free advertising orgy at media expense. And crass asshole that he is, don’t be surprised to see him making commercials for payment as president, or getting fees for product placement when he makes speeches – McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken baskets conveniently left on the desk or podium. And when traveling he’ll surely be staying at Trump properties, charging taxpayers full price as he does from his campaign expenses, and making sure he stands in front of Trump logos when talkin to the press.
This is the crass asshole who may be the next President of the US.
As far as I’m concerned anyone who votes for him is guilty by assiciation.
Jay, I could care less if he releases his tax returns or not. I could care less if the Clintons release theirs. I am not voting for either one. They could both sit down on a rotten outhouse seat and fall in and if I knew they were stuck and could not get out, I would leave them there. That’s where they both belong.
45% of the voters are going to vote for Clinton no matter what comes out about either candidate. Another 35% or so will vote for Trump regardless of what comes out about either candidate. That leaves 25% that are just going to have to hold their noses and vote for one or the other if they choose to overlook other more qualified candidates. If they do, they will have to make up their own minds based on whatever info they want to see or hear. If taxes are important, then they should be the ones asking for that. I sure is not me.
Your theory that the government has accountants that will find most anything is right. Fine, if he is being audited and they find some shady deals, then he will be charged with some crime (unlike Clinton and the e-mail issue) since the Obama justice department will insure that voters know there is something illegal within the returns.I still think it is a snipe hunt and the best they will find is someone who gives very little to charity. To me, that is not a qualification or disqualification for President.
As I’ve said before, Trump has already DEBASED our nation, our heritage, our reputation as a stable, reliable democracy.
Here’s another more coherent voice than mine, with conservative Republican credentials, and similar views:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/16/trump-birther-lies-obama-birth-certificate-changed-america-column/90499330/
And here’s more proof of lowlife trump’s intemperate words:
Trump: Hillary’s Bodyguards Should Be Disarmed And Then “Lets See What Happens To Her”
Another “joke” about assassinating Hillary Clinton. The Guardian reports:
If Clinton were truly as anti-gun as she claims to be, Trump told the audience, her Secret Service detail should disarm itself. “I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons – they should disarm. I think they should disarm immediately, what do you think?” Trump asked the raucous crowd. “Let’s see what happens to her.”
My understanding is that Trump is, unless he is elected, a private citizen, free to conduct legal business around the globe, with no obligation to disclose the financials of his businesses, to anyone but the IRS.
He’s submitted the financial disclosure forms required of presidential candidates by the Federal Election Commission. It’s up to him as to whether he makes further disclosures. Am I wrong about that?
O come on Priscilla, stop playing dumb, you know as well as I do there’s no law yet in place requiring him to release. Just as there’s no law requiring him to release his medical record, which he did, because he could manipulate and obscure the contents.
Every Republican nominee for President since Richard Nixon (who was under an audit) has released their taxes.
It was Nixon’s audit that started the tax transparency tradition for presidential nominees. Tricky Dick, relenting to media pressure over his character, made one of his best known lines: “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook.”
Transparency became the default for tax disclosure after that, because indeed Americans have the right to know if a nominee for president is a cook or conman or con-woman.
The sad fact we now realize is that Americans don’t care about transparency if it hurts their candidate. Americans only care about the character of the other candidate.
That seems to be your position in a nutshell, Pricilla: you know Trump is an untrustworthy con artist, but you’re willing to overlook that, and shrug off his refusal to release his taxes with rationalizations about his legal right to do that – which is akin to Mafia Dons claiming their 5th Amendment rights at Senate hearings.
If Trump’s willing to football tax transparency, even though it has become a defacto political tradition for nominees, what else may he decide NOT to do as president? The State of the Union Address for instance is not specifically mandated by the Constitution. Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, only requires the President to “periodically give Congress information on the “state of the union” and recommend any measures that he believes are necessary and expedient. During most of the country’s first century, the President only submitted a written report to Congress. it wasn’t until the Woodrow Wilson Presidency that a a State of the zunion speech was delivered to congress, and not until radio and television came along that the address Was broadcast live across the country.
Under the letter of the law, Trump could merely submit a hand written note to Congress stating: “The Nation is in good hands, mine, and I have nothing to recommend at this time.”
Would you note that away too, Priscilla, with another “am I wrong, there’s no law against it” post?
“Every Republican nominee for President since Richard Nixon (who was under an audit) has released their taxes.”
Not playing dumb at all. Just making the point that Trump has not yet left the private sector, and almost every nominee since Richard Nixon was a VP, Congressman, or Governor, planning to run for president far in advance of their actual nomination, and carefully structuring their income, charitable donations, etc. in such a way that they could release their returns once they actually became the nominee.
I make my biases clear, and if I say something dumb, it’s not intentional….I say dumb things a lot. I don’t think this was one of those times.
In my estimation, you are shockingly trusting of the Hillary. Fine. Apparently 30% of the voting public is. I don’t trust either one of them, and I don’t much like Johnson either. And Stein seems a bit flaky. I’m not gonna tell myself fairy tales about these people.
But we all have to decide how and why we’ll cast our vote one way or the other…..
Jay, I believe that Trump releasing his tax returns would do political damage to him. But I think you might be way of base in what and how. There is no line item on a tax return to report your debt to Russia or schmoozing with mob characters, even if you were going to be honest about those things. The one thing that Trump has going with those that don’t already hate or fear him, is this image that he is such a crafty business man. It would be one thing if his businesses brought in 50 million but his accountants structured it to only have 1 million of net profit, it would be another thing if business after business, that he owns, was bringing in very little (relatively speaking), That could tarnish his only perceived of bright spot. What I find funny about that is even if my speculation is correct, one’s income does not reflect one’s wealth, a building you own may skyrocket, or plummet in value regardless of how good or bad the business is doing inside that building. Property values are not reflected in a tax return unless there is a sale of some kind. Regardless of what is in the returns, the spin doctors will try to make it sound terrible, we know they will, so again, releasing his returns does him no real good.
This kind of hiding of info reminds me a little of what I heard about Iraq, long after Saddam’s defeat. I heard it said that one thing Iraq was trying to hide was the fact that they did NOT have WMD. They (Saddam) feared being thought of as weak more than they feared a U.S. invasion. I don’t know if that is true, perhaps the only one’s who know are now dead, but it seems to make some sense. What would Trump fear more than losing the presidency? Perhaps he fears his image as being super rich and successful being deflated more than anything else.
Exactly, Mike. His debt ratio is likely weighted to obtain maximum tax advantage, which would further play into to the narrative that he is deeply in debt, despite his assets.
There is also the matter of charitable deductions and political donations. All kinds of potential embarrassments there. The Clintons, for example, claimed a little over $1M in donations, $1M of which went to their own foundation. Not much was made of it. but if Trump did the same, there’s little doubt that much WOULD be made of it.
No upside to him releasing the returns. Clinton will have to hope that the IRS is willing to leak.
“His debt ratio is likely weighted to obtain maximum tax advantage, which would further play into to the narrative that he is deeply in debt, despite his assets.”
You seem to be suggesting that’s a false narrative. There seem to be many astute people who say his wealth is a sand castle, including Mark Cuban, who has taken numerous swipes at Trump’s business empire, which appears to be built on a pyramid of debt – most of it suspiciously obscured by foreign lenders: American banks stopped lending him money years ago, deciding he was a bad risk after screwing them on his bankruptcies.
“There is also the matter of charitable deductions and political donations. All kinds of potential embarrassments there. The Clintons, for example, claimed a little over $1M in donations, $1M of which went to their own foundation. Not much was made of it. but if Trump did the same, there’s little doubt that much WOULD be made of it.”
As usual lately, your conclusions are illogical and backwards. Family Foundations ARE the recipients of Family donations. The Rockefeller, Gates, Bush Foundations are all beneficiaries of family donations – are you suggesting there’s something improper in Gates giving money to the Gates Foundation, which in turn is donated to the Clinton Foundation for joint projects in Africa?
And you seem to be sneering contemptuously at the Clintons for ACTUALLY giving a $million of their personal income to their foundation, as if that money goes back into their pockets, when in FACT it doesn’t.
Let’s contrast that with Trump’s devious Foundation, to which, apparently, he hasn’t put in a dime of his own $$ for years; but has been siphoning money from it to buy football memorabilia, and a $20,000 life sized painting of himself.
Most of the Trump Foundation money has come from Vince McMahon of Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), including a $5 million donation rumored to be a tax-avoiding payment from McMahon to Trump for Trump’s appearance at a WWE entertainment event – that’s right, Trump got a $5 mil appearance fee, but no outrage over that high amount as there are over Bill Clinton’s appearance fees.
“No upside to him releasing the returns. Clinton will have to hope that the IRS is willing to leak.”
So let me see if I have this straight: you’re saying he’s justified in HIDING information that may be politically embarrassing to him? In a presidential election? That the public – all of us – don’t have the right to know what kind of tax manipulation he may be involved in? That his privacy right TRUMPS our right to know if he’s a person of rectitude or a conniving Shylock?
And you do know the Trump Foundation donated money to the Clinton Foundation. What was the play for pay there?
Jeez, Jay, lighten up! I’m not suggesting false narratives (although narratives, per se, are not necessarily true or false) or sneering at anything.
Mark Cuban is exactly what Trump is ~ a egotistical rich guy, reality star, potential politician. I believe him as much as I believe Trump, which is to say, not particularly. It’s obvious that they don’t like each other and consider each other pale, inferior imitations of each other. You may like Shark Tank better that Celebrity Apprentice, or think that the NBA is less trashy than the casino business, but, otherwise, no particular reason to consider Cuban a reliable source.
And, leaking happens, no?
And Clinton Foundation has accidentally failed to claim millions in foreign donations, no? Many think accidentally on purpose? They had to file amended tax returns.
I thought I made it clear that I believed that Trump would not release his tax returns because he 1) didn’t have to and 2) didn’t want to and 3) might not want to explain some of the legal, but potentially embarrassing things that might be inferred from his returns.
Why so testy?
“There is no line item on a tax return to report your debt to Russia or schmoozing with mob characters, ”
When you’re claiming debt and interest on it as a reduction of income on a business I believe in an audit you have to offer as proof the name of the lender, the rates of interest, the amount owed. In an audit, doesn’t the IRS investigates the legitimacy of those claims? They’re not just going to accept those numbers on faith. Meaning there has to be an evidence trail to the Lenders, who may be fronts for other persons or governments. The IRS may only verify the amounts loaned; but investigative news organization could discover if there are monsters lurking in the background.
Jay: as I stake out a position as to how Trump’s returns could hurt him one way, you present a different scenario of how it hurts him. Your scenario is possible, I just think it is much more unlikely. Even if I am way off, and you are right on the mark, I think we are in agreement that Trump’s tax returns hurt him and he should be attacked on not releasing them. I would also maintain that strategically Trump suffers less damage from the heat he takes for not releasing them than what he would take with their release. That conclusion is also, of course, speculation on my part.
I haven’t investigated much about the Trump/McMahon charity scams but it wouldn’t surprise me if they were true, in fact it would highly surprise me if they were not true. Will there be any arrests over such fraud within a charity? I’m not a lawyer but I suspect that as bad as it was, there was nothing criminally illegal about it. This ties back to something I asked weeks ago, where would I find, or is it even possible for someone to get detailed reports of what a charity spends its money on? The charity watch groups reports seem, in my opinion, so superficial, I think they don’t get detailed info either. Dave has argued that charities are often rife with corruption and do little good. I tend to think there are some good ones that do a lot of good, but just like Craig’s list scams, I may or may not get a legitimate buyer for my item, but I almost always get a scam offer with every big ticket item I offer to sell. There may be legitimate charities for our donations, but there are always scammers soliciting our donations.
The Clinton Foundation and the Trump Foundation have some significant differences. The most obvious being their size: CGI worth about $350 million, TF a little over a million. CGI, more than 450 employees, TF, no employees.
Also, their purpose and function; the Clinton Foundation is set up to operate programs with its money and the Trump Foundation is set up to give its money away to other charities. So, if you donate money to the Clinton Foundation, you would expect that your money would be used to fund studies, to rebuild areas hurt by war or natural disasters, etc. If you give money to the Trump Foundation, you’re basically just giving Trump money to give to his chosen charities and causes. Both charities can accept money from their founders and/or from donors, but neither can use the money for political purposes….that includes donating to or funding a charitable cause that is specifically political in nature, like “Poor Republicans of the Appalachians” or “Democrats for the Ethical Treatment of Animals”.
Both charities have been around for a while~ Trumps’s for about 25 years, Clinton’s since about the turn of the century. And both have been accused of impropriety and unethical or illegal use of funds. I think it’s fair to say that, on some levels they’re both “scams”, and on others, they’re legit, as far as that goes. Many celebrity charities are little more than income tax pass throughs for wealthy friends and other donors, others, like the Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s funds a lot of important research.
Andrew Cuomo has decided to have the NY justice dept launch an investigation of Trump’s Foundation. Probably a fishing expedition, but it could turn up some stuff. The other problem that people have with TF is that it’s apparently been 8 years since Trump himself donated to his own foundation. That’s not illegal, just kind of chintzy, but I’m sure Trump doesn’t want it getting around to much, via his tax returns.
That’s what I know.
“I think it’s fair to say that, on some levels they’re both “scams”, and on others, they’re legit,”
Im disappointed that you still have such a distorted understanding of the Clinton Foudation, and so fuzzy an understanding of the Trump Foundation in comparison.
The CF is a genuine world class operation that has verifiably saved hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe more. What part of their aid in helping provide low cost drugs to AIDS portents across Africa has escaped your attention?
“In 2014, the World Health Organization reported that by the end of 2013, more than 11.7 million people were on antiretroviral AIDS therapy in low- and middle-income countries. While the kinds of drugs have changed, the WHO said “in the past decade the price of individual antiretroviral formulations has decreased considerably.”
“The treatments used in the early days have fallen from a median cost of about $600 in 2003 to about $100 a decade later. A more advanced drug combination introduced in 2005 saw a similar decline.
Importantly, the WHO listed the Clinton Health Access Initiative as one of a handful of organizations collaborating on ensuring a steady supply of drugs. The partners in that effort include the biggest players, including several United Nations agencies, PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and UNITAID, a project created by Brazil, Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom.”
And this for additional verification:
http://www.unitaid.eu/en/resources/news/198-unitaid-and-the-clinton-hivaids-initiative-announce-new-price-reductions-for-key-drugs
The Trump Foundation, like most other Trumpian exaggeration, is mostly Show, with little a Tell. Although they did contribute some money to a good cause – The Clinton Foundation. Double Standard Donald doesn’t mention that in any of his anti Hillary Tirades.
There’s the ‘legit’ Priscilla; where’s the scam?
“Andrew Cuomo has decided to have the NY justice dept launch an investigation of Trump’s Foundation. Probably a fishing expedition, but it could turn up some stuff.”
🎣 hook up!
You mean other than this stuff?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-foundation-investigations-now-multiplying-024810605.html
Jay, I was not trying to besmirch the purer that pure Clintons , rather give a quick scan of what I know about 501 type organizations.
I would suggest that, just as you believe any and all criticisms or accusations of the Clinton Global Initiative to be political in nature, there is a reason why Trump’s foundation is being investigated after all of these years. (Hint: it’s not mere coincidence that Trump is the Republican presidential nominee and Cuomo is the Democrat governor instigating the investigations).
Right, if he wasn’t under the spotlight his Foundation might have gotten away with illegal activities, like the apparent bribery of the Florida AG not to proceed with Trump U charges. That’s the point I was making, about why my initial favorable opinion of Trump’s candidacy was replaced by skepticism of his motives and character. I had seen him as an outlandish NY rich guy with a flair for publicity with good intentions. At first, I didn’t know what a dishonest manipulative despicable phoney he was. But then then press started turning over the rocks of shady dishonesty – dozens of them.
Mark Cuban just offeredTrump $10 million dollars for an interview:
.1) @realDonaldTrump $10mm to the charity of YOUR choice if you let ME interview you for 4 hrs on YOUR policies and their substance.
He offered Trump the money directly, if he “needed it.” Ha!
Trump can’t mention the Clintons, but must stick to discussing the issues.
Only trump and Cuban and the tv crew at the interview.
It will never happen. Trump too chicken hearted to do a one on one with Cuban, who is richer, tougher, smarter, and just as tall at 6’3″
Of course it won’t happen. Why would any presidential candidate sit for 4 hours, being grilled by an antagonistic, loudmouth, NBA owner who previously offered to be VP for either one of the candidates and bragged that, if he ran for president, he would beat both of them (but of course, he didn’t run, brave guy that he is). Hey, ya think Cuban wants to prove that he’s “richer, tougher, smarter, and just as tall at 6’3″?
Honestly, a better deal would be to have Hillary, Donald, and Gary Johnson sit at a table for 4 hours and discuss the issues – calmly, and without personal insults. I would like to hear that. Mark Cuban can pay for it, if he wants……..
I’m surprised you’re so antagonistic to Mark Cuban; politically he would seem to be way more your kind of guy than Duplicitious Donald.
(Quotes from Wikipedia)
“Cuban is an admirer of author and philosopher Ayn Rand.[118] About Rand’s novel The Fountainhead, he said, “[It] was incredibly motivating to me. It encouraged me to think as an individual, take risks to reach my goals, and responsibility for my successes and failures. I loved it.”[119] His political views have leaned toward libertarianism.[120] He held a position on the centrist Unity08 political organization’s advisory council.[121] While leaning towards libertarianism, Cuban posted an entry on his blog claiming paying more taxes to be the most patriotic thing someone can do.[122]
Cuban has donated $7,000 to political campaigns, $6,000 going to Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and $1,000 to Democratic California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren.[123]
On February 8, 2008, Cuban voiced his support for the draft movement attempting to convince New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run in the U.S. presidential election of 2008 on his blog. Cuban concluded a post lamenting the current state of U.S. politics: “Are you listening, Mayor Bloomberg? For less than the cost of opening a tent pole movie, you can change the status quo.”[124] He eventually voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 election.[125]
In November 2012, in response to Donald Trump offering President Barack Obama $5 million to a charity of President Obama’s choosing if he released passport applications and college transcripts to the public, Cuban offered Trump $1 million to a charity of Trump’s choosing if Trump shaved his head.[126]
On December 19, 2012, Cuban donated $250,000 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation to support its work on patent reform. Part of his donation funded a new title for EFF’s staff attorney Julie Samuels: The Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents.[127]
At the Code/Media conference in February 2015, Cuban said of net neutrality that “having [the FCC] overseeing the Internet scares the shit out of me”.[128]
Cuban formally endorsed Hillary Clinton for President at a July 30, 2016 rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. During that campaign stop, Cuban stated that “You know what we call a person like that in Pittsburgh? A jagoff […] Is there any bigger jagoff in the world than Donald Trump?”[129][130]”
Fallen Patriot Fund Edit
Cuban started the Fallen Patriot Fund to help families of U.S. military personnel killed or injured during the Iraq War, personally matching the first $1 million in contributions with funds from the Mark Cuban Foundation, which is run by his brother Brian Cuban.[131][132]”
————-
The personal donations his foundation has made to those military families is now at $5million. Cuban has donated substantial amounts of money to other charities as well. You’re aware of the deceptive lies Trump has made over the years about his supposed charitable donations, correct? If not, this link can help refresh your memory about Dispicable Donalds false claims of generosity:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-charity-donations/
Didn’t Cuban’s tounge-in-cheek remark about his willingness to be VP for either candidate appeal to your professed moderate side? His views for the most part are right of Clinton’s and grounded in reality to the left of #DeplorableDonald’s bombastic idiocies. He would be an ameliorating brake to the excesses of both.
A vote for Trump is a vote to destroy American sensibility.
Anyone who rationalizes voting for him in a Basket of Delusion.
Interesting stuff about Cuban. I had never heard of him before I saw a couple of episodes of Shark Tank ~ my husband told me at the time that he was the owner of the Mavericks.
Otherwise, I’ve read about him lately, because of his constant commentary on the election. He strikes me as a loudmouth and a “jagoff” himself, always trying to draw attention to himself with braggadocio and hubris. Much like Trump in many ways, except that Trump is actually out there doing what Cuban merely brags that he could do.
When Mr. Cuban runs for president, perhaps I’ll support him. Until then, he’s just running his mouth, like any other big mouthed chickens**t.
Cuban is a big mouthed chickens**t who puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to charity. Don’t you think someone who promises to give money to charity and follows through is more admirable than someone who makes multiple bragging promises about his generosity, but turns out to have given hardly any money to them?
I’m curious, Priscilla, are you a bad judge of character? Do people you’ve trusted turn out to be bad apples? Has naivety to character flaws come back to hurt you? I can’t think of any other explanation for someone as intelligent as you to keep rationalizing Trump hideous character.
Actually, no, overall I would say that I’m pretty good judge of character, Jay. I’ve been fooled by some people along the way, but not many…
I’m not going to go over my reasons for voting Trump yet again, because I’ve listed them several times, but I never cited his character as one of them.
I have my doubts about Trump. I have no doubts about Hillary.
Trump owes Foreigners Big a Bucks $$$$
Click to access Letter-Trump-Business.pdf
I will agree that the idea that Trump may be tied too closely to Russian or China, via his business dealings with them and/or his debt, is troubling. You haven’t even brought up the persistent accusations of tainted Russian mafia money funding many of his real estate deals.
Could that be why he’s resisting calls to release his returns?
My guess is that, as Ron has commented, those things would not be included in his income tax returns. Just like the Russian uranium deal that Hillary facilitated as SecState, this sort of global double-dealing is carefully disguised and laundered through more legitimate channels. If your fear is that only Trump would cater too much to Russia, then you haven’t been paying attention to Obama’s and Hillary’s ass-kissing of the Russians and the Iranians for the past 8 years. Because it’s been pretty obvious…the Russian “re-set”, Obama telling Medvedev that he’d have “more flexibility” to deal with Russia after his re-election, and mocking Romney for calling Russia our geo-political foe. And, very recently, our announcement that we had joined with Russian in brokering a Syrian ceasefire, only to find – sigh! – that Russia and Syria rudely blamed the end of the ceasefire on us 😦
If Trump is just another corrupt globalist like Hillary, then we’re screwed anyway. We’ve been jerked around non-stop by Russia and China, not to mention Iran, so I’m at a loss to understand how electing Hillary, who expressly states that she’ll continue Obama’s foreign policy is preferable to electing Trump. Decision-making experience isn’t worthwhile if you’ve made all the wrong decisions.
“Just like the Russian uranium deal that Hillary facilitated as SecState,”
To reference Reagan when he heard nonsensical foolishness repeated over and over: there ya go again, Priscilla, with that utterly false and oft refuted negative charge against Hillary. It’s pure BS and you know it. Unless in true conservative deafness and blindness to facts posted here about that deal, it didn’t registering your consciousness.
Claims of debt on an audited tax return have to be verified. That means forensic examination of those listed as owed money could uncover who actually OKed the loans, so yes, info about who owns Trump debt (and him) could be gathered from his returns.
Trump is far more dishonest than the Clintons, and far more susceptible to manipulation from foreign entities. He’s a demogogic liar. He’s already shamed us; imagine what happens to further diminish our luster as a nation with that doofus as president.
I find this whole election to be “deplorable”. We have seen yesterday and today the constant threat this country faces with Islamic terror and most everything in the news concerning Clinton and Trump is E-mails, trust, foundations, tax release and all the other crap that makes no difference at all to the millions that have a good chance of having a bomb go off in their neighborhood, while they are shopping in a mall or running a charity race.
Isn’t it time we begin focusing on the real issues that face the country?
In regard to terrorism, or in general?
Jay, I could care less what the hell the foundations have done. I could care less what i in someones tax return. I could care less what someone gives to charity. And I could care less how much one pays in taxes. These are all unimportant issues when we look at the problems this country faces. Terrorism is just at the top of the list, but just look at government in all forms and there are problems. Like 1000+ illegals who were destined for deportation and given citizenship instead, given police jobs and given security clearances. I have a very negative opinion of people that are politicians or the very rich and powerful like Clinton, Trump, Cuban, Christie, etc, etc. I have no doubt in my mind that both foundations have some sketchy dealings. To me, that does not impact the country.
So in answer to your question, you can put Terrorism right at the top, but there are a number of issues you can add that I have not heard much talked about other than all the negatives concerning both candidates.
Maybe that is due to living in NC where it is a swing state and all the ads are negative ads. There may be a couple positive ads for the candidates, but I have not seen one yet. But I bet you could ask anyone paying attention to the election what either candidate has done positively and they would have a hard time responding compared to being able to list all the negatives.
It’s long past time, Ron. One of my sons was at an ocean swim just a few miles from where the bomb went off at the Semper Fi Run in Seaside Park, and my other son often works in the Flatiron District of NYC, just 3 blocks from where the bomb exploded in Chelsea.
Way too close for comfort. We’re facing an existential threat from radical Islam, and our current president is telling us that our biggest fear should be Trump.
What exactly would Trump be able to do to stop the existential threat of Radical Islam other then stamp his foot and shout RADICAL ISLAM RADICAL ISLAM RADICAL ISLAM?
Does Trump think he’s going to send a million American troops into radical Islamic nations to ferret them out and change their religious ideology? That military mind set and strategy worked out well for the US in Vietnam didn’t it.
I’m in agreement with severely restricting Islamic immigration from nations with radical Islamic populations, which could prevent future radicalization of the immigrant population, but that’s not going to prevent the kind of recent terrorist attacks here from long time naturalized citizens or first generation American-born radicalized Muslims. And I don’t have a problem with profiling radical Muslims or having Homeland Security agents infiltrate Mosques – but we’re doing that already, and maintaining large databases of watch lists for that purpose.
So what other draconian measures would Dictator Trump initiate? Tap all Muslim phones and computers? Monitor all Muslim emails and text messages? Intercept US Muslim mail? Stop them from using social media?
The existential Islamic threat Is much greater in Europe. With large dissatisfied Muslim populations in those nations now, how will TrumpWar in the Midfle East make them less of a threat to Europe, and us as well as much of the ISIS planning is executed in Europeas is likely to increase, not abate.
. Clarabell The Clown as Commander In Chief is a recipe for disaster, for more terrorism.
Ron, do not despair. Despite all the bad going on, despite all the distractions that have no bearing out anything, such as where Obama was born. There is still elements of peace and harmony in our country, and we still have the right to own high capacity magazines. http://www.startribune.com/praise-as-hero-comes-quickly-to-off-duty-officer-who-killed-st-cloud-mall-attacker/393899411/ Yeah!
(If the post I made a few minutes ago that seemed to disappear in cyberspace shows up, I apologize for restating essentially a duplicate here) Jay, nothing the future president can do would stop the seeds planted in the past from sprouting. No one seems to have an answer yet on solving the problem of American born, radicalized terrorists. Without an answer to that problem, Hillary’s goal of bringing in thousands and thousands more refugees from these war zones, keeping our borders porous, and perhaps pushing for more retarded ideas like “gun free zones” risks only making the problem worse. Trump is incompetent to be POTUS but Hillary seems quite competent in making small problems bigger. Both candidates seem to lean towards more of a police state, I believe Hillary would be more skilled at pulling the levers of government in stripping Americans of more of their freedom. She also has a proven track record of pro-military interventionism, while Trump has only bluster as of yet.
Incompetent vs competently pulling in the wrong direction is a woeful choice. I used the pejorative term “incompetent” describing Trump for being commander in chief but that is not to mean that I think he is dumb. In fact, as much as I believe in my own values, and do not see them reflected in either major candidate, let me be quick to state that I would consider myself incompetent to be commander in chief as well. Heck, if magically it became Mike Hatcher vs. Hillary, I might just have to vote for Hillary myself.
I might vote for you, Mike. That is, if you could make it through the primaries. 😉
I’m only half-kidding about that. Trump clearly entered this race without the requisite skill set that presidential candidates are expected to have. And, as Rick wrote in the main post that we are commenting on (Haha! I have tied my comment to the main post!) shortly after the Democrat’s convention, Trump seemed to be imploding before our eyes, destroying his chances of even making it a close election.
But the race is now very tight. I believe that’s due to the woeful inadequacies of Clinton as a candidate. Peggy Noonan described this race as one between anxiety and depression:
“Last week the pollster Peter Hart did a focus group, for the Annenberg Public Policy Center, of a dozen independent voters in Wisconsin. They saw 2016 as a fear-and-loathing election, loathing Mrs. Clinton (depression) and fearing Mr. Trump (anxiety).”
I think that Trump may have more control over the fear than Clinton has over the loathing. She can’t change the past, but if he can remain disciplined and focused (which I don’t know that he can) he can eliminate a lot of the fear.
So, there ya go Mike – Stay focused, and no gaffes. Don’t make me too depressed or fearful and you’ve got my vote…..
Thanks for your vote Priscilla! I think if I was president that by the second year a general might come in to report some crisis like Russian troops sweeping across Finland and asking me for my orders, and I would be curled in a corner crying and yelling: “Everyone stop asking me so many questions!”
“I believe Hillary would be more skilled at pulling the levers of government in stripping Americans of more of their freedom”
Which freedoms are you concerned about?
1st amendment, 4th amendment- the link I am providing has a number of predictions that I DISAGREE with, however it is one of the better links that cover her history of believing in virtually limitless executive power. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/hillary-clinton-greater-danger/
Mike I’m sure you know the history of that newspaper you linked to, who founded it, who owns it and controls its editorial content, and the political bent of the writers they publish: Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich, Cal Thomas, Tammy Bruce, etc. The brilliant conservative writer Victor Davis Hanson publishes there occasionally; an amazing prose stylist, and savvy observer of political trends and life in general, but seldom bombastic or petty in his opinions.
But for the paper in general I don’t take anything they say at face value. Certainly not their interpretation of the Founders view of The Constitution, or their ideologically skewed conclusions that Hillary’s past actions and policies are anywhere near as detrimental to our collective freedoms as they implied.
MY instincts tell me she’ll be a moderate-left president, more centered on race issues, more supportive of the police than Obama; and I think overall she will nominate center-left SCOTUS applicants, like the one Obama unsuccessfully placed in play.
But I also think I won’t be happy about her progressive pushes on gender issues, and definitely not on Mexican and Muslim immigration, which I want to see curtailed as much as possible.
She will do far better than Obama internationally – surely better than Comb-Over Crud Head Trump, a fumbling fool who will screw up the nation in multiple ways, as surely as he screwed up ALL his Casinos – a gambling enterprise he knew nothing about going in, and less going down and out for the bankruptcy count.
I’ve filtered politics out nearly completely for a week, but my daughter posted this on her facebook page and it got through my defences.
It seems to be quite rational to me and is not flamboyantly insulting to trump supporters. Anyone who feels that the points do not apply to them can skip to the last paragraphs where the author explains that the points do not, of course, apply to all trump supporters. In fact I’d guess that they apply to half but do explain that half pretty well.
The author’s first point is a general one about people irrespective of elections and politics and it is something that I see all the time regarding say science, it applies brilliantly, for example, to the young woman who showed up at my door demanding money for VPIRG convinced of the deadly effects of GMO corn chips who would not listen to a word that I, a molecular biology Ph.D and an environmentalist, said. She was taking a course on biology, that made her knowledgeable enough to ignore my explanations.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/a-neuroscientist-explains-what-may-be-wrong-with-trump-supporters-brains/
Now, I am going back to my music and political seclusion until something else cleverly penetrates my shield.
I’ll add that the title IS insulting to trump supporters, but as is well known authors do not write the titles to their pieces in magazines, instead titles are nearly universally written to be click bait, they are red meat for someone. Of course if the title were A neuroscientist explains possible differences between the brains of trump supporters and non supporters then maybe the people who might benefit from reading this would read it, hoping to find out that there is some wonderful quality to the brains of trump supporters, but the journal editor put his eggs in the basket of raw meat for liberals title wise. The article itself is quite thoughtful.
Perhaps my view that a President Trump would be severely constrained by a newly energized co-equal Congress, and that he would honor his pledge to appoint constitutional conservatives to the bench is a sign of neurological deficit, hypersensitivity to threat, or extreme terror over my own mortality. As far as I know, those are the 2 primary reasons that I have given, along with a strong belief that Hillary has ethically and legally disqualified herself for the office, for voting for Trump.
I thought that I had reasoned it through, on my own. Imagine my shock 😉
I saw a woman wearing a “Deplorable Lives Matter” tee shirt yesterday. Sign of metal illness, or sense of humor?
Mental, MENTAL illness, lol….
Priscilla, you are not even what I would call a trump supporter for gods sake. You take nearly every criticism of any conservative as being directed personally at you. As I said, the author clearly stated that his points did not extend to all trump supporters.
There are some excellent points in the article that transcend this election or even politics.
I wasn’t offended GW! But I see things from my own perspective. It was an interesting article….I was making fun of its premise.
And I am a Trump supporter, aren’t I?
Too sarcastic, I am at times. Not funny. It didn’t come through. My apologies.
“And I am a Trump supporter, aren’t I?”
Never begin a sentence with And. But (never begin a sentence with But) No. you are not. Based on your many denunciations of him you are no more a trump supporter than I am a hillary supporter. We don’t like these people, we don’t want them to be president, they are the last people we would choose. That is not support. You are a person who may reluctantly vote for trump. I am a person who may reluctantly vote for hillary (but probably not since my state will do so anyhow without me). That is way different than supporting him.
If supporter really means supporter, which to me implies enthusiasm, then broad statements about the supporters of either trump or clinton are legal in my view. But personally I nearly always use qualifiers, there are many exceptions to any generalization.
Priscilla you are the Queen of Trumpian Rationalization
You’re Congress check and balances reasoning is pie in the sky, and you know it. Hypocrite Trump and fellow hypocrite conservatives who decried Obama’s use of Executive power, already have a table full of their own executive orders ready for implementation.
““You’ve got an extraordinary opening day, where you sign [200] or 300 executive orders,” Gingrich told a gathering at The Union Club Tuesday evening.”
Here’s a partial list of the actions Trump can take without Congressional approval:
-Put in place his temporary ban on Muslim immigration.
-Put restrictions on wire transfers to Mexico by US citizens.
-Cancel or increase visa fees.
-Reinstate the use of waterboarding.
-Slap tariffs on China, or other nations, by simply claiming they engage in unfair trade practices (GW Bush did that with China steel).
-authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
-He’ll be in charge of the Department of Justice – and can initiate any investigations that strike his fancy, for revenge or whim.
-He can crack down on journalists and media he doesn’t like in numerous ways: excluding them from coverage, using vague security laws to arrest them – the kind of things his hero Putin does regularly. He’s already intimated he’s going to sue the NY Times after the election.
THE BIG SCARE:
-Send US Troops ANYWHERE he wants to, in provocative places and numbers.
-send military forces into a foreign country without authorization from Congress.
-He can reassign Generals and other top military commanders to other responsibilities, thereby playing politics with the military.
BIGGER SCARE:
The President has the power of the Veto. He could single handedly veto every bill sent to him as leverage to get his way.
If this destructive infantile psycho baby gets elected, we are screwed big time.
As I said earlier (yesterday), if you’re right, we’re screwed big time anyway. It’s not as if Hillary can’t do all of that stuff as well, and she’ll have a SCOTUS that will rubber stamp it……..
Yours truly,
Her Highness, Trumpian Rationalization Queen Priscilla
Wow! That sums it up for me: Trump supporters are blind to their own dumbness about him.
Despite the hideousness of so much of his deceptive rhetoric, his supporters are brain numb to the implications of his obvious flaws to standard American values in a presidential nominee. His conclusion that there’s not much that can be done to dislodge his supporters with fact and reason is sadand scary.
Here’s an excerpt from an article I read today that mentions another example of blind loyalty to a blatent deceiver that couldn’t be dislodged by truth: Hitler loyalists who accepted his outlandish lies at face value, no matter how outlandish they were:
“Germany was not some weird place. At the advent of the Hitler era, it was a democracy, an advanced nation, culturally rich and scientifically advanced. It had a unique history — its defeat in World War I, the hyperinflation of the 1920s — so it cannot easily be likened to the contemporary U.S. But it was not all that different, either. In 1933, it chose a sociopathic liar as its leader. If the polls are to be believed, we may do the same.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/20/a_frightening_precedent_for_trumps_disregard_of_the_truth_131827.html
Taking the word supporter to mean the real enthusiastic true-believing trump supporters, I agree with you 100%.
For me the most interesting part was about the brain physiology being noticeably different in conservatives and liberals, that was fascinating if it is really a provable sustainable fact. Its pretty plausible but I’d have to see quite a few back up studies to be sold.
I consider trumps true-believing supporters to be quite ignorant as a group about the issues that he has used to win them over. Ignorance is self enhancing and usually impenetrable, even if technically curable.
Wonder how those of us would register on the test who are a mix of liberal and conservative…
GW, I read that link over a couple of times and while some of the findings were intriguing and had a certain ring of truth, However the core, in my opinion was as hollow and ambiguous as a fortune cookie. It was unequivocal that conservatives had exaggerated fear? What definition of conservative was used? What sample size? Who determined what level of fear is exaggerated? Fear of what? If you have an exaggerated fear of spiders does that make you conservative? If you are unafraid of driving drunk does that make you a liberal? What does that article really tell you?
Mike, I have to agree with your analysis of the brain study. I think it has much work to be covered before a true left-right brain can become the reason someone is liberal or conservative.
Seems to me all one has to do it look at the map of the United States and how each state votes to see what the true difference is. While the conservatives live in more rural areas of the country and live where hard work and religion is central to a persons ideologies, the liberals live in much more populated areas where community support is much more involved with lives and with ones development of political ideologies. You will find that individuals involved with unions where a collective thinking is required drives political thinking. Ones who live in communities with HOA’s tend to be more liberal than conservative accepting a more communal oversight of their neighborhoods, while conservatives tend to not be in HOA’s on a large scale. And when looking at the swing states, one can find this same trend such as north carolina. Where the statewide voting between red and blue provides for almost 90% red land coverage, the higher population in the Charlotte and Raleigh areas of much higher liberal voters provides for a very close race for any office statewide. The legislature is controlled by the GOP due to the vast amount of red districts as compared to the blue districts.
And before anyone jumps on anything I said, there are exceptions to everything, including conservatives living in liberal states, living in HOA’s, being religious, etc and the same goes for liberals living in conservative areas. This was just a general observation I made, not a study, so don’t ask for documentation.
Really interesting generalizations about NC, Ron. It souns as if NC is becoming a southern version of Pennsylvania, which has been said to be “Philly and Pittsburgh and Alabama in between”.
Yet, due to the urban population centers, Pennsylvania is now less a swing state than it is a blue state, particularly when it comes to presidential elections and the electoral college. And it has apparently had a similar effect on Virginia, and, more recently NC, turning it purple.
Mike, of course you have a good point. Actually I think that the further one gets from center the more likely they are to be fear (which leads directly to anger) driven. The amygdala is an evolutionarily earlier part of the, ha open a teaching textbook of the biology of learning and you will find a lot of the amygdala, teenage boys use theirs quite often apparently and not the more advanced forebrain that reason things out, so they get angry and fight. Perhaps my Irish and Scottish ancestors had large amygdalas. Girls mature faster according to those textbooks and use their forebrains more and earlier than boys.
We all have fears, and we need them to survive. Yet, there is perspective too on fears, forebrain material, analysis of actual risks. I believe there may be something to the article, trumps most fervent supporters are quite likely to be in that group that has a more developed amygdala, more fear and anger ruled. Just one part of the explanation that they don’t hear how off he is. Not all of them, but statistically speaking there could be a correlation, even a strong one.
I would like to believe that moderates are forebrain users and the further one gets from center you have the driven by fear type of personality, which may, as the article states, have a physiological (thus genetic) basis). For every body part there is a range of sizes and shapes and parts of the brain are no different. People genetically wired to be fear and anger driven will be captured by politicians like trump (Hitler, Mussolini, Berlusconi, Al Sharpton). Very, very plausible to me.
Ha, politics just intruded on my life for the second time today. The result was the following letter to the GOP nominee for Governor Phil Scott, an amiable GOP moderate with a fighting chance. Conservative leaners here I think be amused.
Dear Phil,
I have a suggestion for your campaign that I believe you should consider. This is a liberal state but there has been a strong moderate tendency in the governor’s preferences of Vermont voters over the years. I am a liberal myself at heart, I have the same set of fears and concerns liberals do. But liberals alone cannot be in charge as they are now in Vermont. They go overboard, they do amazingly stupid things. I have one particular one in mind this morning. I’ll get to that. But my theme for your campaign is the two party system, a return to balance and moderation, and my suggested tactic is a list of all the really dumb things that liberals have done left in total control since Douglass retired.
I called my doctor’s office last week to have a prescription for an asthma inhaler refilled. Today, a very friendly nurse called me and said I was due for a physical. Pressed on how that was decided, she told me that the Vermont legislature had passed a law that dictates how often a doctor’s office needs to schedule which type of appointment in order to have prescriptions refilled. Please god, research that law and make an issue of it. This is absurd. The legislature should not be micromanaging doctor’s practices. I gave the friendly lady an earful and she was actually quite sympathetic.
Put an energetic team of interns on investigating every law that has passed during the complete control of liberal democrats these last 6 years and find the worst examples. I am sure there are dozens or hundreds. Make it a huge issue. Publish the list of those laws and their consequences in newspapers. Choose wisely, you can find many examples that any sane person will immediately see are ridiculous intrusions on personal freedom.
Personally, I am furious that the legislature and Governor think that they know better than my doctor when I need a physical. (I am ridiculously healthy and fit and saw my doctor a year ago.) Even for Vermont that is liberal (speaking as a sort of liberal myself) hubris gone berserk. I am not a conservative and the things that conservatives want are just as bad or worse but we need balance and Vermont clearly has none. What law will they pass next? I must eat low fat granola for breakfast or pay a fine? Make this your theme and you may make this a close election and, I hope, win.
Now, I am sure that I will hear from your campaign that you could not agree more, but that goes without saying. Do it. Research the overreaching personal-freedom intruding laws, publish the list everywhere, make it a huge part of the campaign, raise it at the debates, its a winning issue, even with liberals like myself, in liberal old Vermont.
I have thought that Trump has not made a big enough issue of Obamacare, which itself is a personal -freedom-intruding law. That’s probably because Trump himself is not a conservative and probably thinks that the the idea of universal healthcare is a good one. And, of course it certainly sounds good, until one realizes that, once the government takes over any institution (and we’re really talking about universal healthcare coverage, not the care itself) , there is a loss of personal choice involved, and as well a huge increase in cost, usually borne by the middle class.
As Dave often says, government is force. It can be a force for good, or a force for not-so-good.
Good point Ron, unless one could show how living in the country makes you fearful, and living in the city makes you brave….well, drinking city water I guess requires a certain kind of courage. 🙂 Now that I think about it, in the primaries with Bernie Sanders and Clinton, wasn’t it Bernie that dominated the rural liberal votes and Clinton with the city votes? Yet he clearly is far more liberal than Hillary.
Mike, no way to verify this, but it could have been “fear” that drove the Bernie voters. For one thing, if you look at the primaries, Bernie took the largest percentage of independents that voted in the primaries. And he took a large part of the younger voters. So what did they fear? Clinton, her lies, her being untrustworthy and a general dislike for her personally.
As for the rural v city voters, that same driver probably drove the Sanders vote.
It still comes down to a major issue. Personal responsibility and what role government plays in that. From the time kids are small to the time one dies, expectations placed on individuals by parents and the community is far different in rural areas than in cities.
(Again don’t ask for documentation, this is what I believe from everything I see and have heard over many years of living. )
More Guilt By Association.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/evan-mcmullin-turns-racist-voicemail-from-trump-suppporter-i?utm_term=.xolezA3LQ#.pdGmelXZz
Why is trump such a magnetic attraction for these kinds of people?
He seems to be raising Monsters from the dead crevices of our worst instincts
Sure is a good thing I decided to read all the e-mails before responding to the first one. I was ready to jump on that comment about ‘guilt by associations” like those flies on dog poop.
Even though I am not a Trump or Clinton supporter and can not vote for either one, I will say the link you provided is just an example of the spineless chickens that post comments anonymously (or in a way they are hard to identify) on many different sites and to many different people. Just look at “The Moderate Voice” and make a conservative comment on that site and see what comments come back. (If it is still like it was a year or so ago when I stopped commenting there , “Moderate” was not an acceptable position to take). The internet has energized people to make comments and threats that they could not make just a few years ago. We had the KKK, the Black Panthers and other radical groups, but their comments were confined to their own groups for the most part. Now one can make a comment under a pseudonym and can feel safe that no one will know who said it.
This is not right, but that is the world we live in, both liberal, conservative and anywhere inbetween if those that are asses choose to make comments like the one you posted from any perspective on the political spectrum. It just happens that Trump supporters are getting more coverage than most GOP supporters do during a presidential election.
Sorry Ron last post tagged into you comment by mistake.
This goes with it😊
“It just happens that Trump supporters are getting more coverage than most GOP supporters do during a presidential election.”
Not all Trump supporters, Ron.
Using one’s allies in the media to spread a narrative is now a tried and true method of campaigning. It’s more obvious that the left does it, because the mainstream media leans left…..but the right does it as well.
For example, in the first GOP debate of 2012, George Stephanopoulis rather bizarrely asked Mitt Romney if he opposed legal birth control. Romney had never before even addressed the issue, but he duly answered the question, which was intended as a “When did you stop beating your wife?” springboard to the War on Women narrative.
Earlier in this campaign cycle, Hillary made a speech about the “alt-right”, identifying them as racist supporters of Trump. Most people were like “What? I never heard of these people, why is she talking about them?”
It’s a narrative. The deplorables, the alt-right, people who speak out against political correctness, are all being lumped together in a narrative. The narrative is that Trump supporters are racist Nazis. It will be interesting to see if it comes up in the debate.
“Earlier in this campaign cycle, Hillary made a speech about the “alt-right”, identifying them as racist supporters of Trump. Most people were like “What? I never heard of these people, why is she talking about them?””
Well, I hadn’t heard of them either, but it was not Hillary who introduced me to them, it was trump, by choosing Alt-Right campaign people. Nice try to blame hillary though, what in this world can’t be blamed on hillary by the right?
I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that the alt-right call themselves that, proudly. They certainly DO exist and your man trump, (since you are calling yourself a supporter and won’t avail yourself of the out I have suggested to you of being merely a reluctant anti-hillary trump voter, just own it I guess, trump is your guy) brought the wacky far-right alt-right into his campaign. They are everything they are billed to be by the dreaded MSM. Deplorable is actually one of the mildest possible words for Breitbart world, I would use others myself. I’m sorry that they are making people who have more reasonable concern with PC and such look bad, but that’s what the extreme elements of a party/ideology do. You are are a trump supporter, blame yourself, don’t blame hillary. GOP voters have fallen in behind trump and if he doesn’t win the alt right is going to be an albatross that you all have consciously hung around your own necks. Lay down with wolves you’re gonna get fleas or in this case something worse. I’m out of metaphors. But my message is obvious, the GOP voters have accepted trump and with him Breitbart world with all of its nasty features. I hope this bites the GOP very badly in the future.
” I hope this bites the GOP very badly in the future.
As I have said in earlier comments, the GOP has to stop trying to appeal to vastly different groups to have a chance of getting elected. If they choose a McCain or Romney, then the far right born again’s will not vote in the numbers needed. If they choose a Cruz or Santorum, then a vast number of moderate rights will not vote for them. And when you have 16 candidates splintering the vote, you end up with the one that can energize a small percentage of voters, but will be left out during the general election.
The democrats have 35% solid support and 10-12% strongly leaning support. The GOP maybe has 25% solid support and 10% strongly leaning support. They start out in a hole and the remaining 15 to 20% generally are moderate rights that want their government to be fiscally strong and want their government to refrain from controlling their lives. The GOP has a hard time attracting that group since many give up fiscal issues for individual freedoms.
I have no answer for the GOP and what they need to do. But whatever they have done lately is not working.
The alt-right definitely exists, GW. I had heard of them quite some time ago, because I’m an avid follower of a young conservative writer and media figure, Ben Shapiro, who has been engaged in a hostile debate with them for months. Shapiro is not supporting Trump, and I respect his reasons for doing so, one of which is Trump’s failure to renounce the alt-right.
We can discuss the alt-right, and who they are and are not. But, they comprise an extremely small number of Trump supporters, and tarring the majority (or “half”) with any accusation of racism is unethical and wrong. But it is Hillary’s narrative, and the narrative of the liberal press. And it’s wrong.
“But, they comprise an extremely small number of Trump supporters,”
Yes but Trump’s platform of ideas, his message, his pugnacious attitude towards anyone who disagrees with him, is right out of the alt-right playbook,,and has been from the start of his campaign. You saw it in the blunt insulting rhetoric he used against the other candidates – the same abrasive name calling prevalent on the Conservative Treehouse, Legal Insurrection, Brietbart, etc, against RHINOs and establishment Republicans, and of course the unrelenting seepage of HATRED of Obama, echoes of the language and Birther criticism we’ve been hearing from Despicable Donald daily (he’s already reneged on his Birther turn-around).
“But, they comprise an extremely small number of Trump supporters, and tarring the majority (or “half”) with any accusation of racism is unethical and wrong. ”
They may not have been at the beginning of the campaign, but they’ve accepted them now, that is the very management of the trump campaign.
Calling trump’s message racism has been done by many respectable GOP figures and you blame the narritive and I woudl say the media and the opposition. No less of a stable calm thoughtful responsible figure than Colin Powell has called trump’s birther message and movement racist, albeit he meant to do so privately, which makes it a stronger statement actually. There is something going on Priscilla that you won’t see because of partisan loyalty. You don’t like racism, trump’s birther brand of it? Then reject it, like Romney did. Instead you rationalize it and blame hillary, the democrats, and the media. Anyone but the people actually responsible, trump supporters. Its flat out irresponsible, own it, your candidate, who no one has forced you to vote for and you don’t have any practical reason to vote for in NJ has a fundamentally racist message that resonates strongly with self declared racists. Its seeped into you acceptance bin, you call it being politically incorrect instead of the slippery slope that it is to something much worse. Your candidate is David Duke’s candidate, the candidate of blatantly and proudly racist groups, they explicitly explain why the trump message is their message. Priscilla, you have a choice to reject trumps racist message and denounce it or accept it and denounce the hillary and the media. You’ve made yours.
Priscilla, sorry but you are the example of something happening by the tens of millions. I’m not trying to sway your vote, I’m explaining what I see as the phenomenon of trump racism becoming mainstream. You have gone from rejection to denial to support on trump. By accepting him you’ve accepted his values, while you could simply be an observer in NJ. You have missed the off ramp at every chance, you are explaining, rationalizing, supported where you were once denouncing. The alt right WAS a small movement, not any more.
Priscilla, I know that this subject is one that you are quite sensitive to and I am pretty sure you will take my comment as an accusation that you are a racist. I don’t think that is true. I think that you are someone who for reasons of party loyalty cannot see the real white racism that is there in the GOP base unless it is wearing a white robe and burning a cross. Multiply you by tens of millions of moderate GOP voters who are unable to see what Colin Powell, Paul Ryan, or George Romney or for that matter, David Duke clearly see, trump’s racist message, who instead play the party line and blame some kind of narrative cooked up by the left, and the result is that the Breitbart part of the GOP, once small, is suddenly becoming a very strong force, and there is no shortage of the real actual racism and racist plans and intentions clothed in code words in that well.
Good conservative people who close their eyes are letting this get out of hand. That is not something for which responsibility can be evaded.
I’m not going to respond to specific accusations of my own immorality and/or partisan nature. Let’s just assume for the sake of argument, that I am one of Hillary’s “deplorables,” based on my refusal to see or understand the existential danger that Trump represents.
So, that danger is what, exactly? Jay has presented a fairly comprehensive list of bad things that a President Trump could do. My response was that a President Clinton could do them all as well.
So, the difference then becomes which one of them does each of us believe is most capable of doing bad thngs? And, clearly, I believe that our constitutional system is placed at greater jeopardy by Clinton than by Trump, GW and Jay consider Trump the greater threat, and Ron, Mike and Dave are not going to make that call, at least not through their vote.
It’s in the interest of each candidate to define his/her opponent as unacceptable. Hillary has taken that to a degree that I find dangerously divisive, by defining her opponents supporters as unacceptable. If she wins, as most polls are predicting, I don’t know how she makes her case for beinf the president of all Americans, after publicly calling millions of them irredeemable racists, bigots, homophobes, Islamaphobes and xenophobes.
I suppose she can say, “hey I was only exaggerating for effect, so that I would win. I really like you guys too, and believe that you should be treated with respect.”
But will that work?
Finally, a smile with my morning coffee!
https://thenib.com/trump-distortion-field
Good one Jay, I found it quite funny. Although the last few panels got a little more creepy than funny, the first part of the cartoon was well worth it.
When I make my justly famous cheesecake, eggs, cream cheese, sugar sour cream, vanilla etc. start out as separate distinct things. But an hour later, they are one thing, cheesecake. They did not even have any choice about it. When the various saner and less sane elements of the conservative/GOP all consciously choose to become one thing, the party of trump supporters with all that that means, then that is what they are, no longer are Breitbart conservatives and saner and more rational conservatives distinct things, they are one thing, trump supporters.
If there is one element that I most am attracted to in conservative values it is responsibility, accepting responsibility on one’s self for one’s fate and for one’s own actions. When liberals preach tolerance but practice intolerance, everyone smells the stink of hypocrisy. When conservatives preach responsibility but act irresponsibly and try to blame anyone else for their own actions the hypocrisy reeks just as badly. Its why I’m not a conservative and no longer much of a liberal. Hypocrisy and ideology are Siamese twins, inseparable ones.
Romney and many other GOP figures have been responsible, Romney as the most prominent example of a truly moral conservative has shown his real conservative core value of responsibility, on trump. Those once-thoughtful GOP voters in their tens of millions who have now swallowed trump cannot pretend that they are something different and distinct from the gonzo wacked-out breitbart conservatives. They are all the trump cheesecake and it has a mostly breitbart flavor, its a conscious choice to accept that. Because what trump is doing is so fundamentally radically wrong, I am really going to accept this particular “narrative” that mixes all the conservative elements in together morally. There is a clear distinction between right and wrong that trump has obliterated like no other American political candidate in my lifetime, not even Nixon. All who choose to support him own that, they own trump’s values.
Personally, I’m not giving any free passes, ooops that was my evil twin, I drank too much, I was scared, etc. on that choice to support trump and I am going to be interested to see if history will.
Well GW…Like I said earlier, there are 25% that will eat the cheesecake because they love all the ingredients. There is another 10% or so that most likely will eat a piece if offered, even though they would not ordinarily buy cheesecake as it is not one of their favorites. And then the other 20% that have to decide between cheesecake or fruit dessert Banana Foster offered by another chef will decide they like all the ingredients that make up a cheesecake except the flour (Glutin) which makes the final product indigestible, so they will go for the fruit dessert.
I’m ordering Apple Pie.
I like your analogies but if polling is correct then the moderate GOP voters HAVE swallowed the most extreme and unqualified GOP candidate in living memory, not exactly himself a pure right winger, but with a message that the rightwingers nevertheless love. Now, run a moderate GOP candidate and will the hard-core conservatives vote for him/her or refuse and cost the election? Sadly, it may work out better to be the extreme flavor GOP candidate, but the election has not happened so I cannot say that yet today and I hope that in the end I am wrong or the polls are wrong about moderate GOP voters swallowing the Breitbart candidate.
“All who choose to support him own that, they own trump’s values.”
That’s a milder version of this Gary Kasparov quote I posted here a while back and got hell for if I remember correctly:
“Trump is useful as a litmus test for political decency. Anyone still backing him doesn’t have any. Even clearer now.”
I feel the Trump candidacy will be a long-term dividing line for Americans – a divade as sharp as the differences that led up to the Civil War. I see violent civil disobedience following the election, no matter who wins; but a greater over-reaction of government counter force if Trump wins. And if the violence escalates, I wouldn’t count out the imposition of military law, and clamps put on the media. That doesn’t sound far fetched to me at all, seeing the kind of alt-right wingers with which Trump has surrounded himself: Colin Powell warned Donald Trump’s closest military adviser, retired Gen. Michael Flynn, is “right-wing nutty.” And trump is a confessed admirer of despots and dictators. If push comes to shove he’s already shown he overreacts, and he’s also shown his disregard for established norms of behavior, politically and personally.
PS – any interest in sharing your cheesecake recipe?
Jay, did you catch heat for a Kasparov quote? I’ll have to look for that. Was it from Dave? You know I’ve been missing Dave, but as you have previously pointed out, he seems to fire off at everyone for everything. I often found myself agreeing with him and he’d pick at what I said. Today I was imagining being stuck on an island with no internet and writing a blog with different personas on a laptop , pretending to be two or more people but really just arguing with myself. (Maybe I need my amygdala measured).
“I often found myself agreeing with him and he’d pick at what I said.”
Me too, lol! I think that comes from his being extremely precise and ideologically consistent. Most of the rest of us are more likely to stray off our ideological arguments, not in a wishy-washy way (lord knows, not that!), but in a more emotional and/or political way.
You all put out quite the buffet of ideas, it also just happens that I’m physically hungry right now and all those food analogies makes it worse. GW, I agree that when one supports any candidate, you get the whole candidate, not just the parts you enjoy. Trying to accurately assign motives to other people is a recipe for problems. Don’t we all have our biases? I’d dare say we all have our prejudices which could be described as a form of racism. “..real, actual racism and racist plans..” What is that? If you let me define racism, I could describe any nanny-state proposal by Democrats as racist as well as any GOP budget cutting plan as racist. One problem with that is that both parties spend like crazy, just on different stuff. But I digress, if one thinks, for example, building a wall and/or attempting to secure the southern border is a terrible idea, then make the case for that, don’t just label it a racist plan. I’ve heard the things Trump has said, and for me, his words condemn him as unfit to be POTUS. But when he insults McCain, I don’t take that as proof he hates white people. There are a number of reports of things Trump did that can be used to make the case that he is racist. But his personal bias does not confer those same attributes on those that support his policy proposals.
To try to further explain how easily one can misunderstand someone else’s intentions, when I was in college this girl invited me to a barbeque and while there, she squirted lighter fluid on my shirt and was chasing me around with a lighter. I though she was being hostile, it wasn’t till more than a decade later, while watching the movie “Hitch” that I learned when a girl assaults you, that means she likes you. I probably could have got lucky with her when I thought she was trying to burn me alive.
I wonder what staffer got fired on the spot once she finished this interview.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/hillary-clinton-on-between-two-ferns?bffbmain&ref=bffbmain&utm_term=.pjk3mJ648#.aeewEA3oR
Oh that was brutal, like watching a boxing match with one opponent just standing motionless getting punched. I then watched the Obama one and saw Obama fight back and take the offense. Hillary seemed quite unprepared, I agree, someone is probably going to be fired.
I might not get to post again until perhaps Saturday night, so one last shot at trying to make my point. Suppose some guy named Joe fights hard to get breakfasts and lunches provided at no charge to a community of poor Appalachian hillbilly kids, and it is later discovered on a youtube video that the reason he states he wants those kids to get free food is so their parents will have more money to buy drugs that he believes will kill them off quicker. Well his theory may be stupid, his heart may be evil, but does that mean that providing those kids meals is a stupid evil idea? Of course not, the ideas espoused have to stand or fall on their own merits. Put Joe in charge? Heck no. Attribute all his bad motives to people who agree with his ideas on meals for kids? No, wrong. Don’t do it. I’ll be able to read your posts tomorrow, but not likely able to respond for awhile.
Mike, I appreciate your talent for speaking plainly. The word “racism” has a specific meaning, which has been cheapened by its constant use as a political weapon. Throwing the accusation around indiscriminately and using the word imprecisely is a dangerous way to win votes. Both parties are guilty of appealing to racial biases and fears, but, as far as I’ve seen, neither candidate has made a specifically racist appeal, nor advocated the discrimination against innocent people on the basis of their skin color, religion or ideology ( I would except his very first remarks on a Muslim ban, which did seem to advocate discrimination, and were subsequently walked back).
The kind of thing that I see is this (a quote from NY Magazine), yesterday, regarding the violence in Charlotte:
“If you’re not aware, drugs are a very, very big factor in what you’re watching on television,” Trump explained to a crowd of supporters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in reference to cable news coverage of the protests.”
“Had the GOP nominee only stuck to the teleprompter, he might have gotten through an entire speech on crime and police violence without saying anything conspicuously racist.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/trump-suggests-charlotte-protests-are-fueled-by-drugs.html
So, saying that drugs were playing a significant role in the violence was somehow “conspicuously racist.” Which it was not. I’ll be the first to admit that when Trump ad-libs, he’s likely to step in it, but, this time, I think that the racism is in the eye of the beholder. If one believes that Trump believes that all urban black people – or most – are drug users, then that person will interpret the remark as a racist. But, if one hears it as a statement about the relationship between drugs and violence, they will hear it in a more color blind way.
In any case, whether not Trump’s remark about drugs was right or wrong…or, as I interpreted it, kind of inarticulate and perhaps totally irrelevant to the current unrest… it was not racist. And calling it such cheapens the meaning of the word.
I’m also off until Wednesday, family events.
Well. the American “conversation on race” is a failure. if there need to be 40 words for hate then there need to be 100 for racism or racist. Quite of few of them I am sure would apply to me.
Parting thoughts: America was not ready for a half black president, its been a racial step back. If we narrow racism to black vs. white, since that is that American original sin, then both races have legitimate cases against each other. Seeing only the case of your own race clearly while being pretty much oblivious or dismissive of the case of the other race is one of the racisms, its the racism of I’m more important and they’re just clueless.
If one has the biblical view of things that the devil is always looking for saps to help him make trouble, he has had rich pickings in America during the Obama presidency on lighting racial fires.
Still, we are extremely civilized compared to the racial tensions in many other places, say the former Yugoslavia, Chechnia, tribal hatreds and massacres in Africa, on and on. Racism has always and will always exist, but it would be nice to make slow steady progress.
“Racism has always and will always exist, but it would be nice to make slow steady progress.”
You ol’ conservative. you! 😉
EARTH TO RICK:
You still out there?
Everything OK?
Long time no hear…
Please Advise?
Rick to Earth (specifically Jay): No worries… I’m fine, just ridiculously busy with house-related chores and other time-eaters. I usually don’t add comments once the count reaches 100 or so; I’m careful not to OD on politics.
I wanted to write about the recent shootings of unarmed black men, but I’ve done it before and we seem to be on an endless repeating loop. Nothing new to add there, and of course police shootings of white men never make the evening news, so the BLM narrative persists. I watched the debate last night; if I can squeeze out a sufficient block of time over the next few days, you might see a new column (finally).
Rick, is it really worth spending time on this subject anymore. (Election or debates).There are almost 1000 comments concerning Clinton/Trump so far and no one is budging from their positions. And everyone thinks I am crazy and adding to the opposition candidate winning because I am voting for something and not against the more evil of the two.
I find this whole election revolting since I would vote for Richard Nixon today knowing what I know compared to these jokers. And I know I will be hassled with that position, but Nixon did good things in foreign policy and had he not been caught in a coverup, national health insurance would have been bi-partisan legislation since he and Ted Kennedy had a plan ready for legislative approval that was pulled by Kennedy when Nixon was impeached. Had that happened, we would not even be discussing health insurance today.Kennedy could not have his name attached to anything with Nixon so we got nothing and ended up with years of congressional argueing..
Ron: I won’t waste time on the “He said, she said” aspects of the debate; I’m aiming for a quirkier approach. (You’ll see, if I ever manage to finish it before the topic goes stale.)
BTW, I was a Nixon apologist to the bitter end. Subsequent revelations have dampened some of my regard for him, but the poor man had real enemies who drove him to the point of paranoia and (I think) justifiable retaliation. He was a highly competent president, and his achievements have been unfairly overshadowed by Watergate.
Nixon was a balance of accomplishments and disappointments. And he had more character flaws than attributes. Plus there was something inherently dislikable about him. In person he was was as stiff-necked and rigid as he came across on TV.
Years ago, when I first moved to Southern California in the 1980s, I lived in Dana Point, the small coastal city adjacent to San Clemente, where Nixon had his beachfront Western Whitehouse. I was a harbor bar habitué in those days, and numerous people I met – bartenders, waitresses, San Clemente residents – had Nixon stories to tell: few complimentary.
One in particular I remember had to do with the infamous tie-cutting incident at the Trabuco Oaks Steak House. The restaurant had a long standing no-tie policy: if you showed up wearing one, the owner or manager would clip it off with Scissors, and drape the pieces overhead on the rafters – there were hundreds dangling there. When Nixon and his pal Bebe Rebozo showed up in formal suits and ties – secret service and all – the owner snipped off their ties. Other diners there laughed and clapped – the tie clipping was looked forward to by regulars, who knew the rules. And the press stories the next day reported Nixon took the tie clipping with good humor; but a waitress who said she had worked there and witnessed it told me he was furious after, bawled out his SS guard, and was stone-faced with the three waitress, and they weren’t tipped: a repeated behavior from other restaurant and bar people I met: he was tightfisted with smiles and cash, apparently.
The story may be apocryphal – but it’s interesting how those little defining tales tag along like yipping foxes at the heels of ghosts.
Yep, that sounds like “Tricky Dick”. But we do not elect people president based on their personalities. If we did, Hillary and Donald would be an after thought this election cycle. And given some of the stories the SS has said about H when she was 1st lady, she sounds much like Nixon in her relationships with employees and those protecting the family. Good lord, can you image being given that assignment by the director. I think I would quit after I barfed when given that news.
morally corrupt societies like ours has become, tolerate corrupt practices at the highest levels of government. Likes tolerate Likes.
If Watergate would happen under today’s ethical standards for politicians, it would only be a ripple in the vast expanse of political illegality.Who would even look into something this insignificant nowadays.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bruce-springsteen-calls-donald-trump-a-moron-w441761
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmgcy9GCQ7E
Well, there is was, a despicable impulse driven intellectual lightweight or a smug, unlikable but presidential candidate. A terrible but not unclear choice.
Best assessment of the debate I’ve seen so far:
http://theweek.com/articles/651367/why-debate-changed-nothing?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=twitter
I’ve watched every single presidential debate since 2000. This was by far the worst; worst candidates, worst moderator, even the audience couldn’t be bothered to follow the rules.
Hillary won, and may have saved her candidacy, after a very bad month. Well prepared, very rehearsed. Waaay too smug and unlikable, but that’s who she is Trump was pretty good during the first half hour, and then he lost it, jumping down every rabbit hole, and refusing to climb out. He was obviously following a plan of “don’t be too aggressive,” which he mistakenly translated into “defend yourself against every pointless attack, as if your ego is the most important thing.” That’s who he is.
I’d love to see a debate with no moderator. Just 2 candidates, prepared with their own topics and questions, speaking for 2 hours, in 5 minute segments. Time limits enforced by cutting each candidate’s mike when their 5 minutes are up. Campaigns could negotiate ground rules such as who goes first, whether to have an audience, standing or sitting, etc.
I would prefer no close split screens…camera on the speaker only. I found Trump’s scowling and Hilary’s eye-rolling and shoulder-shimmying to be distracting and annoying.
Will never happen of course.
Priscilla, why on earth would you waste 90+ good minutes listening to this tripe. It is one thing to have two politicians with differing political positions stating their policies and defending those positions in a debate, but this is not what this was and the future “debates” will also not be a policy debate. It is a waste of time to tune in these two and try to determine which one lied less. Whoever wins, I pray that the next election cycle will begin soon so we can make whoever it is a one term president and get someone with some true ideas and policies that will begin fixing our problems. Thanks to ESPN, I watched Monday Night Football. And with cable, there is always something on that is not politics. Even reruns of Walker, Texas Ranger, JAG, Bonanza and other programs are time better spent.
And with the cable channels I don’t have to listen to all the political ads. Just sitting here writing this I have heard the NRA’s anti Clinton ad about her taking gun for protection away multiple times.
Note, I was listening to local news, not cable, thus the unending political ads about how bad all those running for office are, from state senators to president.
I don’t know why I still watch the debates, Ron. They’re not even debates. 90 minutes of high blood pressure.
I suppose hope springs eternal?
NJ’s gun control laws are pretty strict….only the criminals have guns. So, no NRA ads. And our electoral votes haven’t gone to a Republican since Reagan. I doubt even Reagan would get them today.
“We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate where it will end. Our ruling class’s malfeasance, combined with insult, brought it about. Donald Trump did not cause it and is by no means its ultimate manifestation. Regardless of who wins in 2016, this revolution’s sentiments will grow in volume and intensity, and are sure to empower politicians likely to make Americans nostalgic for Donald Trump’s moderation.”
http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/after-the-republic/
This ad runs over and over from about 6:00 to midnight and all the local stations throughout the major metropolitan stations in NC since they cover 99% of the state. I find this to be a very effective ad and works in a state where gun rights is a major issue. How true it is that law enforcement in imputent when it comes to situations like this and with all the black lives matter issues, asking the police for protection seems to be a benefit that is changing drastically. Soon it will be before they can protect someone, they will have to make sure they get permission to shoot so they don’t end up with a riot on their hands. And by that time, your dead, not the perp. In liberal states this ad would not work since few think they have a right to own a gun for protection anyway. But in NC where there are so many swing voters, that handful of gun owners that were leaning towards Clinton may just change to Trump.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-22/nra-ad-hillary-clinton-could-get-rid-of-your-guns
Funniest set of tweets I read all night:
Tweet : “Sitting in Hillary’s section, invited by her campaign – Mark Cuban, 9-11 survivor, and domestic abuse survivor.”
Response: “Gosh, Mark Cuban’s been through a lot!”
Did you remind the 1st Tweeter about the use of ; ?
There are reports that Russia has attacked a civilian aid convoy in Syria, What do the candidates want to talk about? A beauty pageant 20 years ago. This is great for Hillary because it keeps attention off her mistakes in Middle East foreign policy. This is also great for Trump because it keeps him from having to talk about subjects of which he has so little knowledge. Kind of a win-win. I heard a caller on a radio show say the media is practicing their typical gross hypocrisy, slamming D.T. about his comments about a woman’s weight, while none of them will hire an anchor unless they are young, slim, and good-looking.
Being fair and balanced, you won’t find many females on Fox that are not an 8 or above on the 0-10 scale. And they don’t look much past their thirties. Guess that’s what got good ol’ Roger in trouble.
But Mike, do you really want to hear about that boring stuff concerning Russia, Syria or any other issues in foreign countries? Fat ugly women, e-mail that most people understand and tax returns that even those that pay no taxes know about makes for much better subjects to discuss. I remember in high school we had to watch the first debates between Kennedy/Nixon and write a report for civic Class or whatever it was called back in the dark ages. I would have much rather reported on what Clinton/Trump talked about.
But Mike, there is a mud fight to be held first, before the winner can clean up, turn their dignity back on and represent us and our interests in the world.
Mike Hatcher, good call on the hypocrisy of the media with regard to slim females, etc. Weather reports on local news have become a sort of T & A fashion show competition, but yet everyone at those stations so politically correct in their words and projected attitudes! Not the biggest issue, but yes that’s interesting hypocrisy.
Good Lord! Its a Phoenix! Can we have a tail feather? ( I think I just made an inadvertent sexist remark BTW!)
Now, I freely admit that I pretty much only like pundits like G. Will and J. Goldberg when they are blasting the trump movement and its founder but this kind of quote is pretty amazing:
The ease with which Trump has erased Republican conservatism matches the speed with which Republican leaders have normalized him. For the formerly conservative party, the Founders’ principles, although platitudes in the party’s catechism, have become, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “a kind of civic religion, avowed but not constraining.” The beginning of conservative wisdom is recognition that there is an end to everything: Nothing lasts. If Trump wins, the GOP ends as a vehicle for conservatism. And a political idea without a political party is an orphan in an indifferent world.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440459/donald-trump-2016-republicans-conservatives-might-part-ways-if-he-wins
I like your ideas for a no-moderator debate, Priscilla.
Ug, difficult for me to watch that debate. Embarrassing, disappointing, awkward. My son likes that trend in comedy these days: the drawn-out awkward moment or situation. It seems to be increasingly prevalent in a lot of movies and programs, like that faux interview show with the bearded guy from the Hangover movies, Zach Snuffleuffagus or Garaflockolus…
Anyway, I don’t like that trend too much, and I certainly don’t want to see a version of such ridiculousness and awkwardness in a debate between the final two for POTUS.
Roby G. Wazzoo, you do a good job of summarizing the personalities of the final two (“…a despicable impulse driven intellectual lightweight or a smug, unlikable but presidential candidate.”), but if we look beyond the personalities and the “Presidential Look” to who Hillary’s friends and associates are, their track record and their desires, then she’s still clearly horrifying. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/308343/)
It’s understandable why intelligent folks like Ron P prefer to look away from the unfortunate reality show being broadcasted onto the cave wall. Hopefully enough of us 300 million Americans, along with millions of good people in other countries, can hold our respective, neighboring societies together at their seams, despite the craziness.
Heh, time for me to tease the libertarians a bit. Your candidate is not crazy but I bet he gets a hell of a case of the munchies pretty often that may be tied with his memory issues.
At least this is a rare moment of levity in this dismal political contest.
“It was, in Gary Johnson’s own words, another “Aleppo moment.”
During a town hall-style interview on MSNBC on Wednesday night, Mr. Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, was asked by the host Chris Matthews to name his favorite foreign leader.
Mr. Johnson, appearing flustered, was at a loss to come up with a name.
He grasped at a former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, who has been critical of Donald J. Trump, but was unable to remember his name without help — or the name of any sitting leader of a foreign country.
“I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” he said.
Mr. Johnson was referring to a remarkably similar episode earlier this month when, during another interview on MSNBC, he was asked how he would deal with the continuing situation in Aleppo, the ravaged Syrian city at the center of that country’s refugee crisis.
“What is Aleppo?” Mr. Johnson said at the time.
Mr. Matthews, who was interviewing Mr. Johnson and former Gov. William F. Weld of Massachusetts, his running mate, live at the University of New Hampshire, appeared to stall to give Mr. Johnson more time after the candidate repeated the initial question, looking slightly panicked.
“Any one of the continents, any country, name one foreign leader that you respect and look up to, anybody,” Mr. Matthews said.
Mr. Johnson exhaled loudly.
“Mine was Shimon Peres,” Mr. Weld interjected.
Mr. Matthews clarified that he was looking for someone who was still alive. He then named various countries and continents — Canada, Mexico, Europe, Asia — in an apparent attempt to jog Mr. Johnson’s memory.
Mr. Johnson then made the “Aleppo moment” comment, indicating that he was having trouble coming up with Mr. Fox’s name.
“But I’m giving you the whole world!” Mr. Matthews shouted, interrupting him.
Mr. Weld eventually supplied Mr. Fox’s last name to Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Matthews, apparently having given up on the presidential candidate, asked the eager Mr. Weld to name his own favorite foreign leader, looking to conclude a painful exchange that felt significantly longer than the 50 seconds or so that it lasted.
Mr. Weld paused for half a second.
“Um, Merkel?” he said, referring to the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.
“Can’t argue with that,” Mr. Matthews said, as the crowd applauded.”
The above rung a bell in my memory. I came up with this from Thurber: Funnier than hell the similarity in the situation:
“Another course that I didn’t like, but somehow managed to pass, was economics. I went to that class straight from the botany class, which didn’t help me any in understanding either subject. I used to get them mixed up. But not as mixed up as another student in my economics class who came there direct from a physics laboratory. He was a tackle on the football team, named Bolenciecwcz. At that time Ohio State University had one of the best football teams in the country, and Bolenciecwcz was one of its outstanding stars. In order to be eligible to play it was necessary for him to keep up in his studies, a very difficult matter, for while he was not dumber than an ox he was not any smarter. Most of his professors were lenient and helped him along. None gave him more hints, in answering questions, or asked him simpler ones than the economics professor, a thin, timid man named Bassum. One day when we were on the subject of transportation and distribution, it came Bolenciecwcz’s turn to answer a question. “Name one means of transportation,” the professor said to him. No light came into the big tackle’s eyes. “Just any means of transportation,” said the professor. Bolenciecwcz sat staring at him. “That is,” pursued the professor, “any medium, agency, or method of going from one place to another,” Bolenciecwcz had the look of a man who is being led into a trap. “You may choose among steam, horse-drawn, or electrically propelled vehicles,” said the instructor. “I might suggest the one which we commonly take in making long journeys across land.” There was a profound silence in which everybody stirred uneasily, including Bolenciecwcz and Mr. Bassum. Mr. Bassum abruptly broke this silence in an amazing manner. “Choo-choo-choo,” he said, in a low voice, and turned instantly scarlet. He glanced appealingly around the room. All of us, of course, shared Mr. Bassum’s desire that Bolenciecwcz should stay abreast of the class in economics, for the Illinois game, one of the hardest and most important of the season, was only a week off. “Toot, toot, too-tooooooot!” some student with a deep voice moaned, and we all looked encouragingly at Bolenciecwcz. Somebody else gave a fine imitation of a locomotive letting off steam. Mr. Bassum himself rounded off the little show. “Ding, dong, ding, dong,” he said, hopefully. Bolenciecwcz was staring at the floor now, trying to think, his great brow furrowed, his huge hands rubbing together, his face red.
“How did you come to college this year, Mr. Bolenciecwcz?” asked the professor. “Chufh chuffa, chufh chuffa.”
“M’father sent me,” said the football player.
“What on?” asked Bassum.
“I git an ‘lowance,” said the tackle, in a low, husky voice, obviously embarrassed.
“No, no,” said Bassum. “Name a means of transportation. What did you ride here on?”
“Train,” said Bolenciecwcz.
“Quite right,” said the professor. “Now, Mr. Nugent, will you tell us —–“”
Yep GW. I would have to put that one right there with Clintons cleaning her server “with a cloth or something”. But the one thing you can not say yet about Johnson is he is a liar. Now that is not to say he does not lie. I suspect no politician has ever been elected without lying, but Clinton/Trump have taken it to another level never seen before.
And if he is lying about things, at least he is a likeable liar, unlike Clinton/Trump I will still vote for him over the Entitled Bitch or the Arrogant Asshole.
As for your dig at his memory loss, now I understand Weld being at his side all the time. Kind of like Nancy Reagan being with Ron.
Hahaha. Typical hit piece from a leftist cuck. Oh well enjoy Trump scum bags
I’m voting for President Trump again in 2020!!!