Censorship
Righty: I might disagree with Lefty’s pronouncements 93 percent of the time, but I’d defend to the death Lefty’s right to pronounce those pronouncements. All right, maybe not to the death, but I’d take a good kick in the brisket rather than stifle our progressive friend. Like our Founding Fathers, I believe in the free marketplace of ideas. For example, if some left-wing nutjob advocated monetary reparations for women (oh, the pain of all those centuries of forced domesticity!), I’d trust the wisdom of the people to heckle the nutjob off the podium. That’s democracy in action.
Lefty: Censorship has no place in a free society, but neither do hate-spewing, small-minded demagogues whose virulent ideas can cause actual harm to others. I see nothing wrong with banning neo-Nazis or Rush Limbaugh from airing their repugnant tirades in public. In such extreme cases, we owe the people a measure of protection from the dangers of rabid demagoguery. That means banning hate speech over the airwaves and monitoring who gets to speak on campus. As Fidel Castro said, “The universities are open only to those who share my beliefs.”
The New Moderate:
When it comes to free speech, our stand should be staunch and uncompromising: all ideas, however objectionable, deserve a hearing. And, as the good Dr. Johnson used to say, “There’s an end on’t!”
But I have a confession to make. The woeful state of our culture has convinced me that the free marketplace occasionally goes awry. I have no objection to even the most objectionable ideas, and I would never push for censorship in the realm of words — whether printed, broadcast or delivered in person. It’s the sounds and images that are starting to rankle me and fill me with dread — the dark, satanic ugliness of cultural artifacts aimed at adolescent boys, in particular. Rap music that lures young minds into fantasies of rape, domination, thuggery and murder. Video games (like the vile and alarmingly popular Grand Theft Auto 4) that glorify a brutal, soulless, survivor-take-all mentality. Over-the-top pornographic images, available by the thousands online, that would sicken Hugh Hefner and even the Marquis de Sade. Not to mention all the atrocious “shock art,” replete with sliced corpses and bodily effluvia, aimed at more discerning audiences.
I’m really not a prude, but all my instincts tell me to fight the spread of brutalism and degeneracy. I’m old enough to remember when our culture actually promoted nobility of character (what a concept!) along with the charm and easygoing laughter of a more innocent time. Something has to be done before we slide irreversibly into a bottomless cesspool.
Too late, you say? Not really. But have we reached the point at which we need to start imposing restrictions on the purveyors of shabby culture? If so, do we risk becoming an authoritarian society that suppresses freedom of expression? Whose standards do we honor?
As usual, I think there’s a middle ground. And there’s a precedent.
From 1934 to 1968, Hollywood effectively censored its own productions to avoid possible government intervention. The Hays Code, which went a little overboard in limiting our glimpses of ladies’ thighs, underwear and other charming sights, nevertheless coincided with a golden age of American popular culture. The films of this era still enchant us today, and they did it all without a single F-word. By aiming up instead of down, Hollywood appealed to the best instincts of its audiences. This was self-censorship par excellence.
We’ll never return to the squeaky-clean standards of the Hays Code era, and I don’t think we should. But if we value our souls, and the soul of our civilization, we need to start exerting some pressure on the folks who deliver our cultural goods. Even in the Internet era, most of our commercial movies, TV fare, music and games come to us from a handful of giant media corporations. We need to convince them to stop the flow of cultural sewage. Let’s not dictate what they can produce, but let’s call them to account when they bombard us with repellent dreck. Let’s urge them to examine why they feel compelled to produce such dreck, and whether they could survive — whether, in fact, they might even thrive — if they appealed to our better natures. So far, we’ve managed to convince them that sleaze sells. Let’s do the opposite.
In the end, of course, we get the culture we deserve. It won’t be easy to stuff all those evils back into Pandora’s Box. But I think we deserve better, and I hope Righty and Lefty would agree.
Summary: We should never ban ideas, even when the free marketplace seems to be enamored of the worst of them. But the ever-spreading ugliness of contemporary pop culture calls for serious soul-searching and just possibly a new wave of self-censorship on the part of our cultural establishment.
We might not need censorship if people were smart enough to recognize stupidity in the first place, and deny it any credibility. That most people watch or endorse mindless fluff, shows that no, they are not smart enough to see past the idiocy for the vulgar trash it is. Although I must admit a certain joy in watching the jackass movies, that feeling of supery-ority (misspelled on purpose, to make a point) over the jackasses I suspect most people are… Hmm… Damn, I hate learning unpleasant things about myself, it’s quite a bubble-burster. (and probably healthy) Censorship can be used to shield the gullible from poor behaviour they may try to emulate, but on the other hand this interferes with Darwinism, reducing the whole of humanity to two people shooting rockets out their asses. Also, it is used in sinister ways, to quash ideas found unsuitable by governments/networks. And, on a foot, I guess, (hopefully I won’t have to use all the extremites as analogies…) Some trash just so vulgar, it defies everything, but if put on TV, will still be watched. What can be done about this? Ultimatley, it is up to those who choose to watch/read (yeah, right, like anyone really reads anymore. Sigh) to make up their minds about what we see, for better or (probably) worse. Other people should stop concerning themselves with what others watch, and find something constructive to do.
Agree with the Moderate point of view for the most part. But have no tolerance for any “art” or it’s expressions inducing people to violence. If somebody’s going to sell music from some jerk singing about raping whitey and his hos, etc…I am PERFECTLY willing to stomp on his/her rights to “free speech”. People have every right to be STUPID as far as I’m concerned, but inducing other idiots to commit crimes is not acceptable. Likewise if Nazis want to march in Nazitown they are more than welcome to do so. Don’t do it anywhere else. Everyone knows about THAT history and what the end goal is there. Same thing. Just inducing people to commit savagery against other people. The problem may not be their expression of their idiocy. But the problem is all the IDIOTS they recruit who choose to act out on their garbage. What about the black man in Texas who was dragged to death by white supremacists back in the 90s? Guess their right to free speech was more important than his right to be left alone.
Ami: Sorry I didn’t notice your comment until now. You make a good point about drawing the line where speech incites the audience to acts of violence. I’d be in favor of suppressing any speech that advocates violent crime.
It’s tricky, though, because there’s a gray zone between acceptable speech and incitement to violence. It’s what we’ve come to call “hate speech.” Yes, it’s objectionable to spew venom against blacks, Jews, gays, and other minorities. But the PC police would expand that gray zone so that you can’t even voice legitimate criticism of “protected” groups. (Somehow it’s always acceptable to bash men and rural white Christians, of course.) That kind of control over free speech looks too much like a slippery slope.
I guess the key criterion should be whether the speech advocates criminal behavior. Otherwise, I’m inclined to let the haters hate; at least it keeps them from bursting at the seams.
Surprising your Righty doesn’t exhibit any features of the typical “Moral Guardian”. If you want to call out the excesses of both sides… (I’m talking Mary Whitehouse sort of excess here, or whatever your equivalent of her is- though I’ll admit she had a point on occasion).
That said, there are some things which are beyond the pale, and I’d actually not averse to preventing that even by legal means. Freedom of speech should be just that- freedom to express your ideas in words. It shouldn’t be an excuse for gross obscenity, it probably should not be an excuse for pornography (which I believe could be damaging to society by allowing people to see others as little more than sexual objects), probably the same with advertising junk food to children, and certainly not an excuse for provoking a riot or driving someone to suicide (you have to prove that last one, though).
How you do not do that is the way our video recordings laws work in the UK- if a video hasn’t been rated by the BBFC, it can’t be supplied to anyone else. So I can buy an import DVD from its country of origin (if the copyright holder doesn’t mind), I just can’t sell it n or even give it to a charity shop. Moreover the need to pass this ratings system perhaps prevents the thing from getting a UK release- as a would-be anime fan in partiuclar, I find it’s a bit awkward when you guys get a decent selection of stuff and we don’t.
I don’t think in terms of so-called “hate speech”, saying something that happens to offend a particular category of people, or use a percieved slur, is a reason to override free speech. Only if it is a serious threat to the public order.
Basically, free speech should not just be free *speech*, but *free* speech.
He eventually sold out to NEC for a billion dollars.
You could add your business logo to the stationery or you could us it as is and place your address information at the top.
On the development of perspective, stationery, or to resolve patent issues.
Rather than matching Leftys argument, you come dangerously close to matching the Puritan standards that Righty used to embrace a few decades back and has conveniently forgotten about. To which I ask, sir: who are you to determine what constitutes “degeneracy”? You seem overestimate the influence violent media has on a developed, rational mind (a statement science has backed up time and time again). Ideas must be exchanged freely, not buried, and society AS A WHOLE must be trusted to sort the good from the bad.
Moved. And after tonight I suspect we will have a couple hundred comments by tomorrow night on what happens at 9 tonight.
150 of the comments by you know who…
Yes Dave “Government revenue growing by 4% a year means government revenue is growing FASTER than the economy.
Growth in the later half of the 20th century was 3.5% not 4%, growth int he 21st century was 2% not 4%.”
I could have gotten technical, looked up every years economic chage, applied that chage to the numbers and come up with what I believe would ge the same answer.
That being, We have two parties that will not make the decision to fix spending in American governmental programs.
I was not fighting you.
There is no reason that government should increase in cost as we become more wealthy.
In fact the cost of government should decrease. Though poverty is not the cause of crime, we know that crime declines as our ability to meet our needs increases.
The cost of government should increase as population increases – though at a slower rate than the rate of population increase.
And it should decrease as standard of living rises.
Instead government revenue has increased much faster than was necescary and government spending has increased even faster still.
Whatever else one may think of President Clinton. Unlike his successors – including Trump, he reduced deficits to the point of surplus.
All of our problems would be less intractible but for the last two spendthrifts, and for all the other positive attributes of Trump – he is NOT a deficit hawk.
So we now have evidence that someone in the SC’s office – almost certainly Andrew Weisman leaked Reoger Stones’ SEALED indictiment to CNN prior to it being issued.
I would note that a prosecutor leaking information about a criminal investication is a serious ethical violation. I would further note that leaks regarding anything involving a grand jury are a crime. As is leaking sealed information.
If the SC’s office is going to investigate and prosecute – “process crimes” where there is no underlying crime – then there must also be an investigation and procesution of the “process crimes” of the prosecutors.
When those enforcing the law can not obey the law we are lawless.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/exclusive-documents-show-cnn-was-tipped-off-on-roger-stone-arrest-by-29-fbi-armed-agents-leaked-by-fbi/
Dave, people dont want the truth. As a famous line in a movie goes “You can’t handle the truth”. Right now people can not handle the truth that Trump might not have had anything to do with collusion or something close to collusion with the Russians.
When the truth comes out and people find out just how inept the campaign was during the summer before the election, they will be amazed that Trump even won, let alone had the ability to collude with anyone.
Right now the left only wants his scalp, and nothing less.
Reminder: Jessup was arrested at trial’s end, found guilty
Justin Fairfax is entitled to the benefit of the doubt about decade old uncorroborated claims of sexual harrasment and assault.
Subsequent evidence may emerge to alter that.
But in the meantime the allegations against fairfax are insufficient.
But the story is the hypocracy of the left.
The claims against Fairfax – though weak are significantly more substantial than those of Blaisey Ford. 15 years ago is NOT the same as 35 years ago.
If you felt that the allegations against Kavanaugh were sufficient 0- then those against Fairfax are more so. If you were up in arms about Kavanaugh and are quiet about Fairfax – you are a hypocrit.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/04/washington-post-displays-glaring-double-standard-when-reporting-sexual-assault-claims/
Of course there is a double standard. Few on the left said anything about not jumping to conclusions, now Warren, Blumenthal, Booker and others are either saying he is innocent or dodging the question.
Quadruple exception- both sides are guilty of it.
I do not know if he is innocent.
I do know there is not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution at this time.
AND there is not enough for a compelling demand to resign.
This is much like Kavanaugh – except not as antique.
It is entirely possible that Fairfax (or Kavanaugh) are lying.
But the probability is low and absent better evidence this should fizzle.
An accusation alone is not enough.
Just as it is not enough with all the Trump/Russia nonsense.
Dave the issue is not one of guilt or innocence. It is one where the left demanded K’s withdrawal because he was GUILTY and they are saying not to rush to conclusions because F has NOT BEEN PROVEN GUILTY yet.
I just require equal treatment for actions.
There I was, agreeing with your assessment on the assault allegations, and you had to bollox it up, comparing it to Trump-Russia. That’s like comparing a tweet to a thesis.
Nope it is exactly the same thing,
An allegation does not crate a fact.
Of Kavanaugh, Fairfax, Trump/Russia, Tulsi/Russia and Schultz/Russia,
There is some factual basis for the Fairfax allegation.
Fairfax has admitted a consensual relationship
Of all the rest – there is no factual basis.
Ford can not even place Kavanaugh together with her any time that summer.
Trump/Russia has been investigated out the whazoo.
There remains NOTHING – no actual evidence of anything.
Schultz/Russia and Tulsi/Russia are PLANTED stories – they are democrats eating themselves.
When you go chasing after nonsense without evidence you destroy your own credibility.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/43066/walsh-5-reasons-why-justin-fairfaxs-accuser-more-matt-walsh
So Tell me – Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Sock Puppet ?
Given that the source of the allegations is essentially the same as those against Trump,
Either we must beleive both allegations or reject both.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03/nbc-news-to-claim-russia-supports-tulsi-gabbard-relies-on-firm-just-caught-fabricating-russia-data-for-the-democratic-party/
“Either we must beleive both allegations or reject both.”
Dear Dummy, obviously not true.
Everyone with sense (sorry to see you on the outside looking in) has already pointed out the obvious: Russian support of Gabbard (an outlier with zero influence outside Hawaii) is meant to benefit Trump by siphoning support from any viable Dems who will oppose him. Double duh,
How about Tulsi’s support of Putin’s ally Assad? She says he’s not a bad guy. Is she faking that Jay? If so, she’s been faking it for more than a year…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats
So, you’re saying that Tulsi is basically acting as a stalking horse for Trump?
I’m saying she’s wrong meeting with Assad.
But then again, she was the first Dem to meet privately with Trump.
And I don’t agree with her Israel criticism.
Maybe she has bad judgement, like so many Trumpanzees.
And she’s not ACTING as a stalking horse. The Russians are USING her that way. As they are bot-promoting the Starbucks guy, and will raise attention to any marginal candidates, to disrupt the Dem vote & aid Trump’s reelection. Surely you understand that?
Jay;
You are not getting it. The Tulsi/Russia collusion story is another FAKE story put out by a democratically affiliated group that has been caught pumping these fake stories and even creating the fake purportedly russian accounts.
This is not about does Putin think Tulsi is a stalking horse. I doubt he knows who she is.
This is about democratic dirty tricksters lying to the public even about their own less favored candidates and blaming fake russians for their antics.
Dave, the same people that believe Trump colluded with Russia will believe the Tulsi/Putin story.
And they vote!
Scary?
Tulsi met with Assad – good for her. There is nothing wrong with talking to people.
Kerry met with the Iranians – again I am fine with that.
Flynn met with Russians and Turks – arranging to be breifed and debriefed before and after – fine with that.
I do not have a problem with politicians and others meeting with other world leaders – even desposts.
Tulsi has also come out in support of Assad – that gets more interesting.
I would be more tepid in my support. Assad is at best the least bad of available choices.
Again the Russians are NOT using her.
The Russia nonsense is FAKE – it was manufactured by a democrat affiliated group – one that has provided advice to congressional democrats.
There is no real evidence I am aware of that actual russians are actually trying to aide Gabbard.
My mistake….she’s been faking it for more than TWO years. So she in it with the Russians from the start, eh?
In my to this point cursory examination of the democratic field, Gabbard is just about the least offensive democrat currently running.
She seems mostly a traditional center left democratic candidate.
Thus far she does not seem to be a falling off the left edge of the world socialist.
She is a veteran and she is opposed to this neocon endless war garbage.
She appears decidedly left of center – but far less left of center than any of the other democrats at the moment.
I do not think she has the national stature of the other democrats – but if she did – she would have a far greater shot at defeating Trump than any of the seven socialist dwarves.
So your argument is that Putin is trying to sabotage a bunch of left wing nuts and this somehow helps Trump ?
Just to be clear – your guesses as to the motives of some third party do not alter the FACT that the situations are the same and you are hypocritically responding to them differently.
In, Dave – Gabbard is a Progressive, and says so proudly. I’m glad to see you are open to the leftist lefts.
Gabbard is complex, and labels cloud issues.
Gabbard does not appear to be what I would call a “progressive” regardless of what she calls herself – and she is free to self identify with a label that I think she should be ashamed of.
Many of her positions are quite nebulous. Further her actual actions seem to grasp that government is often the problem rather than the answer.
Her views on foreign affairs and the USE of the military are those of most republicans today – though not in the past and those of most democrats in the past.
But completely out of step with modern progressives.
She is pretty left wing – but in the 2020 field of democrats as left as she is, she is on the right flank of the democratic party.
Schultz is solidly democrat – atleast in a different era. He is probably to the Left of Bill Clinton.
But he is solidly to the right of every current democrat including Gabbard.
IF Democrats want to win in 2020 – they should flush their entire feild and adopt Schultz NOW.
Sorry Dave, can’t agree with you on Tulsi. She is an Assad apologist, and, unlike Rand Paul, who opposes our involvement in Syria, she has defended a brutal tyrant who has basically slaughtered his opposition. So, wholesale mass murder is a-ok with Gabbard, apparently because she has personally met with Assad, and believes he’s a good guy. Posing for pictures with a Putin ally who’s tortured and killed his own people is a far cry from opposing interventionism.
To be clear, I don’t buy for a minute that the Russians are using Gabbard to help Trump. I think she’s an idiot, who’s being used by the Russians to show that a “reasonable” American politician sees how unfairly poor Bashar Assad has been treated.
Jay, I think that your attachment to the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense clouds your judgement.
The russians are not using Gabbard to help Trump.
This story is a successful New Knowledge fraudulent plant.
There are no actual russians involved.
Though the damage to Gabbard is real.
We have Jay explaining to all of us how this is different from what happened with Trump – because he can divine the intentions of the Russians.
I seriously question his skill at divining the motives and intentions of real russians.
It is completely insane to be trying to speak of the intentions of fake russians.
Remember this is the company that was CAUGHT not merely selling, but actually creating the fake russian accounts and pushing the Roy Moore aided by Russians story.
Unfortunatley this company has also provided assistance to the house and senate democrats in the Trump/Russia investigation.
Democrats should be embarrased.
NBC should be embarrased.
These guys are even more crooked than Fusion GPS.
I don’t think that the Russians are using Gabbard to help Trump. I just think that Gabbard is a useful idiot.
Trump is wrong – we should get out of Iraq too.
Can this man make any decision that is not criticized?
“We’re going to get out of Syria”
“That’s the worst decision you can make”
“We’re going to keep a few troops in Iraq to watch Iran”
“That’s thevworst de ision you can make”
“Can this man make any decision that is not criticized?” No, he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t…
The very same people who criticize him for doing one thing, also criticize him for doing exactly the opposite. So, Democrats, who have been the anti-war party forever, are now the eternal-war party. They oppose the US army remaining in control of a base that we built in Iraq, which would provide us with a tremendous strategic advantage, should Iran make a move on Israel, Saudi Arabia, or any other ME country. They want to put thousands of our young men and women in Syria, to hunt down every last remaining member of ISIS, but are good with giving jihadis the opportunity to gain control of the biggest military installation in Iraq.
And the pro-Iran NYT of course pooh-poohs the idea that we might want to keep an eye on the Iranians.
Because a country whose leaders chant “Death To Israel” and “Death To America” isn’t a country that we should keep an eye on….
“Because a country whose leaders chant “Death To Israel” and “Death To America” isn’t a country that we should keep an eye on….”
So you mean US democrats or Iranians ?
It is hard to tell – so many on the left are chanting “Death To Israel” and “Death To America”
Who knows – maybe Mexico will “pay for the wall” or build their own, or better still build one on their own southern border.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mexico-deploys-militarized-police-to-block-2-000-migrants-from-entering-texas?utm_source=WEX_Breaking%20News%20Alert_02/05/2019&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Breaking%20News
Walls are immoral. Tear down the ones on the California border!
Lessons from the shutdown
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/lessons-government-shutdown/
You will never get left of center individuals to discuss privatization, let alone accepting it. Thats just a fairy tale.
No you wont.
But that should not stop us from doing it.
Every single dergulatory and privatization move that has occured in my lifetime has been enormously successful.
Sell the post Office – I am sure Bezos will buy it.
Privatize TSA, and ATC,
Close Department of education, Department of Energy, EPA, CFPB, FCC, FTC
Get rid of the FED.
And a long list of others.
None of these serve any useful purpose. Or any purpose that can not be done better privately.
The Founders warning of the danger of unprincipled men in positions of authority:
And they also warned when debating paying members of congress. Ben Franklin.
“Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice—the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects.And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers.”
So is it not true that congress is not “the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust”, but the ” bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. ”
In this, we have creayed careers, ones whichmembers will do anything to get reelected.
Will women turn out as ‘bold and violent’ in selfish persuit of political power as men, or worse?
Recently, when reading the written words of the Founders, I can’t but wonder if they thought an illiterate, unread, idiotic corrupt knave like Trump would ever hold the highest office of their newly formed government.
Jay, hard to tell what the founders were thinking about who could hold office. Back then, only white, male land owners could vote for the most part. But founders wrote the constitution in such a way that changes could occur in the future.
They also wrote the constitution in such a way that they did not trust future voters to always make the right choices, so they created the electoral college. In doing this, if someone that the electors did not trust was voted in by voters, they could over rule the voters themselves. The question then becomes one about a person like Trump being nominated and elected by voters. Would the founders support him through the electoral college or choose someone else?
But one thing I do believe. Since they restricted voting to those over 21, male and land owners I doubt if they ever envisioned a country allowing uneducated, uninformed, ignorant of current events and constitutional issues individuals and individuals uninformed about candidates positions ever being allowed to vote. When less than 60% of voters really know what candidates stand for, we end up with those like you described in positions in both parties.
The Founders ALL could read and write intelligently.
They respected that ability, and surely expected applicants for high office not to be as mushy-brained as Trump. But that didn’t extend to ‘common’ citizens voting. Barely educated landowner farmers living in log cabins could vote.
Lowering the voting age to 18 was a mistake (England held out on that until 1969). With the extended life spans we have now, and a seeming slower mental maturity rate, I’m in favor of raising it to 30 years for all national elections.
I want to beleive that – but unfortunately in the real world it has not proven to be true.
Bill Clinton is a rapist, serial sexual assaulter, serial perjurer, witness tamperer and obstructor of justice.
He was also a better president than either of the bushes or Obama.
Both Bushes were decent people. They were poor presidents.
I am still likely to vote for personal integrity – which means I am unlikely to vote for any currently announced candidate.
But Wittes is wrong. Even though I wish he was not.
Censorship in the 2K’s
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/are-we-free-to-discuss-americas-real-problems/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=americas-real-problems&fbclid=IwAR0NeSXv4KDq3Sytb9s4aD3RXOEVOGevtheZJi_ICJ6O7i1SyGN2Icr_RqY
This result truly boggles my mind:
“A new poll is finding broad support for an annual wealth tax on people with assets of at least $50 million, underlining support for taxing the rich.
The Hill-HarrisX survey released Wednesday found that 74 percent of registered voters back an annual 2 percent tax on people with assets over $50 million, and a 3 percent tax on people with assets in excess of $1 billion.
The poll showed support for the idea among people of all ages and races and from both political parties.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed the wealth tax last month. She is one of several high-profile Democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Just 26 percent of respondents said they were opposed to the wealth tax.
Strong majorities of both sexes said they favored the tax, as did a majority of Republicans. Sixty-five percent of GOP voters supported it while only 35 percent opposed it. Independents backed the tax 69 to 31 percent, as did 86 percent of Democratic voters.
The proposal also had strong support across all racial groups and in all regions of the country. Seventy-three percent of voters favored it in Western states, 72 percent backed it in the South, as did 73 percent in the Midwest, and 78 percent in the Northeast….”
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428747-new-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-taxing-the-wealth-of
This is what many are calling socialism and its wildly popular according to this survey across age, geographic, race, sex, education, and even political boundaries. Sixty five percent of GOP voters supported the Warren proposal!
Anyone who thinks that its just the idiot left that does not understand economics is fooling themselves. The next target of populism is on the horizon, eat the rich, not matter what the consequences!
I actually oppose these prog tax ideas. Apparently I am more realistic or informed than the majority of the poll takers. Its not that I do not sympathize with the basic intent of the taxes, but they won’t work. People seem to believe that the wealthy keep their money in their mattresses as cash and can just dip in and take some out. As well, they do not realize that there is no tax that can’t be evaded, most likely with detriment to the economy due to unforeseen consequences (many of which Could be foreseen by someone with adequate economic literacy).
They will never get these ideas into law, even if they sweep into power with huge congressional majorities.
If they did get them into law then they would start spending the money on new programs instead of making existing entitlement solvent and paying down the deficit and national debt.
Worst-case scenario, the progs sweep the 2020 elections get the power to do as they please, they do enact these taxes, they then spend money that they optimistically expect to yield from the new tax rates, and when the money does not materialize, its the middle class stuck with the bill, plus the deficit grows enormously, and the existing entitlements go belly up. Prog ideas dead at last but at a terrible cost. Economics 101-201 would be put to the test and found sound.
But, it won’t get that far. I believe that the next period of time up to the 2020 election is going to be one giant economics lesson and in the end the electorate will reluctantly pass. When actual economists start to add up and explain the costs and consequences of the prog proposals enough people will get it.
It cracked me up to hear AOC wailing that people are using the word socialist to scare people. Imagine that! Cracked me up and made me mad too. Does she believe that her ideas live in a criticism-free bubble?
On the other hand, another poll found support for Biden to be far higher than that for any of his dem rivals, including Sanders and Warren. As well it found that only 25% of dem voters rated progressive policies as a priority in choosing the dem nominee. So, there is still some hope that sanity will eventually prevail. I believe it will.
But it is certainly frightening to think of the worst case left wing takeover scenario.
How about a one time net worth wealth tax to reduce the national debt?
Guess who once suggested that:
“In 1999, billionaire Donald Trump proposed a “one-time” net worth tax of 14.25 percent on people worth $10 million or more to help pay off the national debt. He claimed it would raise $5.7 trillion and would wipe out the debt in one fell swoop, as CNN put it. In a written statement, he said that “no one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millennium. The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac.”
His rationale was based on the idea that the top tier held much of the country’s wealth. Trump noted that “by my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan. The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes.”
Jay, trump had a superficial knowledge of economics then and has a shitty superficial knowledge now. Like Ann Coulter he was living in the irresponsible world of saying noisy stuff to call attention to himself in 1999. Unlike Ann Coulter, he became POTUS and his superficial knowledge of everything is now not at all funny.
Jay, very little of that projected tax money would ever actually appear, no matter who passes what law. Once upon a time I also believed in the “take it from the rich” plan. Then I did my research and thought the situation through.
On the other hand the perpetual GOP tax Cuts for the rich are idiotic and increase the deficit, I hate them. But taking the opposite approach and trying to hold the rich upside down and shake them is fundamentally flawed and offers the false promise to magically fund all the prog dreams. I want reality to assert itself sooner rather than later.
Guess you did not read my post from yesterday about income and expenses. We do not have an income problem. Using inflation and population growth from 1990 until today and compounding that yearly, we are collecting what we need to collect. But spending has outpaced inflation and population growth, !eading to the debt and deficits of today.
When will people learn you can not keep spending money on out dated programs, programs that need modernizing and services better provided by the private sector.
Thank you Ron.
Maybe some of those here will buy it when you produce these facts.
So much of our debate – here and nationally has turned to WHO is saying something rather than the merits or demerits of what is being said.
Here is an example of how I think the prog ideas will be shot down by economic realities over the next two years. I actually applaud the GOP legislators for proposing to tackle the medicare for all idea head on now, ASAP. The dem response was hilarious.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/republicans-medicare-for-all/index.html
“…. Seeking to deflect criticism that they won’t protect Americans’ health care, Republicans are trying to bring attention to the growing popularity of — and divide over — Medicare for all among Democrats. The controversial idea seeks to expand affordable coverage, but carries a huge price tag and risks alienating those who want to keep their private insurance through their employers.
Democratic anxieties over 'Medicare for all' kick off first 2020 primary fight
Democratic anxieties over ‘Medicare for all’ kick off first 2020 primary fight
In a letter, they made their opposition clear. “Given the Committee’s broad health care jurisdiction, we have a responsibility to review any legislative proposal that is supported by so many members of the House majority, especially one that threatens to impact directly the lives of millions of Americans by upending how they receive their coverage, including those with employer and union sponsored plans,” they wrote.
The push got a chilly reception from committee Chair Frank Pallone of New Jersey and subcommittee Chair Anna Eshoo of California.
“Who are you kidding?” Pallone said. “Oh sure, we’re going to have a hearing on something that you think will destroy the country.”
“Now don’t get me wrong, we will address that issue. I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t,” he continued…..”
Now, that bit of rhetorical dancing is funny.
Dems – god no why would we openly admit how we are going to bankrupt the country rapidly when we can do so slowly.
MFA does not smell any better incrementally.
BTW there is no fundimental economic difference between MFA and PPACA except scale.
One is hugely stupid the other only a wast of two trillion a decade.
There are few arguments for PPACA that do not work for MFA
There are few arguments against MFA that are not arguments against PPACA.
Roby, I believe I have said this before, but will cover this once again.
in all countries where there is a national health system with one payer, such as the UK, most of the medical providers are employees of the national health system. The hospitals are part of the NHS. Pharmacies are part of the NHS as well as other providers. Doctors, nurses and pharmacist are part of the NHS.
Salaries for all providers are set by the NHS. The average GP in the UK makes about $60,000 pounds.($77,000) In the USA, $225,000. Nurse in the UK make 30,000 Lbs,($38,000) in the USA $75,000. And the same holds true for pharmacist where they make about 1/2 what their American counterpart makes.
My point. Not until ALL providers, hospitals, human input, pharmacies and all other medical facilities are under the control of the government where the government sets salaries (75% of most all medical costs) and negotiates drug and supply cost for 100% of all services will a one payer system work to reduce costs.
Right now we have three independent arms working against each other. Insurance, drug and supply companies working to increase profits to the highest possible margin, employees working to increase salaries to the highest possible margins and the government working to reduce cost to the lowest possible margin. Those do not provide for a cost efficient system.
Then add to that where many states restrict the competition through certificate of need before a service can be added in an area and that eliminates most competition, something that reduces cost. When there is no competition, charges can be raised without much oversight and negative impact. Where there is competition, people can choose the lessor cost provider.
So MFA sounds like a wonderful idea, but the cost is enormous and will only grow larger as the cost for providers grows larger as the government can not control the costs associated with services provided. And when cost exceed reimbursement, providers close or find a different profession, making it harder for patients to find services. Rural areas are experiencing this change currently.
“So MFA sounds like a wonderful idea, but the cost is enormous and will only grow larger as the cost for providers grows larger as the government can not control the costs associated with services provided.”
About 3-4 years back I suddenly had the idea that medicare could be expanded little by little by shifting the age limit down a year or two at a time. Got so excited I even wrote my congress people by email. Then in about an hour I had realized all the things that are wrong with that idea. Ooops. Couldn’t unsend the letters.
MFA does Not sound like a good idea – if you actually have that “common sense” that Ron keeps talking about.
Any beleif in the virtue of MFA requires beleiving we are all cookie cutters that share the same needs, or that some unknown experts in Washington – who arguably have never gotten anything right, will suddenly get everything right.
Roby, great comments. What people dont realize is when government creates a law or regulation, there are hundreds of consultants to find ways to avoid those regaulations. Working in healthcare finace, I witnessed government creating a regulation over and over to reduce costs, and over and over consultants found a way to work around it as well as improve reimbursement from previous levels.
And thinking about someone with $1B in assets. I have no idea what is a good return on assets, but 10% seems good to use here. That means income of about $100M. Taxes at 37% for federal, state @8% (New York) and 3% New York City, total 48%. So tax on that $48 M. Now added the wealth tax of 3% on the $1B adds another $30M, so total tax is $78 M, leaving the Billionaire $22 million. If, for some reason the return on assets decreased to 8%, then the total for the year net would be break even.
There is litttle doubt in my mind that wealth in the USA would decrease drastically, while small islands would benefit greatly.
And that does not even take into consideration the loss of jobs when business move to low tax countries.
The thing is their assets are not liquid assets. They are assets on paper that fluctuate from day to day with the stock market. In fact, people with 1 billion in assets probably own a company via its stock. I would have little sympathy for a return of “only” 22 million, but that is not real spendable wealth, its ownership in a company. The rich can’t begin to spend their money, their money is in a big sense a fiction on paper. Its nothing they can just lay their hands on to spend or to pay as tax.
Let us imagine that all that so-called wealth of the rich is stock (not exactly true I realize, since they own homes and cars and boats too). What would the implications be of forcing the sale of 2% of the stock market to pay the “rich tax” each year? Who would have the money to buy the shares they are forced to sell? Probably Not other rich people, who would also be under orders to sell 2% of their holdings. So who would buy those stocks? Its easy to say, lucky smaller fish would profit from the duress on the big fish, but I have my doubts that there would be enough assets in the smaller fish to buy the stock the big fish are forced to sell. Seems to me the stock market would be forced to sink and the wealth on paper would go with it. It would be an incredibly complex matter to figure out what the implications of the “rich tax” would be.
I am just hand waving but I think I am asking reasonable questions.
In your example, their return on stock dividends would be far less than assets generating income, like Trump prooerties.
And under your example where stocks were sold to pay for taxes, the declining stock prices due to large sales would impact a huge portion if middle Ameruca that has individual retirement funds in the market.
Kudos for understanding how stupid this is.
No form of taxation is more thoroughly economicially destructive than “wealth taxes”.
BTW they are almost certainly unconstitutional.
I wish it were possible to be able to distinguish your views as well as you claim it is from those of the lunatic left.
The very same reasons that wealth taxes are idiocy is the reasons that most of the things you have espoused are too.
The fact that one stupid proposal is popular does not make a less popular stupid proposal less stupid.
Is it possible that hearing AOC expound nonsense (and watching Venezeula implode) is bringing you back to sanity ?
Venezuela, AOC?
No. I took some well taught economics classes in college in the mid 80s. I was doing a doctorate and then post docs at a University with a noisy left wing student group (only about 50-100 students and maybe 5 left wing nut professors but they made enough noise to be mistaken for the majority) who drove me crazy and made me ill, I made my first trip to Russia in 2000, lived there in 2007-2008 for almost a year, saw firsthand the consequences of a failed left wing society. I do not need Venezuela or AOC to wake me up, I have been “sane” and strongly opposed to left wing economics for considerably longer than you have known me.
You simply have never had the first clue what my actual opinions are on economic issues in spite of my many posts. I have argued since the beginning with your extreme economic beliefs that wind up with government drowned in the bathtub; therefore, I must be a left wing lunatic. End of story to you. Once you form an opinion your mind shuts like a steel trap and rejects any information that goes contrary to what you already believe. You are simply wired that way. So, you will never understand my actual opinions if we keep this up for 100 years. (You could save yourself and us a lot of bother by refraining from the standard “there is no….” response. )
Ask Ron, ask Priscilla, they may be economic conservatives but they can both place me accurately in the spectrum of economic belief. I am sure neither of them would be at all surprised by my opinions of late about progressive economic proposals and would not find them any departure from many many opinions I have stated for a very long time.
Instead of wasting your efforts on me I would spend more time worrying about the 65% of GOP voters who supported this tax idea. There is a whole lot more going on here than simply the lunatic left being wildly wrong. Americans in general understand about as much about economics as they do about transistor circuits or molecular biology. Its a technical subject that requires an interest and some actual education.
There is no form of taxation more economically destructive than wealth taxes.
A bad idea does not become a good idea by doing it only once.
Nor does a bad idea actually work by doing it only once.
We have a spending problem – NOT a revenue problem.
So Trump proposed something stupid in 1999. BTW – in 1999 we would have paid off the debt quite quickly had we NOT gone into deffict spending under Bush.
I would also note that there is almost no difference between a “wealth tax” to end the national debt – and defaulting on the national debt.
In both instances you essentially go to the people you borrowed money from and say in one instance – I am not paying you back and in the other I am paying you back with money I steal from you.
If you think a wealth tax is a good idea – why not just default ?
The effect will be very nearly the same.
Interesting read. Just another link in my distrust for government. She was a reporter that investigated what needed to be investigated, regardless of politics. She stepped on the wrong toes. So does freedom of the press exist anymore?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/02/07/im_suing_the_government_it_has_a_problem_with_that.html?fbclid=IwAR3FJ-DslhTIWxzyc77-B_a2qv3PuRW9OoQCj8aYd8I00izCxJIT4EbLM38
“Guess you did not read my post from yesterday about income and expenses. We do not have an income problem. ”
I did see your posts. I have been trying to figure out how to post graphs I find on google to reply. I found your data on revenues in graph form broken down into categories of revenue. So far I have failed to figure out how to post the graph without posting the blog its linked to.
Here is a pew graph on Revenues as a percent of GDP since 1962. This figure has varied somewhat cyclically and been between about 18 and 24 percent over this period.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/ft_17-04-03_budget_420px/
Yes Roby, social programs are a large part of the growing debt. So lets break down those parts individually.
The chart shows that social security has changed little from 1990 until today. In fact, it has been flat since 1985. I give the reforms that Tip O’Oneill and RR put together for some of the control.
Now Medicare. As government worked for years ( starting in 1980) to control costs for Medicare, what did Bush and congress do in the early 00’s. They created part D to cover drug costs. So they grew a program costs by adding benefits. Where does the graph show Medicare increasing? Somewhere around 2005-6.
OK, Medicaid. It took off in the early 90’s. What took place in the 90’s. From the Free Library. “Many States relaxed eligibility standards for Medicaid, extending coverage to higher income pregnant women and children or, in some cases, to the general low income uninsured population. In these States, Medicaid reform was a component of a broader effort to increase access to health insurance generally, and to encourage the development of managed care.
The States were not the only actors in the Medicaid reform arena. Congress enacted a number of reforms at the national level, including changes in the laws governing Medicaid payments to disproportionate share hospitals (DSH), welfare reform, repeal of the Boren Amendment and enactment of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). ”
Each and every one of these changes increased costs. FINALLY! Another huge increase in Medicaid in 2010. PPACA increasing the number.of families eligible for Medicaid. The feds paid 90% of any additional costs for states increasing coverage.
Each and every one of these changes occurred with no attention to how the change would be paid for.
Now for the left/right rub. People on the right, such as myself, do not think any of these changes were needed. I dont believe we have seen any noticable change in outcomes for people involved with these programs today vs 1990. In fact, I believe Part D medicare has had a detrimental impact since drug companies can jack up costs and Medicare pays it. As for those on the left, all of these changes were needed regardless of outcomes or cost.
So again my point. Had increasing costs with new government programs not occurred, we would not have the debt and deficit we have today.
And if you took this graph and plotted just dollars and not % of GDP, you would see a much more pronounced change in the graph at these periods of time.
There is no doubt, you are well informed. The graph is actually part of a Pew article which I have to admit was rather eye opening to me.
The problem with creating programs with benefits and large economic consequences, as I found out when I was battling the Vermont Property tax law, act 60, is that once the benefits are in place, there is NO going back.
I also have to admit that we who opposed Act 60 vociferously and learning it inside and out and predicted its economic consequences, well, we were right and we were wrong. The basic consequences we foresaw did play out about how we expected over the years, the act did not lower tax rates in fact it tended to raise them, and as far as I know it did not improve academic outcomes noticeably as a whole, although perhaps it did for particular schools. But, I can also admit, the world did not end, life seems to be much the same post act 60 as it was before it. If you are a school administrator it may have made a noticeable difference, I do not know. But for me, very little has changed.
I am in the category of those who do not want government to grow, I would prefer no new major entitlements. I also accept that the entitlements that exist now are built in, I am not believing that they can be rolled back. I want government to do the things it does now, but more efficiently where possible. I am with people like you and John McCain about finding waste.
Roby
All of this stuff does not work. It has never worked.
The problems you face with one thing – are present with averything government does, even those that are actually its job.
The day after 9/11 the NSA was not wiping the egg off their faces, they were planning how they were going to spend the new money that they new was coming, and how to use the new power that was also coming.
Government rewards failure
Regardless please take a look at Bastiat.
We can not foresee the future as individuals. The few of us who are eitehr very good at guessing or very lucky will benefit incredibly, but most of us will be mostly wrong about the future.
Every single government program outside the legitimate scope of government requires an acurate determination of the future – even the actual future effects of current government choices.
Historic data tells us that nearly always a government program will fail.
But that it can not be allowed to fail, and therefore it will be saved forever by government.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
While some areas have done better and some worse, and SS is not the worst performer,
SS costs should actually DECLINE as a percent of GDP – in a growing economy.
In fact all government costs should decline as a percent of GDP – in a growing economy.
A higher standard of living should mean less government cost, not more.
Aside from a spike in the 80;s Crime has been trending down for centuries.
The cost of the criminal justice system should DECREASE as crime decreases.
Even the cost of the safetynet should actually decrease as standard of living rises.
Roby – I would note that though your graph tends to support the claim that tax cuts generate revenue.
The long term trend on your graph is increasing revenue as a percent of GDP.
Revenue was increasing prior to the Reagan tax cut – and it continue to increase afterwords.
When Reagan subsequently increased taxes revenue fell. After the Clinton tax increase revenue fell, After the Bush tax cuts revenue increased and after the Obama tax increases revenue fell.
I can not delete the above post. Regardless it is in error.
Roby’s graph is of government spending not revenue.
Re-analyzing in light of that does raise odd questions – why does government spending increase after a tax cut, and decrease after a tax increase ?
Clearly they seem to correlate.
I would also tax specific note of the near constant exponential growth of Medicare and medicaid – if the growth had been linear the graph would have shown them as unchanged as a percent of GDP – basically medicare and medicaid are growing significantly faster than GDP – so much so that they have entirely eaten declining defense spending (as a percent of GDP) and that we would be running surpluses without those increases.
I would further note that PPACA did absolutely nothing to reign in Medicare and Medicaid costs, if anything they subsequently increased faster.
Finally I would note there is no reason to beleive that government should track GDP.
It should track population – it should actually NEGATIVE track GDP – because the wealthier we get the less government should cost.
I am unable to comprehend how even a moon unit like AOC could manage to tie the concepts of green energy with providing economic security for those unwilling to work. That’s it, progressives will carry the weight of those words forever. I hope it sinks them.
The conservative media are going to be besides themselves with joy, AOC, the gift that keeps giving… to the right.
You Libertarians! Drugs are bad! This is why super strong pot should not be legal:
Revealed: Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ calls for all-electric cars, no more airplanes or ‘farting cows,’ $4.6 TRILLION in infrastructure spending and income guarantees for people who are ‘unwilling to work’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6679905/Green-New-Deal-Electric-cars-ban-airplanes-farting-cows-4-6-TRILLION-infrastructure.html
Really? Maybe if she used some high level pot she would activate some brain cells that seem to be hibernating.
I think that Congress needs to pass legislation, banning the wholesale mass slaughter of farting cows!
Seriously, this thing is beyond parody at this point. The Onion is going to be put out of business.
I guess she does not understand that air travel is one of the most energy efficient means of transportation.
I believe the rail transportation of freight (not people) is more energy efficient.
Every single domestivcated animal exists for the purpose of meeting the needs of humans.
In 1915 the US had 26M horses. Today there are about 3M.
Horses serve very little useful purpose today so there are few of them.
cows will disapear when we can produce meat that we like without them.
Roby, seems like your feeling the feel that many on the right felt when Trump gained the limelight😤!
One can only hope the severely divided democrat field does not result in a fringe candidate gaining the nomination as Trump did with the GOP.
I don’t know how the Democrats avoid that, Ron. Almost every current declared candidate has endorsed the delusional Green New Deal, not because they believe in it (God, I hope not), but because the base of the party has become so extreme that they cannot win the nomination without kowtowing to the absurd left-wing nuttery of AOC and her social media fan base of economic illiterates and social justice warriors.
Look at the response to Howard Schultz, who declared that the party had gone too far to the left. He’s been treated like the second coming of Donald Trump, which is to say like he’s the devil incarnate. And all he did was try to defend capitalism ~ other than that, he’s very liberal.
The Democrats are going through the same thing that the Republicans went through in 2016, and I don’t see how it doesn’t end with a far left nominee. Sure, every reasonable Democrat wants to see Biden get the nomination, but how they do that without alienating the base, which has become so extreme? The base is demanding a woman nominee, preferably a minority woman. Biden is an old white guy~ I don’t think they’ll go for him.
I know he is the current front running – according to polls, but Biden can not win.
Biden IS trump on many of the issues the left wants to attack.
He has conducted himself worse with women – though he has not bragged about it.
He attempts to appeal to the same working class base as Trump.
He is a White Male.
What he is NOT is the incumbent.
Biden running against Trump is like Romney running against Obama.
Biden is Trump without the bragadocia.
Biden will alienate the base on the left which will just stay home.
He may do OK with those moderates who just want to end the media firestorm.
But he will be tied to Obama’s economic record, and Trump will have 3% growth and lots of kept promises.
And Biden is likely the most competitive candidate the democrats actually have.
If they want to win – they should draft schultz not piss on him.
What currently viable democratic candidate is NOT “fringe” ?
Further Trump is not especially fringe. Most of what offends the left – aside fromt he fact that he won when they beleived he could not and labeling him as a mysoginyst racist homophobe did not work, is style not substance.
Trump is more conservative than Obama, but not that Ted Cruz, or Sen, Graham.
He is not a social conservative, he is weak fiscal conservative.
While Trump has successfully undone much of the Obama regime – most of what he has done was either done by Obama or promised by Obama.
Dave, when I comment about Trump being a “fringe” candidate, I am not just commenting about far-far left or far-far right. I am addressing anything that is not traditional values supported by the party leaders.
So was Trump a long time Republican. No, he vacillated between GOP, independent and Democrat over the years. RR was a democrat and became a republican, but remained a republican, he did not flip flop from one to the other as did Trump
Was Trump a man of high moral values that the right so cherished with the christian conservative right. No, Trump is a man challenged in morals, if not morally corrupt.
Was Trump known to be one that exemplified family values? No, he has shown family values means little to him unless it is connection to his businesses.
Does Trump value the truth? NO, one can even asked if he knows what “truth” actually is. Politicians lie, but Trump sets a new standard for how far a lie can go.
And there are other things I can point out that takes Trump out of the main stream GOP party and makes him a fringe candidate.
Again, I will point out that I believe had there only been Trump and a couple other candidates, Trump would have dropped out after New Hampshire. But a completely divided field allowed for 35% of voters to set the stage for his nomination in the early primaries. And someone getting only 30-35% of the support is fringe in my book.
My point was that Trump’s positions are far from the fringe of the GOP.
They are overall pretty moderate republican positions.
At the same time – even by your definition of fringe – you fail.
Trumps; popular support may be 40%,
His Republican support is in the upper 80’s or 90’s.
Dave, you are addressing Trump, the president and I am addressing Trump, the primary candidate when we speak of support.
2016 primary election results for elections in selected states up to super Tuesday
Iowa 24.3%, everyone else 75.7%
New Hampshire 35.2% everyone else 64.8%
South Carolina 32.5% everyone else 67.5%
Virginia 34.8%, everyone else 65.2%
Texas 26.7%, everyone else 73.3%
Georgia 38.8%, everyone else 61.2%
North Carolina 40.2%, everyone else 59.8%
And looking at these states Georgia and NC were well into the election cycle after many of the 15 or so candidates had left the field. But where Ted Cruz carried Iowa and John Kasich ran a close second to Trump in NH, other candidates did well in SC and other states, effectively splitting the votes so no one could find a way to stop Trump.
So now we have 40% that you say support Trump. And at election time another 10-15% will make up their minds if a far left candidate is better than a Trump.
But my point is, had there been Kasich, Trump and Cruz running, or some combination like that, Trump would have been knocked out by SC because more than 60% of the GOP primary voters did not support Trump at the critical juncture of the campaign.
In my mind 30-35% support is a fringe element of any 100% of the voters.
Providing economic security for those unwilling to work is impossible.
There is no economic security if no one works,
and few of us actually work if we do not have to.
It is economic insecurity that raises standard of living.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Adam Smith
“Providing economic security for those unwilling to work is impossible.”
Your Captain Obvious Crusader Decoder Ring is in the mail. I saved up all my cereal box tops and bought it for you.
Ha.
“….The operating principle behind the Green New Deal is a no-enemies-to-the-left spirit of fostering unity among every faction of the progressive movement. Thus, at the same time, the plan avoids taking stances that are absolutely vital to reduce carbon emissions, it embraces policies that have nothing to do with climate change whatsoever. The Green New Deal includes the following non-climate provisions:
–A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
–High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
–High-quality health care
–Safe, affordable, adequate housing
–An economic environment free of monopolies
–Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
— Free Pot for all public school teachers
— Pet Unicorns for all children under 5
— Latte as the official national drink
— All Catholic Schools must have Che Guevara T shirts as part of their uniform
Sean McElwee, a socialist organizer with a penchant for colorfully threatening to destroy his enemies, designed the Green New Deal as a framework to encompass every maximal demand of the left. “The Green New Deal is what it means to be progressive. Clean air, clean water, decarbonizing, green jobs, a just transition, and environmental justice are what it means to a progressive,” he tells Vox. “By definition that means politicians who don’t support those goals aren’t progressive. We need to hold that line. Get on the GND train or choo-choo, motherfucker, we’re going to go right past you.”
It is difficult to see how the task of finding 218 votes in the House and 50 in the Senate is made any easier by attaching a plan to such goals as economic security for people who are “unwilling to work.” Rather than think creatively about overcoming the formidable obstacles facing the green agenda, the Green New Deal retreats into a political fantasy world in which the ideologically median legislator is Bernie Sanders.
While rightly insisting on the primacy of climate change, it betrays its own confidence by submerging climate policy into a broader array of priorities. It simultaneously argues that we must move with urgent speed on climate, but that we must first achieve comprehensive socialism in order to move.
Speaker Pelosi received the plan icily. “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” she said. “The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” Her skepticism appears well-taken. Democratic presidential candidates would be well-advised to start over.”
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/democrats-need-a-climate-plan-the-green-new-deal-isnt-it.html#comments
What will it take to get you past this CAGW nonsense. An Ice Age ?
The attached graph plots the climate models vs, acutal temps through 2016.
I would note 2016 broke the previous record high temperature – 1998 by 0.01
2017 and 2018 have been COLD years. So the problem is worse.
The “anomally” the departure from the 1975-1988 baseline was .047C in 2016 it is 0.31C at the moment that is DOWN 0.16C
The natural rate of warming from 1750-1950 was 0.11C/decade.
The warming from 1975 to 2019 has been 0.07C
It is BELOW the rate of warming when human CO2 was not a factor.
Belief in CAGW is an IYI test – Intellectual Yet Idiot.
You Are the King of Oblivion. My interest is not in CAGW here, its in the utter stupidity of progressives. You did not even read the thing. Pet Unicorns and Che Guevara Tee shirts went right over your denial addled mind. Even when I blatantly agree with you about something you have to find an angle to give a misplaced lecture about your religion.
If you do not want a discussion and criticism of CAGW – do not raise the issue.
The choice is yours.
Yes, I read your post. I do not often respond to the portions of posts I do not have a problem with.
Religion is the belief in things without evidence. CAGW is an example or a religion, Socialism is an example. Libertarianism not. It is an ideology driven by evidence.
You can persuade me of anything – if you can provide sufficient evidence to make your assertion more probably correct than the my present position.
I mostly agree with your comments about AOC, Though I do not understand why you can not grasp that she is only distinguishable from most of the left by degree.
I intended some humor here, boy did I get it.
It is very difficult to communicate humor over the internet.
That is not some secret.
“It is very difficult to communicate humor over the internet.”
There are two possibilities, the items below are meant seriously or the items below are meant in humor. Which would someone choose? Serious or humor? Dave, Dave, Dave, you need to loosen up.
— Free Pot for all public school teachers
— Pet Unicorns for all children under 5
— Latte as the official national drink
— All Catholic Schools must have Che Guevara T shirts as part of their uniform
Roby, I really admire your willingness to go after the progressive agenda, and, as you said in an earlier comment, you have always been very consistent in this, while supporting traditional liberal values.
And , I think that Nancy Pelosi is perhaps trying to make a fool of AOC (as if there is any doubt), by allowing AOC to present this leftist utopian manifesto, disguised as a bill. I think that Pelosi is hoping that it will be roundly rejected, in favor of more mainstream legislation, and AOC will fade into the oblivion that she rightly deserves.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to happen. While I’m quite sure that the Green New Deal (GND) has no chance of passing, it is being latched onto by most leftwing 2020 candidates, and many media publications. An op ed in The Washington Post calls it “smart politics and smart policy”. and states
The Democrat base has become a left wing base, partly because the old, white blue-collar base migrated to Trump in 2016. And, the party leadership seems to be losing control of the agenda to the base, just as the Trump agenda pulled the GOP farther to the right. I don’t know if Pelosi can tame AOC and her socialist supporters. I hope so, but I’m skeptical.
Heh, I left out the WaPo link. That last paragraph is me, not the op ed.
The imbeciles on my own side of the spectrum almost hurt me more.
At the rate things are going, we’re going to have the Populists vs. the Socialists…if not in 2020, soon thereafter.
And that presents a problem for moderates, who advocate compromise as the way to achieve goals. How do we compromise with socialists, who advocate against freedom and in favor of government control? How do we compromise with populists, who insist that the “elites” be driven from power, but have little understanding of how to wield power themselves?
Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813) quote:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
So where are we? Depending on the generations, I would say we achieved abundance and have become selfish and given the current state of politics, apathy has grown large and is continuing to grow. With AOC and the other “leaders” in the Democrat party moving the party to the left, dependence will become more prevalent over the next few years. And with the speed of change, that will not take anywhere near the time it took to achieve abundance.
“And that presents a problem for moderates, who advocate compromise as the way to achieve goals. How do we compromise with socialists, who advocate against freedom and in favor of government control? How do we compromise with populists, who insist that the “elites” be driven from power, but have little understanding of how to wield power themselves?”
The planets have aligned, we are in the agreement zone. But I gotta add, socialists ARE the ultimate populists and the eat the rich campaign (and rich can mean anyone with more money than me) is just the next phase of the unchained populism that was channeled by the likes of Bannon. I was scared shitless of the populism that was unleashed in 2015 and still am. Its going to turn in every direction like an armor piercing round ricocheting in a tank until its gutted everything.
Meanwhile Putin’s authoritarian view of the world is gaining time and moves as the west self destructs.
I drink very little most of the time, but that may change.
$28 at Costco – good as $40 Jameson Tripple Blend
Jay, I’ll have to hit Costco. My kids appreciate whiskey. I’m actually more likely to mix Kahlua with half and half or rum with coke. Perhaps as one who is mainly Scottish and Irish I should just throw in the towel and turn to the ancestral potion.
Its a beautiful day, I just bought a pair of new generation Fischer cross-country skis with metal edges, cross country skis that can actually do alpine skiing (unlike my old pair). I am going to go ski my brains out at Trapps, then have a snort and go sit in their outdoor hot tub, and then come home and drink myself silly and put on Santana Abraxas. I don’t know what my wife will think when she comes home from work and finds me all loosened up. That could go either way.
Living in the trump-AOC world is going to require better skills at escapism on my part.
Remember in 2013 Sanders introduced a climate protection bill. I believe that get -0- co-signers
Six years later, the GND got 15 co-signers,(16 total). That is a significant shift in just 6 years.
I suspect by early 2020’s. something like the GND will become reality with a fast shifting process to socialism.
“I suspect by early 2020’s. something like the GND will become reality with a fast shifting process to socialism.”
And I believe, with equal gloom, that its the right kooks who come out on top in the end, not the left kooks. There simply is not money to do what the left kooks propose. And in the middle term the national political IQ will decrease so rapidly that Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan will look like Einstein and Sir Isaac Newton by comparison.
Although a more disconsolating pair of ignoramuses than trump and AOC is hard to imagine. Perhaps we have hit bottom. Perhaps moderates will come into fashion after some spell of left and rightopian imbeciles finally exhausts the national patience. There are so many perhapses. Perhaps I’ll have a drink.
Democrats having regained some power in the house are scaring the crap out of lots of ordinary americans.
Whether it is the GND or any of the rest of the hard left nonsense they are pushing.
To be clear – house democrats are free to push whatever agenda they want.
They can embrace Che if they want.
But if they wish to hold the house in 2020 so far they are doing all the wrong things.
Howard Schultz muddling over a run as an independent is damning.
Schultz should be the front runner for democrats.
Just the attention he is getting is making it clear democrats have lost touch with the center.
Roby, I tend to agree with those who say that the political spectrum is more circular, than linear. Once you reach a certain stage of “tear-it-all-down” it doesn’t matter why, so left and right become fairly useless terms, and totalitarianism is the end result either way. For the far right, it comes about by design (“trust the ruler, he is good”), for the far left it’s hypocrisy, in the name of the “greater good,” that paves the way.
I’d like to think that Trump’s SOTU speech, in which he extolled bi-partisanship and compromise, is the beginning of his pivot to the middle for the 2020 campaign. I know that both sides typically flap their gums meaninglessly about this (à la the McCain and Bush funerals). And, I know that, now that he faces a divided Congress, Trump is being forced to move more to the center, just as Clinton did after 1994. But, at some point, there has to be a move to the middle by someone, and moderates have to reward it. And that’s not to say that they have to reward Trump. Maybe it will be Schultz, or Biden, or Bloomberg. But it can’t be Kamala or Cory or Bernie.
Best Newspaper Headline This Year (maybe ever!)
Oh, thank you. Its right up there with the mirth that dave’s ironic IYI usage gave me today.
Clearly you are IYI if you think my use was Ironic.
IYI means you are intelligent, but fail to use that intelligence.
You are literally trying to invert its meaning.
Hahaha! I suppose, in this case, that headline was inevitable. But it’s still great.
Seriously, one wonders how stupid and/or arrogant Bezos is, to send those texts and think that they wouldn’t eventually be discovered. I guess, when you’re the richest man in the world, you figure that you can control everything… I hope his wife takes him to the cleaners.
“Seriously, one wonders how stupid and/or arrogant Bezos is, to send those texts and think that they wouldn’t eventually be discovered.”
So absent the recipient of a text providing that text, or doing so yourself, how is it that ones text’s are “discovered” that is legal ?
The one and only one point that the left has regarding 2016 is that IF the russian’s hacked the DNC – that was a crime. Presuming they were hacked and not leaked.
It does not change (as with Bezos) that the messages say what the say.
It does not change that once public, they are news, and you can not put the gennie back in the bottle.
It appears that Pecker engaged in extortion – that is a serious crime.
It is also probable that NE may have actually hacked Bezo’s phone – that too would be a crime.
Bezo’s wife will likely take him to the cleaners – and that is appropriate.
Mostly I think Bezo’s is handling this well.
Well, I suppose that The Enquirer could be in some legal jeopardy. I don’t know the legalities.
My understanding is that the texts were provided to the tabloid by a disloyal friend of Bezo’s gf, in whom the gf had confided. The Enquirer no doubt paid for them. Honestly, I am not gonna spend any time worrying about Bezos, Pecker, or Bezo’s pecker.
If the texts were acquired as you described – NE is covered.
It is well established that you can publish something that SOMEONE ELSE acquired illegally, so long as you did not participate or have prior knowledge.
The most famous case on this is the Pentagon papers, but it also covers wikileaks and
Roger Stone and cronies efforts to find out what Wikileaks had.
Your description does not even involve hacking.
Asumming it is correct NE has no problems regarding how they acquired the texts.
I am still trying to sort out the “if you stop your investigation, we will stop publication” portion of the emails from NE to Bezos.
I am not sure if all the elements necescary for criminal blackmail are present – but it is very close.
The headline provoked you to criticize Betos for infidelity, Pricilla, but ignore the blackmail threat?
Should Melania take Trump to the cleaners for sexing with porn stars and nudie playmates?
Eh, it’s not blackmail. It’s the way The Enquirer has operated for decades. Bezos is just being a whiny jerk, who got caught sending dick pics to his gf, after putting himself out there as a holier-than-thou family man for the past 25 years.
And Melania should absolutely take Trump to the cleaners if she so chooses. And she might…but it certainly appears that, if she’s planning to do so, she’s waiting til he’s out of office.
After multiple marriages, I bet Trumps prenup is iron clad and she would have to use a nuclear device to get much out of a divorce.
It does not matter if it is NE’s SOP.
It is either blackmail or very close to blackmail.
There are also implications that get even worse for NE.
How did they get Bezos’ texts ?
There are only a few legal ways those texts could be acquired.
It is likely they were acquired by hacking the phone of Bezos or his GF.
If NE participated or had advance knowledge they are in deep shit.
I will be happy to defend NE – but not for actual blackmail, nor for hacking phones.
A free press is not carte blanche to commit crimes.
“The headline provoked you to criticize Betos for infidelity, Pricilla, but ignore the blackmail threat?”
I am glad that Bezos is going after NE.
But some have noted the Irony of Bezos being concerned about his own privacy – given the data amazon gathers on the rest of us.
“Should Melania take Trump to the cleaners for sexing with porn stars and nudie playmates?”
That is up to her.
Whatever I might feel about the political unimportance of of Trump’s infidelity, the importance inside Trump’s relationship with Melania is between them.
I do not know of their relationship.
But if she wants to Take Trump to the cleaners – is there someone who would not support that ?
Melania is actually entitled to be outraged by Trump’s behavior.
You and I are not entitled to be outraged for her.
Beautiful.
The details matter, but it appears that NE really did try to extort Bezos.
I am absolutely with him, that he must stand up to that.
Unfortunately this happens alot.
Can someone explain how Mueller’s efforts to roll Flynn, Manafort, Papadoulis, Cohen, Stone, Corsi are different ?
Give me what I want or I will destroy you.
According to the law, offering to NOT go after someone for a crime they actually committed in return for something you want is itself a crime – extortion.
Regardless if Bezos destroy’s NE – more power to him.
OH, No!
Adam Schiff is Colluding !!!!
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/429041-adam-schiff-glenn-simpson-and-their-forrest-gump-like-encounter-in-aspen
RON, thank you for the alert on the jump.
Too many comments to catch up, but I repeat, Tulsi is my favorite Dem, whether she can win against al the loud mouth phonies is another story.
Russia is using her is roil our election process, as usual.
dduck, not sure, but I think that Russia story is fake news.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2019/02/03/nbc-news-to-claim-russia-supports-tulsi-gabbard-relies-on-firm-just-caught-fabricating-russia-data-for-the-democratic-party/
But the problem is few check facts before running off at the mouth. So she probably is dead in the water before even beginning the swim.
Russia is a master at misdirection and at interfering in elections.
Tulsi went to Syria and met with Assad. OK, then let her explain what she was up to. If she is pro-Russian in the same way as Trump (border line treasonous) I will drop her like a hot potato.
There are things Russia is actually good at.
Meddling in democratic elections is NOT one of those.
The effort that Russia put out in the 2016 election was laughable garbage.
It was not only inconsequentially little, it was also poorly done.
I guess you have forgoten the amateurish political adds attributed to Russia.
Unless Putin is littlerally colluding with democratic political operatives.
there is not at this time actual evidence that Russia is aiding Gabbard.
Beyond that – you can demand whatever answers you want from Gabbard,
and she can decide whether she is going to answer.
Just like Trump’s tax returns.
She is not entitled to your vote – you are not entitled to her answers.
That said I am not bothered by her trips to Syria,
Why is it so hard for all of you to get – Russia is NOT using Tulsi.
That is FAKE NEWS.
Do you know what a “false flag” operation is ?
That is what this is.
A democratic consulting group who has done this before created fake evidence that made it appear Tulsi was getting support from Russia.
Please read the story from the intercept that I linked.
The Intercept BTW is a LEFT publication of Glenn Greenwald.
It is also one of the best sources for national security and espionage and hacking stories.
Greenwald is the person who broke the snowden story.
More meds might help.
So take more meds.
Trump Towers North Korea now on the drawing board
Someone better tell Dumbskull Donnie that North Korea is a socialist nation. Has he changed his mind about socialism’s poor economic success?
I agree with Mr. Riley: “Democrats Love Diversity, Except When It Comes to Thought
Their candidates work to extinguish any original ideas they might have held.”
‘What’s really off-putting is a discussion focused on Ms. Harris’s biracial background instead of on her views, but there’s the rub. In 2019, the only things that truly distinguish the Democratic candidates are superficial characteristics. On any number of issues—single-payer health care, guaranteed jobs, free college—Ms. Harris and Mr. Booker dutifully toe the progressive line. The irony is that there was a time not too long ago when they weren’t afraid to express sensible opinions …………
“The Democratic Party today could benefit from some diversity of thought on these matters and others, but as Howard Schultz is learning, their base isn’t in the mood. That means Sens. Booker and Harris will likely spend an inordinate amount of time on the campaign trail apologizing for once making so much sense. ere unpopular among fellow Democrats.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-love-diversity-except-when-it-comes-to-thought-11549411119
“The Law? I don’t follow no stinkin’ law!”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics/white-house-khashoggi-deadline/index.html
Apparently what the GND was referencing is something called UBI: Universal Basic Income.
I attach a link. The contents will cause a few people (maybe everybody here) to shoot their soda out through their nose, so put down any drinks before reading.
I think its utter nonsense. I cannot believe some of the polling they quote that shows support. Ask people if they support it after telling them what it will cost in taxes, ha.
As well, it quotes certain Libertarians as supporting it! Ultra strong weed is everywhere now.
https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-media-attacking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-2019-2
What? Alaska shells out money to every resident yearly? What up with that? 🙃
https://www.businessinsider.com/alaska-universal-basic-income-employment-2018-10
The Scandinavian countries for many years had similar programs, providing money to every citizen, but most recently discontinued the practice. Money for nothing (were the chicks still free?) didn’t do much good, or harm either, apparently.
I could only find a small pilot program that just ended in Finland, 2000 people on unemployment were given about $700 a month. Result of the test program, the people were somewhat happier but no more employed than the control group. Another captain obvious decoder ring to the designers of the pilot program.
Ah, sorry, my mistake – I confused it with the Wealth Tax: “Austria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Finland, Iceland, and Luxembourg have abolished it in recent years.”
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wealth-tax.asp
Jay “What? Alaska shells out money to every resident yearly? What up with that? ”
Why wouldn’t they? What do you want them to do with the extra funds they get from selling oil? Send it to D.C. so they can add a social program to help California or pay for that idiotic bullet train?
Alaska built up a huge fund from oil taxes and royalties for a number of years. This fund also earns income from investments. Funds from these investments are then distributed to each resident since the 80’s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
“What do you want them to do with the extra funds they get from selling oil? Send it to D.C. so they can add a social program to help California or pay for that idiotic bullet train?”
Sending a third of the extra funds to D.C. is not a bad idea. That would be a fair deal as a third of Akaska’s economy is the result of Federal jobs financed there, pumping money into the Alaskan economy. That’s slightly more than oil money contributions to Alaska’s economy. The US Military alone spends about $4,500 per Alaska resident. Therefore why do we Californians (highest contributor to federal funds per SDP (State Domestic Product) add so much more to the National kitty, subsidizing Alaskans who of the 52 US States Are 49th lowest at generating tax dollars back to the Fed Govt.
High speed train service from Burbank to San Francisco in under 4 hours would be great. Way better than the 7 hour car ride on I5N (with multiple rest stops and gas refills), and less hassle than the airport to airport check ins, and inevitable delays and baggage check outs now. Alaska should chip in to build it (alas, I probably won’t be around by the 2032 completion estimate) but I’ll nevertheless enjoy the prospect.
Roby, the author states “Many libertarians, who view government social programs as “paternalistic” and inefficient, support cash transfers to boost social welfare and the economy. ”
Does she provide #’s of libertarians? No!
Does she quote any documentation to support this claim? No!
Does she provide any links the the Lubertarian.party platform? No
Does she state that Libertarians would support this if all other support and wefare programs were eliminated? No!
I think you would find some Libertarians that would say yes, like me, to this if every other social program was eliminated. I would not have any issues with giving someone unable to work money and they had the freedom to spend that in anyway they wanted. But dont come runningto the government when you pissed away the money and now need money for an operation.
But that is not what the Democrats are proposing. They want to keep or expand social programs ( One payer health system) and add UBI. What the Democrats are posting is the seventh step in Alexander Tyler’s eight steps of democracies.
This may well get approved at sometime in the future, but it will be the last stepbas we now know our freedoms.
Well the program they described would cost 4.4 trillion per year. That is 12000 times every person in the US. Ha!
I don’t think any libertarian would go for or many other people once its cost was explained. Its just another stupid pie in the sky dream.
Is that 4.4 trillion for just the no-work-get-paid provision?
Restrict it to citizens over 18 and you can get it down to about 2.5T which is about what the programs it replaces costs.
But you MUST eliminate those saftey net programs to pay for it.
The 2010 cost for the social safetynet is about 2.5T.
Eliminate the safety net, restrict the UBI to adult citizens and reduce the amount to be a neutral change in the current budget, pass constitutional amendments precluding us from ending up with a UBI AND social welfare programs.
Eliminate the Minimum wage – you do not need it wnay more.
Eliminate most labor regulations.
And yes I will buy this.
The program is simple: give 1000/month to every person.
Roby, not that simple. They want to give $1,000 (?) per month along with all the other social programs that are now given.
For a Libertarian to buy in ( you said many.libertarians support this), all social programs need to be eliminated and that cost is then given in check form to everyone. ( Just like Alaska oil dividend).
Never happen!
Won’t 99% of that money immediately flow & circulate back into the economy, like most other Govt aid programs?
Children probably excepted, but who cares its just a thought experiment not a real thing. And never will be.
But of course its a scary idea that just reinforces that there are no limits on stupidity.
Roby, if someone would have said in 1990 that we would have a government health bill that fined people for not being insured, most would have said ” never happen”.
So I wont say the GND will never happen. I only question how many years before it does.
No one ever envisioned a Trump type person becoming president. “Never happen”.
So a Warren Sanders or AOC type politician becoming president “Can Haapen and will sometime”
Ron, its not “the democrats” who want UBI its “some especially loony progressives.” Don’t over generalize, not just because its poor rhetoric but because you will needlessly scare yourself silly. Every stupid idea that someone somewhere on the left can think of is not the work of “democrats” as a group. UBI is like reparations, an idea too ridiculous to have legs. I never heard of it before yesterday. ( I also wrote yesterday to my congresspeople yesterday to vent about the whole GND fiasco.)
In fact the GND and UBI it will have more legs as an argument Against the progs than for them.
Roby “UBI is like reparations, an idea too ridiculous to have legs. I never heard of it before yesterday”
So lets just change that a couple words that may have been said in 2010. “A Trump presidency is like reparations, an idea too ridiculous to have legs. I never heard of it before yesterday” And look what happened in 2016!
Ron,
I have discussed a UBI here before.
The “big” issues with a UBI are:
It must be universal – otherwise the negative impacts are no better, and possibly worse than what we have.
It must replace all other safetynet programs – including SS and Medicare.
It must replace many labor law – family leave, minimum wage, ….
Acheive those and it is the “lessor evil” – it is an improvement on what we have
It is highly unlikely to ever be passed in a workable form – because it takes from poiliciticians control of spending.
There is little power in giving 1,000 a month to every adult citizen.
There is great power in deciding cheese subsidies and milk subsidies.
When you get to pick winners and losers – then you have power.
Social Security recipients would revolt.
Corrected:
“Won’t 99% of that money immediately flow & circulate back into the economy WHERE IT CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE, like most other Govt aid programs?”
Govenrment can not generate economic activity by taking money from the economy and putting it back.
This is a variation on the “broken windows fallacy” – if you break a shop keepers window – the shop keeper must replace his window and that is good for the economy.
But if you did not break the shop keepers window – he still would have done something with that money.
When government takes money from the economy – it breaks a window.
No matter what government subsequently does with that money, we are never as well off as we would had government done nothing.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Roby – I have no idea the specifics of what “some progressives” are proposing.
But a UBI properly implimented is LESS BAD than what we have now.
It is likely impossible – because to work it must REPLACE existing entitlements,
that is the only way it is not too costly.
For myriads of reasons it is likely politically impossible.
You will never get politicians – right or live to let go of their control of the money they steal and give to others. And government ceding control of “safety net” money is the entire point of a UBI.
Further the UBI is paid for by eliminating all other entitlement and social safetynet spending.
Everything government does will have winners and losers.
Those currently on SS would make more from SS/HI than a UBI.
A UBI would also end labor laws, and government insurance subsidies and regulations.
“So lets just change that a couple words that may have been said in 2010. “A Trump presidency is like reparations, an idea too ridiculous to have legs. I never heard of it before yesterday” And look what happened in 2016!”
There’s impossible, as rhetoric, like a democrat getting elected as Senator in Alabama is impossible and then there is impossible, like Really impossible, flying to the sun and strolling around on it tomorrow impossible. UBI is that kind of impossible, there simply isn’t that much money or that level of political suicidalness. And, by the way, removing disbelief on it being enacted, hyper inflation would be the final blow.
UBI is impossible.
There is EIC, which has existed for quite a while and I even remember a GOP senator suggesting making it larger not so long ago. EIC is a pimple compared to UBI.
All these absurd things that somehow poll well in some one-off oddball poll vanish when people start to talk about the actual cost faster than single payer died in Vermont. Living through that experience gives me a lot of belief that nearly all of the prog ideas, other than a $15 min wage in a few of the wealthier states, will be deader than dead once seriously examined.
Single payer was wildly popular in Vermont, the people wanted it by a wide margin, the House and Senate were totally dominated by dems, the governor, Shumlin, had staked his career on it. They passed a bill saying that it would be brought into being in a two year time span, and when push came to shove, the real costs killed it dead. Once the true costs were determined and the taxes calculated on business and individuals to pay for it the dems could not send a bill to the governor and he wouldn’t have signed it anyhow, they all just admitted that it was too expensive. Some bitter progs did the usual left conspiracy shtick that the insurance companies bought off the politicians, but that was bunk. It was simply impossible economically. It was the end of Shumlin too, who I particularly hated (and he hated me.)
EIC is close to a UBI and it is very real.
“So a Warren Sanders or AOC type politician becoming president “Can Haapen and will sometime””
Its a funny argument we are having, kind of reversed, you are sure the dems will win and I highly doubt it if they run a prog. OK, in spite of all past shellackings of McGovern and that ride in the tank governor guy from Mass. lets say that somehow, due to the 55% who say now that they will not vote for trump, somehow a Warren or some other real lefty gets elected. How hard was it for trump to get his wall? How hard will it be for the dems to get their free collage for all etc.? They would be 4 and out and the 2022 mid terms would be 2010 with an overhead cam. And that would truly be the end of the prog left.
We are not an inherently left wing country.
Roby, How hard would it be to get the progressive agenda?
I say about as hard as PPACA was when the left had control of government. And IMO if Shumer gets control of the senate, he will change procedures to a 51 vote majority for everything.
“And IMO if Shumer gets control of the senate, he will change procedures to a 51 vote majority for everything.”
And he will hold that majority until the next senate election. When absolutely everything he accomplished will be rolled back.
The damage of a Warren presdency is not the promises that they will NOT be able to keep.
It is the same as the damage of the Obama presidency – it is what they can do unilaterally.
“free collage for all” Well they might get free collage for all but they never will get free college for all.
Ron, you have this wonderful BS detector that throws out all the fake news and silly assumptions infallibly and you can’t believe people are so gullible as to believe it.
The US government passing Bernie Sanders type wildly left-wing prog wet dreams is Fake News. Its like abortion being made completely illegal or all the guns being taken away. Its a big overreaction to a fantasy scenario. Just reject it like you do all the other fake news.
Maybe its an over reaction, but I remember writing a bit based on “The Producers” and how Trump was running, would get nominated and everyone said I was nuts.
So when I read stuff like this, I see string possibilities.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/4/majority-millennials-want-live-socialist-fascist-o/
Fake news can drive voter choices.
Unless you are willing to take all guns away all other gun legislation is just farcically stupid.
Playing games with magazine sizes and what constitutes an assault weapon will change absolutley nothing.
The 1990’s AWB had absolutely zero effect – except encouraging add on markets and encouraging manufactueres to make guns that were AW’s but did not fall under the law.
You are right we are never going to confiscate everyone’s weapon’s .
If you understand that – then you should understand why almost all gun control laws are just stupid excercises in futility.
“For a Libertarian to buy in ( you said many.libertarians support this), all social programs need to be eliminated and that cost is then given in check form to everyone. ( Just like Alaska oil dividend).”
Didn’t. I said the article claims that certain libertarians support this idea. Which I think is very unlikely. That might mean one or two somewhere.
https://stanfordsphere.com/2018/02/24/the-libertarian-case-for-universal-basic-income/
Looks more than one or two. Not sure how many though. But as the article states “UBI is the welfare programme most suited to libertarian tastes”, I would be very supportive of.one cash.program where individuals under a specific income level received a cash payment and nothing else.
One readon it will never happen. Once a government program is in place, it will never dissppear. Too many programs in place now.
Libertarian support for a UBI – if it replaces everything as a “lessor evil” is actually pretty strong.
Even people like Hayek and Friedman have offered it under different names.
You can find enormous discussion of UBI on libertarian cites like CATO or fee.
The gist is:
It is the lessor evil compared to what we have
BUT politicians are not trustworthy and an UBI will ultimately turn back into something like what we have only worse.
There are a few libertarain purists who oppose a UBI because it violates the NAP.
Which it does. But must modern government does.
But most libertarains are willing to “compromise” – a UBI is an improvement over what we have If and Only If we permanently eliminate what we have.
Most libertarian opposition to a UBI comes from those who do not beleive it will permanetly replace entitlements.
“Roby, How hard would it be to get the progressive agenda?”
Extraordinarily. Go and look at a red/blue map of the US.
I am sorry, I would not have posted that article if I actually thought you would take it to heart. Its just rubbish, nothing that could become law.
I admit that trumps impossible election has raised the chances of another impossible election of a Bernie Sanders type for two reasons: one, now we no longer believe in the boundaries of the previous political era. Two, the visceral counter reaction to trump may make a previously unelectable democrat electable. But that depends on so many things that are unknown as of this minute.
Oh yea of little faith. I believe that by election day the prog economic agenda will have been thoroughly exposed as nonsense to nearly everyone. Quite likely during primary time, which is what I hope for.
Roby;
It is near impossible that the US will turn socialist tomorow.
But we have spent 70 years moving towards incremental socialism.
I beleive we are in a period of retrenchment where we understand we have gone too far and that we risk destroying the nation if we go farther.
But that recognition is NOT stable or inherently permanent.
PPACA was another step towards socialsim. As was Medicare D.
Much of Sanders agenda is not coming tomorow.
But you do not need to factor the impossible election of Trump to realize that socialism has and continues to creep into the US.
That merely makes failure take longer. It does not make it any less likely.
Incremental socialism is still socialism and it still does not work.
“Won’t 99% of that money immediately flow & circulate back into the economy, like most other Govt aid programs?”
Jay, since we are talking about a good part of 4.4 TRILLION dollars suddenly thrown into the economy I say that the result would be hyper inflation and chaos.
Government does not throw money into the economy that it does nto take out first.
There are 3 ways for govenrment to acquire the money it spends.
Print it.
Borrow it.
Raise it from taxes.
Aside from time preference issues they are all the same.
This is also one of the reasons that Republican tax cuts are less effective than they hope (Always) though more effective than democrats claim.
Because tax cuts without spending cuts are much less stimulative.
Without spending cuts – a tax cut is just a defered tax.
Inflation BTW is just a different form of taxation.
If a political party was a single intelligence instead of a chaotic unpredictable war between millions of intelligences (using the word kindly) then the parties would avoid choosing candidates and policies that would give them temporary victories followed by certain backlash that works out to their opponents favor.
In spite of all experience to the contrary I think that many in the parties believe their opponents are weaker than they are and will not be able to regroup. Partisans believe they will score a knockout. That is delusional.
We are for all practical purposes at a balance between the parties seen over time even though the parties are both becoming more extreme.
I understand the fear of creeping socialism, its not irrational. But the word socialism is extremely ill defined. It means many different things to different people. Is the post office socialism? Some say it is, to defend socialism.
What the Bernie movement of democratic socialists is modeled on is a scandinavian nanny state or as economists call it in a technical way, a welfare state. It is debatable whether it is actually socialism. Government at all is socialism if you come down to it. I find that the word is so losing its meaning that its becoming a nonsense argument.
I fucking well do not want Venezuala’s system that is unquestionably socialism with an overhead cam, I definitely do not want the Scandinavian welfare state , but I am fine with the post office and the Canadians do not seem to me to be real socialists in spite of their medical system. I do not believe that Canada is headed to ruin over it.
I will get a hot argument whose form I know by heart from Dave but it will not change my opinion that socialism is an ill defined idea.
Roby, there are things the government needs to be involved with, such as the post office. Pure Libertarians might say no, but there is no company that is going to deliver mail to the rural parts of this country and lose money. They would jump at deliveries in NYC because volume creates profit, but would have no way to get a letter to “Bodunk Texas” in rural western Texas where few items are delivered each week.
However, the “socialist” leanings of unions has created the losses in the P.O. with their excessive benefits that caused expenses in the future and the future is now.The P.O. can operate at a profit had benefits jot been excessive.
As for health care, I have said mny times. You can not control costs of health care unless all entities are part of the system. Hospitals, Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacist, Drug Stores all the way to the maintenance worker mowing the lawns at the hospitals have to be part of the health system so evefyones interest is aligned for lower costs.
You cant control cost when suppliers raise cost, nurses demand.more wage increases, doctors demand more reimbursement, hospitals have to raise rates due to salary and supply increases and drug companies continue to raise drug costs to increase profit margins.
Why does the government need to be involved in the post office ?
Please!!! Shoving the post office out of the federal government is pretty much the easiest no brainer there is.
Then get rid of Amtrak. get rid of government airtraffic control, privatize the TSA
All of these are no brainers.
We have examples elsewhere in the world where there tasks are handled privately and well.
We KNOW these do not need to be government functions.
If we are going to debate this – lets atleast have the debate over things like roads and sewers where the evidence is harder to come by.
The rural mail argument is total horsehit. Fedex and UPS deliver anywhere in the country.
FDR made the same stupid argument about electrification
The rate of Rural electrification SLOWED DOWN DRAMATICALLY when govenrment took over. Even early in FDR’s tenure PRIVATE electric companies were expanding into distant rural areas FASTER than the government.
Because they were embarrasing govenrment TVA bought the private electric companies in a shutgun marraige – sell or be destroyed.
We had the same discussion with phones.
We also had it with cell phones.
It is a bogus argument.
You are right no company is going to lose money delivering to rural areas.
They are going to find a way to MAKE MONEY.
That is ALWAYS what happens. And they ALWAYS do so by delivering better service cheaper than government.
So Dave, if companies can make money delivering to “Bodunk Texas” somewhere out toward the New Mexico border, why hasnt Fed Ex or UPS begun that service? They dont deliver unless they have a specific package and many of their rural deliveries go to USPS post offices and are carried to the homes that way. Many of our packages here have UPS labels to the local post office and our mail carrier delivers.
Are you really going to tell me companies can make money driving hundreds of miles delivering mail to home miles apart on a regular delivery schedule?
Yes privatise air traffic control, Amtrak and TSA. And maybe eliminate the postal service and force all communications over the internet.
“So Dave, if companies can make money delivering to “Bodunk Texas” somewhere out toward the New Mexico border, why hasnt Fed Ex or UPS begun that service?”
I like easy questions.
In the 19th century Lysander Spooner got some investors together and created a private mail service – he would deliver anywhere – faster than the postal service and for 3/5 the cost.
He was actually able to do this. The government sued him. And lost. I beleive this went all the way to the supreme court.
So congress changed the law. It is illegal to provide service that competes with the post office. That is why you do not see it.
FedEx and UPS provide completely different service – or different enough to avoid running afoul of the law. If you want to see if Fedex and UPS can compete with the post office – change the law.
But you are not going to see that happen.
Why ? because if the post office failed large numbers of employees would be out of jobs, and large numbers of pensions would be destroyed or diminished.
At this point in time the Post Office is primarily a jobs program.
“Are you really going to tell me companies can make money driving hundreds of miles delivering mail to home miles apart on a regular delivery schedule?”
Yes,
Cell companies do it today – not just in the US, but in third world countries.
As noted before – 95% of the electrification of the US was done in 3 decades privately.
The last 5% took another 7 decades and was done after the public utilities forced private electric companies to close or bought them out.
Many of the rail lines in the US had no subsidies at all.
Most benefited from land grants that pretty much conform to the constitution.
The federal government sold the right of ways to the railroads at the same cheap prices they were required to sell to everyone.
Cable TV has gotten to most of the country.
Even Telephone long ago got everywhere. We can fight over the importance of government subsidies.
The next thing I would say is why do you presume things have to be as they are ?
The USPS got extremely hit by email. Business letters are very rare any more and declining.
Increasingly the mail is about package delivery. And package delivery is RARELY about getting from A-B. It is about getting something from wherever it is – which is often NOT where the sender is, to where the recipient is.
Amazon has warehouses all over the country – because they transport what you are buying by TRUCK to as close to you as possible and then deliver the last mile by USPS or UPS or FEDEX.
People joke about Bezos and Drones – but Amazon spends 8B/year on package delivery.
That is alot of money to invest in drones.
And even if we do not get drones – autonomous vehicles are just done the pike.
We like to think of automated ubers taking us where we want to go.
But why not redesign the autonomous vehicle to deliver packages ?
And that is just my ideas. Legalize competition woith the USPS and things I have not thought of will be tried.
No Ron.
You can NOT control the cost of healthcare.
You can NOT control the cost of ANYTHING.
There is no example anywhere at any time in history of government successfully controlling the cost of anything.
The only method that has ever sustainably worked at delivering higher value at lower cost – ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYTHING, is free markets.
That we are even arguing it proves the extent to which most of us have been brainwashed.
And how poor our education is.
Those people who tell others that what we KNOW does not work – somehow will – are immoral.
Ok UK cost as % of GDP is about 8%. USA its about 18%
So the UK controlling doctors salaries, nurse salaries and all other medical provider salaries that make up almost 65% of our healthcare cost right at 50% of our level has no impact on cost?
You show me any service where 65% of the cost is 50% less for one comoany and I will show you services which cost far less.
Ron,
it is an open secret that the public cost of UK NHS is bogus.
No one knows for sure but it is likely twice the cost that is made public.
The UK goes to a great deal of trouble to hide the actual cost of the NHS.
Further US cost increases since 1965 are driven somewhere between 1/3 and 100% by medicare.
We should NEVER be trying to sell US healthcare as “free market” it is not.
The Swiss have a completely private healthcare and heatlh insurance system.
But they MANDATE insurance, Further they require that all patients must pay 1/3 of the cost of their healthcare – that is the minimum necescary to get patients to care about costs.
Needless to say – their healthcare is cheaper than ours.
In the US health services that are not covered by insurance are declining in cost.
I heard an AD on the radio for Lasik at $250/eye.
That is the cost of two pairs of glasses for me.
Plastic surgery has declined in price.
You can go to thailand and buy MTF sex change for about $8000. I think is is a bit less than twice that in Brazil – and those locations have become the best and safest in the world – and this is for profit.
My wife had a bad break to a finger several years ago – the cost was 22K – that was for one night, surgery that was much easier than an MTF sex change.
India has a booming medical tourism business with the UK – you want medical care, they provide better than NHS and on demand not 18 months in the future.
But you have to pay – for most procedures the travel is the highest cost.
One of the reasons that free markets work is because YOU CANT CONTROL THEM.
All the players you claim need to be on board – have a voice in the free market – but they DO NOT have control. Each participant can “be the asshole” and try to game the system – but inevitably the market will eventually work arround them.
When employers do not treat employees well enough – they get unions, When unions become to “socialist” – the businesses that they control fail and others supplant them.
One of the reasons that free markets work is because all those groups that you claim need a voice – ultimately have a fairly small voice. In the end only one voice really matters.
That of the consumer. Free Markets work because every where at every stage the parties to any negotiation can walk away. While that may come at a cost – No one has an actual monopoly over anything.
One of the many reasons that you DO NOT want government in the free market is no matter who government favors that group ends up with near unlimited power.
Markets never allow that permanently.
As I have noted over and over – absent government support there has never been a sustained monopoly or cartel.
Monopoly power requires government.
‘Socialist’ Canada ranked at 10th in the world for GDP
(Amazing as it’s ranked at 38 for national population)
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php
Canada is not Socialist. It is ranked the 8th freest country in the world by the Heritage that is 4 positions above the US. While Fraser institute has Canada at 11 and the US at 17.
There are some very socialist things in Canada – and in the US.
But a few mistakes like Canadian Healthcare do not dwarf everything else.
By standard of living the US ranks 11th in the world, with Canada at 22nd.
There is no country with a population of more than 10M that has a higher standard of living than the US. The first country with a population higher than 10M other than the US ranked by standard of living is Germany – with a 20% lower standard of living ranked in 17th place.
Some of those Nordic Social democracies have higher standards of living – they also have near zero diversity, incredibly homogenity, tiny populations, and high economic freedom.
Some of your assertions regarding parties are interesting.
You are loosely correct that it is unlikely that one party will dwarf the other for long.
Should a party lose power and be unable to regain it without change – the party will change.
On numerous issues democrats and republicans have shifted or flipped over many decades or even 200 years. Each party is going to attempt to craft its values to appeal to enough people to get elected and hold power – while not so many as to have to water down values .
This dance will go on forever.
2016 SHOULD have been a message to democrats to change their values.
Unfortunately that is not the message they got and we are all suffereing for it.
Separately the differences between parties are a reflection of our underlying differences societally.
You keep pushing for this tremendous homogenity – we are diverse – get over it.
That is MOSTLY a very good thing. But it reduces the scope of our common ground.
A major part of why I think you are a leftist, not a moderate is that you are still seeking to acheive unity – by force if necescary.
Again the chaos of individualism seems to terrify you.
The parties are so “extreme” because of the differences between people.
The more recent conflict is practically predictable – you might want to read “The road to serfdom”.
Government F’d up – creating the “great recession”.
I am going to skip which party is to blame, it is not particularly important, though I would note that regardless of WHO was to blame, the cause was government medling in the economy – whether you blame the efforts of government to drive up home ownership or the the poor monetary policies of the FED.
When things go to hell and we get scared we look for scapegoats and strong leaders promising answers.
The germans did much the same thing with Hitler.
In this instance we got Obama and socialism-lite.
Strong leaders are rarely the best solution to whatever our problems are.
Strong leadership – is exactly what you are arguing for – moving to a single intelligence rather than cacaophony. But strong leadership is dangerous – absent facing an ACTUAL existential threat strong leadership takes charge and persues a single vision.
Sounds good – sounds like exactly what you want. The problem is that we are NOT that unified, and the type of unity you seek is NOT a good thing. In fact it makes us more fragile.
Regardless, Obama’s successes as well as his failures GUARANTEED there would be a backlash. Though I would go farther than just Obama – because many of the causes of the current friction are not inherently with Obama, but inherently with the left.
Regardless, I have been making these points over and over – and you keep ignoring.
We are NOT as homogenous as you wish, trying to accomplish that by FORCE will ALWAYS result in a backclash.
Obama failed – because the resulting recovery was weak – and we want more.
Obama failed – because he and the left overstepped.
The left has actually won the culture wars.
But they went beyond equality of rights, and are striving for the impossible – actual equality.
The Phillips/Master Cake fight is the current conflict in a bottle.
The left won gay rights – except at the very fringes the right has accepted this.
But there is a difference between acceptance and embracing.
The left went beyond forcing equal rights to attempting to force “right think”.
Phillips must be compelled not merely to provide gays with equal rights but to think in the proper way about homosexuality. He must subordinate even his religion to “right think”
This is pretty much a guaranteed recipe for backlash.
I would further note – backlash is the consequence of OVERREACH – the cause of the current conflict rests with THE LEFT. The overreach is on the part of the left.
Backlash is NOT extremism in the normal sense. It is a reaction to EXTREMISM.
Trump is not extreme. As republicans go – he is to the left of the center of the GOP on most issues.
There are particular things about Canada that I would criticise.
Probably the ones you would praise.
But overall comparisons to Canada are POOR.
Each country is overall extremely free, and each country has government that is oppresive in some areas.
Further your argument seems to be “if I only socialize one or a few things, it is not socialsim, or maybe it will work”.
So lets address that.
In the US social security and medicare – they are SOCIALIST, and they are a failure.
Not a catastrophic collosall failure that will destroy the country – though that is still possible.
But one that makes all of us poorer than we would be otherwise.
Beyond medicare the US healthcare system BEFORE PPACA was a quasi-socialist MESS.
PPACA made it slightly worse.
Canada’s healthcare in many ways (not all) is LESS of a mess than the US – even before PPACA.
But it is still a mess. It is also still socialist.
Yes, the Canadians “mostly” like it – national pride is a major factor – the Brits “like” the NHS, but few objective observers would try to sell NHS to anyone today.
One of the problems with this “socialism lite” garbage is that it is a mess, it does fail – but not catastrophically. It makes us poorer than we would be otherwise, it does not impoverish us.
Venezeualla is NOT an example of the fact that there is something distinct that is socialism as compared to the socialist programs of the US and Canada, it is example of the fact that ALL socialist programs fail and much us poorer, and when a nation – such as venezeula adopts ALOT of those in a short period of time – ineveitably they fail collosally.
Each “socialist” program you buy into, brings us more failure and makes us slightly poorer.
We likely have a significant distance before the scale of the failure is large enough to actually destroy the nation.
But is that the ideal you aspire to ?
Lets just assume that MFA were not nearly as bad as it likely is.
Lets assume it could be accomplished for say $4T/decade MORE than the healthcare we have now.
That would not be the end of the world. It probably would not bankrupt the country.
But we would be $4T poorer. Maybe we would have better health care – I doubt that.
More likely what we would have is exactly what you want – less chaos – more “right think”.
Healthcare would be very nearly the same for all of us. Regardless of our individual needs.
We also would lose alot of personal control of our own healthcare decisions – alot of that has already happened – but we would inevitably lose more.
Because that is what your “single intelligence” means – one or a few deciding what is best for all.
And THAT is what socialism is.
And the reason it does not work – is dispite your abhorence of chaos, we actually PERFORM better when we are more free – when one intelligence does NOT drive us.
“Trump’s Inaugural Grift Reportedly Lined His Own Pockets”
“Monday night, ABC News reported that investigators subpoenaed documents from the inauguration committee. Today ProPublica adds another key detail, confirming that the inauguration did pay the exorbitant $175,000 fee to the Trump Hotel. And it quotes tax law experts describing this as an obvious crime. “It could be a tax law violation,” Brett Kappel, an attorney at Akerman LLP who advises nonprofits, tells ProPublica.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/trumps-inaugural-crimes-hotel-investigation.html
The fee may not be exorbitant, dduck- it costs around $200,000 to rent Madison Gardens for a night – but the money going to a Trump business-for-profit transaction may violate campaign finance laws.
I would further note that Trump pledged – and he has kept that pledge so far, that all PROFITS from his businesses from business with government or lobbyists or foreign dignitaries, would be sent to the IRS as a voluntary tax contribution.
When you whigged out that Trump was charging exhorbitant fees to the Secret Service for their accomadations at his facilities – you missed the fact that if Trump was profiting on those fees, he was returning the profits to government.
Talk about “captain obvious”.
The inaugural is privately funded.
Absent some evidence of litteral bribery of pay for play there is nothing there that is Mueller’s business.
The attorney cited should be disbarred.
The inaugural committee is a corporation, – probably a non-profit.
The Trump hotel is a corporation.
There are absolutely ZERO taxes on exchanged between corporations.
You can not evade taxes that do not exist.
To be “tax evasion” The transaction would have to be secret and unreported.
There is no sane reason to not report. Failure to do so is a crime.
Further even if it benefits one party it must harm another so there is no reason to agree to it.
Obama’s 2009 inaugural cost 170M – the amount you are talking about is a drop in the bucket.
Regardless it is NOT public money – so it is NOT your business.
The amount a buyer payers in a free transaction is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
“Experts told WNYC/ProPublica that the rate raised questions of whether the inauguration committee was involved in self-dealing with the Trump Organization.
“It could be a tax law violation,” Brett Kappel, an Akerman LLP attorney specializing in nonprofits, told WNYC/ProPublica. “Those emails would be of great interest to the Internal Revenue Service if they were to conduct an audit. They probably will be of great interest to the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, which is investigating the inaugural committee…
“Every legitimate nonprofit is very concerned with this,” Doug White, a tax adviser to nonprofits, told WNYC/ProPublica. “You’re benefiting a private person, and you’re using the nonprofit to do it.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/429183-trump-inaugural-committee-spent-175k-per-day-for-event-space-at-trump.
(BTW – ANYTHING a presidential candidate does in regard to campaigning is EVERYBODY’S business. Who the hell do you think you are – the Dicktator’s Censor?)
When have I ever cared what the purported talking heads and experts you cite say.
If you think this is illegal – CITE THE LAW.
I presented you with why it is not (and can not be)
Because you have a fundimental misunderstanding of economics, law and business.
I beleive in the past you claimed to have run an SMB for some time.
Then you should know that one business paying another for goods or services – even overpaying can not inhernelty create tax liability or a violation of tax laws.
Evading taxes can not be accomplished by re-arranging money.
To evade taxes you must lie about income or expenses.
You can buy and sell inflated value services to your hearts content and NEVER violate tax laws.
Any lawyer claiming otherwise has proven themselves an idiot.
“When have I ever cared what the purported talking heads and experts you cite say.”
When have I ever cared when a talking anus like you has opinions different than talking head experts?
The tax laws that may be in violation are campaign related to non-profit organizations, not straight forward business dealing as you mistakenly assert. Ask your wife, she’ll explain the difference to you.
I do not ask you to care WHO says something.
I do not ask you to care whether you think they are a “talking anus”.
All I ask is that you do not use force to impose your will on others.
Especially when you have no regard for the actual facts.
As for myself. I place some weight in who says something – when that source has a track record of accuracy. But primarily I am concerned about the facts, the truth, not who says it.
As I have said before – the truth is still True is Hitler says it.
“The tax laws that may be in violation are campaign related to non-profit organizations, not straight forward business dealing as you mistakenly assert. ”
That is FALSE. There are no special laws regarding who a non-profit can freely exchange with. There are no special laws regarding who a political campaign can freely exchange with.
Separately the Inaugural committes are NOT covered by Campaign finance law.
The inauguration come AFTER the election, it is NOT part of the campaign.
If you or your idiot talking heads wish to CITE actual laws – narrowly read,
not any of this stupid garbage where buying a candidate toothpaste is a campaign finance law violation.
Put simply you are FLAT OUT TOTALLY WRONG – as is any idiot who offers nothing but a title and an oppinion that says the same.
There are instance where we have very stupid laws. And we have lots of stupid campaign finance laws. But thus far not half as stupid as the argument you are making.
But I am going to go one step farther.
The transactions we are talking about ARE ABSOLUTELY AS SIMPLE as I make them.
In fact the PRINCIPLES I refer to – are ABSOLUTE – in rare occasions the law deviates from those principles – where it does THE LAW IS WRONG.
When I say you can not evade taxes by buying and selling something – even at an inflated price. That is a FACT. Evading Taxes requires note reporting income that you actually have, or claiming expenses that you do not.
Now we can pass laws that say Eating Bananas on Sunday is “tax evasion”, and if you eat a banana on sunday and get caught you will go to jail for violating a stupid law with “tax evasion” in its name. But you will not have “evaded taxes”.
But for the most part as stupid as I think many of our laws are – none are so stupid as you and the idiot talking heads you are citing claim.
Lets try another question to see if maybe I can get through to you.
If some private activity has no effect on the total taxes that the government collects, the only effect it has is on who owes the taxes, would you actually support a law that barred that activity and call it tax evasion ?
Should we call consensual intimacy rape and make it a crime ?
Now with respect to the specific instance you are fixated on.
The innaugural committee is a non-profit.
It is not going to pay taxes no matter what.
But if the Inuagural committee buys services from someone else, that person MIGHT profit and if they do owe taxes.
So when the inaugural committee spends money – even overpaying, the result is NOT tax evasion, but HIGHER collections by the IRS.
I also want to address “campaign finance laws”.
You may not like this – but they are FAR narrower than you think.
One of the reasons they are narrower is because the most of them ONLY apply to the presidential campaign, and ONLY to the campaigns of candidates that accept federal matching funds.
This is that way because otherwise the laws would be unconstitutional.
Many of our federal laws skirt constitutional problems by giving, individuals, businesses, colleges, states something and THEN subjecting them to the laws.
There was a debate several years ago – Harvard’s endowment is so large and its interest on that endowment is greater than its cost to educate students each year.
Harvard was in a fight to prevent ROTC from operating on campus.
I beleive they lost that suit.
But one argument that came up was that Harvard could quit taking federal funding, and if it did so exempt itself from all federal education laws. Including the requirement to accept ROTC.
And this may arrise again as Harvard is currently being sued for descriminating in applications against Asians and thus far the case is going badly for Harvard.
Harvard can exempt itself from all federal education discrimination laws by simply refusing federal funds. It can then conduct admissions however it wants. It can convert itself to a school for only black lesbians. It can bar republicans.
My point is a substantial portion of what you think of as federal law is unconstitutional as general law, and only exists in the narrow circumstances where the government gives you money in return for agreeing to follow some law.
Most of those laws are NOT criminal – because the constraints imposed on you are essentially contractual constraints, it is very rare that we criminialize contract breaches.
This is also why there are very few criminal charges ever filed with regard to campaign finance laws. It is not that we normally do not treat those as crimes. It is that it is likely unconstitutional to treat those as crimes.
There is one class of laws that might actually apply here – and it is NOT campaign finance laws and it is not tax laws.
Those are the laws for fiduciaries prohibiting self dealing.
To violate those laws, you must be a fiduciary – you must have power over money that is not your own. That generally applies to the officers in a non-profit, it sometimes applies to upper managers in a for profit. It does not apply to people who own their own business. It does not apply to people who are not officers – because if you are a middle manager with spending authority and you engage in “self dealing” it is just simple fraud.
Self Dealing – like tax evasion pretty much requires that you are hiding what you are doing from the party you are harming – the government or in the case of a non-profit, donors, in a corporation is requires hiding it from shareholders and board members.
So if you do not have hiding there is no crime.
In the specific instance of the Trump inaugural committee – the actual allegation as I understand it is that the chairmen of the inaugural committee was trying to curry favor with Trump by funneling business to Trump enterprises.
It might be possible to make a case there but it will not be a tax evasion or campaign finance case.
Further, unless there was an actual quid pro quo – which is highly unlikely, you still have not touched Trump at all.
If you actually find a quid pro quo – i.e PRESIDENT Trump providing special treatment by the federal government in return for the inaugural committee chair sending business to Trump enterprises, then the charge against Trump would be a public corruption charge – bribery not tax evasion or campaign finance law violations.
Finally you are making me seriously doubt your claims to have had anything to do with business in the past.
If you did – you would know most of this.
An enormous amount of conduct that is illegal (though nearly impossible to convict) with respect to the relationship between a private business and the government, is perfectly legal between private parties – including non-profits.
I have repeatedly cited the 3 principles underpinning our Criminal Civil and Torts laws:
You may not initiate force against others – Criminal law.
You must honor your agreements – Civil Law,
You must make whole those you actually harm – Torts law.
These principles are extremely important – law is the use of force.
The first principle – the foundation of criminal law is you may not initiate force against others.
When you pass a law that allows government to use force against another, If there is no actual harm – then it is government that is acting criminally.
We are permitted to shoot people who are about to kill us.
We are not permitted to shoot people who are not doing us any harm.
Not even law enforcement can shoot someone who is not an immediate threat.
Our laws are (mostly, and only legitimately) premised on punishing actual harm.
Next time before you start ranting about oh my Trump has been caught comitting a crime,
Try looking at you facts and see if there is an actual harm to someone.
And actual harm is not “I do not like that”
In the thing we are currently dealing with,
ask yourself does the IRS end up collecting less taxes ? Unless you are completely clueless, you would grasp the IRS ends up collecting MORE taxes – infact the more inflated the price is the higher the profit the more taxes the IRS collects.
Are those donating to the Inaugural committee actually harmed ?
If you can not find either of those – you do not have a crime.
“Every legitimate nonprofit is very concerned with this,” Doug White, a tax adviser to nonprofits, told WNYC/ProPublica. “You’re benefiting a private person, and you’re using the nonprofit to do it.”
Mr. White needs a lesson in logic.
If a non profit hires a taxi – a private person profits.
If a non profit buys a pencil – a private person profits.
Further we would not want it otherwise.
How many times do I have to quote Smith.
we WANT people to profit by providing others what they want and need.
It is not a defect. it is the engine of progress.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Adam Smith
Once again you substitute “feelings” for facts, logic, reason.
Because you do not like something – it must be wrong.
You do not like the fact that other people profit.
Adding the world profit to a discussion does not create a crime.
Watch out El Paso, Trump will be leading an “invasion” of more lying liars into your formerly crime ridden town. I don’t know if Kirsten will be there, she may have been replaced by skinhead Whitaker by now. Matt presents a much needed tough look for HLS than little
Kirsten. (“Who the hell picked her, anyway?” I’m imagining Trump bellowing.)
Beto & Baby Blimp will Be There!
“EL PASO — If American politics has turned into a three-ring circus, this city in west Texas will hoist the Big Top on Monday, with President Donald Trump coming to rally for a border wall, Democratic wunderkind Beto O’Rourke leading a protest march and even the Trump Baby blimp putting in an appearance.“
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/09/trump-beto-face-off-el-paso-dueling-rallies-near-border/2822324002/
I’m watching Black Panther on Netflix.
Typical Marvel action-special effect film, but with mostly black cast.
The good blacks are African.
The evil villain is a Black American from ghetto Chicago, and talks like it.
If it wins the Oscar for best film, will American blacks praise or condemn Hollywood?
Same question for left & right.
Moderates of course will see both sides of the issue…
Or maybe we can just look at the film as a film rather than as all about race ?
I have zero problems with films that feature black casts, or that make blacks the heros.
You can substitute homosexuals or transvestites or hispancis or asians.
We all need role models we can identify with – that is a good thing.
But in the end to the broader culture – it is just a film.
I am not sure I though Black Panther was an Oscar winner – but it was a good film.
But it is all about race. Hence the film title.
It’s the racial (African) perspective on which the film is based.
That’s not a criticism; just a statement of observation.
I too liked the film; reminded me of Raiders Of The Lost Arc in its visual epic scope and action – and movie financial success (both films dominated box office revenues).
Did you watch the credits at the end of Black Panther? It took about 5 minutes to scroll through: and included at least 1,000 names. That’s $200 million in jobs created (the film cost) by Hollywood. It’s already earned about $1.5 Billion in box office sales world wide. Maybe one of the movie producers should run for Prez.
When a black person sees Black Panther – they see a world in which Black people get to be the good guys, the super heros, ….
That is a good thing,
Probably my big problem was the nonsense about vibraniaum.
That undermined the foundations. Wakanda is successful because of a deus et machina lucky meteor strike.
Creating a role model that ultimately rests on luck undermines the message.
When I see the movie – mostly I just see a good action superhero movie.
Yes,, lots of people were involved.
BTW the Kevin Costner megaflop WaterWorld cost $400M – and that was in the 90’s.
“Probably my big problem was the nonsense about vibraniaum.
That undermined the foundations. Wakanda is successful because of a deus et machina lucky meteor strike.”
As usual, you cocked up the significience of vibraniaum in the world of Marvel inventive story telling.
What’s nonsensical about a rare metallic substance of extraterrestrial origin in a fictional universe?
Is extraterrestrial Superman with all his powers more nonsensical because he was rocketed to Smallville?
As usual you entirely miss my point.
There is nothing wrong with Vibranium as a plot device.
We are in the world of science fiction.
The problem is thematic.
A random asteroid strike makes Wakanda the secret wealthiest and most advanced nation in the world.
If you are looking to create a role model for minorities – particulartly blacks the theme is WEAKER when it is founded on random chance.
Take the same story and instead of Vibranium being the result of an asteroid strike, have some the wakandanites have figured out a scientific technique to create a super material from ordinary existing resources – and now their success rests on their own ingenuity not random chance.
And yes I am aware that in comic book universes random chance is king.
I am not talking about what makes a good story.
I am talking about what makes the heros of a story into good role models.
African Americans in the US have people like George Washington Carver as evidence that they can do whatever they want, that they are not intellectually inferior.
There is no deaux et machina in the Carver story.
Of course superman is nonsense. Are you really asking ?
My point is – is The Black Panther just another comic book superhero story.
If so – it is not Oscar material. It still may be a fun story.
Or is it actually inspirational – I think it tries to be, but the Vibrainium plot line undermines that.
Superman is less inspirational – because he is NOT an ordinary person, he was miraculously endowed with superpowers.
That may make good fantasy, but it is not much of an inspiration or role model.
An oldie but still applicable today
Love the liberal press reporting of “Anger at Trump over dip in average tax refunds” (MSNBC and Yahoo)
So the uniformed people that took home more net income each check due to a reduction in their withholding and are now getting less back are pissed off at Trump? Is there no one smart enough to divide their tax bill on their return by the taxable income to see that the percentage they are paying this year compared to last year is most likely less?
One person commented on Twitter “we did not change anything on our W-4 and now we are getting less back”. DUH! You got more each check dumb dumb! If you wanted to continue to get $4000 back instead of whatever, then you should have changed your withholdings to have more taken out.
Lord have mercy, I can’t handle the level of stupidity that is overtaking this country!
P.S. My daughter reminded me that my generation might have been just as stupid. We just did not have social media available to communicate that fact to the whole world as we have today!
Social media does not merely expose stupidity, it encourages and multiplies it. Idiocracy is nearly here.
Rock & Roll does not merely expose stupidity, it encourages and multiplies it. Idiocracy is nearly here.
Tellevision does not merely expose stupidity, it encourages and multiplies it. Idiocracy is nearly here.
Video Games does not merely expose stupidity, it encourages and multiplies it. Idiocracy is nearly here.
True Dave, I actually agree with you on two out of three, except for the bit about rock and roll. Heavy Metal yes, Rap, yes. But not Chuck Berry and Sam Cooke and Elvis.
Here’s the problem with the Trump tax cuts, they haven’t done anything to noticeably fatten middle class paychecks. Trump promised stuffed wallets for working class America, but slightly higher take home pay makes virtually no impression on weekly or monthly bank deposits. 8% skimpier yearly tax refunds however ring warning alarms of unkept campaign promises. SHOW US THE MONEY will be a Dem election chant.
Jay, stop making excuses for the stupidity of people and especially those that advertise that on social media.
It is your responsibility to make sure that tax withheld from your checks meets your needs. If you want to get a $5,000 refund, then YOU need to make sure YOUR W-4 has the proper status, dependents AND additional dollars withheld to make that savings account (?) happen.
It is the respinsibility of the government to make sure the tax withheld from income equals the tax liability at year end. And that is based on one income generating the income per return. That means one person generating $50k per year is not the same when doubled as a return for one person earning $100k. Those with two incomes need to calculate what that means at the end of the year.
But we excuse stupidity by blaming others when negative outcome occur.
Do you beleive that more than a tiny portion of people who use their witholding as a christmas club AND do not do so deliberately vote republican ?
If you get a 4000 tax refund at the end of the year – you have probably never voted republican.
If you get a large refund by default rather than by planning – you near certainly never voted republican.
I do not think Trump or the GOP thought that the Tax cut would work out well for people like AOC.
So clarify your comments about tax refunds and voting republican.
I commented that it was the employees responsibility to insure they have the correct amount withheld to meet their needs and those complaining were displaying their own stupidity when they dont know their actual taxes went down.
You commented these people do jot normally vote republcan.
So its just democrats that are stupid?
“Here’s the problem with the Trump tax cuts, they haven’t done anything to noticeably fatten middle class paychecks.”
BZZT Wrong.
Growth is up almost a full percent. That means every man woman and child in the country is better than they would have been.
Further the evidence is that the benefits accrued primarily to working class families.
I did not listen to the SOTU, but it is my understanding that Trump spent a fair amount of time rattling statistics about the improvement in life for those in the bottom half.
Things such as 600K factory jobs.
“Consumer confidence plunges to lowest level since Trump’s election”https://thehill.com/policy/finance/426015-consumer-confidence-plunges-to-lowest-level-since-trumps-election
dduck, another way of looking at the same numbers.
https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm
End of paragraph three. “Thus, it appears that this month’s decline is more the result of a temporary shock than a precursor to a significant slowdown in the coming months.”
The COnference-Board.org, begun in the early 1900’s is a 501-C-3 organization made up of many different industry leaders as well as staff. Their survey is conducted contacting 5000 households each month. The numbers are the same as used by the Hill. Only the assumptions made as to their meaning are very different.
Guess its another right/left thing. But I am not sure the Conference Board actually has a political tilt in their evaluations.
It is 92, It was 87 when Trump was elected.
It was only above 90 for 3 months in the entire obama administration – at the begining of 2015 before plunging.
It has not been below 90 anytime since Trump was elected.
It has been close to 100 most of the time.
Here, a news story that actually makes me sympathize with AOC. I want the economically absurd ideas of AOC (and progs in general) attacked relentlessly but not disgusting sleazy personal attacks. That will backfire big time and make her a hero.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/429251-ocasio-cortez-tears-into-intellectually-bankrupt-gop-over-targeted-rumors
I have come to the conclusion that AOC is not the trump of the left. She is the Ted Cruz of the left. Cruz as an incoming freshman left GOP Senators who had been there much longer in the dust and upset all sorts of apple carts. He was a general arrogant spotlight-hogging ideologically-driven pain in everyone’s ass, including the more experienced GOP senators and the government as a whole. The press was immediately obsessed with him, their new bright shiny object of the time.
I will bet that AOC has a shorter and lower impact career and does more harm to her own party than Cruz. Cruz at least represented a large state. AOC represents a few square miles.
She is also sort of the Michele Bachmann of the left, but Bachman had much less visibility.
The Right depends more on her continuing presence than the Left.
The Right is thrilled with her Jay…she validates everything that they say about the Left. And AOC even blamed the ridicule she got for the GND on
the Right (the vast right wing conspiracy, I suppose), as opposed to taking responsibility for rolling out a not-ready-for-prime-time document. Nancy Pelosi must want to strangle her.
Roby, I thought of Dave Barry when I read the GND line about not being able to get rid of farting cows and airplanes that quickly. “Farting Cows and Airplanes” would be a great name for a rock band.
“Farting Cows and Airplanes” would be a great name for a rock band. ”
Or a country song!
“Roby, I thought of Dave Barry when I read the GND line about not being able to get rid of farting cows and airplanes that quickly. “Farting Cows and Airplanes” would be a great name for a rock band.”
Farting Cows and Airplanes always bring me down, sung to the tune of the Carpenters hit Rainy days and Mondays.
Cruz, is not an idiot.
Like him, Hate him, he is still formidable in a debate.
AOC is an idiot. Her appeal is emotional not intellectual.
The Michelle Bachman comparison is more appropriate.
Much of the rest of what you say about Cruz is true.
At the same time the “more experienced” GOP senators have been a failure.
I would note that there is not alot of differnce on issues between Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.
All are “libertarian conservatives” – Lee and Paul are more libertarian.
Paul too seeks the spotlight – though he manages to come off as more genuine.
Cruz is more intellectually formidable, but he comes across as nasty and arrogant.
But if you are in a debate and the criteria is facts, logic reason, you are better with Cruz than Paul.
I would also note – all of these are YOUNG. You are going to see them again. and again.
From Russia with Money: “The case for Russia collusion … against the Democrats”
“The evidence shows the Clintons financially benefited from Russia — personally and inside their charity — at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.
The intersections between the Clintons, the Democrats and Russia carried into 2016, when a major political opposition research project designed to portray GOP rival Donald Trump as compromised by Moscow was launched by Clinton’s presidential campaign and brought to the FBI.
Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS research firm was secretly hired by the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party through their law firm, Perkins Coie.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/429292-the-case-for-russia-collusion-against-the-democrats”
Say it ain’t so, the Clintons as bad as Trump chasing those rubles.
dduck, seem to remember Dave posting many things about these same issues in previous comments, but I guess because its on the internet now it has more truth to it than his comments.
But unlike Trump, nothing will ever come of the Clintons involvement. For some reason even Trump is affraid of them because nothing ever came of ” lock her up”.
To get to that, an investigation needs to occur and that will never happen.
as for Trumps, that will come to a conclusion around November 2020.
I don’t pay attention to what Dave “says”, it is 99% wrapped in BS.
Corrected.
“I don’t pay attention to what Dave “says”, it is 99% facts and I have no interest in facts”
DD – absolutely I am well aware that you have zero interest in a fact – not even one that is self evident, unless you can get a talking head with credentials you accept to utter it.
You seem to be clueless about the fact that you can not actually outsource and abdicate personal responsibility.
No DD they are far worse.
We have been searching for 3 years and still find nothing even close to what is readily apparent regarding the clintons.
Are there any 500K payments to Trump or his family ?
Did Trump work with the russians one a deal that ACTUALLY HAPPENED ?
One that involved a direct conflict between their personal benefits and their public duties as Sec. State ?
We have actual collusion – out in the open regarding Clinton.
With Trump we are down to inaugural committee nonsense.
What should be self evident is that Mueller has been allowed to go where he never should have been allowed.
At the same time by allowing him to do so, he has proven that there WAS NO COLLUSION OF ANY KIND.
In the process he has F’d over anyone who got in his way, slapping them with Process crimes for failing to kjow tow to him in an investigation that to this date still does not have a basis in fact and evidence.
Truth or plain anti-Semitism, or free speech. Hmmm.
“Kevin McCarthy Promises ‘Action’ Against Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib ”
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/kevin-mccarthy-promises-action-against-ilhan-omar-and-rashida-tlaib-1.6917751
“The Republican leader in the U.S. House of Representatives said he would take action against two Democrats who have sharply criticized Israel if the Democratic majority did not do so.
“If they do not take action I think you’ll see action from myself,” Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, said according to Capitol Hill reporters writing for a number of newspapers. “This cannot sustain itself. It’s unacceptable in this country.”
I do not know enough details.
But from what I recall – Tlaib’s remarks are offensive.
They are racist and anti-semetic.
They are not criminal, nor barred by the rules of the house.
She should be condemned – as have some republicans for their remarks.
It is disturbing that democrats have not treated her the same as republicans have done with offensive republicans.
But the “punishment” for Tlaib is at the polls – for her and the democrats who enable her.
Being an enemy of israel is possibly a serious political mistake.
It is not a crime.
It is a legitimate political position.
At the same Time my guess is that McCarthy is not actually trying to get anything done.
What he is trying to do is to raise public attention to Tlaib’s remarks.
I have no problem with that either.
Tlaib and Ilhan are anti-Semites. They have a First Amendment right to spew their hate, and, if they were Republicans, they would already have been publicly sanctioned and pressured to resign.
The Democrat leadership has said nothing. A couple of Jewish Dem reps from NY, and Chelsea Clinton, whose husband is Jewish, have spoken out, but Pelosi has remained silent. The problem is that anti-Semitism and support for the destruction of Israel is an important value of far left extremism, and Pelosi knows that any public condemnation of this sort of hate will endanger her coalition. She assumes that Jewish Democrats will mostly accept her Ihan’s excuses, because they hate Trump.
The far left take a one sided view of the Palestinian situation, a sort of Howard Zinn view. But in fact the situation is very sad and terrible and anyone who believes that Israel is beyond criticism and has not in any way been cruel or oppressive has not read the history of the conflict with an open mind.
The Palestinian people are trapped. Its a trap that took many decades to unfold. They have been cursed by history. I am not justifying or ignoring the violent actions or paths of their leaders.
Pro Israeli American opinion simply ignores that there are actually two (at least) points of view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Its a frozen conflict. In some sense I see a parallel with America and its natives driven onto reservations by a far more technological culture.
I see an Israeli family nearly every day on Skype, my wife’s son, daughter in law and their child. I see a very smart incredibly cute 2 and a half year old kid whose parents have brought her up in a paradise of educational toys, music, art, science, friends, good food, nice clothing etc. She is having a wonderful childhood and is going to be a formidable person.
Not so far from her are other kids, Palestinian kids, and they get just about none of that. It sure as hell is not their fault. They have the same genetic potential to be cute, smart, educated, happy but are SOL. I do think about it when I see my happy Israeli family.
I do not know what the answer is, the sides are locked in. If someone thinks that there is some enlightened behavior by Palestinians that would make everything right they are being as simplistic as the American left.
Israel is not beyond criticism. But in American politics it pretty much is.
I do understand that, Roby. But, it’s not as if the US hasn’t spent billions to help the Palestinian people. The problem is that the Palestinian leadership is corrupt, and uses the money for purposes other than humanitarian aid. Nothing has changed, over decades. The old saying remains true: “If the Palestinians would lay down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis were to lay down their arms, there would be no Israel.” Rep. Omar does not accept the right of Israel to exist. Yet she now sits on the House Foreign Relations Committee. That’s a problem. Israel is not beyond criticism, but since Palestinians make the issue existential , there is no path to peace.
I do not want to speak of specific reps. because I do not know their positions well enough.
But we are dealing with something much bigger than Israel/Palestine.
Throughout the mideast Islamists have purged their countries of ALL who adhere to different religions.
As great as the conflict is in Israel – Israel is pretty much the ONLY place int he mideast where you can be somewhat safe if you are not muslim.
Israel is not beyond criticism.
To the extent what we are discussing is criticism of Israel – even wrong criticism of israel the absolutely that critism is not merely permitted but necescary – even if it is wrong.
Those criticising israel and those defending israel should be judged – not on whether they are criticising or defending. but whether they are right.
But I think this goes beyond israel. There is a problem because too many on the right, the left, and even jews themselves to not distinguish between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism.
And that distinction which should be clear, is blurry because – the various other semitic groups in the mideast – the arabs ARE semites (mostly), are doing more than criticising israel. They are killing those who disagree with them.
The mideast was religiously disparate for thousands of years. Though from its inception Islam has been violently hostile to those of other religions. Even past incarnations of islam have NOT been as brutal as those of the present.
In my lifetime the numbers of christians and jews as well as other religions in the mideast outside of Israel has gone from very large minorities, to almost extinct.
We are not talking about opposition to Israel. We are talking about violent religious persecution that has resulted in the death or departure of millions.
What has occurred in the mideast in the past 70 years is only dwarfed by the holocaust.
There is plenty of room to criticise Israel. But most of those doing the criticising are far more heinous than the jews they are bemoaning.
I’m in agreement with both Roby and Priscilla…
It’s a Russian Doll Of dilemmas.
“Rep. Omar does not accept the right of Israel to exist. ”
I’m not a fan of Omar to say the least. But, has she said that? If so that is a real issue. I find no reference to her having said that, including in her Wiki entry.
I don’t think her actions are going to produce any positive result. But my god a furor because someone said that money from a PAC influences politicians? That is news? Of course PAC money influences politicians. And you can say that with a megaphone and everyone will agree with you.
Unless you say it about a pro Israeli PAC, then its racist.
Good grief, the irony.
I tried to read through the history of the Jewish colonization of Palestine entry in Wiki once and got lost in a few minutes, it was like trying to understand the plot of the Marriage of Figaro or the history of the country of Austria. Hopelessly complicated. It was impossible to tell who was the “bad guy.” The Zionists won is the short version.
Some arabs live peacefully in Israel, as I saw on my visit to Haifa. Some native Americans live OK lives in the US, as I saw on a trip to New Mexico. For groups on the wrong side of conquests its a pretty wretched deal. THAT’S WHY THE #$^&#@ WALL IS AN ISSUE. No one wants to be on the wrong side of history because its terrifying.
If any of us had been born Palestinian in Israel we would understand that there is no way out really. Palestinians who might want to let bygones be bygones will come to a bad end in their own neighborhood. Regular Palestinian people have no way out, no hope. The left sees that and sees the pathos. The left has always had a large Jewish component. Calling “the left” anti-semitic because they see the plight of the Palestinians is not helpful.
“But my god a furor because someone said that money from a PAC influences politicians? That is news? Of course PAC money influences politicians. And you can say that with a megaphone and everyone will agree with you.
Unless you say it about a pro Israeli PAC, then its racist.”
BZZT, wrong.
The left – and you, think that you are allowed to decide based on YOUR political preferences when and who may use money to influence politicians.
This fight – which most everyone here jumps into with both feet, is not just about Israel.
Everyone seems to think that the money that influence politicians is Wrong, evil, vile when it is directed AGAINST their prefered policies, but is perfectly fine otherwise.
It is either always wrong, or always right.
And in fact it is always right.
It is always right because the only way you can preclude money influencing politics is to have a totalitarian state.
There are other reasons, but that should be enough.
Anyone born Palestinian in Israel could have easily been born Palestinian in Palestine – had the Palistinian leaders been interested in their people.
Palestinians could easily have had their own state long ago.
I would further note that this is NOT about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Exclude the west bank and Gaza – which in nearly all ways have been governed by palestinians for much of my life, and All irael does is assure that “guest workers” do not come to work with bombs.
The left is Anti-Semetic – and not just because they are anti-Israel.
Actually the left is WORSE than Anti-Semetic – they are PRO-Islamic fundimentalist.
This is one of the weirdest bouts of hypocracy in the modern left.
The left has chosen to identify and support a group of people that make Jerry Falwell look enlightened.
They have chosen to get behind the most mysoginist, racist, homophobic intolerant groups in the world. They have chosen to get behind people who have driven anyone not of the same viewpoint much less religion out of their countries – by violence and murder if necescary.
I do not honestly have much sympathy for the Palestinians.
The Palestinians do not Want “their own country” – they could have that easily. They defacto already do, and it is one of those “shithole countries” – and not because of the Israeli’s
with the money pouring into Palestine – they could have made themselves incredibly proserous – the Israeli’s managed to come from abject poverty to first world status – without help.
“The left is Anti-Semetic – and not just because they are anti-Israel.
Actually the left is WORSE than Anti-Semetic – they are PRO-Islamic fundimentalist.”
An absurd sweeping generalization that you cannot begin to prove, because its right wing propaganda nonsense. Pretty disgusting really. Sure “the left” is all for Jihad. They hope to create a Caliphate. Sure. My mom is sending all her spare change to ISIS. So is the whole of the Vermont liberal population. Bernie Sanders is hoping to contribute enough that they name a street after him in their Islamic empire. That is perhaps the looniest and most disgusting thing you have ever stated, which is saying something. Nothing you can say about the left is strong enough, you have to top it somehow.
Your ranting deserve no respect.
I can’t prove ? Really ?
It is pretty trivial to prove.
And I did in the prior post.
I am hard pressed to think of any US religious figure more vile than Fred Phelps of West Borro Baptist church.
He deservedly earned the loathing of the left and just about everyone else.
Yet islam is as hostile to gays and women – even moderate islam as WBC.
To my knowledge Phelps has not opposed women driving. SA just permitted that.
From its inception right through the present Islam has driven out all competing religions.
It is not merely fanatically evangelical – it is VIOLENTLY evangelical. Yes, there have been a few centuries at a time of relative peace with islam – but the last century was not one of those.
Go look up the numbers – just about every islamic majority country has been purging itself of non-muslims over the past century.
Prior to 1980 there were millions of jews all over the mideast (and north africa) , and many more christians. Today there are only a few thousand jews in the entire mideast outside of Israel, and christians are fleeing the mideast fast.
Are there peaceful muslims – certainly – possibly even alot of them.
That does not change what is happening/has happened in muslim dominated countries.
And I have not mentioned terrorism at all.
I will bet in any given year – I can find more news and public chriticism of the WBC which has 70 members, than I can of anything remotely touching islam.
In the ideology of the left – you are either oppressed or you are the oppressor.
The left has decided that muslims are oppressed and therefore they are unwilling to contemplate any discussion of islam as oppressive.
WBC is legitiamtely on the SPLC hate group watchlist.
The only muslim groups on the SPLC watch list are actual moderates calling out the fundimentalists for violence hatred and bigotry.
The unwillingness of the left to be critical of islam is reprehensible.
If We changed the name of Islam to Judiasm – the left would be appoplectic and frothing at the mouth with anger and rage.
No this is not some right wing falsehood.
Pay attention to the news. You can get jailed in much of the mideast for publicly speaking of any religion but islam – and many many people are.
Is the left actively supporting islamic terrorism ? No.
Do they quite obviously tolerate conduct in the context of islam that they do not tolerate out of any other group of any kind ? Absolutely.
To be clear I am not looking to make a blanket condemnation of all muslims.
I have Muslim friends. Though a bit more mysoginist than most americans they are not what I am describing. Nor am I advocating for nut jobs to go bomb or shoot up mosques.
I do not even care if the left does not take note of the fact that Islam today is the most represive religion of consequence in the world.
I do care that the left is absolutely silent about pretty much every bad thing that happens to women, minorities, other religious beliefs if that evil is not being done by white christian men.
Every now and then Bill Mahr joins me in this criticism of Islam. I do not beleive anyone would call him a propogator of right wing propoganda.
I you are only willing to call out hatred, bigotry, homophobia religious persecution, religious violence, violence against women when it is done by white christian males.
Then YOU are not opposed to hatred,
You are not opposed to bigotry
you are not opposed to homophobia
you are not opposed to religious persecution.
you are not opposed to religious violence
You are not opposed to the voilence against women.
You are not opposed to the mutiliation of women.
You are opposed to white christian males.
And yes that is the modern left.
It is a hierachy of victimhood – never mind the facts.
What I find most amazingly interesting is.
In the 60’s Stokley Charmicheal said the only place for women in the movement is on their backs.
Then as today women are critical to the left.
Then as today women are subordinate to everything except white christian males.
What I am saying is looney and disgusting – it is looney and disgusting – because it is true.
It should not be true. But it is.
If Trump did a tiny portion of this he would have already been impeached.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/429292-the-case-for-russia-collusion-against-the-democrats
TECH DESTROYS JUVENILE BRAINS
Social media tech has produced a new generation of people as distanced from us as were the telephone-film-radio generation of the 1920s different from their horse and buggy ancestors.
Absolutely.
I have observed some of this in my son.
On the one hand it is near impossible to get him out of his room, and I am concerned that he is developing Agoraphobia.
At the same time – he has real meaningful – but different social interactions online.
He has friendships with people he has never met that have lasted for years.
There will be both positive and negative impacts of every single technological shift.
The net ultimately tends to be positive.
Interesting poll.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2019/democrats_warmly_embrace_green_new_deal
To quote: “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 81% of Likely Democratic Voters favor a Green New Deal that would focus on climate change, income inequality and racial injustice. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans are opposed. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 38% favor a Green New Deal that emphasizes these issues, while slightly more (41%) oppose it.”
Why do the dems tie those three unrelated things together? It is idiotic, they are separate issues. Yes, I believe that climate change is a serious issue. (No I am not going to change my mind due to any argument presented here Dave.) But what has it got to do with racial injustice? Can we add the heartbreak of psoriasis and and the low performance of American students on standardized tests into it? Best I can figure Green here stands for Green Party, which is where I wish the progs would go: off to their own left-wing party.
I am surprised only 63% of republicans opposed it, especially in the form of a threefer.
Ron – it’s a Rasmussen Poll.
Today they have Trump at 52% Approval.
Average of their other Approval polling is mid 40%.
New Dem Slogan?
GREEN NEW DEAL!
More Green In The Environment
More Green In Your Wallet
Well I can remember a couple polls in the last couple weeks where his approval was in the mid 30’s, so Rasmussens increase from the mid 40’s to 52 would be expected if those others are up 10 points.
But if I remember right, rasmussen had the election closer than others in 2016.
Trump’s RCP average has not dipped below 40 in over a year. 3 Polls in the past 2 months have had Trump below 40 – 38,38, 39.
Since the SOTU his numbers have been rising.
The Hill has him at 47 and Rasmussen at 52.
On election day 2016 Rasmussen had Clinton up by 2% of the popular vote.
At the end of the day she won the popular vote by 1% and lost the election.
No poll was closer than Rasmussen.
Please explain why the current increase in earth temperature is different from increases in the past
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/climate.htm
When someone explains why earth has warmed and cooled in the past and we are coming out of a cool period with warming now being different, then I could buy the climate alarmist positions.
But no one can explain this other than CO2 and global warming. But what caused the increase thousand of years ago after a cool period and why is the warming different this time?
Not only is the current warming not different.
It is also not significant,
And it is SLOWING DOWN.
I can not find anyone providing a trend for the past 20 years – because there isn’t one.
We had 20 years of SLIGHTLY higher than normal warming (preceded by about 15 years of cooling) followed by 20 years of nothing.
I am not predicting, but there are many reasons to be much more concerned about future cooling than warming.
We appear to be at the inflection point of a 220 year cycle that is typically followed by significant rapid cooling.
IF – and this is alot of IF’s, human CO2 is actually preventing the 2.5C colling that usally follows the current solar minimum, We should celebrate.
The negative impacts of cooling – even small cooling are TEN TIMES as severe as warming.
“But if I remember right, rasmussen had the election closer than others in 2016.”
They have had good and bad years. 2016 was not a bad year for Rasmussen. 2018 sure was. The missed the House percentage by almost 10 points, they were the only pollster who had the GOP sentiment ahead. The were hinting at a pink wave.
They have flipped from -14 to +6 on trump in a matter of about 4 days: 20 points. Other polls have seen some improvement since the SOTU but nothing like that. They are clearly sampling a biased population. Polling is rapidly changing as technology has come to have a large impact on how to reach a representative sample. Rasmussen at present gives cheerful results for conservatives but its pretty wild stuff.
538 gives them a C+ rating and gives them a conservative lean of 6 points. Judging by the 2018 House results that is being generous. They may be off by as much as 10.
For the good and the bad see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports
Given how badly 538 botched 2016 – why would you value their rating.
Rasmussen has been off sometimes,
They have also been nearly spot on.
If Rasmussen is C+ – Then everyone else including 538 is D- or worse.
I like 538 – but though their methodology is different – they are essentially a weighted poll of polls rather than an actual poll, there is no more reason to trust their judgement about Rasmussen than Rasmussens about them.
“But no one can explain this other than CO2 and global warming. But what caused the increase thousand of years ago after a cool period and why is the warming different this time?”
The best discussions I have found about the relationship between carbon and climate I found accidentally in books about the great extinction events in the Permian and Cretaceous. They were not books on global warming, they were not political books, they were books on paleontology with cheerful titles such as “The Permian extinction: when life nearly died”. Carbon dioxide levels have been all over the place as best as science can figure, as well as the levels of the other atmospheric gases. Climate has varied from cryogenic to super hot over the period of multi-celled life on Earth. Asteroids hits and huge eruption events have triggered different secondary effects that had truly radical effects. Smaller effects have occurred due to less spectacular causes. This science is far from knowing all the answers. In the times of humans on earth we have been in one of the 5 postulated ice ages that have affected global climate. No one has a very strong explanation of why this is happening during the Late Cenozoic. From Wiki:
“…The Quaternary Glaciation / Quaternary Ice Age started about 2.58 million years ago at the beginning of the Quaternary Period when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island
The definition of the Quaternary as beginning 2.58 Ma is based on the formation of the Arctic ice cap. The Antarctic ice sheet began to form earlier, at about 34 Ma, in the mid-Cenozoic (Eocene-Oligocene Boundary). The term Late Cenozoic Ice Age is used to include this early phase.[39]…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Major_ice_ages
The earth has been a lot hotter than its likely to get from our latest CO2 spike. But humans and the present ecosystems were not existing then. The question of how a climate on an earth that is several degrees warmer overall than now will affect humans and the present ecosystems is a whole new experiment. Read some of those types of books by paleontologists I mentioned if you are interested and then decide for yourself whether this is dangerous.
I am not going to argue with anyone about this, its futile. Intelligent people can do as much reading as they see fit and decide their own opinion. Dave will be along presently and have a spasm and claim that the facts show that this is all just BS. That is not my opinion. Science is a powerful system, I do not believe that scientists are either incompetent or corrupt as a group. Dave will argue otherwise and that he knows better and all the facts support him. Its a pointless argument. The climate will not be affected by opinions.
Thumb’s Up! I agree with your assessments.
Of course I hope the current scientific consensus is wrong, and the naysayers are right.
Either way – human effected climate change or cyclic climate change, I doubt at this time there’s anything humans can do about it. If severe shifting climate swings continue it will be disastrous for multitudes no matter who/what is responsible. Huge swaths of the nation could be Puerto Ricanized, and desperate Americans will be lucky to catch Rolls of paper towels tossed at them. Dystopian weather forecasts to follow…
The wisest thing said so far was that the earth would do what it was going to do without regard for anyone’s opinion.
Unfortunately what is most critical in that when the planet does NOT do as theory predicts – particularly when it does NOT for 2 decades, then it is long past time to reject the “oppinion”
and re-examine the theory.
All oppinions are NOT equal, some conform to the facts – some do not.
We can argue our oppinions. We can even argue about the facts.
The facts do not care.
“Of course I hope the current scientific consensus is wrong, and the naysayers are right.”
We are past hope. At this point they are just wrong.
“Either way – human effected climate change or cyclic climate change, I doubt at this time there’s anything humans can do about it.”
If humans are the cause – we can do something about it. If not that is less likely.
The scale of climate is huge.
The energy released by an average huricane in 1 day is the same as humans produce globally in a year.
“If severe shifting climate swings continue”
This is garbage sold by the left.
We are NOT experiencing severe swings. To the extent anything unusual is happening most things are moderating, not getting more extreme.
“it will be disastrous for multitudes no matter who/what is responsible. Huge swaths of the nation could be Puerto Ricanized,”
Even if the worst predictions of climate scientists – Actual scientists in real scientific papers – not screaming nonsense on media shows, were to come true – it is arguable that the world would be BETTER – with 1-4C of warming.
One of the scandals of the Obama EPA is they tried to put a cost on Global warming and they had to use totally bogus discount rates to end up with a cost rather then a benefit.
If you take the EPA’s papers and substitute the discount rates – basically present value of future money that are the norms througout finance, you end up with a result that Warming is beneficial – that should not be surprising – because it is.
Well I read wiki ice age link and I will come clean. Most of that was a foot over my head. But I did see comments about dinosaur gases, volcanoes and deforestation having impacts during different periods. In fact, I think there was a comment about deforestation during one of the ice ages since vegetation was killed off leading to the warming later.
Current analysis attributes global warming to fossil fuels.But in 1600 the earths population, during the little ice age , was 580 million or so. Today there are 7.6 Billion people. Massive amounts of deforestation has occurred over the past 1000 years. Massive increases in the number of animals on earth has occurrec.
So my issue with global warming is not that it is happening, but I see no one providing data that shows the impact on what contributes to the problem. They have a scapegoat ( fossil fuel) and only blame that.
I am a finance person. My career was decisions made on facts and figures. So I want to see someone providing information on how much global warming is caused by fossil fuels, humans, animals, lack of vegetation and other changes since the earth started warming again. Could it be we could reduce fossil fuel usage back to 1900 levels and still have no impact on warming because of the other influences.
Climate sceptics can accept warming is happening and be sceptical of why it is happening. Right now I am in that camp.
There is a difference between facts and analysis.
The actual facts we have of the distant past are THIN.
Pretty much the entirety of the analysis of the past that purports to support CAGW has been rewritten in the past 20 years specifically to support CAGW – and still some of it does not work out well.
The prior analysis contradicted CAGW – the truth is we do not know enough about the past to be certain. 100M years ago we do not know ANYTHING about day to day, year to year, decade to decade even century to century changes.
Some past catastrophic event could have taken two days or two thousand years and rarely do we have the means to know. That poor level of granularity makes it easy to concoct a wide variety of theories that conform to both the data and the outcome we want.
You note deforestation – the actual deforestation in the past 1000 years has been minimal.
But there have been some enormous land use changes. Roger Pielke Sr. and IPCC climate scientist beleives that 20th century global warming is caused by humans and is a result in changes in land use. The current global climate models – the lynchpin of CAGW have no factor in them for changes in land use. Nor is it likely they will.
Changes in land use would implicate humans, but it would diminish the importance of CO2
Further the land use changes are sort of reversing, and no matter what they have diminising returns.
Put simply few people explore Pielke’s work because it is politically incorrect.
Pielke may blame humans but he does so in a way that does not argue for a massive socialist takeover of the world.
I noted land use is reversing – sort of.
Humans are increasingly concentrating in cities and suburbs. We are using less land each year for farming not more. The US likely has more forests today than when the pilgrims landed.
There is no credible scientist – even on the left, who beleives that fossil Fuels had any significant effect on climate prior to about 1960.
Regardless, if CO2 is actually the cause of warming and the warming is large and the warming is bad – two of which are false, the better approach would NOT be to reduce fossil fuels but to sequester carbon.
One of the big unsolved problems of most renewable energy sources is that it can not be stored – not at the costs we need in the quantities we need.
Rather than use solar energy to try to power the world, use solar energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
In a perfect world – use solar energy to convert CO2 to fuels – now you have a renewable cycle. This is BTW essentially what “bio-fuels” do.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is not a job that must be done during peak hours.
It can be done anytime – like when the sun is shining.
This of course presumes that we actually want to prevent warming.
And if you bother to look you can find plenty of books with entirely different explanations.
Historically (and pre-historically) high levels of CO2 correlate to thriving life on the planet.
We do know that CO2 and temperature correlate – but the historical evidence suggests that high CO2 is CAUSED by warming – which BTW makes perfect sense.
There is several orders of magnitude more CO2 in the ocean than anywhere else.
Even CAGW theory presumes that warming oceans will create a positive feedback and CO2 will be released from the ocean making the earth warm faster.
This does not explain why Warmists keep trying to prove that there is MORE CO2 in the ocean as a result of warming. But logic is not the forte of left wing nuts.
We do not know the causes of past mass extinction events.
Until more recent rewrites of science texts the presumption has been large meteor strikes.
And there is still fairly good evidence supporting that.
All tempertures past 1650 are from proxies not direct measures.
The further back we go the less fine grained the proxies get.
10,000 years ago we can only tell the average temperature for a century
1M years ago we are lucky if we know the average temperature for a millenia.
We do not really know whether mas extincions took place over a few years, a few hundred years or a few thousand years.
The longer they took – the more likely some factor like CO2,
The shorter the time period the more likely it is meteors or similar catastrophy.
We can not even rule out things like – some virus or bacteria.
Even in the modern era we seen speicies go extinct from natural causes.
One of the problems when you start speculating about something you have no real evidence for is that confirmation biases become enormous.
Regardless, the FACTS today falsify CAGW theory.
Even if something happened tomorow and temps shot up 4C by 2100 – what has occured in the past 2 decades FALSIFIES CAGW. We are far past the time when scientiests must rethink their theories and re-examine the data. But it is very hard to kill of entrenched ideas.
Particularly ones that tie so well to your political ideology.
But I predict that within the next decade CAGW will be replaced by the left with some new explanation for why humans are destroying the planet and left wing nuts must take control of everything to screw us over for our own good.
Unfortunately CAGW is not dying until the left comes up with a different stupid malthusian theory to replace it.
Still Global warming is the perfect IYI test. If you still buy CAGW today – you are clearly an IYI.
“Science is a powerful system, I do not believe that scientists are either incompetent or corrupt as a group.”
You are correct. But when you go beyond that – and CAGW requires going beyond that then you fail.
Science is NOT consensus driven. As Einstein noted – as single paper could disprove his entire life’s work.
It does not matter if 20% of scientists agree of 99.99% of scientists agree – facts are facts.
Historically science is NEVER advanced by consensus. It is advanced by the disenters.
Galleleo stood nearly alone. Even Einstein did for a while.
Just recently there was a Nobel in Phyics awared to an Israeli scientist that has been regarded as a total crackpot for 40 years. He challenged the established science of crystalography with inconvenient facts. Turns out he was right and established science was wrong.
Physics and crystalography are HARD science. They are far more mathematically and experimentally driven than climate science. Worse still Crystalography is HUGE – that is the science related to semiconductors, there is enormous amounts of money to be made getting this right – and still for 40 years the truth was regarded as crackpot – and not off in some obscure corner of an speculative science, but dead center in a very hard science.
In a field more akin to climate science – psychology is completely re-examining almost 70 years of experiments. Many very famous experiments turn out to have been frauds, and myriads of others are when efforts are made to reproduce them turning out to be either unreproducable or not statistically significant.
Much the same is happening right now in food science.
We are seeing the same in numerous areas of medicine.
There was a massive spike in cardiovascular disease in the west in the mid to late 20th century and this had an enormous impact on medicine. But the spike is fading, and it is doing so independent of what was presumed to be its cause. So we have learned that heart disease spiked – the reasons we thought we wrong and we do not know why and now the spike is going away.
More rarely as their is money involved and unlike leftist beleive, businesses rarely choose to go forward with something that does not work and try to hide that forever.
Still there have been a few recent drug studies that have been falsified – and drug studies are some of the best statistical work done Compared tot he way drug studies are done – climate scientists are complete statistical morons.
Science is important.
But science is inherently skeptical.
And if you want to play appeals to authority – how many nobel winners would it take for you to decide maybe CAGW is bunk ?
frankly though fewer the stature of outspoken CAGW opponents is much greater than supporters.
“Dave will argue otherwise and that he knows better and all the facts support him. Its a pointless argument. The climate will not be affected by opinions.”
Absolutely – for the past 20 years the planet has steadfastly refused to be swayed by the oppinions of climate scientists.
No all the facts do not support me. That is not how science works.
I am not trying to prove something. I am trying to disprove it.
To disprove a theory only ONE fact needs to be inconsistent with the theory.
To prove a theory NO facts can refute it.
“So my issue with global warming is not that it is happening, but I see no one providing data that shows the impact on what contributes to the problem. They have a scapegoat ( fossil fuel) and only blame that.”
Yes! There is a difference between being a skeptic and being a denier.
I have never met a person who denied that the earth has warmed in the past 200 years.
“Yes, I believe that climate change is a serious issue. (No I am not going to change my mind due to any argument presented here Dave.) ”
Do not listen to me – actually listen to the EARTH.
The climate change naturally.
The issue is CAGW – Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
If proven that is very serious.
It is not merely not proven it has been falsified – not by me, but by Gaia.
As of last month the planet has warmed .31C since 1975 – ALL of that prior to 1998.
That is about 0.08C/decade, at that rate earth will be 0.64C warmer by 2100.
At the rate from 1998 to the present the earth will be 0.0000000C warmer by 2100.
From 1750-1950 long before humans could have had had any effect the rate of warming was 0.11C/decade.
So in the time period that humans are supposed to have brought about catastrophe the earths warming has SLOWER DOWN?
Let me remind you 81% of democrats support the GND.
These are the same people who buy CAGW.
These are not people who should ever be given power over others.
God help us.
Democrats would vote for euthanizing all dogs if you called it the “all puppies go to heaven” bill.
Anyone asserting that democrats are smarter than rocks – just lost.
Priscilla- more Dem criticism for antiSemetic remarks
Meantime the 120 day deadline on Saudi Arabia sanctions and curtailing of the U.S. military support for the SA war on Yemen has been ignored.
Must be anti-SA sentiment in Congress. The Reps should call for apologies from those that dissed SA by challenging the WH kissing of SA’s a—.
If those criticizing Israel in Congress deserve the right to voice their opinions, then so do those in Congress pointing out criminal behavior by SA (currently being ignored).
I don’t think that the problem was criticism of Israel, duck. I think it was Omar’s implication that any US politician that supports Israel does so because the Evil Jooos are paying them. Omar’s tweet was that support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins, baby!” That is a far cry from criticizing policy.
DD – what did you expect.
There are few democrats that are actually interested in punishing SA.
I would imaging Pelosi will be on a Junket to SA soon enough.
The whole Khasoghi thing was never about SA. It was about embarrassing Trump
That is all.
Even Democrats are unlikely to do anything serious about SA.
They do not want to. They do not care. They never did care.
They do not actually want sanctions.
Maybe now and then some democrat will rail at Trump over the sanctions.
But neither democrats nor congress are going to do anything.
I do not think it is possible to find a nation in the mideast that does not frequently act Criminal.
Glad to see it, Jay. Because anti-Semitism is on the rise, not only in the US, but in Europe, and if one of our major political parties should begin to tolerate anti-Semitism within its ranks, we will be in major trouble as a nation.
Priscilla,
Get on the right page. Democrats are NEVER anti-semetic.
No matter how much they piss over jews and fawn over those who are openly anti-semetic.
Only Republicans can be anti-semetic.
Like Donald Trump – you know they president with the orthodox jewish son-in-law, whose daughter converted to Judiasm who is the first president ever to keep the campaign promise that every president has made to move the US embassy to jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.
Trump, Republicans, white men, if you are not one of those – you can not be anti-semetic, no matter what you say and do.
Good for them.
Though attacks on Israel are not inherently anti-semetic.
Pricilla, so I say that the Rep politicians ARE influenced by bucks that support the Israeli positions, just like the bucks from SA influence them and she has the right to say so and not apologize, if she has the balls that most men in Congress do not have,
And democrats take money from assorted wealthy donors and interest groups – including Israel and SA and are completely unifluenced.
It is probable that jews are disproportionately represented among political donors.
They are still a tiny influence overall.
Are we really going to go back to spewing garbage from “the protocols of the elders of zion” ?
When you attack someone for beleiving in something sufficiently that they are willing to put their one wealth behind it – YOU are evil.
Whether the target is Sorros, or the Koch’s or Israel.
When you say someone else can not make a donation, you are saying that no one can.
When you rant about the undue influence the wealthy purportedly have – you are spewijng garbage, hatred and envy.
Elections are won by VOTES. Charles Koch, George Sorros and Adelson each have one.
The same as you.
No matter how much they spend – when people go into the voting both – there is no one with them. No gun to their head.
If the influence of wealthy donors is so evil – then Hillary was the queen of Evil.
She outspent Trump nearly 2:1 and that money came from places like Goldman Sachs.
You are not concerned about the influence of money in politics – except when it is influence contrary to your views.
“Elections are won by VOTES. Charles Koch, George Sorros and Adelson each have one.
The same as you.
No matter how much they spend – when people go into the voting both – there is no one with them. No gun to their head.”
HA HA HA!
HO HO HO!
So – Voters are not influenced by political propaganda…
HEE HEE HEE 😜
There are other names for “influencing voters through political propoganda” – it is called free speach and persuasion.
I have no idea what Koch’s or Sorro’s “influence” was.
Nor do I care, Putin, Koch, Sorros, You, Martian’s are all free to “influence” others through persuasive speech.
The fact that you want to preclude anyone rich or poor, Russian or american from efforts at persuasion speaks poorly of you – not them.
In 1991 the american prospect – even today a pre-eminent forum for progressivism
ran the following editorial on free speech.
If the far left then found it necescary to defend the right to express hate speech,
if the far left then cited John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” – pretty much the defining text “On Liberty” and particularly free speech,
If the left then felt it necescary to Echo Progressive Justice Louis Brandeis’s assertion that is the quintessential constitutional understanding of free speech – “The remedy for bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence”
If the far left in 1991 grasped that just as lies can be called truth, truth can be called lies.
Anyone can call the speech they do not like “propoganda”, we must determine that by its merits – individually.
Neither you nor Roby, nor Priscilla nor I – nor the govenrment get to decide what is impermissible propoganda, and what is Truth.
I also find is hilarious that you can argue the rule of the majority as a principle at the same time you require political speech to be censored. If ordinary people are too stupid to the difference between truth and propoganda, they are too stupid to rule.
There is no space between the argument that you can preclude voters from exposure to what you call propoganda – because they might be influences, and the argument that ordinary people should not be permitted to vote.
I do not beleive the majority are sufficiently wise to be allowed to rule.
That is why we have a constitution to limit the scope of the power the people can give to government.
But I do beleive people are sufficiently wise that government should never be permitted to determine what persuasive speech they are permitted to hear.
https://prospect.org/article/remedy-more-speech
So, I suppose the fact that our longtime alliance with the only democracy in the Middle East has nothing to do with it?
Come on, duck. Omar invoked one of the most common tropes in the ugly history of anti-Semitism ~ that wealthy Jews “control” politicians of both parties. First of all, it’s primarily evangelical Christian organizations that lobby in favor of Israeli policy…secondly, this is not the first time that Omar has had to “apologize” for her anti-Semitic remarks. Just last month, there was this:
Her apology made reference to her own victim status as a Muslim, although I do not know of a single Republican or Democrat who pointed out either her race or her religion. Only her words.
Dems jumping on Northam too soon? Hmmm
https://account.nytimes.com/
“In a region where black and white people largely lived in different communities, Ralph Northam hung around black neighborhoods with black friends. He was one of two white players on the high school basketball team in 1977, his senior year. His class had 73 students — 37 black, 36 white.”
“As a pediatric neurologist and volunteer medical director at a children’s hospice, Mr. Northam visited the homes of hundreds of African-American families in crisis. And yet, many people who know him best now worry that he may have missed some basic lessons about the struggles of his black neighbors. Gerald Boyd, who is black and has lived on the Eastern Shore since 1951, said Mr. Northam’s case was a cautionary tale that the nation’s racist conditioning can snare even well-meaning people.”
Overreaction, Brett K would agree, or would he.
I do not care what your response is to Northam
I care whether you respond to Northam the same way you would respond to a republican who otherwise was similarly situated.
Personally I think Northam must resign. Not because Blackface 40 years ago is an unforgiveable sin. But because he agressively played the race card to narrowly beat Gillespie. That is hypocrisy. You should not be in ANY public office if you are accusing others of being racist on evidence that is far weaker than what can be drug up about you.
But again – I am not that interested in Northam.
I am not under the impression he is some evil guy.
But neither was Gilespie.
When you defame someone else there should be a consequence.
Even if you are a good person who has made a mistake.
But I am more interested in YOU.
Are you holding Northam to the same standards as Gillespie ? Trump ?
Are you holding Tlaib to the same standards as King ?
Are you holding Comey to the same standards as Stone ?
……
OK for those that want to know, I finally found some numbers for world wide CO2 emissions and the impact on the climate.
1. Electrical Power and Large Scale Heat Production 25%
2. Manufacturing 21%
3. Deforestation 14%
4. Transportation 14%
5. Agriculture 10%
6. Extraction, Processing, and Handling of Petrochemicals 10%
7. Onsite Residential Heating & Cooking with Fossil Fuels & Biomass 6%
So now I can ask this question. If electrical power production, manufacturing and deforestation represents 60% of the cause of global warming, why is it the only thing we hear is cars need to be smaller, they need to be electrical or hybrid and other comments making cars people want to buy harder to find. (Example, most everyone buying SUV’s built on truck frames). Why are we not hearing that people need to cut the use of electrical appliances? Remember years ago when people “were not green” we used the sun to dry cloths? Or we paid a deposit on bottles and returned them to the store for a refund. Now we use plastic (part of #6) on the list and most gets thrown away filling up land fills or ending up in the ocean.
And if electrical production is the number one cause of global warming, why are we eliminating nuclear power in this country when that is one of the cleanest for the amount of power it generates. Even cleaner than natural gas, which many power plants have converted to. In addition, China is the number one polluter from power plants. What are they doing?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706
Interesting, No?
While we were required to reduce output of CO2, China is going full run increasing!
Next, why are we not doing something about reforestation? Brazil has reduced their deforestation by about 84%, but that is after a large portion of their rain forest has been cut. Why aren’t the Greenies having a cow over that one?
It all comes back to politics. Oil and gas companies are good targets for the democrats, even though they are #4 and #6 on the list. Even added together, they do not exceed Electrical production.
So now I know the numbers and can present somewhat of an argument when I hear all the bad things about cars.
Slow down.
Before you start deciding to hack away at CO2 – you should determine if CO2 is a problem.
CO2 is a GHG – GreenHouse Gas, but there is no verifiable scientific or experimentally derived value for the effect of CO2. You can not go to a table of experimentally derived data and look up the ECS value for CO2.
The ECS is the climate sensitivity to CO2.
It is expressed as degrees C/doubling of CO2.
The exponential (or actually logrithmic) aspect is critically important and almost completely ignored by purported climate scientists.
Whatever the ECS value actually is there is ZERO question that it is a constant multiplier for each doubling of CO2 – mathematically that means the equation for the effect of CO2 on temperarture – controlling for everything else is a parabola on its side.
That observation alone should complete end this discussion.
The impact of rising CO2 levels should initially be very large and quickly taper off.
If we presume that the entire temperature increase from 1975 to the present is entirely due to CO2 – I do not beleive that – but that is still the BEST CASE FOR WARMISTS,
Then warming due to CO2 is pretty much done. We would have to increase CO2 levels to 800ppm to get the same effect 0.31C as we have had since 1975.
Also Assuming that the entire increase in Temps from 1975 to the present is due to CO2 then you get an ECS of about .6C/doubling. We would have to have thousands of years of increased CO2 to get to 4C.
The larger the portion of the temperature increase since 1975 is due to other things the smaller the ECS value is.
So why are you trying to reduce CO2 ANYWHERE when you are never going to pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause significant warming ?
There are two other factors warmists try to rely on.
The first is positive feedbacks from water vapor.
Two decades ago warmists postulated that clouds would have an ECS of 3-4C/doubling.
And that warming would increase cloud cover and work as a positive feedback.
But we have developed alot of science on clouds and cloud formation since then.
CERN recently confirmed that Cosmic rays are a highly significant factor in cloud formation.
When the sun is active – as in the last 1/4 of the 20th century we get more clouds.
When the sun is inactive – we get less clouds.
There is still a debate over how great a contributor to the late 20th century warming clouds were. The larger the factor that clouds are – now that cosmic rays are a more significant factor in cloud formation – the more trouble CAGW is in becuase the lower the CO2 ECS must be. The conservative estimates are that Clouds were responsible for 25% of the warming from 1975 to 1998. Larger numbers are fatal to CAGW.
At the same time this has mostly rejected clouds as a positive feedback for CO2.
And the state of our knowledge of clouds has changed to an understanding that clouds are both a positive and a negative feedback. That low clouds cause some warming but that high clouds increase the earth albedo and reflect light and heat back into space.
That clouds function as a very complex temperature regulation mechanism that the can cause the planet to warm and then as it gets hotter to cool.
And that ignores the more prominent role of the sun in clouds today.
Regardless warmists who continue to use clouds as a large positive feedback are full of crap and spewing bad science – and they should know it.
Past clouds the other possible positive feedback is CO2 from the ocean.
Basically as the ocean warms it can hold less CO2 and so the human CO2 causes warming which causes the ocean to release CO2 which causes more warming. Basically there is some tipping point where we end up in out of control warming.
We still have the problem that the ECS is almost certainly much lower than climate scientists have claimed which precludes runaway warming.
Beyond that – our climate scientists have actually proved that the oceans are NOT releasing massive amounts of CO2 (they are actually, but they are absorbing even more).
Certainly you have heard climate scientists bemoan the acidification of the ocean.
That means the Ocean has MORE not less CO2. If we are moving towards a tipping point – the oceans should be becoming LESS acidic.
Regardless, there is no experimentally established value for a CO2 ocean offgassing based on temperature.
In otherwords almost nothing about CO2 climate science is experimentally derived.
Put differently it is an unproven guess, and we are expected to beleive it because the climate models – which demonstrate the change in climate based on the changes in CO2 levels assuming climate scientists guesses at all these values that have no experimental basis,
because those models reasonably accurately tracked global temperatures from 1975 to 1998 – that should mean the educated guesses for these constants are correct.
But since 1998 the model predictions and actual temperatures have diverged – the difference is now about 2.5 std devs.
Statistically that means the odds of the model being correct are less than 2%.
Please tell me why we are betting trillions of dollars on a guess that has less than a 2% chance of being right ?
Last I would refer you to my prior post on the EPA’s estimated cost of atmospheric CO2.
Using generally accepted discount rates rather than ones made up to produce a desired outcome results in a positive benefit to increased atmospheric CO2.
This should not surprise – CO2 has increased about 100ppm in my lifetime – and Plants have gone nuts over it – BTW that is a negative feedback. The more CO2 the more plant growth the less CO2 and the more oxygen.
Regardless no matter what the temperatures that Co2 might bring about – we should not be trying to stop it, if that is going to bring about a BETTER world.
Everything you have heard about sea levels rising by huge amounts is GARBAGE.
Even the IPCC projects the maximum SLR by 2100 to be about 80CM – less than meter.
We had that much rise in the 20th century. The world did not end.
Nor are the poles going to melt. There are few places in the artic and antartic where the temperate EVER reaches 0C. All ice melting in antartica is due to the massive weight of the ice on the continent – which is growing not shrinking.
The antartic thesis needs huge ice sheets to break off and move north to melt.
Which still will not do it, and is unlikely to happen.
The Arctic has been pretty stable, it does shrink – but then it expands again.
The year to year variation is small.
Further artic ice is SEA ice and it can not raise sea level.
Greenland is actually losing something like 30Gt of ice a year.
Though that has slowed recently.
At that right it will take Greenland 200,000 years to be ice free.
We will have another ice age (twice) before that.
I beleive the SLR contribution of Greenland is 0.3mm/year.
Nearly all of my numbers are from WARMISTS,.
There are still a few die hards trying to claim an ECS of 4, but most of the flaming left wing nut climate scientists are using an ECS of about 1.6, and more rational skeptical numbers range from 1.5 to .25. None of these will produce a catastrophe absent some tipping point which is pure speculation.
Dave, are you going to think the average voter is going to read what you wrote, or something like this, understand it and change their thinking and vote based on that info?
I say no. They would have no earthly idea what you just said.
They do understand:
1. CO2 is increasing
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3. Greenhouse gases cause global warming
4. Global warming will have catstrophic impacts on humans
5. Agreements like the Paris Accords or GND are the only saviors
So liberal media preaches the above 5 issues and over time, more and more people believe that since it is at the 8th grade level of comprehension.
So my point is we need the same level questions asked and answered to help people understand. Like ” why allow China to contnue increasing output while we have to cut back and cost Americans hundreds, if not thousands a year and reduced comforts of living”?
You are communicating at the PHD level while people comprehend at the middle school level for the most part.
Of your response – 4+5 are wrong.
3 is correct but scale matters greatly
The evidence does not support the claim that human CO2 has or will significantly warm the climate in the future.
Completely unaddressed by your comments is whether a warming climate – regardless of its causes is a good or a bad thing.
People are strange. Polls constantly tell us that people beleive completely idiotic things.
At the same time polls RARELY tell is the importance people place in those beleifs.
What appears to be true is that an overwhelming portion of people beleive things about climate than they have been sold by the press – that greatly outstrip even the lunatic claims of climate scientists,
While at the same time having little or no interest in actually doing anything about it.
BTW this is true of pretty much EVERY malthusian claim that has ever been offered.
People still today beleive that we are in the midst of a dangerous population explosion – yet we know the earth will peak at about 11B people, and that as population has grown nearly everything has improved.
Those are facts – but most people are not aware of them. At the same time despite falsely believing in a dangerous population explosion there is no impetus to do anything about it.
I would note that when Climate Scientists are polled about whether something needs done about Global Warming – a plurality support doing nothing.
Ordinary people hold oppinions that are driven by emotion and nonsense.
But in their actions and willingness to act (or not) they are pretty close to right.
I keep trying to emphasize over and over
“actions speak louder than words”
It is not what people say that we should judge them on. It is what they do.
Its a difference of opinion.
You believe most people understand the media communications ( my 5 listed items) are incorrect.
I believe a large % of people believe it.
You believe people ignore that when voting
I believe a large percent of people, mother especizlly, vote based partially on climate ans envoronmental issues.
I never said my list were corrsct. I said that was the BS the liberal media communicates. Say it long enough and vast number of times and it becomes truth.
The left communicates that stuff, the right just says ” thats not right, there is no proof, its just the left scaring people”.
The left delivers a message, the GOP does nothing to provide facts in opposition.
And AGAIN, why hasnt the right jumped on the Paris Accords issue with China allowed to increase through the mid 2030’s.
One thing for certain, the GOP is the most incompetent group of individuals when it comes to communication of alomost any group in America.
“You believe most people understand the media communications ( my 5 listed items) are incorrect.
I believe a large % of people believe it.
You believe people ignore that when voting
I believe a large percent of people, mother especizlly, vote based partially on climate ans envoronmental issues.”
No! What people actually beleive is accurately reflected in what they do – not what they say.
They can be wrong in either instance, but they are far more likely to be right in what they do, than in what they say.
Why hasn’t the right jumped on XYZ – because mostly the right does NOT want the accords.
Even in trade – YOU have argued that if China would give use the same freedom in their markets as we do them in ours you would be OK.
Atleast that is my read or your remarks.
There are unfortunately all to many enemies of liberty on the right.
But today the bulk of them and the threat is from the left.
It is not from conservatives. It is not from Trump., It is not from Putin or Russians, and it is not from China.
The left has two major advantages in communications
What they say does not need to be true.
It just needs to feel good.
“You are communicating at the PHD level while people comprehend at the middle school level for the most part.”
Really, no he isn’t. His facts are mostly not facts. Its just his usual “there is no…” with a high enough level of pseudo-scientific cherry picked gibberish thrown in to sound like he is an an expert.
But, his shtick will do if someone is already predisposed to not take the science of climate change seriously. To accept Dave’s version as being accurate you either have to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are idiots who are all making the same stupid mistakes over and over for decades, or that the worldwide scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to destroy the US economy and the economies of Russia, China, oil and gas producing states etc.
I hope that you realize that neither is true. Science is science, its the same science whether its climate or molecular biology or chemistry. From where I sit science is the most powerful intellectual tool we have and I would think given all that it has achieved that people would understand that it ought to be respected.
Climate is a deeply complex thing, the basic form of the understanding that exists today could turn out to be wrong. But to believe the skeptics is to say that you believe climate scientists when its a small percentage of the field but are skeptical when its most of the workers in the field. So, if you have a sceptical nature be sure to turn it on the climate sceptics as well, or you are simply choosing to accept the ideas of scientists, that is, those of a small minority of the climate scientists.
The work of paleontologists has at least shown the kind of consequences that have occurred in the past when climate changes strongly. Climate is a very powerful force and human civilization has thus far lived in a cold rather than a warm period of Earth history. That ought to make any sensible person think seriously about the consequences if the majority view of climate scientists turns out to be a lot closer to the truth than that of the sceptics.
Asking about why the Chinese don’t agree to cut their levels more aggressively is a good question but its a political and economic question, not a climate science question.
I am doubtful I am going to change your viewpoint, all I can do is ask you to think of what the consequences might be if the sceptics are wrong.
OK, like I said, I understand the earth is warming. I also understand each time the earth cooled, it follwed many episodes of volcanic eruptions, followed by years of calm and increasing temperatures. One cyclical pattern only.
However, if I agree with the assumption that CO2 is the cause this time, then I want corrective action. Not political bull shit that we have experienced since Gore presented this issue years ago.
If the USA represents 15% of the worlds CO2 output and China represents 30% of the worlds output, which country cutting back is going to do the most good? If each country is allowed to increase, which cohntry is going to have the most harm?
And why do we have politicians like Obama willing to accept putting American economic conditions in jeopardy, while giving China free reign to do whatever they want?
Trump is trying to stand up to China on trade. The world needs to stand up to China on polution.
But that wont happen. The world is affraid of China and China will be able to do whatever.
So while the Greens in America accept cutting emissions ( say 10%), China will be allowed to increase (say 10%) for 20 more years, which has a net impact of a 5% yearly increase.
That does nothing to reverse the impact of CO2 as claimed by scientist.
So, lets just say I am sick of America being the worlds cop, spending billions in economic aid, allowing China to walk over the world in trade and all this resulting in America being.impotent when it comes to any climate agreements that really do any good.
“OK, like I said, I understand the earth is warming. I also understand each time the earth cooled, it follwed many episodes of volcanic eruptions, followed by years of calm and increasing temperatures. One cyclical pattern only.”
Lets not make the same kind of assumptions the left makes.
Seismic activity appears to PRECEDE cooling.
All volcanic activity results in cooling – but all cooling is not preceded by volcanoes.
Further volcanic activity is cyclic – it correlates strongly with solar cycles.
I beleive that it most commonly occurs AFTER periods of weak solar activity.
That is because weak solar activity corresponds to more balanced gravitational forces
I do not want to get into the details – While I understand the way that gravitational changes – due to the shifting alignments of the planet result in greater or lower solar activity.
And I know that volcanoes and earthquakes strongly correlate to the solar cycle.
I am less sure of exactly which parts of the solar cycle produce exactly which effects on the earth. Most if not all of the solar cycle is not magic, it is all about orbits and gravity. The eleven year solar cycle and the 22 years solar cycle and the 220 year solar cycle all
are driven by the orbits of the planets arround the sun – as are other longer solar cycles.
We have a much better understanding of this than when I was young.
But we have also known about how the solar cycles effect the earth – though not exactly why.
We are now developing a better understanding of why. Cosmic rays play a part, but the more significant force is gravity. As the planets move through their orbits arround the sun – their gravity effects the sun. For most of the 11 year solar cycle the center of the solar system is OUTSIDE the sun – the sun itself is orbiting the center of the solar system. But in one part of that orbit the center of the sun comes closer to the center of the solar system.
The closer the center of the sun is to the center of the solar system the weaker the tides are on the sun and the less solar activity there is.
All the above is about the sun – but gravity is 2 ways. The gravity of the sun and other planets effects the earth differently at different parts in the cycle. Both the sun and the moon cause tides in the water on the earth. But the gravity of the sun and planets as it changes also causes tides in the magma in the mantle of the earth, and changes the stresses in the
earths crust.
But beyond that – gravity is a form of energy – like light and electricity.
The changes in the gravity between the earth and the sun are ENERGY TRANSFERS – extremely large ones.
“However, if I agree with the assumption that CO2 is the cause this time, then I want corrective action. Not political bull shit that we have experienced since Gore presented this issue years ago.”
I do not think there is anyone that is claiming that CO2 caused changes in temperature prior to 1970. Yet we know that temperatures changed alot prior to that.
We can not know the scale of human effect on temperature without knowing the scale of natural factors – and we do not.
This is a great deal of what the “hide the decline”/hockey stick fight was about.
Mann and Co offered a recreation of past temperatures that was flat for 2000 years and spiked recently. When they concocted that recreation they deliberately obscured the fact that their proxies – which is the source of past temperatures suddenly all started to drop after about 1970 – hence “hide the decline”. Why does this matter ?
Because it demonstrates that the proxies are not tracking temperature.
If they are way off in 1980 – why do we trust them in 1000ad ?
The hockey stick purported to claim that for several thousand years temps were unchanged – and then suddenly recently human CO2 caused them to spike.
The “hockey stick” is very important – because if that is the actual pattern of the past 2000 years – the recent warming is enitrely human.
It is NOT the blade on the hockey stick that matters – it is the long flat shaft.
Most ever past reconstruction – including BEST has variations in past temps that correlate strongly with solar cycles – so does the planet have a natural warming/cooling cycle ?
If you beleive it does – then what part of modern warming is natural and what part is human.
If you beleive it does not – then it is all human.
“If the USA represents 15% of the worlds CO2 output and China represents 30% of the worlds output, which country cutting back is going to do the most good? If each country is allowed to increase, which cohntry is going to have the most harm?”
I accept that CO2 causes some warming. I do not beleive much.
I do not accept that the warming is BAD, or that CO2 is BAD.
It is on net good and we should not care how much CO2 China puts out.
“Trump is trying to stand up to China on trade. The world needs to stand up to China on polution.”
Chinese coal plants put out more than CO2.
“Really, no he isn’t. His facts are mostly not facts. Its just his usual “there is no…” with a high enough level of pseudo-scientific cherry picked gibberish thrown in to sound like he is an an expert.”
So many errors in such a short sentence.
If I claim something as fact, and you disagree – confront that directly.
At the very least specifically identify what you think I am claiming to be a fact that is not.
Merely slobbering – “his facts are mostly not facts” – is NOT an ARGUMENT.
You can spray that at anyone at any time. It is a method of dismissing actual argument without having to go to the trouble of making an actual argument yourself.
If something is “pseudo science” – that should be trivial to identify – DO SO.
The assertion about cherry picking is both in error and irrelevant.
Actual science can not be disproven by “cherry picking”.
AGAIN as Einstein noted “A single inconsistent fact can invalidate my entire life’s work”.
Science is not obligated to explain everything.
But any scientific theory of any kind that is CONTRADICATED by an actual fact is in ERROR.
What you call “cherry picking” is the normal method of actual scientific debate.
The takeover of some realms of science – generally the ones where lack of mathematical rigor is not tolerated does not change the rules and process of science.
Not only has CAGW been disproven by “Cherry picking” – it has been totally destroyed.
In my own short critique about – which is only a small portion of the gaping holes in CAGW, there are probably half a dozen “cherry picked” critiques – ONLY ONE of those needs to be correct to FALSIFY CAGW.
Since you wish to delving into semantics – ACTUAL SCIENCE is something that is FALSIFIABLE – that even if it can not be absolutely proven can atleast be disproven if it is contradicted by facts. ALL real science is falsifiable – i.e. the theory would be rejected if even on fact that was not refutable contradicted it.
Though we still use it Newtonian physics has been falsified. It is demonstrably incorrect at speeds approaching the speed of light. We still make use of it because in the normal world as opposed to quantum mechanics the error is miniscule.
CAGW has been falsified repeatedly and yet it will not die.
When something can not be falsified – it is RELIGION not science.
That is pretty much the distinction between religion and science.
Absolutely there are people who know more than I do about client – and many of those “beleive” in CAGW, Their greater knowledge changes nothing.
Falsified is falsified.
Recently a janitor from the UK falsified a significant portion of modern Psychology.
Several years ago he read a study and it felt wrong to him.
It took him several years to learn enough statistics, and psychology to converse sufficiently intelligently with the “experts”. It took even more time to find another psychologist who would collaborate with him to write a rebutal paper. It took another year to get that paper through peer review and publication.
But ultimately the paper was published – and ultimately it was determined that the english janitor was right.
But this particular paper had a ripple effect – throughout psychology and even into many other sciences. In the area of Psychology this paper caused the entire profession to question 70 years of psychological studies – and as a consequence large swaths of accepted psychology over that time have been found to either be outright fraud, or unverifiable.
I do not want to overstate the impact of a single british Janitor – because decades of challenges to accepted science often through unconventional channels have resulted in accross the board challenges to a great deal of science – from medicine, to psychology, to anthropology even to physics. For almost a decade a major effort has been undertaken accross many of the science to reproduce as much poublished and accepted science as possible – and the error rate has been shocking.
A major part of the problem is well reflected in the problems with climate science.
First – outside of a few fields – medicine notably, physics and chemistry – the quality of the math and statistics in published papers is quite litterally GARBAGE.
The average climate scientist has no clue what it takes to do a trustworthy regression.
You talk about “cherry picking” – you can NOT challenge a falsification with claims of “cherry picking” – real science must conform to all known facts.
But you can err by “cherry picking” to form hypothesis’.
And Climate scientists are consumate “cherry pickers”.
I have repeatedly here pointed out that the predictions of the Global Climate Models – which are the foundations of CAGW – because the entire validation of the theory rests on the ability of the models to accurately reflect reality, the predictions of the models are 2.5std dev’s too high. In REAL SCIENCE that is called FALSIFIED, That means there is less than a 2% chance the model is correct. Faced by an error of that magnitude REAL SCIENTISTS go back and revise their theory. That has not happened.
Climate science is non-falsifiable, it is RELIGION.
I do not profess to be an expert.
But as I have stated repeatedly – MY JOB in the real world is about facts, logic, reason.
I program embedded systems,. Further I am a private consultant – I am not employed in the aerospace or medical or transportation industries. I am hired by companies – large and small, usually when they have failed on their own and need an outside “expert”,
I do not survive and get work by knowing everything there is to know about J1939 ( a communications protocol used by vehicles) or JTTRS or 802.15.4, or Industrial lasers, or medical centrifuges. My work requires rapidly learning everything necescary in the specific field of the project I have taken on this quarter.
What I am very very good at – is learning how to learn. As well as separating the wheat from the chaffe. What I am good at is quickly learning enough to be able to converse fluently with the experts in any field and then be able to quickly determine whether they are bullshitting.
An awfull lot of people have understood that climate science was “pseudo intellectual bullshit” for several decades.
Further time has been our absolute allie – the odds of CAGW surviving long term were ZILCH. What is surprising is that though we have reached a point where ordinary people who do not grasp the math, science and statistics can look arround the world and say “everything has not gone to hell as we were told” And realize something is wrong.
Still despite the OBVIOUS TO MUST EVERYONE falsification of CAGW – left wing nuts continue to persist.
What is further disturbing to me is that CAGW is a fraud. Most of those pushing it were other sufficiently incompetent that they should never have received degrees, or they knew better and were allowing politics to distort science.
Those people should lose their jobs. We do not want people who are that incompetent or that fraudulent in science.
Yet because science has been subsumed by government, science is governed by the new rules of government – failure is rewarded and being right scorned and punished.
Those of us who have been accused of being “deniers” – the scientific equivalent of members of the KKK will not get vindicated – even though we have already been absolutely proven right. While those who have not only been wrong – and often knowingly wrong, but have persecuted those who they KNEW were right – they will end up being rewarded – because that is how government and increasingly academia works.
The Catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis is NOT SCIENCE.
It is religion. It CAN NOT be taken seriously.
If ONE of the dozens of facts that I and myriads of others have found that contradict it is true – then the theory MUST be revised or discarded.
That is “the scientific method” – “climate science” is dogma – religion, not science.
Those pushing it do a disservice to ACTUAL Science.
You are using the language and arguments of POLITICS in the realm of science – and that is absolutely why you are wrong.
While scientists have “oppinions” the work of science is proving and disproving hypothesis – which are “oppinions with some basis in science”.
There is no “equality of oppinion” in science. Either your hypothesis is strong enough that no factual contradictions exist – or it is not science.
The climate itself is actually extremely complex. It is so complex that it is beyond the ability fo humans and technology today to model at our current technological capability AND anything we will ever have in the foreseable future.
For a while I was involved in developing incredibly sophisticated hardware and software to model financial systems faster than real time. The hardware we developed was more sophisticated and powerful than what is used to run climate models. One of the other uses of our hardware was decryption – our equipment is in every FBI field office in the country.
Ultimately we were unable to attain the necescary computational capability to model financial systems in faster than real time.
Climate models are many orders of magnitude more complex.
Climate is a chaos system. Outside of climate it is generally accepted that chaos systems can not be predicted.
Climate models can only be run on current technology be vastly over simplifying them.
Even then they remain enormously complex and barely inside the capability of modern computer hardware.
You can pretend to criticise me regarding my knowledge of climate – but I am demonstrably orders of magnitude more expert in HPC and grid computing than ANY climate scientist.
As noted above one of the things I am very good at is systems analysis.
That is a process that is the same from field to field. The fields may be different but the analytical process is the same.
It is important for any field, but it is especially important in arrangements where errors would result in people dying. About half of the systems I work with could result in death of injury if I screw up. A discipline that very few scientists ever deal with.
You tend to get good at finding faults when mistakes could kill or injure people.
One aspect of systems analysis is that there are many ways to solve a problem.
The approach taken by climate scientists has been to model climate from the inside – to divide the planet into about 20,000 “cells” and to model each of these.
This is much the way we model and forecast weather today.
The models are very nearly the same.
But it is vastly easier and more accurate to model a region for a few days in advance than it is to model the entire planet for years in advance.
As noted there is more than one way to “solve a problem”.
Climate itself is a “chaos system”
But the earth from the outside can be treated using much simpler physics as a “black body”.
A “closed” system with measurable inputs and outputs.
Until early in the 21st century we did not have the instrumentation in space to make all the measurements necescary to “model” the earth as a black box using simple physics.
If you know the energy inputs and the energy outputs you can determine the temperature of the object as a whole. You can do it using physics no more dfficult than most of us used in High School.
Sometime after about 2010 we both had the instrumentation and sufficient collected data to start to do that kind of analysis.
The end result is that the energy equations for the earth do not balance for warming.
This is the so called “missing heat” that Trendberth and other climate scientists spent several years chasing through the oceans – it is not and never was in the oceans and anyone with a smidgen of physics would have understood that as you can calculate the total energy content of the oceans sufficiently accurately using sea level changes which we again have space based instruments that provide that to within a few milimeters. ‘
There is not sufficient heat to support the Global Climate models.
Climate scientists have known that for more than 5 years.
This is a problem that can not be tweaked by changing constants with the climate models.
The ability to instrument the earth from space provides the means to circumvent all the complexity of the climate models.
It is not possible from the outside to determine what the temperature of peoria will be next fall. It is only possible to know whether the planet as a whole is increasing in temperature or decreasing. It does nto specifically tell us the surface temperature or the atmospheric temperture – though we have much better ways to do those from space today than in the past. But it does tell us the energy flows of the earth as a whole and there is not sufficient energy that is not accounted for to support CAGW.
This should not be surprising. One of the reasons I quickly determined that CAGW was garbage many years ago, was because the BASIC ENERGY PHYSICS.
Every degree of increase in temperature for any object takes EXPONENTIALLY more energy than the previous degree. Whether it is a frying pan or the earth.
You can verify this in your own kitchen. You can verify that it takes exponentially more energy to heat water to 99C than to 80C.
Yes this is sufficiently basic that Climate scientists should understand it.
To get the warming that climate scientists claimed from models – CO2 would either have to increase exponentially,. or there would have to be some mysterious massive positive feedback. There are few processes in the natural world that involve unlimited positive feedbacks. We call those processes explosions. They are unsustainable.
The global warming postulated by climate scientists requires the earths climate to be fragile to a degree that it could not possibly have continued to exist for billions of years.
Any natural system that has not self destructed over millenia MUST be presumed to be SELF REGULATING. In otherwords the unknows MUST be presumed to work towards stability not instability.
“To accept Dave’s version as being accurate you either have to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are idiots who are all making the same stupid mistakes over and over for decades, or that the worldwide scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to destroy the US economy and the economies of Russia, China, oil and gas producing states etc.”
You are approximately correct. And HISTORY both past and present tells us that as strange as that sounds that is not uncommon.
We have been warned by many of the same people for most of my lifetime about “the population bomb” – the earths population is 8B – that was purportedly impossible to sustain – and yet not only have we sustained it but 8B people have double the standard of living of 3.5B when I was a child. Population will peak at 11B shortly and then likely decline.
That may prove disasterous. Governments arround the world are already stressed based on policies that presumed an ever growing polutlation. In the US social secuity and medicare are among those.
Nor is population the only malthusian garbage that has ultimately proven false.
My guess is that most of you do not know all the malthusian pseudo scientific claims that have ultimately proven false – But you do know that for some brief period we were terrified of
DDT or silent spring or peak oil or deforestation or desertification or the destruction of ozone or ……
None of these have lead to the predicted disaster,
Most have just faded from consciousness – which is likely what will happen with Global Warming.
My point is that real science has been MASSIVELY WRONG many times just during our lifetime. Is it a conspiracy ? Is it stupidity ? Is it just politics or money ?
DOES THAT MATTER ?
If Kennedy was struck by a bullet that came from an angle or direction that could not have been from the Dallas Book Depository the thesis about Oswald as the lone gunman would be false. If not it would be true. The motives and explanations, would all be irrelevant.
A single bullet from the wrong direction would not prove the CIA did it, it would not prove the motivations, it would not even mean that atleast some of the conspiracy theorists were nuts.
But it would mean the official narative was wrong.
I do not need to explain why a large portion of scientists are wrong – though the number is smaller than claimed, a plurality of scientists beleive that Humans are causing INCONSEQUENTIAL warming. One of the problems with the “scientific concensus” claim is that it presumes all scientists believe disaster is coming.
NO! the “concensus” is that the earth is worming due to humans.
There is no concensus on how much it is warming, how much is attributable to humans, and how much of a problem that might be,.
The actual size of the cabal within “Climate Science” is quite small.
Which brings me to the next point – not only do we have the historical evidence of massive broadly beleived scientific error in numerous other malthusian prognositcations.
But as I have also addressed REPEATEDLY, we have myriads of other instance of broad scientific error, sometimes conspiracy, sometimes incompetence, and sometimes fraud, throughout science.
I have addressed that of Psychology today. Psychology as a science is busy right now re-evaluating most of 75 years of what was thought to be sound and established psychology.
The Smithsonian has pulled the Human origens exhibit for the 2nd time in two decades and it may not be back any time soon. What we KNOW is that the entire human origens theory of the past several decades is bogus – fraud. The result of politics, prestige and money.
Darwin is still right. man descended from Apes but much of the past 6m years of human history is being rewritten.
I noted that in the 80’s an Isreali physicist developed a completely new theory of the physics of crystals. It took until a few years ago to get that accepted. He was ridiculed as a crackpot for decades. Today he has a nobel prize in Physics.
We have been completely wrong about heart disease for about 60 years – we still do not know what right is, but we know that what we beleived for decades is crap.
Pretty much everything we think we know about food is being rewritten.
Yet much of this was GOSPELL for decades.
There is small group of european scientists who are rejecting Big Bang Theory – and purportedly they can both identifiy the mathematical and measurement errors that produced it AND demonstrate by measurable physical fact that it is wrong.
I do not know if they are right. But I do know that if they actually have the data they claim – then there was no big bang.
There are many many many more recent examples.
But even more – this is NOT some rare scientific fraud. This is the normal way science has developed for centuries. The greeks knew the earth revolved arround the sun – yet for a couple of centuries the state of science was that the sun revolved arround the earth.
While we focus on Galleleo we forget that inumerable very smart people beleived the sun revolved arround the earth for a long long time. You can still find a massive body of mathematics and models to explain how those orbits worked.
I can go on and on and on. Throughout the history of science some of the smartest people alive and at any given time the majority of scientists beleived something that today we would consider total idiocy. Sometimes that was incompetence, sometimes it was error, sometimes it was religion or politics, but for most of human history right through today there has ALWAYS been many things beleived by very smart people that were totally completely wrong.
Put simply your claim that so many scientists could not be wrong is patently false.
It is happening in many other areas NOW, and it has happened constantly throughout the history of science.
AS ALWAYS the burden is ALWAYS on those proposing a theory.
Regardless, this would neither be the first nor the most serious instance of mass delusion on the part of science.
“We have been warned by many of the same people for most of my lifetime about “the population bomb” – the earths population is 8B – that was purportedly impossible to sustain – and yet not only have we sustained it but 8B people have double the standard of living of 3.5B when I was a child.”
Didn’t doubling the standard of living of 3.5 billion humans add a volume of pollution to the planet? One that may indeed be a contributory factor in raising the planet’s temp?
To suggest that the byproducts of human industry have no effect on climate is fatuous. Small changes over time can cascade into dangerous outcomes. Even a tiny 100-mg dose of arsenic can be fatal to a 200-lb adult. As you have noted previously, science doesn’t yet fully understand the elements of scale that produce climate swings. Therefore we may have already passed the tipping point.
“Didn’t doubling the standard of living of 3.5 billion humans add a volume of pollution to the planet? One that may indeed be a contributory factor in raising the planet’s temp?”
Did it ? You ask a question – but it is pretty clear you think you know the answer.
While there are a few examples where pollution has gotten worse since 1960.
On net by every measure the world as a whole has improved – including with regard to pollution.
“To suggest that the byproducts of human industry have no effect on climate is fatuous.”
Straw man fallacy no one has suggested that.
What has been SAID is:
We do not know what portion of modern warming is caused by humans.
The odds favor it being a small portion of all warming.
But even if humans caused 100% of the warming since 1975 – that would be LESS warming per decade than the natural warming of the prior 200 years.
Further since 1998 warming has all but stopped.
Until 2016 1998 was the warmest year in history. 2016 beat it by 0.03C +-0.1C.
2017 and 2018 have been colder again.
If there has been a warming trend since 1998 – that is 21 years ago, it is the smallest warming trend in 200+ years.
“Small changes over time can cascade into dangerous outcomes.”
We are not talking hypothetically.
We have an actual climate and we have measured it.
We can fight over what portion of the changes to that climate are man made and which are natural – but there is very little debate over the small scale of the actual changes.
“Even a tiny 100-mg dose of arsenic can be fatal to a 200-lb adult.”
And yet it is also well know that humans can develop a tolerance to arsenic.
Regardless we have a real climate that we have measured – we do not need bad annaolgies as a substitute.
“As you have noted previously, science doesn’t yet fully understand the elements of scale that produce climate swings. Therefore we may have already passed the tipping point.”
Do not put words into my mouth.
You have altered what I have said and that changes its meaning.
Further you are making another stupid fallacious argument – and pretending it is mine.
You are basically fear mongering over the unknown.
The boogey monster could crawl out from under your bed tonight and kill you.
He may already be planning to.
Science is not speculation.
First you speculate that there is a “tipping point”.
Historicially the most likely dramatic shift in climate would be a sudden dramatic shift to cooling.
Significant cooling has occurred approximately every 200+ years corresponding to a 200+ year solar cycle. We are close to entering the cooling phase of that cycle now.
Maybe this time will be different. Maybe CO2 will save us from harmful cooling.
Or maybe not.
There are many more speculative reasons to fear cooling. The 70’s cooling panic – lead by mostly the same people selling warming, was less unfounded.
There is no “Science” indicating a “tipping point” The two proposed mechanisms by warmists have been falsified – Water vapor is Not on net a positive feedback. It likely was a positive feedback during the last 20 years of the 20th century it near certain has been a small negative feedback for the first 20 years of the 21st.
That result should not surprise – for all your fears – actual tipping points are nearly non-existant. If it were otherwise the planet would have become a permanently frozen rock or a molten inferno long ago. Natural systems that have NOT gone “over the edge for hundreds of thousands even millions or billions of years – MUST be strongly self regulating.
The exact OPPOSITE of your argument.
Regardless science is not magical thinking. If you beleive we are approaching or have reached a tipping point – you should be able to propose a mechanism for that out of control warming, and the evidence to back that that mechanism exists and we are near it.
Fear monger is pointless.
Please read some of my other posts.
The total human energy output of the world for an entire year is about the same as an average huricane for 5 days.
If we burned the entire global reserves of oil all at once – that would two orders of magnitude less energy than the solar energy striking the earth for one days.
Absolutely the impact of humans on the planet is entirely real. The amount of energy we consume is enormous – to humans. On the scale of the planet itself we are talking numbers that are not even rounding error.
Humans have had an effect – any argument that it is more than immeasurably small in comparison to nature must be proven. Because we are immeasurably small in comparison to nature.
Can we end this “small percentage of the field” nonsense.
A plurailty of actual scientists beleive that the earth is warming that humans have contributed to that warming and that the warming is NOT something to be concerned about.
But it would not matter if there was only ONE scientist.
Science is not determined by concensus. Theory is validated SOLELY by agreement with known facts. Any conflict with a single fact must be resolved or the theory is false.
That is called science. The CAGW theory is at odds with facts in MANY MANY ways.
It has been FALSIFED. It is time to go back to the drawing board with an open mind.
“The work of paleontologists has at least shown the kind of consequences that have occurred in the past when climate changes strongly.”
Absolutely false. For much of the time global warming has been debated Palentologists have asserted much the opposite. But this conflict has been going on for so many decades that the older palentologists have retired and knew ones who started with CAGW as a presumption have replaced them
The actual fact is that the further back in time you go the less granualar the data we have is.
Outside of the past 50 years we really do not know much about global climate, in fact even today for about 25% of the planet we may have only one data point every 1000 sq miles (or more). the oldest temperature measurements are less than 500 years old. There are no direct measurements that we can even pretend to be global that are much more than 50 years old.
That does not mean we know nothing about past climate – we know alot, but it is through proxy measures not direct measurement. The farther back in time we go the more we have to shift to proxies that are much less granular.
Palentologists do not have the information to know anything about climate on any scale beyond milenia.
In the past 2000 years we have had 4 what might be called “little ice ages” – possibly more.
Who can tell me whether the Thames froze over in 300ad ? 800 ?
4000 years ago those kinds of variations are no longer detectable.
It is not that they did not occur it is that we do not have the ability to measure that far past that precisely.
“Climate is a very powerful force and human civilization has thus far lived in a cold rather than a warm period of Earth history. ”
Actually FALSE. Human origins are in AFRICA. Not just Homo Sapiens, but all Homo, and the entire human lineage for millions of years originated in the warmest parts of the planet.
For much of human history we have fought a dificult battle – because colder climates are ABSOLUTELY DEADLY, but the tropical environs we originated in have been and are disease ridden and deadly too – yet that is where we were born.
We had to “adapt” to colder environments. Most of the planet was not habitable to humans prior to mastery of fire. Even today each year 10 times as many people die from cold as from heat.
“That ought to make any sensible person think seriously about the consequences if the majority view of climate scientists turns out to be a lot closer to the truth than that of the sceptics.”
Again the ACTUAL facts rather than ludicrously stupid false narratives would cause one to be SKEPTICAL.
There are reasons that even today – population density declines rapidly as you move towards the poles. Cold is deadly. heat is not nearly so. For much of human existance we put up with the diseases of the tropics rather than venture to milder climates – because we could not survive low night time or winter temperatures without fire and shelter.
What does it take for you to realize that these narratives you are selling are just crocks of crap. They are IYI’s taking their assumptions and trying to force reality to fit them.
Only reality does not fit.
The “birth” of Homo Sapiens occured near the start of the eamian period – that was the warm interglacial period prior to the current one.
BTW in the late Ordovician there was a long severe Ice Age with extremely high levels of CO2 – 20 or more times today,
More recently between the jurasic and creteaceous periods temps dropped by CO2 spiked.
This does not prove anything – our data from those periods is far far to large grained.
What it does prove is you can not draw the kind of conclusions that you are claiming palentologists are drawing. Conclusions they were not stupid enough to make 40 years ago.
“Asking about why the Chinese don’t agree to cut their levels more aggressively is a good question but its a political and economic question, not a climate science question.”
Or maybe you should ask why almost no one anywhere – not the US not china voluntarily on their own acts as if CAGW is actually something they beleive in.
You should judge peoples values by their ACTIONS not there words – how many times have I said that. Even christ judges us by our ACTIONS Matthew 25:31–46
This is why free markets are so important. It is not what people say that expresses their actual values and beleifs – it is what they DO.
It is why highlighting the hypocracy of climate scientists is so enlighting.
Ed Begley has actually tired to live an off the grid sustainable life.
Please name one of the high priests of CAGW who lives like he speaks ?
Dave, you keep making comments, but do not provide any links to your data.
You state “Or maybe you should ask why almost no one anywhere – not the US not china voluntarily on their own acts as if CAGW is actually something they beleive in”
So if the USA did not believe in global warming why did Obama agree to what was an awful agreement. According to the National Economic Research Associates, that agreement would have required a 30% reduction in emissions, reduced jobs by 2.7 milkion, including almist 500,000 manufacturing jobs, reduced steel output by 38%, natural gas output by 31% and coal production hy 86%. The total imoact on the economywould have been a reduction of $3T decrease to GDP.
“So if the USA did not believe in global warming why did Obama agree to what was an awful agreement.”
I appologize my remarks were obviously unclear.
I am specifically talking about PEOPLE, not governments.
Do you beleive that ordinary people in their own actions in their own lives act as if they beleive in CAGW ?
They do not even VOTE as if they beleive in it.
In the 2016 election fear of climate change ranked something like 19th on peoples reasons for their choice in voting.
My POINT is specifically about the differences between the way ordinary people act on the whole regarding their own lives and the way government acts when it acts for them.
I have over and over and over stressed that Actions matter – for the most part words do not.
My argument is that to assess peoples ACTUAL values – you should examine how they ACT, not what they say.
This point is important well beyond CAGW.
It is why Polls are not all that important. Polls are what people say.
Even voting – as important as it is to government, is NOT strongly reflective of peoples values.
To weigh values – which is why action matters. the cost of each value must be factored in.
There is only one way in which we show what we truly believe – and that is by the actions we take – when we have choices and those choices have costs.
“I am doubtful I am going to change your viewpoint, all I can do is ask you to think of what the consequences might be if the sceptics are wrong.”
Substitute asteriod impacting the earth for CAGW and what changes ?
We should not make everyone on the planet poorer to preclude the extremely remote possibility of disaster.
You are selling another fallacy.
BTW, in my work I have to confront the consequences of being wrong all the time.
The absolute last thing I am going to say on this subject in any way here is that I am going to assume that anyone who has been at all observant over the years will understand what kind of distortion field Dave can weave on any subject, the mixture of truths, half truths, and falsehoods needed to form his “there is no… arguments . I am not going to argue about Dave’s so-called facts, that is like arguing with Velikovsky. If someone does not see the pattern by now of Dave arguments then there are no words I can say to change that.
Anyone who wants to understand the majority view of climate scientists can easily find it online or in a bookstore. Most people probably are not going to feel like they have the time or perhaps the ability to sort this out, so, this is just a handwaving exercise. So, anyone can choose to put their trust in Dave’s picture of the debate, my arguments in favor of the majority climate science view or some other set of ideas and there is nothing I can say about that.
Time will tell.
My issue is not if or if not its happening.(climate Change)
My issues are with our government. (Like always)
Trade, I want fair trade. No tariffs on either side. Or if a tariff on ours is 10%, then our tariff on theirs is 10%.
Defense. If we spend 15% of our GDP on our defense, then they spend 15% of their GDP on their defense before expecting us to give them support.
Climate. If we are expected to cut 15%, then everyone cuts 15%.
What I am sick of is the USA being expected to be the protector of the free world and then have everyone run rough shod over us because we have weak leaders that make decisions for their careers and party and not for America.
And I think that is alot of the thinking that went into those that voted for Trump.
Now we have an election coming up in 2020 and the question I see being answered is “Do we elect someone standing up for America or do we elect another weak leader like Obama willing to sell us down the drain for political gain.
So in the democrat platform of 2016 it states “Democrats recognize the importance of climate leadership at the local level and know that achieving our national clean energy goals requires an active partnership with states, cities, and rural communities where so much of our country’s energy policy is made. We will ensure that those taking the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency have the tools and resources they need to succeed. The federal government should lead by example, which is why we support taking steps to power the government with 100 percent clean electricity.”
BUT where is the importance on global leadership and the “partnership” needed to reduce emissions world wide? Why just us?
The same activists who are most strongly interested in the issue of climate change have the most naive views of what it would take to cut emissions meaningfully. I have been saying that for more than a decade. When I took part in the Vermont Climate walk in, I think, 2006 I had just read a fat book about energy written by a real expert and had also pulled down the DOE spreadsheets about energy and CO2. The numbers you found are not wrong and your questions are quite good.,
Tansportation and the electricity are merely the low hanging fruit, the easiest places to make some real cuts. But, as I said long ago, even here, they are far from sufficient and even huge cuts in the US can easily be more than offset by increases in emissions by developing countries, China, India, Brazil high among them. The Green Party types are utterly naive about how easy this is. As well, they are fanatics about nuclear power, which is actuually one of the best sources of clean power, I am for it. I got nowhere trying to have any kind of intelligent discussion with the climate marchers about actual solutions.
So what are we supposed to do, nothing? Give up? Take solace in the ideas of sceptics and hope that they are correct.
Ron, Just do not confuse political activists with the actual climate scientists. There is very bad science on both the right and left, laughably bad science.
Take solace in the ideas of sceptics and hope that they are correct should have had a question mark after it. Its a rhetorical question.
“But, as I said long ago, even here, they are far from sufficient and even huge cuts in the US can easily be more than offset by increases in emissions by developing countries, China, India, Brazil high among them. ”
Yes, and thats the rub. We cut 10%, they increase 10%, net = increase. And, we have higher costs forcing more industries to lower cost countries (China, India Brazil), net =lost.jobs, negative impact on economy. And the increased manufacturing moving to these countries also increases electrical demands, which increase emmissions from dirty generation plants.
Why not force the major polluters to cut? Is it better to experience negative economic imoacts due to lost industries or experience the same by imposing economis and financial sanction on those that pollute rhe most until they change?
The numbers are completely irrelevant.
To reverse your own stupid analogy – are you prepared to make the entire planet significantly poorer – that WILL mean higher mortality rates, that will slow the improvement of medicine and other things that significantly improve our lives on the low probability that we actually do get 4C of warming and it is actually bad ?
I would remind you that in nearly every possible way – except MAYBE global Temperatures more CO2 is BENIFICIAL.
Of all of the things that come out of the tailpipe of a car or the exhaust stack of a power plant CO2 is near certain to be more beneficial than harmful.
Absent thousand fold increases it will not harm humans directly at all. You could breath air at 200,000ppm CO2 with no ill effects.
We know that even the small increase in CO2 over the past 70 years has had a significant positive impact on food production. It has also unfortunately caused everything to grow more including weeds.
One of the reasons that scientists are completely unwilling to explore other causes – even other human causes for warming is because only CO2 gives them the poltical power to take over peoples lives.
Do you think it is an accident that the GND is more about forced marxism than warming ?
I honestly do not care if people choose to produce less CO2 – I do not even care if they do so despite the fact that it is probably a stupid idea.
What I do care about is freedom. Whatever CO2 does to the planet it will do far less harm than the advocates for CAGW will do to us.
One aspect of the GND I find hillarious is that they want to reduce both CO2 and fracking.
That is right. The US – which has opted out of Paris thank god, and mostly refuses to agree to anything but voluntary accords is actualy meeting its targets – not because of government.
Not because of forced societal changes, but because franking has shifted us from being a consumer to a producer of energy and an awful lot of it is NG which burns substantially cleaner in every way – including producing less CO2.
I vigorously oppose the lefts “war on coal” – at the same time – Clinton is actually right miners in WV are losing their jobs NO MATTER WHAT. But the left should quit being stupid and trying to speed up the process – you do understand these people voted against you, and you are probably never getting their vote back ?
All things being equal coal is about 1/3 cheaper at producing electricity than anything else.
But all things are not equal. Coal must be transported by rail. NG travels in pipelines – which is far cheaper and less dangerous. Coal must be mined and there is just no easy and safe way to do that. NG is sucked out of the ground through a straw.
Coal plants take days to fire up and days to shutdown. If your energy source is purely coal you must always produce whatever your peak energy demand is.
You can bring up an NG turbine in a few minutes and bring it down as quickly.
Coal plants are typically a hundred miles from demand. NG turbines scale down incredibly.
Power companies, communities, and businesses are installing there own NG turbines.
We had a big fight here over hardening the grid some time ago. What about eliminating the grid ? People could have NG generators at their home, generating only the electricity they need and almost completely off the grid. They could run solar during the day when the sun shines and switch to NG the rest of the time.
And the left wants to end Fracking ?
IYI. Or maybe just I.
“Tansportation and the electricity are merely the low hanging fruit, the easiest places to make some real cuts.”
Nope.
Absent a cost effective very high density storage system you will not replace fossil fuels as the primary source of energy in the west.
You can pretend the laws of physics do not exist – but the laws of physics do not care.
It is probable that we will see improvements over time. But we are way behind the curve on improvements in the density and efficiency of energy storage.
There is no readily available substance that comes close to the energy density of oil.
The space for batteries in every single electric car ever made is many times that of gasoline. The weight is many times that of gasoline.
There are lots and lots of advantages to electric cars, and they are slowly growing on us,
but that growth will not accelerate until we have far better batteries.
The same is true of solar (and wind). The generation price of solar today is almost economical. But absent storage there is no system that can provide 24×7 power, and even if you can break even, you lose money when you add storage, and you have to replace the storage periodically.
Every single one of these problems will likely be solved eventually – but there is nothing you can do to change the timing. Innovation has very little to do with money. And everything to do with the right person with the idea no one else ever thought of.
You keep chiding me for saying “everyone is wrong” regarding climate. While that is not exactly what I am saying. It is still true that pretty much all the major advances in society EVER were the results of only a few people. We do know that greater freedom results in greater invention – otherwise Singapore would will all the nobel prizes. We also know that invovation increases with the number of people, and it increases with rising standard of living.
A billion people in china raised to the bottom of the first world has positive benefits for all of us that we have not even started to see.
But massive amounts of money do not. Nor does government trying to force the issue.
Maybe the miracle battery will appear tomorow – it certainly will eventually.
But the odds are against tomorow. Very smart creative people can figure out how to bend the laws of physics. But that does not occur on demand.
Put otherwise – there is no “low hanging fruit”.
Government has pumped billions into green energy – thus far it is nearly all waste.
The actual improvements have not come from government. And they will not.
No amount of force will change our CO2 emmisions without making us poorer.
And you saw how the french yellow shirts responded to that.
The “low hanging fruit” is not for you, and not for government. It will not drop because you wish it to. Someday – maybe soon the right person will find the right answer.
In the meantime you can do nothing but wait.
“So what are we supposed to do, nothing? Give up? Take solace in the ideas of sceptics and hope that they are correct.”
That is easy – I told you in another post that the history of science is the history of bad ideas like CAGW. But the history of humans overal, is one of improvement.
Free men and free markets make the world better – they always have and they always will.
In the unlikely event that CAGW should actually prove to be an issue – the markets will resolve it.
For the overwhelming majority of people on this planet life is better than it has ever been.
And for the children not yet born the future will be better still.
Just as we can count on society as a whole and science in particular chasing hobgoblins like CAGW – because that is the pattern of human history. We can also count on life improving for all of us. Because it always has. That is NOT the consequence of government or social programs. It is not even the conseqence of technology – in fact technological imprmovement is and all other improvement is a consequence of free people and free markets.
I find it hillarious you are afraid of the things that will save us and in love with the things that might harm us.
Priscilla, there is absolutely nothing wrong with “alliances” with Israel, SA, Turkey and others if it enhances or bolsters our national goals and strategies, militarily and economically. Although the extent to which these “alliances” work out in the long run sometimes is problematical.
I am for such alliance’s, but that does not mean we have to clap them on the back for every thing they do internally and externally.
It’s like I support the law and its officers, but criticize them when because of money and/or ambition, they look the other way when crimes are committed. Of course there are crimes and there are rationalizations and our American ideals don’t always agree with those of other countries and their current governments.
So yes, I agree with some of what Omar says as long as it is not a racial or religious remark.
Money to me is its own religion and politics is its favorite acolyte.
“Money to me is its own religion and politics is its favorite acolyte.”
You will get no argument from me on that, duck.
We may disagree on whether or not Omar is an anti-Semite or not, but we agree that should always be room to disagree on policy, whether it be an ally or an adversary. Open and free debate is something that has been vilified in today’s culture and politics, and that is a very bad thing.
I’m glad that we can still do some of that here.
It is acceptable – 75 years after Hitler to paraphrase the protocols of the elders of Zion on the floor of the house, but you can not review research regarding the inherit-ability of IQ at a college.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…”
J.S. Mill
Ignore every single thing I have ever said but please read and understand Mill.
The link below is to an illustrated modern abridged version of “On Liberty”
https://heterodoxacademy.org/mill/
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with alliances”
George Washington would disagree.
“It’s like I support the law”
All law ? Any law ? What are the requirements for legitimate law.
I have asked that repeatedly. I have offered my own views.
Our founders had theirs.
All discussion about the constitution is inherently a discussion of what constitutes legitimate law.
The entire american revolution was a rejection of illegitimate law, and the declaration of independence was their legal argument justifying that rejection.
yet you gloss over questions about law and what makes legitimate law is if they are of no concern or relevance.
This is not about whether you agree, it is about whether you even recognize the fundimental issue of the american revolution – that all law is not inherently legitimate, that law must respect and protect our “inalienable rights” to be legitimate.
You avoid the question.
“and its officers, but criticize them when because of money and/or ambition, they look the other way when crimes are committed.”
The people who make up government and law enforcement are people – ordinary people, like ourselves. They are not inherently better nor worse. They do not become superior by virtue of a employment by government.
Arguably government and particularly politics and law enforcement attracts alot of those who should never have power over another.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Madison Federalist 51.
I hope you are ambitious. I hope that you strive hard for money – or more accurately to improve your life, which is the purpose of money.
It is not a bad thing to be ambitious, nor to seek to improve your life.
Evil is the way in which you excercise power over others.
Lord Acton did not say money is corrupt – he said POWER is corrupt.
The social contract that the legitimacy of government rests on cedes some power – involuntarily to government. It cedes our right to initiate violence in return for protection of our rights and protection from the violence of others.
The only legitimate exercise of power over another person is to protect their rights and to protect them from the violence of others.
Just law empowers government to do precisely that. All failure to do so – including “looking the other way” which is little more than “prosecutorial discretion” in common clothes.
When Comey excercised “prosecutorial discretion” regarding Clinton – he was “looking the other way”. Possibly he was doing so, because her conduct was only different from his own in magnitude. Comey has admitted under oath to providing classified documents to people without a security clearance, and to mishandling classified information, and to emailing classified information.
But “Looking the other way” is only one of the lessor evils of wielding power.
The use of power beyond what the law may legitimately grant is far more dangerous.
The left spits and fumes about Trump the Authoritarian – and absolutely they should fear the excercise of power against others purely because you have power.
Thus far Trump has shown little evidence of doing so. While we are surrounded by examples of the prior administration doing exactly that. Whether it is the political witchhunt that we are still ensnared in, or pretending the law is bubblegum that you can stretch to ensnare whoever you do not like, or it is excercising prosecutorial discretion – “looking the other way” because you “feel” for the 800K of now adults who were brought here illegallly as children.
Or numerous other examples such as fast & Furious, and IRS Gate – we have real extralegal uses of power, and those are far far more dangerous, and the most dangerous of all are the abuses we justify as “good causes”.
Trump has threatened to “build the wall” on his own authority. He should not have that power, Whether he is right or wrong about the wall, the justifiable (constitutional) use of power in the US requires super majoritarian support. It requires the consent of 51% of the house and 60% of the Senate as well as the president, and the blessing of the courts.
Absent any one of these the use of power is illegitimate.
It is illegitmate when Trump does it, and Illegitmate when Obama did it. It is particularly dangerous when done for a purported “good cause”. Every Tyrant can manufacture a “good cause”.
Trump should not have that power – unfortunately he does. Laws passed by congress in the 60’s giver the president that power. Trump should not use it and congress should rescind those laws – and myriads of other laws.
“Of course there are crimes and there are rationalizations and our American ideals don’t always agree with those of other countries and their current governments.”
If something is an actual crime – it is within the domain of govenrment – any rationaliziation is irrelevant.
If something is not a crime – it is not in the domain of government.
Neither government nor you have the power to judge our “rationalizations”
“So yes, I agree with some of what Omar says as long as it is not a racial or religious remark.
Money to me is its own religion and politics is its favorite acolyte.”
Money is a religion – your fixation on it is evidence. But you do not seem to grasp that money is subordinate to power – politics, not the other way arround.
If the government constrained itself to the powers the constitution gives us – there would be little money in politics.
Power attracts money – not the other way arround.
Power corrupts, Power is the religion of politics – from the president through the rich right down to the lowliest “community organizer” all are seeking power. Money is just a means to rent that power.
BS piled on top of BS just makes a bigger pile.
This analysis of polling data by 538 on socialism is highly satisfying to me. In short, the word socialist has lost most of the meaning that political scientists have traditionally given it as ownership of the means of production. As well, 50% would not vote for a socialist including a lot of democrats, 38% (including me). Its still a semi effective rhetorical weapon, which is fine by me, although very few still use it as a synonym for commie or marxist. I think this follows from people understanding that democratic socialists in Scandinavian countries are not marxists, they are for BIG government but not in the Venezuelan/Chinese/USSR?Cuban sense. So, Americans see a broader meaning of the term than I had thought, and still are not too wild about socialists anyhow, which is also highly fine by me.
Honestly the term has become almost meaningless when removed from its original Marxist context. Many but by no means all Democrats see it as positive while many (but not all!) republicans see it as a negative. But almost none of them have a solid idea what it is.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-socialism-still-an-effective-political-bogeyman/
Of course you would support the destruction of meaning.
Would it be okay with you if the term “rape” lost its meaning and therefore the act became acceptable ?
Regardless I prefer not to argue over the semantics of the meaning of socialism.
It has failed everywhere it has been tried – no matter how broadly it is defined, no matter how narrowly it is defined.
In fact all action by government to restrict liberty – beyond restrictions on the initiation of force, limits on walking away for agreements, and requirements to make whole those you actually harm have ALWAYS done more harm than good.
GROW UP.
Those European social democracies you love – TRIED “Socialism Lite” – it failed – not nearly as badly as full blown socialism, but still failed, And they have been spending the past 3-4 decades trying to escape it, but it is very hard for people to end a drug addiction.
Bother to actually learn something about those “eurpoean socialists”.
Most of those scandanavian countries have near identical economic freedom to the US.
In some cases more. They have corporate taxes that are LOWER than the US – or were until recently. They have top margin income taxes that are the same or lower than the US.
They have “Big government” only in the sense they have a broader social safetynet than the US – one that costs their working class 50% of their income – income that is already 20-30% lower than that of americans. They not merely have substantially lower standards of living – but they have been falling behind the US at a rate of about 1% per year.
These countries have spent the past 3 decades trying to switch from herion additction to methadone before getting off the drugs.
Why is it that you want to inflict something that does not work even for scandanavians on the US ?
And just to be clear – I do not think the scandanavians are all that stupid.
Most of Europe – though it has mandated healthcare – which is an infringement on liberty that we do not have, at the same time most of the nations you cite do not have the totally F’d up basically government mangled disaster that we have.
Big government does not work – NOT IN ANY FORM, No Matter what you label it.
IF you bother to look into it there are HUNDREDS of economic studies of government size using the past 100, 200 years, using the US, each individual country in the OECD, all the developed countries in the world, Even marginal countries in places like Africa and the mideast. The findings are universal.
For every 10% increase in GDP that government grows, the rate of increase in standard of living decreases by 1%.
That may not seem like much – but ask yourself why the standard of living in Germany and France and all those nordic social democracies is significantly lower than the US ?
I would further note that your ideal countries are so lily white that 98% of the people are not merely the same race, they are the same tribe, and the same religion.
If you can not make socialism lite work in a monoculture – how do you expect it to work in the most diverse nation in the world ?
Big Government and diversity DO NOT COEXIST. Diversity requires liberty.
“Why is it that you want to inflict something that does not work even for scandanavians on the US ?”
You simply cannot read. Oh, you can recognize words, you just can’t understand what people are saying. Not humor, not sarcasm, not irony, not even the clearest most unambiguous statements.
I do not want scandinavian socialism. I do not want American government to get bigger. I could not have said so more clearly in many many posts. I can go through your responses to the things I post, you get things backwards reliably and then go off on a lecture that only actually says what I was saying but in a gazzillion words with a huge pile of gibberish thrown in. I don’t bother trying to correct you 99% of the time, like when you took my sarcastic statement that one can shout that PACS are using money to influence politics and everyone will agree, you just can’t say it if its a pro Israeli PAC. That was not a literal statement it was obvious sarcasm. You actually managed to think I literally meant that it is wrong to criticize Israel when that was the opposite of my point. Anyone else would get it. For you it was just a departure point into a harrange that said what I was saying while telling me what a nutty leftist I am and cursing the left to smithereens.
You nonsensify every discussion here.
I realize you were wired from birth to do this but it sure ain’t easy having any discussion with you, or even around you.
Presuming that I beleive what you are saying – all you are doing is pointing out the stupidity of saying anything different from what you actually beleive on the interent.
Written sarcasm is incredibly hard – and you are not johnathan swift.
Further you continue to post as “anonymous” which means you provide absolutely zero context to determine whether you are sarcastic as you claim.
You say it is obvious – I can find millions of left wing nuts on the internet – OR IN CONGRESS that say the same things you post DEAD SERIOUSLY.
I personally try to avoid Sarcasm, and misdirection most of the time.
But If I post
“Big Government is Great” as dhlii or jbsay – atleast there is context – other reads here know – I hope that such statements must be sarcastic or ironic because they know who they are from.
You are free to post as anonymous – I have had to do so sometimes when WordPress will not let me log in.
Speaking anonymously is a right.
But when you do so – you should not be surprised when your remarks are discounted and you are taken litterally.
Beyond that – I would say most of the remarks you are claiming are sarcastic – are NOT obviously so. As I said they could easily have come from most any democrat in congress – even the more moderate ones.
If you are claiming sarcasm – are you claiming the entire democratic party is total idiots ?
So stupid that you can play them straight and get irony ?
Absolutely my nature drives me to take things litterally – that is NORMAL.
99.99% of everything anyone ever says is intended to be taken litterally.
Absolutely my job as well as deliberate efforts on my part push me towards taking things litterally.
Computer do not joke. Nor does mathematics,
My sense of humor is not that of a comedian. But I have no problem making and responding to jokes.
But this is not a comedy club. Provide enough context or expect to be taken litterally.
Because that is what HUMANS do 99.99% of the time.
Seeing something stupid as positive does not make it positive.
Score one for McConnell. I think this is brilliant. Vote now of the GND resolution. End the posturing. Yes, the progs brought this manifesto into existence, now let them defend it outside their campus.
I want to know ASAP whether the Dem party is going to truly convert the Prog/Green party. I don’t want to wait a year to have that battle. Have it now. Its bitter medicine, but I hope it will be helpful in the long run and bring the Dem party back to earth. It quite possibly may not, we will see.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429635-mcconnell-to-set-up-vote-on-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal
My hope for the democratic party was a return to their senses after the 2016 election. Instead they have doubled down on all the stupidity that lost them the election in the first place.
Regardless of which party has power – we need the other as a reasoned contrarian voice.
We need democrats to be a check against republican over reach when Republicans are in power. Just as republicans mitigated the worst of democrats while democrats have power.
Democrats took the house in 2018 by running candidates that were NOT extreme.
The party unfortunately has not regained its sanity, but democratic candidates in swing districts did, and by doing so they delivered a majority to the democrats int he house.
Yet wing nut democrats from the safest of deep blue seats are intent on doing everything in their power to assure that in 2020 voters outside those at the far left vote straight republican accross the board.
We are two months into democratic control of the house – and democrats have lost control of their own destiny.
Ron likes to say that democrats are better at messaging – and mostly they are.
But they have lost it.
Do you honestly think this is a party that can manage to win in 2020 ?
“By the end of the Green New Deal resolution [and accompanying fact sheet] I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,” tweeted the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel: “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.”
Which was my point.
You even managed to say something sensible, something I have been saying here forever.
“Regardless of which party has power – we need the other as a reasoned contrarian voice.
We need democrats to be a check against republican over reach when Republicans are in power. Just as republicans mitigated the worst of democrats while democrats have power.”
You do not get to be taken credibly when you say you have been saying something forever when you post anonymously.
every single anonymous post is UNIQUE. there is little means to determine whether it is from the same source as the last one, or any other.
Anonymous posts must be read standalone. They have no context.
You are free to post anonymously.
You are not free to demand that the rest of us use the context of our guess as to your identity as the means to understand your posts.
Not only is telling sarcasm difficult over the internet – it is 10 times harder when the poster is unknown.
Next – do you have a problem with being agreed with ?
The excuse does not pass the laugh test. You know who I am unless you really are denser than lead.
I don’t know why wordpress goes back and forth between Roby and Anonymous. I don’t even notice actually. Everyone here knows my style, especially you and your comments sayt as much.
Not a clever out.
“The excuse does not pass the laugh test. You know who I am unless you really are denser than lead”
No I do not. I can guess. But that would be just a guess. Further, I have no way of knowing whether any post by anonymous is by the same person as the last.
My point is there is absolutely no context to an anonymous post – beyond the text of that post.
“I don’t know why wordpress goes back and forth between Roby and Anonymous. I don’t even notice actually. Everyone here knows my style, especially you and your comments sayt as much.”
We are all aware of the deficiencies of wordpress.
You keep telling me that you are not a lefty statist – and now you are demanding that not merely I but every other reader here perform style analysis on posts by anonymous and then to guess who actually posts them – and no doubt you will call us to the carpet if they guess wrong.
Anyone is free to post as anonymous – deliverately or accidentally.
I have had worpress problems that have resulted in a few posts going in as anoymous.
But I am not so arrogant as to presume that everyone else is obligated to analyse those posts and re-interpret them in the context of the other posts I have made.
Further your demand above undermines your own argument that by putting these posts into the “context” of Roby – we should know they are “sarcasm”.
You have just demanded that I and everyone else here take on the task of sorting through anonymous posts to determine who the actual author is and then use that knowledge to re-interpret the post in a context that we had to guess at.
That demand is not particularly distinguishable from the litteral reading of the posts you say we are supposed to read as sarcasm.
Many of the Roby posts more recently show more skepticism of the extreme left, and more suspicion of democrats and government.
That is a NEW development. My GUESS is that is a reversion to your own actual values,
as your TDS starts to fade. But that is just a guess.
By default I take everyone who posts here LITTERALLY. This is not a comedy forum.
The “context” that one would presume for TNM is that people are saying what they think, what they beleive.
“Not a clever out.”
You want others to go to a great deal of trouble to decipher context – The obvious context is simple – you made stupid remarks in the hopes that others would grasp they were sarcasm – because they came from you – without identifying yourself so that context was discernable, and even presuming we somehow divined that context – it would not help you much as you have made similar remarks in the past – or is nearly everything you post sarcasm.
You do not want to be called a leftist, yet you make the burden of everything everyone else’s problem. That is pretty much the definition of a leftist.
Regardless, I am not looking to an “out”.
I responded to the remarks posted.
It is not a crime or sin or moral failure to respond to them as written.
The burden of communication is ALWAYS on the author – regardless of who the author is.
Dave, you Ditz – there are only 6 of us (including Pricilla occasionally) posting here.
Oh, right – you have Reasoning Deficiency Syndrome
“Dave, you Ditz – there are only 6 of us (including Pricilla occasionally) posting here.
Oh, right – you have Reasoning Deficiency Syndrome”
When you Assume – you make an ASS out of U and ME.
I do not make assumptions about anonymous posts.
I treat their posts standalone.
Further I think there are only 6 “regulars” here – there are people who drift in from time to time. Some post as anonymous, and some stay for a whole and then leave.
BTW “anonymous” being Robby does NOT help.
Robby has posted some pretty left posts.
He appears to have come more to his senses more recently,
regardless taking extreme leftist nonsense adding “robby” as the poster does NOT lead me to the conclusion that it is sarcastic.
Now if Ron was Anonymous – that would have been evidence of sarcasm.
But again when you make assumptions about an anonymous post you have a high probability of being wrong.
Your argument is that we shoud make assumptions.
Humm… I assumed you knew how to spell his name after all these years
“I want to know ASAP whether the Dem party is going to truly convert the Prog/Green party. I don’t want to wait a year to have that battle. Have it now. Its bitter medicine, but I hope it will be helpful in the long run and bring the Dem party back to earth. It quite possibly may not, we will see. ”
Yup.
Well I am not a politician, but I think McConnell is being idiotic taking a campaign issue out of the election. Once the dems go on record of voting against it, no matter how much Trump sits in the residence and tweets about TGND, it makes no difference.
Both political parties ALWAYS have a problem in every election.
They must appeal to their own base – or their bases stays home, and they lose the election.
They must appeal to voters toward the center or they can not get elected.
McConnell is forcing Dem Presidential candidates to choose between their base and most of the country. It is a lose-lose proposition.
It does not matter which way Democrats vote, it hurts them.
Both parties face some forms of the same problem.
AOC just walked the entire democratic party into an ambush.
If democrats vote down the GND in the senate – that will strongly negatively impact their support among young voters without whom they are toast. And though your reliably favors democrats, they do NOT reliably vote.
If democrats vote for the GND – the GOP can spend the next 2 years pummeling democrats as idiot socialists.
I do not think this is such a brilliant move it changes everything.
But it was a mistake.
And it is right out of Alinsky’s playbook.
Tulsi criticizes the GND and shows her foreign policy chops, separating her from the Dem herd.: “Tulsi Gabbard talks foreign policy issues in her first Iowa appearance as a presidential candidate”
https://www.desmoinesregist…
The only independent thinker so far.
Double standard? Israeli liberals think so:
“The Sick Double Standard In The Ilhan Omar Controversy
Read more: https://forward.com/opinion/419206/the-sick-double-standard-in-the-ilhan-omar-controversy”
“Yet almost all of Omar’s Republican critics in Congress endorse this bigotry. The 2016 Republican platform declares that, “We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier” in the West Bank. In other words, governing Jews by one set of laws and Palestinians by another is fine. Last December, Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin, who has called for stripping Omar of her committee assignments, spoke at a fundraiser for Bet El, a West Bank settlement from which Palestinians are barred from living even though it was built—according to the Israeli supreme court—on land confiscated from its Palestinian owners.”
Law in the west Bank and Gaza is determined by the palestinian authority.
If there is disparity – it is driven by the palestinians.
Many – I beleive several million palestinians live in Israel and have since 1948.
Those palestinians are treated the same and have the same rights as jews.
They vote, they get elected, ….
Absolutely Israel is internally conflicted about how to deal with the west bank and Gaza.
A small minority of nut case jews essentially want to drive the palestinians out.
But the vast majority of jews want to recognize the west bank and Gaza as a Palestinian state in return for recognition of Israels right to exist.
Are the Israeli’s occupiers – in the most nominal sense yes.
For the most part they occupied the teritory of people who actually attacked them in a war, and are fully prepared to return it the moment those people promise not to do that again.
Most of us think that is reasonable
At the same time they do not interfere significantly in the Palistinian authorities administration of Gaza and the west bank.
OK here is an article that will help provide some context to a continuing debate we have here, OR it might just add more fuel to the fire.
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/state-the-planet-better-ever
We have one side commenting about how much worse the earth is today than in the past. Then we have the other side saying the world has improved. Separate from American politics, I have to agree with that position.
Yes, we have pockets of issues, like the excessive use of plastics.
Ron
Thank you.
BTW you can find dozens of editorials like Moores each year.
If you are on twitter – follow @humanprogress – you will get numerous posts and graphs each day demonstrating the world is better not worse.
Pretty much every issue we fight over here – is MUCH better than 20 or 40 years ago.
Even many of the things I complain about are BETTER than before.
Further we know WHY things are better – and it is not government – except to the extent that the failure of socialism has brought about greater freedom and FREDOM is what drives our improving standard of living.
Nor are we dealing with a question of oppinion.
There are specific things in specific places that are WORSE,
We can all find examples – nearly all of which have to do with government.
I think the Obama administration was a FAILURE.
But not because it made everything worse accross the board.
It did not. Under Obama MOST things got better.
Obama is a failure – because the rate of improvement was MUCH LESS than Trump or most 20th century presidents.
Even Soviet Socialism did not actually fail.
It just failed to keep up.
“If you are on twitter – follow @humanprogress – you will get numerous posts and graphs each day demonstrating the world is better not worse.”
I have twitter, but seldom use it. I dont like a system where you cant see other peoples comment (tweets) like one can see on Facebook.
Then you can read their web site.
https://humanprogress.org/
Is this lefty socialist serious?
Oh, sorry, he’s a righty capitalist
(Running for GOP Prez again?)
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/02/13/marco-rubio-just-went-off-on-corporate-stock-buybacks/
Jay, I am not going to get into the weeds on why stock buy backs a good, but I will list a couple things.
A large number of pensions are invested in stock. Federal, state, local government and private industries and unions
Stock buybacks occur when there are sellers wanting to divest. Instead of other investors, the company buys.
Stock buybacks reduce cash and reduce the number of stockholders. If for instance the stock sells for $10 and they buy back 10%, in many instances the stock price increases to $11.
If the dividends are determined by earnings and outstanding shares, in many cases the dividend will increase due to fewer outstanding shares.
And all of this is good for the investors. And unlike the liberals on the left that will spin this as a gift to the rich, those benefiting most are those invested in retirement funds.
If SS invested in the market, it would be much more funded for years to come, But the fanatics on the left only attack the stock market and Rubio has fallen into that trap since it appears he has little knowledge if the impact of stock buybacks.
Thanks for the info, Ron. But that doesn’t address the thrust of the argument: the huge tax cuts didn’t produce the economic results Trump said they would. Some stockholders may have benefited, but US citizens in general did not.
Jay if president through history had done what they said they and there policies would do, we would not need God, Allah, Confusius, Buddha or any other God like figure because we would be living in Paradise.
To explain why most individuals who have an IRA, Defined Contribution Pension, Defined Benefit Pension, Government Pension and pure stock holdings, which when adding all these together, make up a large percentage of Americans has been benifitial is too complicated.
Needless to say, for those leaning right, its a good thing. For those leaning keft, its a bad thing. For Rubio to criticize, he is showing me that my support for him earlier might not have been wise.
Rubio is making the fundmental mistake of the left and myriads of posters here.
He is presuming that market transactions are zero sum – that if there is a winner that there must be a loser.
No market transaction is a guaranteed winner for either the buyer or the seller.
Sometimes one or the other or both lose.
But the overwhelming majority of the time BOTH win.
Sometimes one more than the other.
Rubio has succumbed to the natural paranoia of the left.
He has presumed that if a corporation is doing something it must be benefiting (True), and that means someone else must be harmed (false and fallacy)
“Thanks for the info, Ron. But that doesn’t address the thrust of the argument: the huge tax cuts didn’t produce the economic results Trump said they would. Some stockholders may have benefited, but US citizens in general did not.”
If that is as you say – the thrust of the article – then the article is WRONG!.
While I will happily agree that republicans EXAGERATE the benefits of tax cuts ALONE.
They are still unarguably NET beneficial.
But EVERY government action produces winners and losers – even if you and your article are completely confused about who the winners and losers are.
Tax Cuts are inarguably NET beneficial.
Spending cust are inarguably NET more beneficial.
Ron, your initial response to Rubio was likely more astute.
If he challenged Trump for 2020 run, I hope you’re not suggesting you’d vote for Prez Bold Faced Lying SOB Trump. Say it ain’t so, Ron.
My suggested Rubio slogan-jibe at Trump:
Liar, Liar – Jock Strap On Fire.
Jay, you know my thoughts on Trump. But Rubio was my first choice and I voted for him in the NC primary. Had he made comments about corporate tax cuts not being good and high tax rates being better than stock buybacks,which he is basically saying here, then I would have supported another on the NC primary ballot.
Unless Trump is not running, Rubio wont
Corporate stock buy-backs are morally and legally neutral.
They are a type of bet regarding the future. Whether they prove wise depends on the future.
If they are at record levels – that means that the managers of corporations think their future is brighter than shareholders.
Regardless, buybacks improve a companies credit. They enable it to borrow more easily in the future.
Borrowing money is OFTEN a good thing.
Paying debts back – is a good thing.
I doubt lower corporate tax rates have much to do with buy backs.
I suspect that the improved tax treatment of foreign income does.
I would note that stock buy backs were high under Obama as were corporate profits.
I can’t answer Joe’s questions…
But I’m betting someone will squeeze out some rationalizations
Why do you presume that Manafort lied – much less did so intentionally.
Even Mueller has not actually asserted in most of his indictments that the lies he has charged were intentional.
Why is Manaforte risking spending the rest of his life in prison ?
That is pretty easy. Because Mueller does not give anyone an actual choice.
As both Stone and Corsi have stated. Manafort “caught” them in meaningless minor inconsistencies and is trying to leverage that using criminal charges to get them to lie.
Maybe that is true – maybe it is not. But lets presume for a second – I know this is hard for lefties, That Manafort, Stone, Papadoulis, Flynn, …. do not have anything to give to Mueller that he wants. In that case they have no leverage. It is near impossible to negotiate when you have nothing to offer.
The most likely answer to Walsh’s question as to Why Manaforte is taking all of this risk – is there is no risk. He has nothing truthful to give to Mueller.
Regardless, this will all end soon.
And my guess is that ALL the people Mueller has charged are praying for a pardon.
I expect there prayers will be answered
They should be.
Flynn, Papadoulis, Stone should be pardoned.
Manaforte should have his sentence commuted.
I suspect Trump will let Cohen rot.
Dear Doubting Dingbat Dave:The JUDGE says he LIED!
https://apnews.com/7950884c7ef24fdf9defc6238b492708
Jay.
Go beyond newspaper headlines and read the actual ruling by the Judge – that is NOT what she said.
What she ACTUALLY said is that Manafort entered a plea agreement that required him to co-operate with the Prosecutor and that the determination as to whether he had cooperated etc. was at the SOLE DISCRETION of the prosecutor, and that both sides are agreed that the prosecutor does not beleive he cooperated. Therefore portions of the plea agreement no longer are binding.
Fundimentally this is not a finding that Manafort Lied.
It is a finding that he agreed that for the purpose of the terms of the plea agreement, Mueller ALONE gets to decide.
Jackson relied pretty much entirely on the text of the plea agreement and the agreement of the parties that they were at an impasse on several issues.
You can read the decision, or you can read the headlines.
I think Jackson’s conduct of this trial has been poor. Though in several instances she is handcuffed.
I think Muellers conduct has been completely unethical.
Manaforts efforts to find corroborating witnesses are NOT witness tampering.
If anything Muellers efforts to preclue Manafort from seeking cooperating witnesses are unethical and criminal and witness tampering.
But Mueller controls the grand jury – Jackson does not.
And the law on bail – law that I think is HORRIBLY WRONG, requires Jackson to revoke bail merely because Manafort was charged. Jackson has no legal authority to challenge the strength of the charges.
I doubt she would if she could – Jackson does not seem to have the desire to protect individual rights that Ellis does.
But my personal doubts do not alter the fact that for the most part she has followed the letter of the law, even though the law is wrong.
Beyond that – I am no particular friend of Manafort.
But there is a difference between being reprehensible and engaging in actual proveable criminal conduct.
Manafort has not acutally proveably committed any crimes – the jury was quite obviously wrong and quite clearly did not apply the actual law or standards.
Anyone may legitimately seek to pay the least possible taxes – that is not a crime.
Wanting to pay the least taxes – is not a crime.
Going to great effort to pay the least taxes – is not a crime.
Borrowing money from yourself to reduce your taxes – is not a crime.
Doing so BADLY – is not a crime.
Failure to dot your eyes and cross your tees MIGHT subject you to taxes you would not otherwise have avoided.
Tax evasion is supposed to hinge on Lying about your revenue or lying about your expenses.
Manafort did NEITHER.
Persuing a legitimate means of paying less taxes is NEVER a crime.
Doing so BADLY is NEVER a crime.
Criminal tax evasion is not proven by the intent to pay the least taxes. That is an intent that nearly every ameican has. It is not a crime it is a virtue.
It is proven by evidence of actual income that is not counted, or reported expenses that are not real.
To the extent Jackson erred – it was allowing the tax evasion claims to go to a jury.
Mueller presented no evidence that Manafort had hidden income, or exagerated expenses.
The entire case rested – as much of Muellers investigation on overly broad interpretations of the law.
Any american is free to restructure their finances in whatever way that confroms to the law that results in the lowest taxes.
Doing so badly is not a crime.
It is not a crime no matter how reprhensible you are.
I expect this to be over soon.
I expect that Trump will pardon Manafort.
And he should.
The actual crime that everyone on the left beleives that Paul Manafort committed was helping Trump win the election in 2016.
That is completely unforgivable to many of you.
That we have allowed Mueller and the left to stretch the law and use it as a cudgel to try to change a legitimate result that we do not like – that is an actual crime.
One of us is a dumb fuc- I think it’s you.
“What she ACTUALLY said is that Manafort entered a plea agreement that required him to co-operate with the Prosecutor and that the determination as to whether he had cooperated etc. was at the SOLE DISCRETION of the prosecutor, and that both sides are agreed that the prosecutor does not beleive he cooperated. Therefore portions of the plea agreement no longer are binding.
Fundimentally this is not a finding that Manafort Lied.
It is a finding that he agreed that for the purpose of the terms of the plea agreement, Mueller ALONE gets to decide.”
Read page 3, Dave. Where the judge says she agrees WITH the prosecutors in 3 of the charges of lying, etc. She disagreed on 2.
To make her decision she noted (a paragraph or so above) she had EXAMINED the evidence Mueller presented. SHE DOESNT DENOTE THE LIES, but says he DID lie, per the evidence she saw.
Dont be a Shithead, Dave- admit when you’re mistaken.
So according to YOU
Jackson says that the PROSECUTORS LIED TO THE COURT 3 times out of 4 ?
If you accuse someone of lying and the court finds you are wrong – isn’t that lying ?
If we are going to play this kind of game would that not require Mueller to withdraw ?
Lying to the court is a serious ethical violation for any prosecutor.
Can we quit playing these nonsensical games of trying to micro analyze the minutia of the minutia to get to some desireable end ?
First there is no charge against manafort that has anything to do with the 2016 campaign
The outcome of anything manafort related has no bearing on Trump, the 2016 election, or russian collusion.
Manafort’s entire prosecution is entirely and obviously an effort to get him to roll on Trump.
I do not have a problem with prosecutors trying to get criminals to roll on other criminals.
But that is NOT carte blanche to manufacture prosecutions and crimes – which is the real reason that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a strong distaste for “process crimes”.
We must seek a balance in the power prosecutors are given.
And we long ago lost sight of that balance.
You may not like this – but in criminal law – according to the foundational principles – but not unfortunately standard practice today,
The defense represents the defendant. The sole interests of the defense is the interests of the defendant. Short of committing a crime, the defense can do whatever it takes to get their client off. That is not merely what they do – it if not “sleazy” it is actually a moral obligation.
And it is your obligation as a defense attorney – even if you know your client is guilty.
Conversely the prosecution is NOT charged with winning – though most every prosecutor seems to think so. Their job is to seek justice.
If Manafort or his attorney’s made a false representation – that is at most a minor ethical violation. All lies – even all lies to the court are not crimes.
If the prosecution misrepresented anything to the court – that is extremely serious.
That include leveling accusations of lying.
What I have said is the principles of criminal law that are almost 1000 years old.
Those principles have not ever changed.
But unfortunately we have so whittled away at them in practice that we have flipped almost everything. Prosecutors are free to lie and cheat. It is littlerally the defense attorney’s job to catch them.
As the law stands today the requirement to assure that a defendant get a fair trial rests with the defense attorney. If the prosecutor does something unethical – it is an ethical failure for the defense attorney to not find out and catch him.
You like to bring up my wife. She is a criminal appelate lawyer – she files hundreds of appeals and PCRA’s. These generally fall into one of two catagories.
The judge errored in applying the law. Or the defense attorney was ineffective
Quite often for failing to catch some sleazy manueaver of the prosecutor.
In the rare instances she wins – either the judge seriously erred on the law, or the defense counsel was ineffective – for not catching the prosecution in something improper.
If the prosecutor hides evidence – and is caught – the case will likely get overturned.
But the decision will be that the defense counsel was ineffective for allowing the prosecutor to hide evidence.
“SHE DOESNT DENOTE THE LIES,”
When you accuse someone of lying you are OBLIGATED to be specific and back your claim with evidence.
A false accusation of a lie is itself a LIE.
It is not enough – even for a judge to float an assertion.
If you can not say – this statement is a lie, and these are the facts that establish it as a lie – then I have no interest in you claim you have found a lie – not even if you are a judge.
Clapper lied to congress – we can all find his testimony and we all know the evidence that demonstrates his testimony was false.
Clinton lied to congress – again her testimoney is readily available, everyone can hear it.
And the facts that make her statement a lie are all available to all of us.
While it will not likely change my overall assessment of this entire witchhunt.
I am perfectly willing to accept that Manafort is a lying sleazebag and criminal.
But before I take his property and freedom – I want more than my moral judgement of him – I want proof. Evidence.
Whether Manafort is a lying sleazebag and criminal – does not help the left in their efforts to “get Trump”
Alone among those Mueller has prosecuted – Cohen has “turned on Trump”.
The left has claimed that he was deeply involved in russian collusion.
But what has turncoat Cohen provided ? A claim with no legal foundation that he and trump violated campaign finance laws by acts that do not violate campaign finance laws.
Either all of these people are unbeleiveably loyal to Trump – willing to fall on their swords for him to cover up this great conspiracy – or the real reason they have not been able to cooperate with Mueller to muellers satisfaction is that they can not give Mueller what he wants – because it does not exist.
You asked Why Manafort would risk all of this ?
That is a good question. If Manafort has actual information damaging to Trump – do you have any doubt Mueller would give him a free ride ?
Manafort was part of the campaign for 1 month. He has no reason to be loyal to Trump.
They have no consequential long term ties.
Even if Manafort was certain of a pardon from Trump – he must sit in jail in solitary atleast until this is over which seems to be never.
If I were Paul Manafort – if you were Paul Manafort – if most anyone was Paul manafort we would tell Mueller anything he wanted to get out from under this.
But there is a problem with that. Telling Mueller what he wants does not help.
Even though I think Mueller is a crook – there is so much public scrutiny that whatever Manafort tells Mueller MUST BE TRUE, or it will be of no help.
That BTW is the problem EVERY person Mueller flipped has.
In my County court a plea bargain to flip and tell lies about a codefendant will likely fly.
There will not be the eyes of the nation trying to sus out the truth of falsity of whatever testimony you provide.
But if Cohen as an example says he was in Prague in August 2016 – he must provide dates places and they will be scrutinezed thoroughly .
If he lies he will be caught and things will be worse.
People are not flipping on Trump – not because they are loyal, but because they have nothing to give. There is no there there and there never was.
The crime is the investigation.
A bunch of process crimes does not change that.
I asked for evidence – not hearsay. Not even by judges.
Adam Schiff stated publicly 2 years ago that he had seen evidence that was more than circumstantial that there was collusion between Trump and Russia.
So far NOTHING. I think that people who produce evidence to back up what they say are credible. I think those who do not are liars.
Dave in this day and age, you dont need proof. All you need to do is say it and people believe it if they are of the opposite political persuasion. How many people do you think are asking, “Why didn’t Shiff provide proof of collusion?” Bet more are saying “Shiff said he has proof Trump colluded” right now.
The people who elected Schiff deserve him.
The rest of us do not.
I have not looked at all of the nuances of all of this.
But as best as I can tell – the defense has not opposed any of this – and in fact it is arguing with the prosecution on most points.
What I beleive just occurred is that Jackson invalidated the plea deal – primarily with the agreement of the defense.
I beleive that Manaforts defense team has essentially said that it is not possible to conform to the plea agreement because the prosecutor alone gets to decide what constitutes conformance, and therefore they want the plea agreement gone.
I beleive what you are seeing as a loss for Manafort is the restoration of his right to appeal.
Jackson is now free to sentence Manafort outside the terms of the plea agreement.
But manafort is now free to appeal the conviction, the sentencing – everything.
Which he could not do so long as the plea agreement was inplace.
Essentially Manafort appears to be overtly doing what Flynn has been trying to do covertly.
Manafort has backed out of his own guilty plea.
Flynn continues to try to wrap himself in its protection while asking the court to throw it out.
That has frustrated Judge Sullivan. I beleive that many of Sulivans remarks were highly inappropriate – but he has walked those back.
But essentially what Sullivan has been telling Flynn is:
If you want me to examing issues of prosecutorial misconduct and to consider the possibility that you are innocent – then YOU must walk away from your guilty plea.
Because so long as YOU say you are guilty, you can not expect ME to explore much less find that you are innocent.
I think that Sulivan may be correct on the law.
Though I am not sure.
It is the obligation of the court to do justice. Not to do what the prosecutor wants or what the defense wants.
If Sullivan beleives that Flynn did not lie to the FBI – and the evidence is pretty compelling that he did not, then it does not matter that Flynn continues to assert he did lie in order to protect a plea deal.
Justice is not about Flynn or Mueller.
Justice means the court can not convict an innocent person – even if they plead guilty.
Why is Joe Walsh lying about Russia ?
There is no meaningful Trump/Russia story.
It is pretty much dead.
Duh
Is there no end to this investigation? It looks a lot like the Clinton investigation.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123653000
Twp SP’s found nothin about whitewater, but a new investigation having nothing to do with Whitewater or anything connected ( other than Clintons penis) found him screwing around with another woman.
Ibam sick of the whole thing and could care less what they find. He wont get reelected anyway, so why waste the money for less than a year(nothing will be settled until late 2020).
Trump is getting re-elected
Democrats are doing everything possible to assure that.
“So, “collusion” aside, we have irrefutable evidence that”
Is this an admission there is no collusion ?
“–Trump’s team sought Russia’s help w/election”
Presumably you mean that Trump met with Natalia in the hopes of dirt on Clinton.
Not a crime, not collusion. Appears to be a setup, Not only Natalia, but the Russian with her have been tied to the Clinton campaign.
Regardless, The Clinton campaign was meeting with EXACTLY THE SAME people.
Further while Trump “sought” dirt on Clinton.
Clinton BOUGHT dirt on Trump – worse still fraudulent dirt.
DJR was atleast smart enough to be able to tell that what Natalia brought him was worthless.
“–Russia helped Trump win the election”
Not true and not relevant.
Russian efforts were inconsequential and approximately balanced
Russia attempted to stir up trouble – and you allowed them to.
But lets assume that Russia actually decided to “help Trump”.
Does that invalidate the election ?
Are you going to dictate a new election law that – if Russia favors a candidate they are automatically disqualified ?
You would give Putin enormous power. Under your rule Putin could have elected Trump merely by coming out for Hillary.
“–Trump & team covered up Russia’s help & sought to obstruct investigation”
-Nope.
Mueller has been busilly digging into massive amounts of things that are none of his business at all and have nothing to do with his mandate.
Trump has railed about this witchhunt – but Unlike Clinton and Nixon who fought everything to the supreme court, Trump has not gone to court to preclude ANY of Mueller illicity investigation.
Obstruction is an act. Railing at prosecutorial misconduct is NOT obstruction.
It is legitimate anger.
“–Trump & team have embraced unprecedented pro-Russia policies”
Innarguably Trump’s policies towards Russia have been harsher than Obama’s.
Russia invaded Georgia just prior to the 2008 Election.
Obama did nothing.
Clinton provoked a Coup that lead to a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Obama did nothing.
Obama/Clinton worked with Russia to provide them with control of significant US Uranium.
Obama then tanked an FBI investigation into Russian corruption to prevent it from interfering with the U1 deal.
There has been no “russian reboot” under Trump.
There is not a single way in which Russia is getting more from the US under Trump than it did under Obama.
If this is your idea of “Pro-Russia”.
If Trump was anti-russia that would require a nuclear war.
This is your idea of Evidence ?
Dave, “Mueller has been busily digging into massive amounts of things that are none of his business at all and have nothing to do with his mandate.”
Well that is because Rob Rosenstein, in naming Mueller SP, added the catch all in his mandate, something like “and other things found during the investigation” (Not the words, but close enough.
Now we learn from an interview with McCabe( and maybe earlier it was reported but I had not payed any attention), that Rosenstein offered to wear a wire to get enough info on Trump to invoke the 25th amendment.
So Rosenstein has had it in for Trump since the beginning and instead of limiting this to just Russia, he opened it up to every possible piece of dirt that could be found through his open ended mandate and that has allowed Mueller, who I believe is in cahoots with Rosenstein to bring down Trump, to delay and extend this investigation well past anything associated with Russia.
Note 9th paragraph
But there is only a couple of us (2-3) here that might accept this thinking.
What is disturbing is that so many people think all of this is OK.
The president has the constitutional authority to fire anyone in the executive branch.
Further he has the constitutional authority to direct the DOJ/FBI to investigate whatever he please or shutdown whatever investigation he pleases.
Past presidents including Thomas Jefferson have done exactly that.
There are checks on the power of the president.
The political check is with congress. Just as the president can fire whoever he pleases or terminate whatever investigation he pleases – the congress can impeach him for whatever reason they please. Further voters are a check on both. If congress makes impeachment too political, the people will punish congress – as they did to Gingrich in 1998.
If the people do not support the president – they can vote him out at the end of his first term.
If the offense of the president is ACTUALLY constitutional rather than political, the courts provide a check on presidential power.
The 25th amendment was OBVIOUSLY not for the purpose McCabe and company discussed. Absent an actual incapacity – some mental of physical deficiency that was not present prior to election anyone in the executive having the discussions mccabe was having should be fired, and possibly prosecuted. What was being discussed was a political coup. I am not aware of such a thing ever being discussed in our government before EVER.
I would take the same position if post 2008 DOJ/FBI discussed applying the 25th amendment to Obama.
Further we have McCabe waxing endlessly about protecting “the russia investigation from Trump”.
Huh! ?.
Just about everything that we know NOW, McCabe and company knew in 2017.
We have McCabe and Comey and Rosenstein and company discussing how to protect an illegal investigation outside the constitution and DOJ/FBI guidelines.
Adrew McCabe is making it perfectly clear that the DOJ/FBI was politically corrupt.
Not just in 2017 but in 2016 and 2015.
McCabe’s remarks cast the conduct of the DOJ/FBI through the entire Obama administration into question.
“Well that is because Rob Rosenstein, in naming Mueller SP, added the catch all in his mandate, something like “and other things found during the investigation” (Not the words, but close enough.”
Same catch all used by special prosecutors in Nixon and B.Clinton investigations, right?
He didn’t ‘add’ it – he copied it.
Jay, whatever, You and I will never agree. But when things come out like Rosenstein wanting to wear a wire to “get” trump so the cabinet can invoke the 25th amendment and he was the one naming the SP, then I dont see anything independent in this.bI see a preplanned hatch job.
By the way Janet Reno handled the Clinto probe correctly. ” Jan. 16, 1998: Starr contacts Attorney General Janet Reno to get permission to expand his probe. Reno agrees and submits the request to a panel of three federal judges. The judges agree to allow Starr to formally investigate the possibility of subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case. ”
She did not give Starr free reign to runvroughshod over Clinton without prior aporoval from judges.
The wire remark is evidence.
The entire issues is that they were plotting to remove a president.
McCabes remarks make it even more clear – while he “sounds” reasonable on 60min – until you start to think what his words mean.
I did what he did – because he was afraid.
He was affraid because of what he beleived.
Not because of facts, evidence.
If you can justify actions by fear – you can justify anything.
Starr was an IC – the IC law was broader than the SC law.
Yet inarguably Mueller is able to do more with less supervision that Starr.
Worse during the Barr confirmation democrats made absolutely certain that they wanted NO SUPERVISION.
I would suggest we fix the IC law as follows:
To appoint an SC – there must be an application – I will specific, that the president, the AG, or the highest unconflicted appointed officer in DOJ, or either chamber of congess can request the appointment of an SC.
Then I would have a rotating panel of three justices from the DC court of appeals review the application.
If they approve it – THEY draft the authorization.
All subpoena’s, all warrants, all arrests, all indictments, must be approved by that panel.
BTW these are protections that all of us should actually have.
Our constitutional rights and what constitutes a basis for an investigation should NOT be determined by a single person, or a single branch of government.
I would bet that Jay – and certainly all on the left (and some on the right) would be happy to agree with all the criteria you think are necescary – when the target is someone they like,
and not when it is someone they do not.
I like your new SC revisions. I think I will write Tom Tillis and Richard Burr. Nothing will come of it , but I can at least say I did it.
There are two issues.
Much of what I wrote – should apply to ALL prosecutors and law enforcement.
A warrant REQUIRES constitutionally that the facts justifying the warrant are SWORN as true, by the prosecutor or police officer.
I would say when we have garbage like the Steele dossier SWORN by law enforcement as true to the courts – THERE MUST BE CONSEQUENCES.
What should be more disturbing still is that these types of lies in SWORN court filings are not even rare. They happen all the time, everyday in every magistrates office in the country – and no one is EVER held accountable.
Our founders did not demand a warrant to create some patina of legitimacy. They did not demand that the facts be SWORN to, and that they meet the standard of probable cause because they wanted that ignored.
They demanded a sworn statement by the police or prosecutors – because sworn falsifications are supposed to have consequences.
Where there are no consequences you can expect things to get worse.
This stuff is important. The innocent people Mueller prosecuted BEFORE being appointed SC, had their lives destroyed – one committed suicide.
When you destroy someone else’s life with false prosecutions – you should at the very lease lose the respect of decent people.
There must be consequences for abuse of power.
There is no problem with the “catchall” – it is pretty normal.
Prosecutors are not required to ignore unrelated crimes they find as a result of a specific investigation.
The problem is with the presumption that the catchall empowers Mueller to investigate whatever he wishes.
The “catchall” requires an investigation confined to its legitimate scope, uncovering sufficient evidence of another crime.
Mueller can not as an example say – I want to investigagte the Trump inaugural committee.
He was tasked to investigate illegal conspiracy between the russian government and the Trump campaign. To look at the inaugural committee he MUST find EVIDENCE that a crime was committed involving the committee as part of the narrow scope of what he is permitted.
In many instances – as with Cohen if he actually and legitimately encounters evidence of a crime that has nothing to do with his mandate, and no legitimate connection to his mandate – such as the Cohen mess – he MUST pass that off to other prosecutors.
as I recall Ken Starr was obligated to go to the courts every time he sought to expand his investigation and persuade a court that he should be allowed to continue.
Your assertion that this clause was part of prior investigations is FALSE.
Starr was an IC not an SC – a completely different low.
The IC purportedly had much more power than the SC – and the IC law was unconstitutional and everyone knew it.
The SC law was passed when the IC law expired and was supposed to reign in the SC.
It has failed. Mueller is LESS accountable by far than Starr or any other prior similar situation.
Nixon (and Reagan and Bush) were all dealt with under much older law that was even more narrow in scope.
The “clause” you are fixating – is a throw away. It was not necescary.
It is the norm of law that you can always follow where EVIDENCE leads.
Fear, guesses, speculation ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
If a prosecutor uncovers an unrelated crime – that does NOT make that crime unprosecutable.
The only question is who prosecutes it.
This is not directly about “The coup” though to some extent it is.
As you keep hyping this “evil russia justifies everything” – remember that in every single age group and every political affinity, americans want an end to endless war, they want a less agressive foreign policy.
I am not sure how many of those americans grasp that – clearly few posters here do. But McCabe’s justification for investigating Trump was because he was “weak on Russia” – is pretty much what voters accross the spectrum want.
They do not want us in Syria – even if neocons think that somehow serves Russia, or ISIS
They do not want us in Iraq,
They do not want us in Afghanistan – even if the Taliban returns.
If as is possible – our leaving somehow benefits Russia, or ISIS, or Taliban or …
We are prepared to deal with that in the future – when that happens.
Or if whatever happens is not all that bad – not deal with it.
It is not our role to save the syrians from themselves, from ISIS or from the Russians.
It is not our job to save the Afghans from the Taliban.
It is not our job to keep the europeans from doing stupid things with Russia.
When we confront the Taliban violently – with our military, it is because they committed an act of war against us.
We want other nations to remember that and respect that.
going beyond retribution for acts of war to nation building destroys the respect and fear created by our removal of the Taliban from power.
http://time.com/5532307/worlds-apart-foreign-policy-public-opinion-poll-eurasia/
Why do you presume Manafort didn’t lie deliberately?
Do you think he’s a paragon of virtue?
https://goo.gl/images/KvbgEF
When you are attributing statements to me – please cite what I have actually said.
To my knowledge there is no evidence of Manafort lying – not deliberately, not accidentally.
The judges ruling you cite as evidence reads to me as nothing more than both sides agreeing the plea deal is off the table. That is all.
Regardless, I am not making broad claims about either manaforts words or his intentions.
I am addressing the EVIDENCE. I have not as of yet read a credible claim that Manafort has lied in any significant way.
No I do not think Manafort is a paragon of virtue
Nor Stone, not Corsi, nor Axlerod, not Jarret, nor the podesta’s nor simpson, nor Mccabe, nor Strzok, nor Comey, nor Clinton.
Nor even Trump.
If we are looking for saints – we are going to have to look somewhere else.
The question is not whether Manafort is a good person – there are no “good people” in this. Possibly no good people in politics.
It is not whether Manafort is a liar.
It is not whether Manafort is a criminal.
It is whether these allegations against Manafort have been proven.
There is as an example more evidence that Justin Fairfax raped two women than that Manafort evaded taxes. In point of fact had Manafort dotted his eyes and crossed his tees he not only would not face jail but he would not face the loss of his property and money.
Apparently you do not have a problem with government confiscating peoples property and throwing them in jail for improperly handling paperwork ?
Or do you reserve that only for republicans or people you do not like ?
Regardless, can you tell me exactly what it is that Manafort did that is your big problem.
From the facts – he was paid well to provide political advice and to funnel money to US lobbiests. Both of those are legal. The lobbiest he funded was Tony Podesta – if there was a crime – and there isn’t – it was committed by Podesta. Manafort did no lobbying.
The money manafort made – like the money ANYONE makes outside of the US is not taxable in the US until it becomes income in the US. Of all countries in the world only the US attempts to tax someone’s foreign earnings becuase that is an incredibly stupid idea.
Like Myriads of others – including Apple, Manafort loaned himself some of his foreign earned money so that he could use it in the US without paying taxes.
Unlike Apple he did not dot his eyes and cross his t’s on the loan paperwork.
So for failing to do perfect paperwork to comply with a bad law – Manafort faces essentialy life in prison and the confiscation of a lifetime of wealth.
And as best as I can tell the CRIME he committed was helping Trump win the election .
But if you have ACTUAL eveidence – please present it.
I would not be surprised to discover that there are crimes that Manafort has comitted.
He is most definitely not a paragon of virtue.
But we do not confiscate peoples property or take away their freedom because they are not virtuous enough for us.
We do so for crimes we can prove.
Sigh. Conversing with you is futile.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
Sigh. Conversing with you is futile.
Your problem is not with me. it is with yourself.
Trump believes Putin, not his intelligence people on Russian interference in 2016 election.
Besides being ludicrous, he said it to the world in Helsinki: “A Call to Putin, and Russian TV Changed Its Story”
Here’s another world leader’s take on Putin and his hand’s on KGB type power, from Matteo Renzi former head of Italy. Other European nations also worried about Russian interference, BTW.
““Does it seem reasonable to you that Russia Today often uses headlines that are not true?” he asked Mr. Putin in a phone call. “Why do they have to have reports today on some protest against me, if that square is full of my people, defending our reform?”
“Mr. Putin paused and responded: “Matteo, you know that it is not up to me what journalists do. But I’ll try and see if I can help you.”
Two hours later, the Russian network had corrected the headline” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/world/europe/matteo-renzi-putin-russia.html
Of course quibblers will say: well that was onside Russia, he doesn’t control what goes on outside Russia. (Yeah, like he doesn’t order murders of reporters and others like attempts in England using Novichok .
Sad that deniers have to toe the line even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I am pointing at Reps, Dems and Liberts.
I do not beleive US intelligence. Nor is that unusual.
They have a long track record of being WRONG.
BTW James Comey and large portions of the US IC disputed the conclusions of the purported IC report (we now have those emails) – something actually crafted by three lieutenants of Brennan and Clapper by an unusual process.
You are also suffering from a bad case of binary thinking.
The fact that the IC is wrong does not make Putin a good person.
Nor does it put Trump in bed with him.
The fundimental point of disagreement between Trump and the IC is over the global importance of Russia.
Trump thinks China is far more important.
The IC is trapped in a world of its own making. It has spend nearly a century fighting Russia.
It is unable to see that Russia is no longer public enemy #1.
Before Trump was elected you understood that.
The IC report asserted that Russian interferance in 2016 was of no greater magnitude than prior elections.
So if as you say Trump is at odds with the IC – doesn;t that inherently mean Obama was too ?
After all Obama was far friendlier to Russia than Trump.
Was Obama a “manchurian candidate” a Putin sock puppet ?
Or maybe are you just blowing hot air.
Overwhelming evidence ? Of what ?
Russia spent 10M on the 2016 election.
That is less than Gil Cisneros spent on his House election in 2018.
Russian efforts were mostly targeted at issues not candidates and mostly the took positions on BOTH sides of those issues.
Russian efforts were pathetic.
That is the EVIDENCE.
Hypocritator in charge Trump, wants Omar to resign over her remarks and innuendos, Will Trump do the same????? No f—– way.
“Trump, No Stranger to Jewish Stereotypes, Rejects Ilhan Omar’s Apology”
“During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump’s final television commercial featured grainy images of George Soros, the Hungarian-born financier who has become a potent symbol for anti-Semites; Janet L. Yellen, then the chairwoman of the Federal Reserve; and Lloyd C. Blankfein, then the chairman of Goldman Sachs — all of them Jewish — as Mr. Trump warned darkly about the “global special interests.” Shadowy figures, he said, “partner with these people who don’t have your good in mind.”
“In July 2016, Mr. Trump drew fierce criticism when his campaign released an ad about Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, which depicted her superimposed on piles of cash, with a six-point Star of David and the phrase “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!”
“He famously said there had been good people on both sides of a deadly white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Va., which featured anti-Semites and racists chanting, “Jews will not replace us.”
I know, I know, he has a Jewish son-in-law and people from Goldman Sachs too.
You see, he is not an anti-Semite, he just loves money and fame too much and will say anything; no moral compass.
Omar may be an AS, but without a lie detector test we don’t know how many in Congress may also be. Money influencing politicians should be fair game whether it is about Israel or SA. I don’t like her, a lot, by the way.
Grow Up – attacking George Sorros is not Anti-semitism.
You idiots on the left keep trying this repeatedly.
Sorros was a nazi sympathizer. He has made repeatedly clear that he is about as unjewish as you can get – yes he is genetically jewish.
Regardless, you are the one who bemoans the influence of Rich people in Politics.
Guess what Sorros is one of the loudest rich voices in politics.
So is it the influence of the rich you oppose ?
Or is it just the influence of people you disagree with.
Regardless, Sorros has attack Trump.
Trump has attacked Sorros.
It is about politics.
Are you saying that one can not criticise someones political views if they are genetically jewish ? I guess we must accept the views of homosexuals as gospel too ?
Does that apply to conservative homosexuals ?
And Blacks ? Does that apply to conservative blacks.
Omar has said some stupid things that deserve condemnation.
But while her attacks on Israel are political and often stupid.
Criticising Israel is not inherently anti-semetic.
Saying that rich jews hypnotize people – that is.
“Sorros was a nazi sympathizer.“
He’s a Holocaust survivor, dummy.
The anti-Israel charges are right-wing agitprop from people like Netanyahu & Hungary’s prime minister Orban, and conservative religious assholes who back Trump.
Have I told you lately to GFY?
Jay;
Two problems with your assertions about Sorros.
What I have SAID – is little different from what Sorros has said about himself.
And you continue to change what I actually said into something different.
Sorros himself has SAID that he is Jewish only genetically. That his parents not only were not practicing jews – they were anti-jewish.
That he does not identify with jews and he has pretty much nothing to do with jews or Israel.
I have no idea what the “definition” of “hollocaust survivor” is, but comparing Sorros to people who lived in the jewish Ghettos, went to the camps, and were exterminated is an obscentity.
He was young – 13-14. You can make excuses based on that. But you are still excusing extremely bad conduct.
He posed as a christian, wore a Nazi Uniform and helped Nazi’s confiscate jewish property and load them onto trains for camps.
He has openly repeated the typical nazi rationalization – that he did not feel responsible, because someone was going to do it anyway.
There are other jews who have done the same – or worse to survive.
We try not to judge people who have done as he did under circumstances such as his.
But most of us do not call them “Hollocaust survivors” either.
The only distinction between Sorros and many others who did what he did, is that had the nazi’s found out he was jewish he would be dead.
Regardless the point is not whether Sorros was a nazi.
But whether it is reasonable to consider attacks on Sorros as anti-semetic.
According to my DNA I am about 50 times more Jewish than Fauxchantas is indian.
When you criticise me – are you anti-semetic ?
I did not say Sorros was “”anti-jewish” I said he was UNJEWISH.
He has said the same thing about himself many times.
I would probably take it seriously it Netanyahu says he is anti-israel.
Regardless I did not say that.
But NGO Monitor has, as have many many other groups.
Click to access soros.pdf
My major point is not about Soros himself.
It is that you can not convert criticism of Soros to anti-semitism
doing so is intellectually bankrupt.
When people start hurling insults at you, you know their minds are closed and there’s no point in debating.
Judith Martin
“Grow Up – attacking George Sorros is not Anti-semitism.
You idiots on the left keep trying this repeatedly.”
Then you actually complain that people insult you. Given your style I am only surprised that people manage to restrain themselves as much as they do.
You have a voluminous load of shit to dump on almost every comment here. Your amazing level of contempt for other opinions and total infatuation with your own words lead to the natural result that any attempt to discuss anything rationally with you or actually anyone here always veers into the weeds of personal remarks between you and someone.
If someone falls for the bait and attempts to argue with you based on facts and logic, you simply lie, invent your own facts, deny solid facts and then stand atop your frothy pile of nonsense that is simply your own opinion. Finally, you crow about how good you are at facts and logic and how incapable we all are.
You poor devil, you are hard wired to have a completely obnoxious manner of talking to people, and you are always talking.
Yes, we all know how you will respond to this criticism. But, the source of this problem is You, You are the TNM champion of all the faults you see in others, most especially the ad hominem posts. If you disappeared from TNM the level of personal remarks would fall to near zero.
“I love it when someone insults me. That means that I don’t have to be nice anymore.”
Billy Idol
Absolutely – the fact free garbage that is spewed by some, the constant ad hominem and fallacy, the compete unwillingness to engage in an actual argument, the complete absence of facts, and the assertions so vague that you can not source them offered as facts – frequently frustrates me and causes me to lash out.
Ad Hominem – BTW is insulting a person rather than their argument.
Calling an argument stupid is not ad hominem. Though it is a claim that you should be able to defend.
Calling the person who makes a stupid argument an idiot – is ad hominem.
I will offer Billy Idol as my justification.
My “style” as you say is to rebut fallacious arguments. Calling a stupid argument stupid is not a fallacy. It is an assertion – one that I frequently support. One that is often self evident.
You are doubling down on pretty much the same error you are making in you Omar/Trump comparison.
You are pretending that two things are the same – when they are obviously not.
If things actually were as you claim they are. Trumps comments and Omar’s were the same. If the ad hominem spewed here and my responses were the same – discussion would not be possible. Everything would be hate speech, everything would be ad homimen.
There are two or more sides to every argument.
The presence of two sides DOES NOT make them equal.
Pretty much always one argument, one oppinion is more right, correct, factual, truthful than the other.
If you are going to compare to things and claim they are the same – they need to BE THE SAME.
If you are going to say that two things are equally wrong they need to be EQUAL.
If you are going to claim that verbally criticising Soros – after he has come after you is the same as saying that “rich jews hypnotize the world”. then one can not ever criticise someone who is jewish.
If you are going to claim that “I’ll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years’?” is the same as “Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways,” the president said. “I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.” that both are racism – then one can never talk about immigration.
That “voluminous load of shit” as you say is primarily fact, and arguments.
You may respond as you wish.
Is there something wrong with holding fallacious oppinions in contempt ?
The distinction between my posts and others is that most of the time I make arguments with facts of logic. At the very least I make assertions that can be tested factually and logically.
You do not like it when your arguments are attack – I get that.
But there is no right to be free from criticism.
If you make an argument – you should expect others to criticise it.
You can expect that those who criticise it will be dismissive of it.
I do not care if your feelings are hurt because your argument is false.
The error in fallacy and ad hominem is NOT that it is insulting.
It is that it is NOT argument.
You rant about my style – well I put assertions facts and arguments out there.
They are in the open and exposed to your criticism.
To the extent I am offended when all you do is insult them – that is because nothing is served by that. We learn nothing from your feelings.
Ad hominem and fallacy provide no information.
They only change the minds of toddlers.
If you do not like my criticisms of your arguments. If you think my assertions are wrong, if you think my facts are wrong, if you think my arguments are wrong.
COUNTER THEM. The majority of what I say can be checked against primary sources.
Or you can even come up with bad argumets and sources – but atleast if you respond with facts and arguments – there is a debate and the possibility of learning something.
Your emotions – My emotions are NOT THE POINT, and not relevant.
Facts and arguments do not care how you feel.
I point out all the fallacy and ad hominem – not because the insults make me “feel bad”,
but because they are not argument. They are typically the responses of people who have no argument.
I do not care much that you insult me.
I care that you are unwilling to make actual arguments.
“If someone falls for the bait and attempts to argue with you based on facts and logic, you simply lie, invent your own facts, deny solid facts and then stand atop your frothy pile of nonsense that is simply your own opinion. ”
If any of that were true – it would be trivial to prove.
Regardless, meaningful discussion is about facts and logic.
It is not “taking the bait” to respond with facts and logic.
It is the means by which we test propositions.
Not how they make us feel.
Not how good we are at insults – whether they are mine or yours.
If I have “invented a fact” – point that out.
The use of a false fact in an argument comes very close to destroying the argument.
But you must demonstrate that by more than insult.
I have oppinions and express them – but everything is NOT oppionion,
and all oppionions are not equal.
The purpose of debate is to sort facts from oppinions and to discern the probability that an oppinion is correct or not.
It is not about WHO is right, it is about WHAT is right.
“Finally, you crow about how good you are at facts and logic and how incapable we all are.”
First – irrelevant.
I can not make music – you are quite good at that.
I wish I was as good as you are. But I am not.
A small part of that is lack of effort, but most of it is lack of talent.
We are not equal. I am good at somethings and bad at others.
As are you. You should be proud of what you are good at. I am.
Second: I do not.
When you attack – you can expect a defense.
Most of your posts are like this one full of assertions that what I have argued is piles of shit, nonsense, phony facts, ….
You are free to make those assertions. You are not entitled to expect I will let them lie.
You are not any more entitled to be believed that I.
Whether you are beleived SHOULD be determined by the accuracy of what you say, not how it makes others feel, or the number of adjectives you have used.
I might be more credible if I entirely avoided loaded language – but no one posting here does, and it makes up a small portion of my posts and quite often ALL of the posts of others.
“You poor devil”
I have not asked for your sympathy.
I am happy.
“you are hard wired to have a completely obnoxious manner of talking to people, and you are always talking.”
You are offended by the truth – I can not help that.
I fully understand that when your core beleifs are challenged by facts, logic, reason, that it makes you angry and that you will lash out at whoever is challenging you.
If you are unwilling to allow your beleifs to be challenged – they are not worth having.
It you are unwilling to reassess them when facts demand it
then you are holding on to a religion.
“Yes, we all know how you will respond to this criticism.”
What criticism ? What I read is a long whiny rant. There are no fact in sight.
“But, the source of this problem is You, You are the TNM champion of all the faults you see in others, most especially the ad hominem posts. If you disappeared from TNM the level of personal remarks would fall to near zero.”
Absolutely, if you could convert TNM into your own bubble – everyone would agree on everything nearly all the time.
Any values and principles that you have that are worthwhile will stand up to being challenged.
Like it or not challenging your values is NOT inherently abusive, nor is calling your beliefs stupid when they are.
The theme of the day seems to be your near universal propensity to try to make things that are not the same identical.
All of Omar’s remarks are legitimate free speach.
Most of them are stupid
many of them are wrong.
Some are not anti-semetic.
Some are.
Similar things can be said of Trump’s remarks.
Except that no remarks of Trumps that have been cited are anti-semetic.
Nor racist, nor …..
My posts and your posts share some of the same invective.
That does not make them the same.
Your desire to live in a bubble is not a right.
“Do you really think the only way to bring about the peace
Is to sacrifice your children and kill all your enemies?”
“They Cry Peace, Peace but there is no Peace”
Jeremiah 6:14
Real peace only comes through truth.
If you are unwilling to look for truth, you will never find any peace that is worthwhile.
Dave, It was a given that you would excuse in yourself what you damn at length in others. I would not call that intellectual honesty.
You are endlessly frustrated that I don’t argue with you. There are two reasons. One, the basic premise you have, that you are here to prove that you are right, is one I don’t usually have. I am here to state my opinions and hear the opinions of others. I rarely have the idea that I am going to argue with someone here and prove them wrong. Others here make posts that they believe support their point of view. If the source and subject are of interest to me I may read it. Sometimes I have been swayed by the facts in a link. Never by a poster here, and I mean no disrespect by that. People are mostly here for similar reason to mine, a place to state opinions, vent, talk with others, perhaps be pointed in the direction of a source of facts. That the the main reason I am not going to argue with you.
The second reason is that I Have argued with you and it was not worth the time. You believe you use facts and logic and reason. If only. Alex Jones believes he uses facts and logic an reason as well. You abuse facts and logic and reason. Its painful to listen to. You have been here trying to win an argument for what is it 11 years? I have never seen you win an argument, persuade someone, although you congratulate yourself on your successes on a tediously regular basis.
You will have to find another sufferer to enter your funhouse mirror.
Once again the same fallacious garbage that two things that are obviously different are the same because – or your feelings.
Certainly not on the basis of evidence.
I am not attempting to justify the same conduct you in myself that you engage in.
Our conduct is not the same – you admit that, You will not support your arguments.
With rare exceptions your posts are nothing but ad hominem and fallacy.
On occasion I respond to ad homimen and fallacy with more adjectives than are necescary.
Not even close to the same.
The bulk of your claim that there is some parity between our conduct is that you FEEL insulted. Your feelings are not facts. They are not evidence, they are not reason.
If facts, logic and reason cause you to feel insulted – that is your problem.
Conversely – if your arguments are nothing but ad hominem and fallacy – that TOO is your problem.
Credibility is not earned by your feelings.
Read your own response.
It can be cut and pasted anytime you do not wish to defend your beliefs assertions of arguments.
As I said with climate – if something can not be falisifed – if there is no possible set of facts that would disprove it, then it is religion, faith dogma – not science.
That applies equally here.
You can call anyone “intelectually dishonest” as an excuse for not defending your own positions. We determine “intellectual honesty” by FACTS, LOGIC, REASON, not by naked assertions.
When you put forth a premise and preclude any means of testing it – that is religion, dogma, beleif.
BTW you continue to pretend to know what I “feel” – given how absymal you are at representing what I say – why should one trust your clairvoyance ?
“One, the basic premise you have, that you are here to prove that you are right,”
FALSE – and fallacy and a mild version of ad hominem and irrelevant.
I argue to find the truth – that is how truth is discovered – by subjecting an argument to the test, by trial by fire.
I do have confidence in my arguments – because I and others have tested them for centuries and they have yet to be found wanting.
Confidence in arguments that have been tested for centuries and not found wanting is not hubris.
“is one I don’t usually have”
I do not know your thoughts, only what you say, only the assertions and arguments you make. I do not care “why you are here” – it is irrelevant.
Even if your lunatic world was reality – and I was here to prove I am right – if I am, my motives are irrelevant. And if I am not – they are still irrelevant.
“I am here to state my opinions and hear the opinions of others. I rarely have the idea that I am going to argue with someone here and prove them wrong. Others here make posts that they believe support their point of view. ”
Obviously false or you would not respond at all much less with vitriole
But lets address your fairytale world.
In robby world people come to TNM they spray out oppinions, Maybe they read those of others.
but no one is actually interested in determining the merits of these oppinions.
We offer our oppinions – because we beleive they are correct.
We support our point of view – because we beleive it to be correct,
We offer our views and provide support because we hope to persuade.
If those are not true – then you are just posting to read your own posts.
Your argument carefully tries to elude to fact that in reality – to me, and to YOU, the truth actually matters.
That discussion is about more than free floating oppinions or shared kumbaya’s.
If you want to escape conflict – get out your guitar.
As you typically do, you are trying to claim the moral high ground.
To be clear – I have ZERO problem with that.
But it is fascile to pretend you can do so without conflict.
I have told you again and again – if you step onto the moral soap box, expect me to kick it out from underneath you.
You try to do the same
“The second reason is that I Have argued with you and it was not worth the time. You believe you use facts and logic and reason.”
fact, and logic are not particularly subjective.
It is irrelevant what you “beleive”.
“If only. Alex Jones believes he uses facts and logic an reason as well.”
I do not care what Alex Jones beleives – I do not think I have ever watched him – atleast not more than a few seconds, I can not speak to Alex Jones in any way – other than that the left loathes him.
“You abuse facts and logic and reason.”
More nonsense – facts are facts, logic has rigid rules, Something is a fact or it is not.
There is no “abusing it”. If something is a fact we are stuck with it – like it or not.
Eroneous logic is relatively easy to expose. Doing so is not “abuse”
When facts and logic produce results you do not like – we do not resolve that by bemoaning how the facts and logic are used. Either you demonstrate the facts are false, or the logic in error, or you accept the results.
“Its painful to listen to.”
More substituting “feelings” for reason.
“You have been here trying to win an argument for what is it 11 years?”
You have this fixation on “winning and losing”.
I do not consider getting things right to be “winning”.
Though getting things wrong is “stupid”.
Regardless, being “right” all the time, is relatively easy.
Check facts before you use them. Do not make invalid arguments.
It is exactly that simple.
“I have never seen you win an argument, persuade someone, although you congratulate yourself on your successes on a tediously regular basis.”
You are fantasizing. Once again you continue to offer clairvoyance as argument.
“You will have to find another sufferer to enter your funhouse mirror.”
You make your own choices.
And I would suggest you reread your own post – you inflict your own suffering on yourself – not I. I do not have a fraction of the ego attached to this as you presume.
Mostly I am enjoying myself.
Your presumption that I fixate on being right – is in your head.
Though some of the discussions we have here are truly about things that are just oppinions or that are not actually provable one way or the other.
Many are not, and the largest number fall into a catogory where there is no absolute truth – but it is possible to determine the probability of one thing being more true than the other.
I care about whether A is true and B is false or A is more probably true than B – not because of ego. but because our actions and choices have consequences. Good choices produce better outcomes than bad ones.
It is not personally being right that is important.
It is getting things right that is important.
Personal ego has nothing to do with it.
Whether we get it right or wrong has consequences.
An example – the 2.3% growth the CBO projects is poor. It is particularly poor compared to the 3.5% growth that was the 20th century average or the 7% growth that was the 19th.
If we had 7% growth right now – No one would be discussing “illegal immigration” – we would be trying to figure out how to encourage more people to immigrate.
Higher growth means more jobs, and more wealth and a higher standard of living.
It absolutely means a plethora more Bezo’s but it also means more and better jobs for those at the bottom. It means better and cheaper goods and services. Mild deflation ruled in the 19th century. Higher growth means living better for the same amount of work, or working less to live as well as you do now. It means being more productive with less effort.
And it is inextricably linked to greater freedom.
If we had 7% growth we would not be worried about deficits of Social Security.
We would both have no problem affording social security – we also would not needed it, our own resources could more than provide for our retirement.
If we had 7% growth we would not be fighting over Obamacare – we could again Both afford it and would not need it. We could take care of our own healthcare.
A much younger Paul Ryan understood that and stood up to a president delivering 1.8% growth and told the truth to power that nearly every problem we have was manageable at 5% growth.
2.3% growth is poor. If that is the best Trump can deliver – he is a lessor president that Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. If that is the best he can deliver we will be much less well off that we could be, We will have less uber rich people that we otherwise would, those of us at the bottom will have less oportunity, and they will work harder to have less than they otherwise would – we all will.
As bad as 2.3% growth would be – it is 1/2% better than that of 8 years of Obama. And better than the 2% average or 8 years of Bush.
It is important to figure out why Bush and Obama did poorly and why Clinton and Reagan did well.
Just as it is important to figure out why Harding and Coolidge did well and Hoover and Roosevelt did poorly.
It is not important because of ego.
It is important because being wrong has CONSEQUENCES.
Not just for ourselves – but for the very people you personally claim to champion.
What kind of champion are you if your “benevolence” leaves them less well off than they would have been otherwise.
If you are not interested in figuring our what actually makes life better – what leaves us better off, what raises our standard of living. What gives us more time to make and listen to music – whether we are rich or poor – then get the F#$K of the moral soap box because whatever you are selling – is toxic.
Getting it right matters – not because of ego – but because getting it wrong is IMMORAL.
If you want to F$%# it up in your own life – go ahead, you are free to.
When you use force to make choices about other people you have a duty to get it right – failing is immoral.
You are NOT FREE to use force to F#$% over other people. You are NOT FREE to be wrong when you use force. You are NOT FREE to wrap yourself in good intentions when you F$%$ up other peoples lives.
Am I wrong about some part of that ? Is that “abusing facts or logic” ?
Ha, every sentence I write requires paragraphs of denial from you.
You are being played.
Trump has attacked Pelosi – does that make him anti-italian ?
He has also attacked his own chairman of the Federal Reserve – I am pretty sure he is a WASP. He has attacked his secretary of State, he has attacked his secretary of defense.
He has attacked Hillary Clinton – is she a jew ? He has attacked …..
Grow up and get a clue.
It attacking alot of people by name – some of whom happen to be jewish is anti-sematic, then attacking Israel is about as anti=semetic as you can possibly get.
BTW Trump has never attacked “jewish special interests” – Omar HAS.
Your NYT article just demonstrates that NYT is round the bend.
Lets save accusations of racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, etc. for ACTUAL racism and anti-semitism.
Omar’s remarks are indistinguishable from Kings.
Trumps are distinguishable.
All disagreement is not racism.
Typical head in sand response of those off their meds.
Let us compare Trump and Omar.
Which would move the US embassy to Jerusalem.
Which has specifically refered to rich jews(by ethnicity) as hypnotizing people.
Which has close relationships even family members who are jewish.
Which went to the synagogue in Pittsburgh after the shooting ?
Which pardoned a Jewish businessman ?
Hate is not about what you say. It is about what you do, how you live.
Once again you expose why Trump won in 2016.
Trump voters understand that criticising a jewish person is not anti-semitism (nor is criticising israel), that opposing illegal immigration is not racist, that opposing terrorism is not racist,
The argument that Trump is hypocritical about anti-semitism would not allow criticism of anyone who is not a white male straight christian.
Some of Omar’s remarks attacked JEWS – not specific people she disagrees with, nor israel.
Can you find an instance of Trump attacking jews, homosexuals, women, blacks or hispanics ?
Trump attacks people. They are not immune from attack because they are jewish, hispanic, black, women, or homsexual. They are not being attacked for being jewish, hispanic, black, women or homosexual.
Omar has attacked people specifically because they are jewish.
Omar is an impolitic politician whose words are going to bring trouble if not ruin upon her party.
Am I surprised that a muslim has strong negative views about Israel? No. And Israelis have their own strong opinions about muslims, does anyone think they don’t?
In the lab where I got my doctorate we had many Chinese grad students and post docs. Then we got a Japanese post doc, the most polite friendly capable person you could want to find. I was at first surprised when one of the Chinese students told me that she hated Japanese people and did not even like to look at them. But then I thought about the history and was less surprised. And so on all over the world between members of groups that have been in conflicts.
Omar was dead on in her response to trump. She nailed him. The GOP voters who have managed to rationalize all his many disgusting comments about all kinds of people, but most especially women, may find that their shock and disapproval of Omar (and the other muslim lady with the foul mouth) get less sympathy than they once would have and have less impact than they once would have.
I do find it ironic that in reacting to muslims conservatives etc. suddenly find such a passionate desire to fight sexism and racism. Not that many conservative are not actually perfectly modern on these subjects and sincerely opposed to real abuses of women and American minorities, but they so often turn a blind eye to the members of their own group on these issues.
The fact that two groups hate each other MIGHT be a reason to carefully examine what they write it is NOT a reason to presume that what they say has identical merit.
The Israeli’s are not right in absolutely everything they do, and the palestinians are not wrong in everything they do. But generally the israeli’s are behaviong as a civilized western people under extreme presure in a hostile world. While the palestinians are behaving like violent children who are unable to govern themselves, and intent on murdering those they do not like.
I am honestly surprised the Israelis did not DECADES ago unilaterally renounce any sovereignity over the west bank and Gaza. Draw the boundaries where they pleased and tell the palestinians – they can grow up and be a nation or they can fail as they please.
There is one goal that the Israelis have in their negotiations with the Palistinians – formal recognition of their right to exist. That is the only consequential request they have made of the palestinians in return for most everything the palestinians have requested.
So No – this is not a conflict between two equally moral or equally immoral antagonists.
Why is it that you presume because there are two sides to every conflict they are equal.
I have not seen Omar’s specific responses to Trump – only the Wapo and other stupid stories trying to pretend there is somehow parity between them.
There is not – and it is not even close.
Some of Mar’s comments – her attacts on Israel, are not inherently racist or anti-semetic.
Those comments are pretty much exactly the same as those of Trump that are purportedly racist or anti-semetic.
Omar should not be accused of racism or anti-semetism for criticising israel.
Just as Trump should not be accused of racism and anti-semetism for criticising Soros.
Just as Soros should not be accused of racism and anti-semetism for claiming that Israel and the US are the cause of anti-semetism.
This flawed comparison between Oar and Trump exposes the deep flaw within the ideology of the left and why they lost in 2016.
Many of Trump’s remarks are stupid. Many of them are wrong.
But they are not prima fasica hate speech.
Many of Omar’s remarks are stupid. Many of them are wrong.
Some of them are unequivocal hate speach.
Yet the left is doing more than asertting they are the same – the left asserts Trump is worse.
Why ? Because Omar is a member of a purported victim class, and Trump is not.
Ignoring the fact that while muslims are occasionally victims of persecution, they are concurrently one of the most significant oppressor groups in the world today.
The merits of ideas are not determined by what group is identified as victim and oppressor.
More importantly the victim status of any given individual DOES NOT make any criticism of them hate speach, nor does victim status give any authority to what you say.
Actual hate speach – Some but not all of Omar’s remarks that are purportedly anti-semetic, should be condemned.
None of Trump’s speech is overtly racist, anti-semetic, homophobic, …
You can oppose illegal immigration – and not be racist.
You can oppose ALL immigration and not be racist.
That is important – not because it is true of Trump – but because it is true of large numbers of americans.
The left has been trying to greatly restrict what can be said and even thought.
The left explicitly and overtly seeks to silence all dissent.
It has moved from Class as the distinguishing characteristic of oppression to most any form of victim status. And it forces on us a world view that victimization alone makes one superior to others and that one can not speak absent membership in a victim class, that speach should be evaluated based on ones hierarchy in the victim scale,
and that any criticism of the ideas or actions of a victim is itself hate.
To a small extent the left is right.
I HATE many of the ideas that the left espouses.
But I hate those ideas – because the ideas themselves are vile, and immoral and destructive.
In some instances my hatred of those ideas comes close to hatred for those espousing those ideas. Few of us would fault someone for hating Hitler.
Hatred of evil people is not inherently wrong.
But hatred of bad ideas, even hatred of bad people, is not the same as racism, homophobia, …
Moral authority does NOT come from victim status.
Nor is an attack on a member of a class for their ideas or actions an attack on that class.
Omar’s actual attack’s on jews as jews – is anti-semitism.
Her attack’s on Israel are not inherently anti-semetic.
Trump has quite obviously never attacked Jews as Jews, Hispanics as Hispanics, or blacks as blacks. He has attacked ideas he beleives are wrong, acts he beleives are wrong, people he beleives are wrong. – and he is often right about that.
I would not advise you to count on voters to hold Trump accountable for your false conception of hate speach.
Given that the left has already labeled much of the country as racist, homophobic, mysogyinst – and did so BEFORE Trump, it is pretty ridiculous to expect the people you think are racist to hold Trump accountable for saying the same things they do.
I do not think that conservatives are rushing our to fight all the ism’s you identify.
Republicans are reveling in the left’s self destructive hypocracy.
Absolutely Republicans are cheering.
Absolutely they are pointing out the total hypocracy of the left.
Absolutely they are demanding the left to hold itself to the same standards it holds others to – that is right out of Alinsky’s rules for radicals.
Absolutely the right has learned to read and apply Alinsky – and the left is now “hoist on its own petard”.
That is “ironic” but the irony has nothing to do with conservatives.
There is no requirement to beleive a stupid idea, in order to demand that those who do beleive it be held to the same standard.
I do not think that many republicans think that VA Gov. Northam or his AG must resign for wearing blackface 30 years ago.
Some of us do think he must resign because he won election by false accusations of racism leveled at an opponent that he knows is not any more racist than he himself.
I do not think many republicans think Fairfax must resign over multiple accusations of rape.
But they do think that democrats should be force to hold themselves to the same standards they hold republicans to – OR admit those standards are WRONG!!!.
I think most republicans in the country would be happy to have democrats say
“We appologize” our persecution of Kavanaugh for decades old uncorroborated allegations was not just wrong – it was evil”.
Though I would note the allegations against fairfax are more recent are more specific
They are probably still too old to be certain. But it is much easier to attempt to corroborate or disprove them. We have dates, and places, and times. Though Fairfax has not commented on the specifics, he does not deny that he had sex with these women. The questions regard the specific instances and whether it was consensual.
The actual legal standard we use – not one that I think is correct, but still the standard, is that when the only dispute regarding the facts is over whether their was consent we tend to beleive the women.
In a criminal case I do not beleive that is a high enough standard.
But even that standard was not met with Kavanaugh.
It has easily been met with Fairfax.
And yes Republicans are gloating.
There is BTW an even more Cosbyesque accusation against a Democratic member of the house of representatives that has not gotten the same attention.
Well, well, well. Company led by Mr. Liberal cant take the heat and wont locate where he cant get corporate welfare.
http://time.com/5529733/amazon-new-york-headquarters-hq2-cancelled/
Damn hypocrite. Bet he wont locate one in a lower cost state where conservatives set a conservative agenda, but he wont locate a multi billion dollar company in a high tax state without millions in tax cuts.
“TAX THE RICH, EXCEPT ME AND MY COMPANY”
Ron, I thought you were a conservative who believed in accommodating big business to create jobs and cash flow into local economies. That doesn’t apply to ‘liberal’ owned big business?
The New York state and city incentives for Amazon would have amounted to around $3 billion, but mostly in performance-based incentives over the next ten years.That was chicken feed for an investment in Long Island City that would have generated multiples of $billions in jobs, and $billions more to the retail stores, landlords, utilities, etc., who would benefit from those jobs.
Guess who’s really happy ‘liberal’ Amazon now will relocate much of those assets meant for Long Island City? National Landing in Arlington, Virginia – they’ve already announced they’ll be happy to give Amazon additional tax relief for those jobs,
Hummm do you think a lot of Long Islanders are considering moving down south for employment, and better weather, and bbq?
OK first of all lets get one thing perfectly clear. Virginia is not noted for BBQ. And unless your in southern VA, you might find it hard to find any BBQ, let alone good BBQ. Virginia is more noted for oysters and crabs, with chicken thrown in. Southern rural Va is ham, bacon and sausage.
So now you state “Ron, I thought you were a conservative who believed in accommodating big business to create jobs and cash flow into local economies. That doesn’t apply to ‘liberal’ owned big business?”
Where the hell did you get that idea? I am a fiscal conservative, meaning no one gets tax breaks! You cant pick winners and losers! Corporate welfare is worse than citizen welfare! My thoughts on taxes is every business it treated the same. No special deductions for job creation, no special deduction for depletion allowances, no special deductions for green products, NO SPECIAL DEDUCTIONS! And on the private side, one tax rate from $10’000 to $1,000,000,000. If the average tax taken in is 25% for income and SS, then everyone pays 25%. In that regard I agree with Buffett. But not more for anyone. Everyone pays the same, but no one pays less unless you make less than a specific low income amount. AND, if your a student earning money for school but not exceeding the cost of tuition if it exceeds to low income exemption.. But the low income level is LOW, like $10k.EVERYONE HAS SKIN IN THE GAME!
I dont.know what that stuff is in the pictures here, but it dosnt look like southern pork BBQ or western Beef BBQ I have seen.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g28970-d450378-Reviews-Rocklands_Barbeque_and_Grilling_Company-Washington_DC_District_of_Columbia.html
Ron, Rockland’s has really good bbq; rated as one of the city’s best.
(I’m making ribs in the Instant Pot tonight, so bbq is on my mind)
https://rocklands.com/menus/
But I’m sure any New Yorkers who move down there for Amazon work will be happy for the seafood too.
Jay, I suspect they might have good BBQ, but Va not noted for that.
There is even debates on who has the best BBQ in North Carolina and South Carolina. We all make the fresh pork ham or butt roast the same (better ham), but its the sauce that makes the difference. In Eastern NC they claim their sauce is best, Western NC claims theirs is best and SC has their own.
Eastern NC is vinegar based, Western NC is tomato based and SC uses a mustard based sauce.
In this neck of the woods, we prefer the vinegar based and to try an get a recipe these days would take the treat of harm on your kids to get it. Restaurant owners may give up their wives before divulging their sauce recipe. Some will “share their recipes and you can find them online, but there are always a couple of key ingredients left out.
But since you have shared so many recipes in the past, I will share one here, without giving up my wife! It comes from an old cook book published in the late forties that my wife had from her mothers collection. Don’t remember the author, but it was a local Winston Salem N.C. lady and the book was “My Today’s’, Your Tomorrows” written before Pork BBQ was even thought of as a commercial product.
Start with your fresh pork ham or butt roast (ham best) & cook at around 200- 250 on a grill where the coals are to the side of the meat. (Having the meat directly over it unless 8 inches or so away will end up making the bottom of the meat very dry. I usually put my meat on aluminum foil, punch a couple small holes under the meat and then spread a few coal occasionally under the meat and let the fat drip onto the coals to create some smoke. Then the rest of the coals are stacked to the side of the meat. (Don’t have a smoker grill, just a 55 gallon drum cut in 1/2 with the top 1/2 hinged for the lid) In addition, I spread some hickory chips soaked in water over the coals occasionally to give it a hickory smoke flavor. Cook the meat for 8-10 hours or more to make sure it falls off the bone.
Remove the meat, let it cool so you can handle with you hands, rip the meat from the bone and using a meat cleaver, chop the pork into small pieces and place in a large bowl of pot.
Now for what separates the great from the good.
Pork BBQ sauce
1 3/4 cup cider vinegar
1/2 cup lemon juice
3 Tablespoons liquid smoke
1 teaspoon pepper
1 teaspoon cayenne
1 teaspoon garlic powder
1 teaspoon onion powder
4 tablespoons dark brown sugar
4 tablespoons granulated sugar
1 1/2 teaspoons paprika
3/4 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup water
Combine all dry ingredients and blend in vinegar to make a paste. Add remaining liquids and using a wisk, blend thoroughly. Bring to a boil stirring constantly because the sugar will burn. Cook 5 minutes, let cool and refrigerate. We usually make this 24 hours before cooking pork as the flavors intensify over a longer period of time..
Keeps indefinitely, so we always make a double recipe when making it,
And don’t try to “be healthy” and reduce salt, sugar or any ingredients. Doesn’t work and pork BBQ is not know for being “healthy” anyway.
Now you can take as much pork as you want for that dinner, add the sauce to completely cover the meat and enjoy. Can add to all the meat as it keeps good after adding to meat as it does in a jar in the refrigerator.
Guess you could cook meat in oven,if really needed, but a lot of flavor is lost without the grill smoke flavor over 10 hours.
And Texas Pete hot sauce on the meat after being placed on the bun adds that last spark to make it totally enjoyable.
Enjoy!
.
Thanks for the recipe Ron.
I like the spices in your bbq sauce.
They’re similar to spices we used in competition chili cook-offs years ago. When I lived in Dana Point, I was part of a chili cooking team. We competed all over CA and Nevada. In competition chili cooking you don’t use Beans – only meat & spiced sauce – and our secret ingredient: tequila!
We’d add the tiquila to the pot with spurts from tequila filled squirt guns. Everybody dressed up in cowboy attire for those shows and we carried the squirt guns in holsters – which we would draw and discharge into the waiting open mouths of spectators – notably pretty women who asked foe a secret ingredient taste. we’d also feed them sample bowls of chili after the judging was over. Although we never won a major trophy, needless to say we were first place in the hearts and gullets of our tequila oiled fans.
Damn. I hadn’t thought about that in years. I better see If I have any tequila on the shelf for dinner, which needs attention now.
I’m renaming this recipe, Ron – to
AMAZON SHORT RIBS
For every rib you eat you get a short tax kickback
Instant Pot – Beef Short Ribs
20 min Sauté & Prep
35 min High Pressure. Quick release
INGREDIENTS
•2 teaspoons kosher salt, more as needed
•1 teaspoon coriander powder
•1 teaspoon ground black pepper
•3 to 4 pounds bone-in beef short ribs
•1 tablespoon olive oil or other fat (like bacon fat or duck fat), more as needed
•3 leeks, whites only, chopped
•2 large fennel bulbs, diced
•4 garlic cloves, minced
•1 tablespoon chipotle chile powder
•1 tablespoon tomato paste
•1 cup dry red wine
•½ cup pitted prunes, diced
•Fennel fronds or sliced scallions, or both, for serving
PREPARATION
-.If time permits, rub salt, coriander and pepper all over beef and let marinate in refrigerator for 1 hour, or, ideally, overnight.
– Set electric pressure cooker to sauté function and add oil (or use a large skillet on the stove over medium-high heat). Sear beef until evenly browned on all sides, about 2 minutes per side. You’ll probably have to do this in batches. Transfer to a plate as the pieces brown. Or if using a skillet, transfer them to pressure cooker.
-Add leeks, fennel and pinch of salt to hot pan and cook until soft, about 8 minutes, then add garlic, chile powder and tomato paste; cook until fragrant, 1 to 2 minutes. Pour in wine. Add prunes and beef (or add prunes and fennel-wine mixture to the meat in the pot).
-Cover, then cook for 35 minutes on high pressure. Manually release pressure. If sauce seems thin, pull out beef pieces and reduce sauce using sauté function. Serve with fennel fronds or scallions, or both, for garnish.
“Ron, I thought you were a conservative who believed in accommodating big business to create jobs and cash flow into local economies. That doesn’t apply to ‘liberal’ owned big business?”
While Ron can speak for himself – I do not recall his ever identifying himself as a conservative.
I also disagree with characterizing Bezos as “liberal” – except in the classical liberal sense.
Dave
“While Ron can speak for himself – I do not recall his ever identifying himself as a conservative.”
I have said before I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal for the most part. I think that is somewhat close to many Libertarian positions. But I am not a full blown libertarian and anything as close to it as you are. That is not being critical, just a difference of opinion,
As for Bezos, I characterized him as liberal and still believe that since most of his donations to political candidates are those on the left.
Ron;
You can wear whatever label you choose.
There is no such thing as a “full blown libertarian”.
I would further note that you should already have some pretty good clues that there is a gap between what I argue and what I am willing to live with.
Compromise is a tool – not a value – but it IS a tool.
A UBI is almost as much a violation of the NAP as the social safetynet.
But I will get behind the UBI as a lessor evil.
When and if we ever have a UBI – Then I will work to get rid of that.
I am really for open borders. But they are politically impossible and practically impossible without vast societal change or disruption. If you do not have open borders, and we continue to have stupid drug laws and “caravans” of people crossing our southern border “illegally” then a wall is one of several things required to reduce chaos and restore the rule of law.
Regardless, I would “compromise” in a second to get immigration reform.
I want congress to sit down and develop better immigration policy.
I will argue for specific policies – I would prefer bringing in more educated people and less low skilled labor. I would also prefer more legal immigrants rather than less.
I would prefer to give preference to religious and political disidents.
I would not likely give much preference to victims of natural disaster or non-government violence. But our government gets to decide those things. If the house senate and president sit down and decide that we will take no more indians and chinese, while favoring hispanics and africans. If they decide to favor victims of natural disaster and domestic abuse.
So long as they decide – and they make rules that work.
We can not concurrently limit the amount of time that the government can hold a family that immigrated illegally and preclude family separation. Doing so just means that any family group that can cross will see CBP as a speed bump, nothing more.
Decide what immigration is legal and deport those who are not.
That is what illegal means – YOU CAN NOT STAY HERE.
If you do not accept that – then come out publicly for open borders.
Hypocracy is pretending that you can decide what the law is and then not enforce it.
“There is no such thing as a “full blown libertarian”.
OK, so then I would define that person as “one who accepts all of the Libertarian party platform”
Then the are degrees of Libertarian depending on how many one might choose to agree with.
But I would think you would agree you are much more Libertarian than I am based on your belief that government regulations of consumer products are not heeded while I can not accept that for certain industries.
I do not even keep track of the “libertarian party platform”.
My idea of what is libertarian is rooted in classical liberalism
Adam Smith, John Locke, JS Mill
If you are not 100% aligned with the democratic platform are you banned from the democratic party ?
It is NOT hypocracy for a business to seek the best deal it can get.
I do not 100% agree with Bezos, but to a very large extent I do.
He is not a liberal, he is not a conservative.
He is generally libertarian.
He may not be exactly my libertarian – but I am not quibbling.
His JOB is to look after the interests of Amazon shareholders.
He is obligated to do anything legal to do so.
He is not obligated to constrain those actions to what SHOULD be legal
only what is.
Government is responsible for what the law is, and what it should be – not amazon.
In my view it is completely IMMORAL for government at any level to offer any person or any business some special treatment that is not available to everyone.
That is a constitutional constraint on GOVERNMENT not on private actors.
I do not beleive that outright bribery of a public official by a private party should be a crime.
Amazon offers me discounts for subscribing to Amazon Prime – there is no difference between offering benefits to customers and suppliers and offering them to government.
But any public servant accepting a benefit to perform their job diffferently has betrayed a public trust.
Paying for better service is not a crime. Giving better service for money when you have a duty to others – that is a crime.
Dave, my point in the Amazon issue is his positions he takes on support of democrat candidates and then he wants the government to support his company, just like democrats want the government to support people.
If he is a Libertarian, then I REALLY need to reevaluate my thinking about being a Libertarian because his thinking is nowhere close to mine.
Yes if you own a business, you do everything to maximize profits. Like Amazon getting millions back on 2017 income taxes even though their liability was -0- and owing nothing in taxes in 2018. This even though they had revenue of $177B in 2017 and net income of $3B in 2017.
But I don’t like hypocrites. On one hand he speaks with liberal tongue and on the other he practices anti tax right wing conservatism.
Ron;
I am not aware of all of Bezo’s liberal pontificating.
When he bought WaPo he made some changes – he got rid of several left wing nuts who no longer have WaPo as a platform. He brought in Volokh and I beleive Radley Balko. Though both have subsequently left.
But he did not lock stock and barrel change the culture of WaPo
Trump has taking personal aim at Bezo’s specifically because of WaPo editorials.
Maybe Bezo’s is responsible – maybe not.
Real libertarians actually support free speech and free press – even left wing nut jobs at WaPo. Regardless WaPo has mostly NOT being as falling off the left edge of the world as NYT.
Maybe Bezo’s actually agrees with some of the editorials in WaPo. OK.
As I tried to make clear in my remarks regarding bribery.
There is no libertarian hipocracy in taking every single benefit you can get from government.
This lunatic argument was used on Ayn Rand. She must have been a hypocrit – she accepted Social Security!
Sorry when government steals from you – you take back every penny you can get without violating the law.
More recently I put forth JS Mills compelling argument that voting is not a right, it is a duty.
You are not obligated to vote – but if you do you are obligated to consider that the effect of your vote will be the use of force against others.
As a voter you have such a duty. There is no such duty with respect to taxes or the interests of business.
I will fight against government offering businesses bribes to get them to locate in one place or another. But it is not hypocracy for even a libertarian business person to seek every legal advantage they can. It is not hypocracy for Jeff Bezos to within the law avoid all the taxes he possibly can. Nor is it illegal for Paul Manafort to do the same. The loaning himself money from offshore tactic employed by Manafort was done by innumerable businesses – because it is legal. and it should be legal. loans are not income, and making incestuous loans illegal will only make getting arround that LEGALLY slightly more difficult.
Lets say that instead of borrowing money from himself Manafort had borrowed Money from a cayman island bank and spent that money in the US, while securing the loan with his foreign earnings.
He would not owe taxes – loans are not income.
He would have dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s and the only things that would have changed is some bank in the caymans would have made a small amount of money on a sure thing loan.
I do not specifically know that Apple and Amazon do this too.
But I would be shocked if nearly all multinational businesses do not routinely loan themselves money to reduce taxes.
The stupidity is that they have to do this.
No other nation taxes the foreign income of its citizens and businesses.
That is an incredibly stupid idea that drives money OUT of the country.
Finally – I do not see libertarian as DOGMA.
Libertarian is big enough to encompass Walter Block, and Jeff Bezos – if they want to identify as libertarian.
Though still a long shot, libertarians are the greatest threat to the 2 party duopoly.
That threat will never become real if libertarians have a narrow litmus test.
Cass Sunstein sometimes calls himself a Libertarian. Matt Zwolinski leads a group of “Bleeding heart libertarians”.
I provided you with links to Cato papers arguing for a UBI to replace the social safety net.
Not as a GOOD Policy, but as a much less bad policy than what we have.
WSJ: “U.S. Tax Revenues Fall, Deficit Widens in Wake of New Tax Law
Treasury has attributed the weaker revenue—including lower corporate and individual income-tax rates—to the tax law that took effect in January 2018”
“But the effects of last year’s fiscal stimulus are also expected to fade in 2019. The CBO estimates the gross domestic product will grow at a 2.3% annual rate this year.
The U.S. is on track to record a $900 billion deficit this year, CBO said, and annual deficits are expected to top $1 trillion starting in 2022.”
2019 2019 2019
Tax $ billion change pct
Income Taxes 2,443.8 68.5 2.9 %
Social Insurance Taxes 1,487.7 74.9 5.3 %
Ad valorem Taxes 1,580.2 102.5 6.9 %
Fees and Charges 555.7 19.6 3.7 %
Business and Other Revenue 469.4 -7.2 -1.5 %
So 2019 revenue is UP by something just short of 300B.
The CBO estimate is the LOWEST estimate for 2019 growth.
Growth for the 8 years Obama was president averaged 1.8%,
So the WORST CASE for 2019 is 1/2% HIGHER than Obama.
CBO numbers are notoriously bad. In fact government numbers are notoriously bad.
I am not going to make any assertion beyond – higher than CBO and less than Trump claims.
And more than enough to win re-election.
WSJ: “North Korea Keeps Stockpiling Materials to Make Nuclear Weapons, Report Finds
Finding is a reminder of Pyongyang’s ability to increase its nuclear arsenal should diplomacy falter”
“In a January report that used commercial satellite imagery and other open-source data, the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, Calif., identified six factories thought to be linked to North Korea’s missile program. Last month, the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington found about 20 undeclared missile operating bases, including one researchers think serves as a missile headquarters.”
And maybe they should, dealing with Trump is a golden opportunity to do whatever.
Kudos!!!!
You are using private intelligence assessments and analysis.
BTW the private analysis is that it is less than 50% probable that the hack of the DNC was the source of the Wikileaks emails, and it is not possible to attribute the hack to any source.
Absolutely things in NK could get worse. That would be a problem of Clinton, Bush and Obama’s creation.
I should think we all hope Trump resolves it.
Absolutely the North Koreans are going to try to cheat.
If the Wall justifies declaring a National Emergency, so will Gun Control and Climate Change.
Bye Bye congressional oversight..
But I’m sure there will be mental dwarfs who will defend Trumpilstilscan if he declares it
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-emergency-declaration-border-wall-funding-not-national-emergency/
I would hope congress gets its head out of its ass and passes legislation reigning in this action and a ton of other stuff they have allowed presidents to do in the past.
We dont elect kings, but we are very close to having one that can do anything they wish. E.O.’s should be included and anything the president does should have congressional overview and approval.
Agree, Ron, Congress has been too lazy or worse.
Although sometimes an EO is really needed for speeds sake. How do we save that if we throw the baby out with the dishwater.
Well we have exceeded Word Press comprehension with 400+ comments, so this is my second try in posting this. Guess I will go back to writing comments on Word, coping the comment and pasting to Word Press so I dont have to retype stuff multiple Times.
“How do we save that if we throw the baby out with the dishwater.”
Has to be a way all those overpaid DC attorneys can develop that would be as ironclad as a prenup between rich people.
Start with congress approval required within 30 days. Maybe just a committee approval. And that would be for anything significant. There are many E.O like declaring a day in honor of someone that would not reach “significant”
Start with congress approval required within 30 days. Maybe just a committee approval. And that would be for anything significant. There are many E.O like declaring a day in honor of someone that would not reach “significant”
As Turley notes below:
The fundimental problem is that congress has largely abdicated its role by passing laws that empower the executive.
The courts long ago should have established that congress can not delegate its powers to the executive.
Turley won challenges against Obama similar to the challenges to Trump’s emergency declaration. But Turley notes Trump will win on the Wall because Congress has already authorized what he is looking to do.
You propose a 30 day review. I have no problem with that.
The Emergency powers act has a congressional review privision.
But it requires Congress to act to STOP the emergency.
The DEFAULT is that the president gets to do it.
Again why Trump will prevail.
I am OPPOSED to pretty much anything government does that is on autopilot.
If we even allow congress to delegate power to the executive the Default on review should be FAIL. If in 1976 Congress had said – the president can declare a state of emergency – but it Congress does not authorize the emergency spending after 30 days the president must stop.
But what they said was if congress does nto agree – they must vote the emergency down.
Over and over the left – and sometimes the right have taken the supermajoritarian provisions of the constitution and our law and inverted them. Rather than requiring government to get and sustain suport majority support to continue to do something.
The law that we have and bad SCOTUS decisions essentially say that once something is done whether by presidential decree or a log rolled simple majority in congress – it is forever and impossible to undo.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/18/why-trump-will-win-the-wall-fight/
The constitution gives a great deal of power that is excercised by the president to congress.
Congress can take that power back anytime it wants.
And that is exactly where the problem with National Emergencies lies – bad law.
Some of what congress has abdicated to the executive the courts should never have permitted. There is no constitutional authority for the executive to write laws or regulations.
That is a congressional power.
“If the Wall justifies declaring a National Emergency, so will Gun Control and Climate Change.
Bye Bye congressional oversight..
But I’m sure there will be mental dwarfs who will defend Trumpilstilscan if he declares it”
Prior to 1965 Trump could not have succeeded in this. Pres. Truman tried this and failed.
But unfortunately Congress passed law that opened this oportunity.
Contrary to some – as best I can tell doing so would not be illegal.
You might be right that it would justify another president to declare an emergency regarding Climate Change or Gun Control. I do not think so – because the window opened in 1965 is not that wide. At the same time we should have learned from Harry Reid pulling the Nuclear Trigger or Obama using his pen and phone, that any power grab of one administration will be expanded by the next.
At the same time – this is not an end to congressional oversight, it is an end to congressional control of the purse strings. Meaningful congressional oversight died long ago.
No Trump should not go forward using an emergency declaration,
If he is not happy with the compromise bill, he should veto it and shut government down again.
Every idea that is legal – is not good.
OK everyone, since Rick is no longer around to monitor and referee, can we do it ourselves?
Can we try to debate issues and not personal attacks? I know its hard sometimes, but this site has been the only one I have found that is 90% fact and debate driven, while others are more than 60% personal attacks.
We have a good representation of those on the left of issues and those on the right of issues and some in between in our small group.
Today has been more personal attacks than debate of issues. Maybe that is because those posting today have all been male and this is Valentines day, one that drives many males crazy. Could be just getting frustration out anyway possible.
And Yes I have been guilty of calling other “bleeding heart liberals” and other things in the past, so my hands are not clean either.
So I just ask if we can do better and keep our small group together and not end up with no where to discuss anything other than sites that only have those that think exactly like ourselves.
At one time we had many more posting comments, but personal comments convinced them to leave earlier.
Thanks
You can propose something – but I can already goes how it goes – each of us has our own different opinion of what ails TNM.
Further it is self-evident from some posts yesterday that there are radically different perceptions.
I would as an example agree that banning ad hominem and insult would be a good thing.
But it is clear we do not agree on what that is.
Is calling an idea stupid the same as calling a person stupid ?
Nor do I regard all conflict as inherently bad.
While Anonymous AKA Robby and I have argued vigorously yesterday.
And I think most of his arguments are wrong – he did actually make arguments.
Granted it was mostly arguments about how to argue, but even that atleast touches on important issues.
I may be the poster that Robby is most offended by – but Robby is not the poster I am most offended by.
I would rather TNM had 1000 posters making bad left leaning arguments, than one who posts little beyond short insults.
Dave, you have your idea of what TNM should be used for and you have been trying force me and others into that mold for a very long time with no success. When will you learn? Shall I quote Einstein about the meaning of repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result?
Rick also must have had an idea of what TNM should be used for when he started this, I doubt his idea and yours overlap much.
Ron, I feel your pain. But truly there is no answer to this. Every sentence I write has been and will be buried under a humongous pile of repetitive objections. To make it more interesting the objections won’t even be to what I actually said or what my political positions actually are. So, what is there for me to do? I’m trying to have a little fun with it instead of getting really sore. I’m sure its a bother to wade through but so are the countless off-target obsessive words that land on every conversation.
All the people who send Dave into a frenzy could simply withdraw, that would leave only you and Dave and sometime Priscilla. You would not like that I don’t think.
So, we are stuck. You do have my sympathy.
Who has used FORCE ? Certainly not I.
Is there a gun to your head ?
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
John Stuart Mill
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…”
John Stuart Mill
That you wish things were different does not create a right.
You fixate on my intentions – what of yours.
You are openly seeking to silence a view you do not like.
You think that is OKAY ?
It is not – what you claim would improve TNM would be immoral.
This is fascinating. Einstein is apparently not the author of the famous quote about repeating the same action and expecting a different result. One of the 12 step cure agencies was. If you want something Really well investigated apparently quoteinvestigator.com will do it as well or better than anyone.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/
Dave, no, calling an idea stupid is not the same as calling a person stupid. Calling an idea stupid should also be followed by why one thinks that. Then the other person can address that issue.
As for Anonymous, WordPress sucks! If you are posting through the WordPress screen, you need to scroll down each time to see your ID info is present or its says ” you are responding as xxxx” or something to that effect. Sometimes it says that and drops that during the upload.
“Nor do I regard all conflict as inherently bad.” I can only say it is my opinion that conflict might not ge bad, but personal conflict generated by sociak media promoting comments one would not make in person is bad.
But the I was raised at a time when one was taught “If you dont have something nice to say, then dont say anything at all”
Just sayin’
No Jay you are not “just saying” you are totally completely insulting.
You post like a 4 year old – and your button is the prefect example.
I would be completely embarrassed to have made most of the posts you have. But like a toddler you revel in your ability to insult – despite the fact that you are not that good at it.
Go back and read your own posts.
“Dave, you have your idea of what TNM should be used for and you have been trying force me and others into that mold for a very long time with no success.”
No force involved – so that would be a FALSE statement.
“When will you learn? ”
Lear what ? You are the one who asserts that I am desparte to use force to persuade. Once again as is typical your entire argument rests on your clairvoyance.
“Shall I quote Einstein about the meaning of repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result?”
That would be meaningful if I expected different results.
Einstein’s argument applies better to you.
You are the one who continually expects different results.
You expect me to magiacally post differently because you have insulted me.
You expect bigger government to work – even though it never has.
In area after area, you keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
“Rick also must have had an idea of what TNM should be used for when he started this, I doubt his idea and yours overlap much.”
Rick gets to speak for himself – just like you or I.
“Ron, I feel your pain. But truly there is no answer to this. Every sentence I write has been and will be buried under a humongous pile of repetitive objections.”
Nearly all my objctions are specific to the things you write.
Is there some right I am not aware of to write whatever erroneous nonsense you please and not have anyone respond ?
Try rereading the emporer has no clothes.
” To make it more interesting the objections won’t even be to what I actually said or what my political positions actually are. ”
Oh. but they are. Or more accurately you are pretty inconsistent.
“So, what is there for me to do? I’m trying to have a little fun with it instead of getting really sore. I’m sure its a bother to wade through but so are the countless off-target obsessive words that land on every conversation.”
Someone complain that you are having fun ?
“All the people who send Dave into a frenzy”
Do you think that it might be possible that I am “having fun” too ?
Is “fun” inherently deceptive ?
If you say what you think – are you inherenly having a bad time ?
“Dave, no, calling an idea stupid is not the same as calling a person stupid.”
And this entire “witch hunt” should end there. Scrolling up and down only a few pages will make it clear that some posters insult people ALL THE TIME.
While I attack arguments.
I would prefer to attack arguments of substance.
I attack your arguments and priscilla’s sometimes – those are not attacks on you. I agree with a significant portion of what you say.
And even when I do not pretty much all your comments are about issues and facts.
“Calling an idea stupid should also be followed by why one thinks that.”
Quite frequently I do. Though you are postulating an absolute.
There is no absolute. Several hear complain about my volume already.
If each of us must respond at length as to precisely why each argument we call stupid is stupid – we would have no time to breath.
Nearly everyone hear has called the GND stupid.
In fact – of everyone here – I have come the closest to DEFENDING it.
As written it is crap, but the idea of a UBI as a replacement for the rest of the social safetynet has merit. It is LESS BAD. than what we have.
Regardless, my point is we all find arguments stupid. We do not typically follow that with an explanation. And if following an insult to an argument with an explanation is the criteria for whether it is misconduct – I am guilty of misdemeanors and most of the rest here are felons.
“Then the other person can address that issue.”
That is always an option. One I welcome.
“As for Anonymous, WordPress sucks! ”
I understand that completely
I have my own problems with WP.
I am not looking to get into that.
Nor am I blaming anyone for posting anonymously.
I DO NOT CARE.
Expect your remarks to have the context necescary to differentiate sarcasm when you post anonymously is unwise.
As is bemoaning that your sarcasm was missed and that it should have been obvious as everyone knows who you are.
Regardless, the limitations of WP are something we all have ot live with so long as TNM uses WP.
If we want to have a general bitch about WP – count me in.
But of you piss on me because problems with WP lead to confusion do not expect me to take you seriously.
You do not get to use the problems with WP as an excuse to make demands of others.
““Nor do I regard all conflict as inherently bad.” I can only say it is my opinion that conflict might not ge bad, but personal conflict generated by sociak media promoting comments one would not make in person is bad.”
I left twitter because almost everyone there is an asshole.
Pretty much every tweet is like the posts here that I find the most offense.
To those here who do not want long posts and who want four year old biting comments – I would sugest twitter. It is a perfect fit.
Instead oflinking to the latest tweet of the latest never trump neocon – you can just retweet it to all of your followers.
You can revel in TDS to your hearts content.
Tweets are limited to 200+ characters so you never have to fear that someone will dismember your stupid remark in great detail.
I am not telling anyone what to do just asking – why is it you want to make TNM into twitter – there already is a twitter.
Ron, unlike you I am not inherently hostile to social media.
My guess is that the english were not happy that printing presses sprung up all over the colonies either.
Regardless, freedom comes with costs.
I want government out of the drug business. I fuily understand that bad things will happen. But good things will happen too.
My desire does not mean I want to shoot heroin.
It just means that I grasp that the bad things that come with freedom are outweighed by the good.
I am hard pressed to think of what is good about twiiter.
But that is not my call.
I would further note that before I was born my grandparents were lamenting that evil negro music, and my parents complained that Rock was rotting our minds. I am old enough to remember tipper gore.
And computer games were going to destroy our kids.
Each of these came with bad – and good. The world did not end.
Mostly I think they have made the world better – though I am not headed back to twitter – its is just not for me.
Which brings me back to “why are we trying to make TNM into Twitter ?”
“But the I was raised at a time when one was taught “If you dont have something nice to say, then dont say anything at all”
Sounds good, but actually a bad idea.
It inherently means the first person to speak controls the agenda – because criticism is not allowed.
That wasn’t you Ron. 🤡
Social Justice run amuk in Canada
https://quillette.com/2019/02/11/how-social-justice-ideologues-hijacked-a-legal-regulator/
Ron, good thoughts on “policing” ourselves. But, that will be meaningless if we all don’t tell Dave/whatever to limit himself in words and multiple comments. With that done, or his absence this could be a very good blog, up from a poor one.
Thanks. I have kearned to limit comments by reading the first couple of paragraphs in the email and then deleting.
Sorry, not enough, we are/have been dealing with a pig. Why are you reticent to call him out? He pisses on every commenters leg.
What am I missing?
dduck, I believe you may have commented at The Moderate Voice years ago when I made a brief appearance. Not sure what I commented under, but it may not have been Ron P. Anyway I made somewhat the same type comments there as I do here and was on the end of the “dumb-ass”, “pig”, “drunk”, “pothead” and others not this mild. So I left and found this site. At that time there were many more commenting but over the few years I have been here, there were those that used personal attacks and those on the receiving end left. Then those useing the personal attacks left, leaving what few we have here. So I try to ignore comments I dont want to address or get into the weeds. I read a few sentences and delete the email. If there is one I am interested, I will call out who ever made the comment and ask for proof. I have also called out Jay for his use of Tweet copies and he responded it was easier than other ways of commenting.
But I really try to stear clear of personal comments because I was the one on the receiving end.on a few other sites. And I was not conservative for ” The Lonely Conservative” and commenters ran me out if that one also.
This is a pig.
Words have meaning.
You are dealing with speech that you do not like.
Nothing more.
Any claim beyond that is both a lie and ad hominem.
But that apears to be OK with you.
Your demand is that TNM must be as you wish it to be.
You are constantly demanding things you have no right to.
Fortunately you also have no power either.
Get over yourself.
I can not FORCE you to listen.
I can not FORCE you to think.
I can not FORCE you to reason.
I can only attempt to persuade you.
I use facts logic and reason to do that.
And still I fail.
You use fallacy and insult.
Do you expect to do better ?
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fanimalia-life.club%2Fdata_images%2Fpig%2Fpig5.jpg&f=1
If there is piss on your leg you should visit a urologist, because it did not come from this blog.
Bad metaphors are not arguments.
“Sorry, not enough, we are/have been dealing with a pig. Why are you reticent to call him out? He pisses on every commenters leg.
What am I missing?”
Are you completely incapable of distinguishing between civility and volume ?
Robby appears to have switched from posting as anonymous to posting as a new name each time.
Lets say I do the same and post under 10 different persona’s ?
Or I persuade 10 other libertarians to come here and I post 1/10 as much but each of them posts much the same as I would with zero net change in the volume.
There is absolutely no relevant issue with “volume”.
We are dealing with an effectively unlimited resource.
The PROBLEM we have here is a complete lack of civility.
It is those who think that the are free to call other posters “pigs”.
It is those who think that they are entitled to a forum where THEY ALONE can say whatever they want without fear that anyone will demonstrate the errors of their remarks.
I found it odd that so many of the poster here who absolutely loath Trump are pretty much EXACTLY like him.
Dave, sorry, I was not clear in my comment. When I said I limit the comment and read the first couple paragrapghs, that lets me know if it is something I am interested in or not. If not, I delete. If I am, I read more until I am not interested.
And yes, it is getting like the Moderate Voice here which I hate to see happen. I enjoy debating everyone here and those that left, like JB and others.
It is obviously false that someone else’s speech in a public forum without limits in any quantity or quality harms you
This hits the spot from a CNN article on the pitfalls of the prog loon women.
“There’s also a learning curve. The Republican-selected witness for the hearing, former Federal Election Commission chairman Bradley A. Smith, tells CNN Ocasio-Cortez misinterpreted his public statements about campaign-finance law. “She didn’t know what she was talking about. She thought her own campaign funds were dark money. They weren’t,” Smith says. “She didn’t seem to be aware of how PACs operate, and she would have been a person who really should have been trying to learn in the hearing and she wasn’t.””
In other words she is a prime example of the campus left culture. F%$# us. Both parties batshit crazy.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/politics/all-the-freshman-ladies/index.html
Its pretty weak stuff actually but at least its a start to timidly criticize the prog loons. I wonder how much their tone will stiffen when the damage these nuts are doing becomes clear?
I wrote by e-mail to 2 of 3 of my legislators (didn’t bother with Sanders) asking them to stand up for sanity before AOC and Co. do to the dem party what the trumpies have done to the GOP.
Still no reply from them.
The nut jobs from my own side of the spectrum almost cause me more pain than those on the right.
I would suggest geting beyond whether something is labeled “progressive” or not.
I have repeatedly asked everyone here to do the same thing with respect to government.
When in Doubt DON’T.
Whether it is the GND or new abortion restrictions or using emergency funds to build a wall or sending troops to foreign countries.
If an action of government is going to restrict someone’s liberty – and virtually everything government does restricts liberty.
Think LONG AND HARD first. Whether it is driven by democrats or republicans the ACTS of congress pretty much NEVER deliver the benefits promised and pretty much ALWAYS infringe on liberty more than expected.
So unless you are SURE – DON’T.
Trump can manage fine with $4B of Wall funding he can get without declaring an emergency.
We are not all going to die if the GND does not pass – no matter what Progs say.
We shutdown 1/4 of governmetn for 5 weeks and the MOST you can say is the some government employees did not get paid and some of the rest of us were very mildly inconvenienced.
Growing government even further is certainly not a good thing.
I have supported Trump’s tax cuts. We need to cut taxes even more.
But we need to cut spending too. Even military spending.
When in doubt with respect to government DON;T.
If we restricted govenrmet growth to 1% LESS than inflation. rather than 1-2% more nearly all our problems would go away eventually/
The problem is not unique to AOC.
Broad interpretations of the law are essentially lawless.
As the FEC Chair noted, AOC’s broad interpretation of campaign finance law made her a criminal.
This problem is not unique to AOC nor to campaign finance law.
Law must be narrow and specific.
If the existing law does not bar what you want without interpretting it broadly – pass new law specifically barring that.
I’ve realized what I am: a McCaskill democrat. In other words, facing extinction if not extinct.
The dem party and its associated media allies (whose leaders could not play chess if their lives depended on it judging by their political strategies and tactics) actually believe they are winning. They believe that the American electorate strongly resembles the student body of Middlebury college. They have bet their future on that delusional idea.
We are doomed.
Time for me to tune out politics for a good long spell and hope when I tune back in things are not as dark as they seem now.
Tuning out on politics is as difficult/futile as ignoring splattered graffiti, ubiquitous and ever present youhave to be a hermit to ignore it.
I’ve done it before, sometimes for months. Its like meditating, how long can you go without a thought. You can increase the length of those times with some practice. I just have to make my periods of newslessness grow longer. Four years would be ideal. Just a synopsis of the last term after each election.
You obviously have way more self control than I do….
President Smuckness Admits Thete’s No National Emergency As He Declares One
“I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”
Anyone listening to any of this presser?
His mind is as jumbled as a load of laundry in the dryer.
Sounds like he swallowed a fistful of uppers.
The speed at which one does something is not an inherent attribute of whether it is an emergency.
If you cut yourself and the cut is severe enough that you will bleed to death – it is not a cut where the bleeding will stop on its own eventually.
But it is not so severe that you will bleed to death in the next couple of minutes – is it NOT and emergency ?
That very same rationalization will be used by next Dem/Prog President to justify NE for Climate Control.
I would suggest reading Turley’s article on why Trump will win in court.
Turley should be taken very seriously – because he defeated The Obama administrations efforts to spend money without congressional authroization in court.
I have little doubt that in the LONG run you will be correct.
Obama’s funding games with PPACA were much more egregious than this.
DACA is much more legally problematic.
Some future left wing nut president will likely declare a national emergency over global warming. And he will unfortunately have better odds of getting away with it because of this
Though the fundimental problem is with the law – not with Trump.
If you want to narrow the discretion of the president in spending money – you have my support. But we do so by changing the law.
If you want me to say Trump SHOULD not do this – I have said that repeatedly.
But I can not say that he CAN not do this – because he can. Congress gave him the authority long ago.
I would note though that a future democrat will not have carte blanche.
Whether it is gun control or CAGW – Trump is reallocating funds on a small scale.
He is using them as he wishes – but inside of the broad outlines of what they were allocated for.
Obama did not do that – and lost.
A NE to deal with CAGW may still not have access to any money.
“Many wrongs DO NOT make a right, dummy.”
All misstatements are not equal.
Trumps inflame the left.
But are otherwise not consequential.
Those of these others had significant impact.
We did not need to invade normandy on June 6, 1942 – we could have waited alot longer.
Does that mean that was NOT an emergency ?
Watta ya know: I agree with her:
Ann Coulter on KABC: “The promise [Trump] made every single day at every single speech” was to build the wall. “So forget the fact that he’s digging his own grave, this is just— Look, the only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.”
I have already said that this is a mistake – not because I care about Trump or the wall.
But because every broad interpretation one president makes the next will make even broader.
Byron York makes a compelling argument that there is an emergency – by the relevant legal definition – because Congresses actions – particularly in partially funding the wall – but also in the way that other funds that Trump is using have been allocated are an open admission of a serious and immediate need.
Trump got money for NEW wall construction – not just maintance of old walls.
You do not fund new walls without essentially finding that there is a pressing need.
Coulter has a point – but her point is that it would not be wise to diminish the definition of emergency in this way – it will become too easy for other presidents.
At the same time I will note – someone did alot of work to come up with this.
aLL the money Trump is looking to spend on the wall – including the emergency funds are earmarked for boarder security or ICE/CBP at their discretion.
Trump is clearly and boldly defying congressional democrats – but he is not defying the law.
Dispite the hysteria, this is not nearly as far afield as Obama’s DACA without any legal foundation.
I agree that the next president will enlarge the emergemcy label. Why do we need congress when it is nothing but a leach on society, provinding little to the country these days other than future presidential candidates.
But while everyone has a cow over the emergency, few are ointing out he plans to use military construction money, transferring construction fund from project to replace rat, mold and insect infested unhealthy living conditions.
Oh, and Dave, may I remind you that these are quarters that were privatized, oversight by the govnment withdrawn, expectations the owners would maintain the quarters at a livable standard and years later and complaints ignored by the military has allowed that to happen. And these individuals do not have ways like sueing.or moving because they cant sue the government and dont make enough as an enlisted person to get housing in the San Diego and Fayetteville, amoung others, area. This is where regulation should have been requirec!
I do not have the details on the military construction you are saying Trump is taking the funds from.
If you have a source for more information I would appreciate it.
Addressing your argument – I have to make some assumptions so maybe I am wrong.
But I am guessing that you are saying these funds are coming from money to improve military buildings owned by the government ?
If they are “privatized” then either ownership was transfered or there was some kind of contract for services.
If these buildings are privately owned – it is not governments job to maintain them.
If they are not inhabitable and being privately rented those renting them – government ? should move out.
If these are public facilities and the government had a private contract.
Either the private party defaulted on the contract, or the government wrote a bad contract.
Regardless, you can not get to what you where you are trying to go.
Though I will note that the most egregious private conduct occurs when private parties provide services to government.
Again a reason for limiting government
There are two issues.
One, what projects are being.impacted. This article states housing and health facilities. I have heard other projects other than those listed here, but dont find links to articles.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/02/14/what-base-projects-lose-out-if-trump-uses-military-money-to-build-his-wall/
The second issue is some of the substandard housing is homes on bases that are owbed by private companies. The military ignores residents complaints and the contractor ignores complaints. SUPPORT THE TROOPS, BUT SCREW THEM WHENEVER POSSIBLE!
Damn government!
There are 200,000 houses on military bases.
Presuming there is $2B/yr that is allocated for work on those – that is 10K/house per year.
That sounds pretty unreasonable to me.
Recap of Prez Incoherent’s Interview
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/15/trump-announces-national-emergency-in-bizarre-white-house-appearance.html
Or you could just listen to the interview rather than someone else’s oppinion of it.
Trump Intention:
Take from Military funds to build a stretch of fencing?
& Republicans will go along with it!
I beleive Byron york did an anaylisi of what appears to be Trump’s intentions.
As I understand this is Trump’s plan.
FIRST spend the 1.37B that congress allocated to the wall.
Next spend I beleive it is 900M in funds from asset forfeiture that existing legislation directs to ICE and CBP to spend as they see fit.
Next to spend about the same amount from the DoD budget of funds SPECIFICALLY allocated for border security.
NONE of this requires a declaration of emergency.
All of it is fully within the normal powers of the president.
Congress can prevent Trump from doing any of these things. But they would have to pass legislationt hat would get through the senate. and past a presidential veto.
Alternately they can be more specific about the use of those funds in the NEXT budget.
The LAST thing Trump is doing is spending DoD funds that are available to hin in the event of a national emergency. Trump has declared that emergency to start the ball rolling – demcrats are expected to object. It is likely that it will go to the 9th circuit and Trump will lose, it will then go to SCOTUS where it is likely that Trump will win.
As York pointed out Trump is going to win – specifically because Congress has already given him money for border security. Every item above – over $4B in funds does NOT require declaring a national emergency.
Equally important every one DOES represent money AUTHORIZED by congress for border security. Those authorizations constitute a prima fascia case that congress already accepts that their is an emergency. This fight will not pivot on whether their is an emergency – but over whether congresses grant of DoD funds to be used in an emergency is broad enough to cover this. It is highly likely Trump will win that.
I still do not support Trump declaring an emergency to do this. While he IS actually complying with the letter of the law. And Pelosi is wrong when she claims that democrats can use gun control as an emergency in the future. It is still opening the door to something that will just expand under future presidents.
Trump should not do this – not because it is not lawful – the more I learn the more clearly it is lawful. Trump has not pulled this out of his hat. Congress has actually authorized every penny he is looking to spend on the wall. And they have authorized that all of it can be spent on border security generically. and almost $5B of it can be spent without declaring an emergency. That part I have zero problem with.
Even the emergency funding is still being spent within the confines of what congress earmarked it for.
Trump is taking advantage of the fact that congress does NOT typically micromanage the budget. Someone in the WH has gone through the entire budget looked for every dollar that is earmarked for “border security” in the most generic way, and Trump has scooped all of it up for a wall.
That is actually in his power.
If it should not be – change the law.
Dave is exactly right here. The Constitution does not give the president the right to appropriate $$. But Congress passed a law in the 1970’s that specifically gave any president the power to designate funds to address a national emergency.
The president needs to define the emergency, and then certain budgets become available for use. The Congress can pass a resolution opposing the emergency. And the president can veto it. And Congress can override his veto.
Obama dictated DACA without any justification at all. Just did it. And the Democrats cheered.
I’m sure that the Dems had it in their mind to use the National Emergencies Act to address climate change and gun control, as soon as they had another Democrat president. They’re just pissed that Trump did it first, because it will make it harder for them to justify the same thing. But they’ll leave the law in place, and argue that Trump’s emergency isn’t as good as their emergencies.
Republican Senator Mike Lee has already said that Trump is acting lawfully, but that Congress should repeal the law that allows this presidential power.
What are the chances that any Democrats will support the bill that Lee proposes? I say slim and none, They don’t care about the Constitution…they just care that it’s not a Democrat who is wielding the power.
“They’re just pissed that Trump did it first, because it will make it harder for them to justify the same thing.”
Er, you have it backwards, Pricilla.
It will make it EASIER because Trump is setting the precedent.
Exec Orders for climate and guns sure to follow in next Dem’s first term.
I understand that that is the narrative, Jay. I just don’t believe it. The EO’s were gonna happen either way. See how many Democrats support a bill to restrict executive authority. My guess is…ze
Whoops. Typing on a phone is definitely not in my skill set. Anyway, Democrats won’t restrict executive overreach. They’ll just bitch about it when Republicans do it.
Trump did NOT do this first, as best as I can tell Woodrow Wilson did.
If not – some president prior to him.
Regardless, as I understand it there are currently 31 open national emergencies, most of which are quite stupid. Most of which most of us have never heard of.
Yes, D’s can use this as a precident – and that is one reason Trump should not do this.
But on several occasions Obama did more egregious things – without declaring a national emergency. Turley used Obama’s Billions in subsidies to insurance companies as an example.
No funding from congress.
No declaration of emergencies. Just Obama writing checks without authority until the courts stopped him.
Or DACA – which I mostly agree with, it was still accomplished outside the law.
Worse still – Obama had a bipartisan immigration deal on the table – and he walked away to go it on his own.
No one is more responsible for the current political warfare than Obama.
Trump was elected because of this.
Priscilla;
Thank you.
I am not “right”
This is not about being right.
What is being done is WRONG, or atleast the wrong way to do it.
But it is legal.
The FACTS, and the LAW is that Trump can do this.
I strongly suspect that the ranting about rat infested buildings will die out as nonsense over time.
Does the federal government really have 8B in rat infested buildings that need to be dealt with each year ?
If so there is something very much wrong.
Regardless, this is not about being “right”.
The facts and law are what they are.
I am fully with Sen. Lee CHANGE THE LAW,
At the bottom of this – as always, is Not Trump is an actual evil totalitarian.
But Trump is doing something that some do not like.
Innarguably Obama was more lawless than Trump. More totalitarian/authoritarian.
The military funds trump is using are budgeted for BORDER SECURITY.
You have no idea where the funds will come from, as of this morning NOBODY of authority in the Trump misadministration has specified that.
If I’m wrong, link to the proof.
If I’m right, STFU and stop posting your own misguided opinion.
Clarification: the money Trump wants to use via his Natl Emergency WILL NOT COME from MILITARY FUNDS already set aside.
And Trump HASNT USED 3/4 Of the original congressional funding to extend/repair border fencing.
And give Shanahan a call and tell him he’s not on the same page as you:
“Acting Sec of Defense Shanahan just told reporters he hasn’t determined if there is a military necessity for a border wall or how much money Defense will even spend. Shanahan said he hasn’t yet spoken to President Trump.
Shanahan might want to read the constitution – there is no provisions anywhere in the constitution for the secretary of defense to make decisions of any kind.
Absolutely all federal executive power is vested in the president constitutionally.
Any authority excercised by anyone else in the executive – cabnet member or janitor is delegated by the president.
If the president has determined something – that is the end.
You are free to attempt to persuade.
But if there is an impasse – you must either do as you were asked or resign.
None of this should surprise you.
As FDR famously said “in our system we have one president at a time”.
Shanahan is not president. There is no reference to Sec. Def in the constitution.
He has no authority that is not Trump’s.
“You have no idea where the funds will come from, as of this morning NOBODY of authority in the Trump misadministration has specified that.”
Apparently the numerous editorials I have read on this are just making it up.
I beleive that Trump speficied in his press conference.
Regardless, the specific dollar amounts and where they are comming from in the budget have been published from several sources.
I may have the exact amounts wrong.
But the money is still coming from 4 places in the budget.
#1 the amount that was specifically allocated to borader walls/fences in the budget deal.
I beleive that is 1.37B
#2 Drug asset forfeiture money that was previously appropriated to ICE/CBP without being specific about its use.
Challenging that is going to be damn near impossible
#3 Money in the DoD budget specifically earmarked for Border Security.
That too will be difficult to challenge.
#4 Money allocated in the DodBudget for emergency use – with the list of applicable emergencies including boarder security.
Only #4 requires a declaration of a national emergency.
My recallection from the sources I have read is that the sum without #4 is over 4B.
Further the administration has already anounced that they are spending the funds in the order I listed them above.
They are doing this because the list is in order from the hardest to challenge to the easiest.
By announcing the order they preclude the 9th circuit from issuing a broad injunction stopping construction of the border wall without ruling in a way that will near certain be immediately overturned by SCOTUS.
You want linkes – go to RCP – they have been addressing this for days.
“If I’m wrong, link to the proof.”
If you are wrong – you should appologize for ranting without checking your facts first.
If you are going to accuse someone of LYING – then the burden to be sure of your facts falls on you.
Much of the time I provide cites.
If we all want to get together and set a new rule that requires a link to a citation for any assertion of fact – I would be ecstatic.
. “If I’m right, STFU and stop posting your own misguided opinion.”
And if you are wrong ? What should the consequence be for accusing someone else of LYING ?
CNBC has a list here that is more detailed than mine
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/heres-where-the-money-for-trumps-border-wall-will-come-from.html
To be clear – I do not agree with the some of the whitehouse remarks quoted.
The president is not free to spend money as he wishes so long as he informs congress.
About $4B of what is proposed does not require the declaration of an emergency. That includes SOME of the DoD funds.
Everything he is looking to spend is either specifically be allocated for border security, or is broadly allocated with border security provided as a possible use.
Trump is actually being pretty conservative in this.
Congress can prevent the president from spending on the wall. But to do so they must be more specific in their budgeting.
This may be a 1 time Gambit for Trump.
It is unlikely that House Democrats will pass budgets with broad language in the future.
Although that would require them to pass a budget which democrats have not done in decades.
If Pelosi can not get a budget passed in 2019 – then either there will be a shutdown or Democrats favorite tool – a continuing resolution and CR’s basically authorize continued spending according to the last budget passed.
There are things democrats can do to stop this, but it is going to be difficult.
They would have to accutally pass a budget – and get it past the senate.
Or they would have to add a “no wall funding” to any CR and get that past the senate.
So that I am clear hear.
I have no problems with any of the spending that Trump is doing without declaring an emergency – that is about $4B.
I beleive that he has a strong legal case for the declaration of emergency – but it is a large political mistake that we will pay for in the future.
Pelosi is mostly wrong – democrats could not do gun control that way.
Trump is taking advantage of all the flexibility he can find in the existing budget – that makes this much harder for D’s to win at SCOTUS.
At the same time, using a declaration of emergency this way sets a bad precident and it WILL be abused even worse in the future.
I would however note this is MORE legal and constitutional than DACA.
There is a difference between What Trump CAN do and what he SHOULD do.
He CAN do this. There are several articles out regarding presidential national emergencies – going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson.
They are near universally stupid. I think one pundit noted there are something like 31 national emergences in effect right now.
I have read some examples – MOST are far stupider than this.
I OPPOSE this. Reading about them – I oppose probably 90% of the “national emergencies”.
The fundimental issue with “the wall” is that as much as I think that Democrats should Give Trump what he is asking, this should be resolved between congress and the president not by fiat. I have far less problem with shutting down the government.
I think I might change party affiliation and vote in the democrat primary and vote for Beto.
He supports my position. If the wall does no good, and if it is immoral as stated by Queen Nancy, then its time to get rid of all if it. Lets support Nancy and her fellow California progressives.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6707687/Beto-ORourke-says-tear-Trumps-wall-existing-barriers-Mexico-border.html
Beto For President!
Another Trump fabrication: “Trump Says South Korea Is Paying $500 Million More for U.S. Troops. The Deal Says Otherwise.”
“The claim contradicted the terms of a cost-sharing deal South Korea and the United States signed on Sunday after months of contentious negotiations. Under the one-year deal, this year South Korea will pay 1.04 trillion won, or $925 million, an increase of $70 million from last year’s $855 million.”
If you like your doctor you can keep them.
If you like your insurance you can keep it
Read my lips no new taxes,
I did not have sex with that woman.
Benghazi was a spontaneous protest of an internet video.
Trump exagerate – so what.
Many wrongs DO NOT make a right, dummy.
Jay, I want to know the answer to Daves comment also. Yes, two wrongs dont make a right, but why is Trump’s ” mexico will pay for the wall” worse than ” if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.
In my estimation, lieing to someone about their doctor and insurance and keeping that is a hell of a lot worse than.lieing about who is going to pay for a wall.
But those on the left had no problem with people losing their insurance, their doctor not being part of the program, all while every politician involved with PPACA knew full well some insurance and some doctors would not participate!
On a scale of 1 – 10, I rate the PPACA an 8 on severity, while Bill Clinton’s ” I did not have sex with that woman” a 4, along with Trump’s wall lie.
Much better response than mine.
I did not have sex with that woman was less than a 4.
Lying about it under oath twice, and getting someone else to lie under oath is 3 10’s.
Cohen generates more lies, entangling WH lawyers:
“Cummings named Sheri Dillon and Stefan Passantino as the two attorneys who might have made false statements to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), citing documents the committee obtained from the office.
Dillon did not immediately respond for comment. Attempts to reach Passantino were unsuccessful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/15/congress-michael-cohen-hush-money-1173167
I can not find anything of substance in this.
The article does not make clear whether it is refering to private attorneys or government attorneys and that is extremely important.
Trump’s private attorneys do not fall under the authority of OGE or congress.
Trump’s government attorney’s serve Trump as President – they would be barred from addressing the actions of Candidate Trump.
Requirements of candor of private attorney’s is narrowly confined to formal tribunals, and is an ethics violation punishable by the bar, not law enforcement.
The communications between an attorney and a client is priviledged.
If as in this case Cohen claims to have been working for Trump – he is bound by priviledge not to discuss his representation of Trump without Trump’s permission.
The so called crime/fraud exception is NARROW – a court must find it for each and every individual question an attorney is asked.
This is actually extremely well established law. An attorney can not testify about their client, without the permission of the client or the court, the courts permission is limited to the specifics that violate priviledge.
Nor is any communication between an attorney and a client “obstruction” EVER.
Trump can have met secretly with Putin dozens of times to plot the over throw of the US government, and he can tell his attorney that he did so, and the attorny can not tell anyone – so long as the attorney did not themselves participate in the actual crime.
Further the attorny can tell the court – that Trump did NOT do what he knows that Trump did. and that is still perfectly legal – under NARROW circumstances it MIGHT be an ethics violation.
The communications of an attorney are NOT testimony. they are nearly always hearsay or argument. An attorney can not be a witness against their client.
Attorneys are not under oath. As I said – they are not testifying.
Even US 1001 is not going to apply to an attorney – or anyone who is not a FACT WITNESS.
I am guessing these attorney’s are Trump’s private attorneys.
If they are actually “white house” attorney’s they are not permitted to have any involvement in things that do not involve Trump as president.
Regardless, this all appears to be Cummings mangling the law badly
There is nothing here.
I love it when GS gets screwed: “On the very same day that Amazon.com Inc. announced that Long Island City, New York, would be half of its new headquarters, Goldman Sachs signed a massive real estate deal less than a mile away, Bloomberg reports.
The timing was an “absolute coincidence,” said Margaret Anadu, the head of Goldman Sachs’s Urban Investment Group, who was the real estate transaction coordinator on the $83 million apartment complex deal, in Hunter’s Point South. “I didn’t think New York was in the running, much less Long Island City.”
“I didn’t think New York was in the running, much less Long Island City.” LMAO
Wall money isn’t Monopoly Money Trump:
“Military construction funds are also used for improvements to housing, roads, hospitals and other facilities, and can be used to eliminate mold or other hazardous problems at military installations in congressional districts across the nation and around the globe, The Associated Press reported.”
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/15/trump-declares-emergency-border-opens-battle-over-using-dod-funds-wall.html
He also may go after money destined for the Cyber Security Command, Sorry, no link.
As is typical – Trump does something – and the left goes batshit – claiming “people will die”.
Time passes and no one dies.
Unfortunately TDS still reigns.
I am not particularly concerned about where Trump gets the money from.
To be concerned I would have to beleive government does something useful with its spending.
Ron claims that this proves we need regulation.
I would offer this proves that government spending is wasteful.
I really wish the sequester was still in place.
Little is more effective at getting government to stop wasting money, than to have to do a task with less money.
I would ask you how did all these problems that the Money Trump is taking come about ?
Magic ? Or government mistakes.
If government ownes these facilities – why did it let them get so bad.
If government does not – why did it rents them in the first place.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/15/trump-use-military-construction-funds-build-wall-1180009
This has little to do with support of or opposition to Trumps border national emergency.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693
Other than a loophole big enough for an aircraft carrier to be piloted through giving unconstitutional powers to the president, what the hell do those 31 national emergencies have to do with “national” emergencies?
What Trump has been able to do is show the amount of power the president has that they should never have been given!
O remain oppoesed to using a declaration of a national emergency for this.
Except this is actually a SMALLER thing, this is little different from DACA
While I beleive this is actually constitutional and legal *because Congress made it legal)
It should not be.
My concern is not about this. This is small potatoes relatively speaking.
We have seen inumerable instances where one parties stupid overreach was abused farther by the other shortly after.
Pelosi is wrong that D’s can just do gun control this way.
Partly because the courts will not let them, and partly because the outrage over building a wall is TINY compared to the response to gun control.
But it will result in something stupid that is worse in the future
As to the “legality”
Here is an article in Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown-challenges-legal/legal-challenges-to-trump-emergency-declaration-face-uphill-battle-idUSKCN1Q500D
I absolutely oppose the type of tax incentives that NY was looking to dis out to amazon.
But anyone who thinks Amazon going elsewhere is good for NYC is an idiot.
Studies have been done of Walmart openings – and Walmart is tinu compared to AHQ2
It is marginally true as the left claims that a new Walmart negatively impacts the businesses that provide the same goods as Amazon – but it is a benefit to the community – because consumers pay less for more alue. It does provide jobs – not only Walmart Jobs but a wide assortment of ancilliary jobs.
Both jobs in businesses that arise to support the Walmart and jobs in businesses that spring up because Walmart has generated activity.
On Net more small business OPEN when a Walmart moves in than close.
But an Amazon HQ is several orders of magnitude more consequential.
In addition to Amazon itself – as is noted in the article – this would amplifiy NYC’s attractiveness and a Tech Hub
And whatever you might claim – right now NYC is NOT a tech Hub.
The net effect on the country will be neutral – Amazon is going somewhere.
But the effect on NYC is bad.
Further this decreases significantly the odds any other major business thinks about moving to NYC
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/amazon-s-valentine-s-day-breakup-n-y-may-cause-n971841
It is unfortunately unlikely anything will come of this
But I would remind you that I have been saying this is what happened and the left has been claiming no – it was just a joke.
Maybe McCabe is lying to hype his book.
Though I am not sure why someone under criminal investigation lies in a way to make it worse.
But then I clearly do not understand McCabe.
So lets take this from the top.
In March 2017 (or July 2016). DOJ/FBI Already knew there was no Trump/Russia Collusion.
We are talking about an attempted coup.
McCabe has just admitted that the Mueller investigation was born from a coup attempt.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/02/16/presidential-plotters-must-face-punishment/
Here is a president I like.
https://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2019/02/14/10_reasons_to_love_silent_cal_413.html
Someone is lying.
But in All versions McCabes actions are criminal.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/430053-graham-states-interest-in-rosenstein-testimony-after-mccabes-25th
You know where I stand on this. We most likely will never know because it is a he said /he said issue and Rosenstein will lie to cover his ass or McCabe will lie to cover his.
So those leaning left will believe Rosenstein and believe he is allowing Mueller to conduct an appropriate investigation. Those, like me, will believe Rosenstein provided Mueller an open ended authorization “to get” Trump. His authorization was not like Starr’s who went back to Reno for authorization to investigate sexual misconduct and lies when issues separate from Whitewater was uncovered. And on January 16, 1998 Janet Reno, the US Attorney General, approved Starr’s request for an expansion of the inquiry to include the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Starr did not have free reign as does Mueller.
Remember, Rosenstein was reported to have talked about the 25th amendment back in the summer so this is just not McCabe talking about it now.
It does not matter that two people are telling slightly different stories.
Despite the fact that Rosenstein is denying having said what McCabe claims he said – or I think more accurately Rosenstein is denying saying what McCabe claims he said seriously.
James Baker has also testified to this.
Further I do not think the left will beleive Rosenstein.
I think the left will beleieve McCabe and beleive that he was somehow justified.
McCabe has elaborated further today – and he has essentially said – because we disagreed with Trump over policy, and because we did not trust Trump to follow our policy rather than his – we opened a criminal investigation of Trump.
“It does not matter that two people are telling slightly different stories.”
It will make no difference, but it should matter. You read my comment, you know where I stand on Mueller. You know I think this is gone way over the line. You know I think Rosenstein and Mueller are in this to “get Trump” in any way possible. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it until they impeach and try Trump for Russian collusion!
So far its others who have something to hide that are getting caught up in lies. If Mueller was finding these things and turning them over to the “rightfully” authorized agencies to investigate when issues are found, I would have no problems with that either. If the FBI is investigating a kidnapping and they find no kidnapping occurred, but they found evidence of domestic violence, do they continue investigating or do they turn that over to LEO’s?
Those on the left will say “full steam ahead, damn the constitution”. I can’t take that stance.
“That’s my story and I’m sticking to it until they impeach and try Trump for Russian collusion!”
If Mueller has found incontrovertible evidence of Trump money laundering for Russia, you O.K. with impeaching him for that? Or he has found evidence Trump’s son-in-law was in collusion with them or other foreign entities, and Trump obstructed justice to protect him, do you want Trump removed from office for that?
I don’t know why it is so hard for some individuals to understand my position on these issues. Ken Starr went back to Janet Reno and asked for authorization to investigate sexual misconduct. Reno went back to the courts are received authorization to proceed.
Now you show me proof (documented proof, not some tweet someone posted), that Mueller has gone back for authorization to expand his investigation from the Russian investigation and he has received that through the Attorney Generals office, into all these things you are listing.
I could be wrong, but I believe that Mueller has complete authority to dig for anything under the “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”, and that is where I completely disagree with this investigation. When you have people, Rosenstein , McCabe and Mueller, who’s desired outcome is to “get Trump” in any way possible, there will be things found, but at what cost to the constitution?
So let me asked you this. If this is not a “get Trump” investigation, but is a “get anyone involved with crimes around the Trump administration” then why isn’t Sessions wrapped up in these proceedings. Why isn’t Jeff Sessions named in all these issues due to his meeting with the Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak in 2016. Isn’t that even closer to collusion than all these other issues?
I understand you desire to support Mueller and to get Trump and anyone involved with him. I don’t support that position at the expense of following decades of legal precedence.
Rosenstein/Mueller didn’t have to go to the court for approval – the precedent for expanding the investigation had already been established, as you noted.
The 3-Judge Panel that authorized Starr’s sexpanded (play on ‘expanded’) investigation into the blow-job granted the following additional authorizations:
“”(3) The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate related violations of federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, including any person or entity who has engaged in unlawful conspiracy or who has aided or abetted any federal offense, as necessary to resolve the matter described above.
“(4) The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate crimes, such as any violation of 28 U.S.C. 1826, any obstruction of the due administration of justice, or any material false testimony or statement in violation of federal criminal law, arising out of his investigation of the matter described above.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/29/orders/
You need to stop using that red herring excuse to denigrate the independent counsel’s authority to similarly expand the Trump admistration investigation, Ron. You’re just plain wrong to use that false faux flag of criticism. (Nice illeration, Yes? 😎)
Why should I stop using that as a “red Herring” The directive states right at the beginning “the following matters be referred to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr and to the Office of the Independent Counsel as an expansion of prosecutorial jurisdiction in lieu of the appointment of another Independent Counsel pursuant to 593(c)(1):”
“as an expansion of prosecutorial jurisdiction in lieu of the appointment of another Independent Counsel pursuant to 593(c)(1):”
Is that not what I said they did? Ask for and received authorization to expand?
Jay, you are fine with government running willy nilly over what ever person appears to be doing something illegal. I am not. I want investigations to be targeted, not shotgun investigations. If someone has a search warrant, I want it specific to the search. If someone is wiretapped, i want it specific to the investigation and be based on the wiretap leading to information relevant to the investigation. If the police stop you in the middle of the night on a road, I want them to have probable cause to search your car for illegal substances, not because your black, Hispanic or white male with long hair, beard and tattoos. And if a President is accused of a crime, I want the investigation to focus on that crime just like any other limits are placed on any other investigation. This “and matters turned up in the investigation” is a bunch of legal crap that allows unlimited, unfettered and unacceptable investigations.
You don’t agree, so lets leave it at that. You accept that if you investigate someone long enough and hard enough, you will find a crime that they can be charged with. I understand that, but that is far from my acceptance of law enforcement.
Sorry, so lets stop debating because we are getting no where because both our minds are closed.
This is want I want.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Anytime you talk about Independent Counsel Law – YOU are raising a red herring.
The IC law expired.
The supposedly WEAKER and more constitutional SC law replaced it.
Mueller has gone far beyond what Starr did.
Regardless, the IC law is NOT the SC law.
The SC law has a similar weaker provision.
Though as a matter of law and comon sense,
If you are investigating a robery and uncover a murder – you do not ignore the murder.
The question is NOT whether unrelated crimes that are exposed will be investigated – but by whom.
If Mueller found evidence that Trump raped a 3 year old – I would impeach him in a second.
Mueller can not find incontrovertible evidence of Trump money laundering for Russia.
Beleiving otherwise requires so many misunderstandings of reality and the law it is ludicrous.
Money laundering is the conversion of illegally obtained money into legal money.
Russia is a sovereign nation – they make their own laws.
All money that Putin wants to be legal IS.
You can not “money launder” for Russia without DEFYING putin and your argument is that Trump is serving Putin.
despite Trumps disturbing bromance with Putin, Putin has never had anything important to offer Trump that he badly wanted. and Trump njever had anything Putin wanted.
Are you really going to try to claim that Trump Tower Moscow – was more important to Trump than being president ?
And if Putin and Trump were in league – why isn;t the Moscow Trump tower under construction ?
Putin either said no, or had nothing to do with it.
What he clearly did not do was say yes.
But he said yes to U1 and to clinton’s 1/3M speaking fee.
Ron
I do not “disagree” with you.
MY Point is that giving Rosenstein and McCabe the benefit of every doubt.
Resolving their inconsistancies by pretending they are there.
the result is still DAMNING.
McCabe is evil. His conduct in the FBI – long before Trump and outside of politics was reprehensible. I have no sympathy for him and do not trust him at all.
Rosenstein I am less sure about.
I KNOW he is wrong. But I am less sure that this is political for him.
McCabe beleives in what is good for Andy McCabe.
Rosenstein I think thinks he is doing the right thing.
Rosenstein is probably the greater danger.
Because people who think they are doing good when they do evil, people we have more trust of are much more dangerous.
Ron, old buddy, I am afraid that you have got what ails TNM backwards. What is harming TNM for you seems to be exactly the posters who are speaking up about the actual problem. But the problem is not something that has a cure. So, its a perpetual cycle. Many have been driven away in the 11 years I have been here who were reasonable persons of actually moderate persuasion and its due to the fact than fanaticism reigns here in the form of one poster.
I’ve participated in a few internet discussion forums in my time, some about tennis, one about the Act60 law in Vermont and I can say that every such forum has its Dave who takes over and ruins it. They (the forums) all were eventually simply shut down.
Its natural, I guess, that this happens. Argumentative behaviors by unreachable fanatics that don’t work in the solid world work very effectively on internet forums. Fanatics (and they are always hyperactive) are invulnerable and invincible in these forums. To enter one of these forums is to enter their playground. These people find their home online as surely as people like trump and AOC find twitter. This is their turf and reasonable people have no traction on it.
Jay, dduck, my advice to you is to do what so many have done over the years here, realize that the Daves of the world will always be the king of the hill on internet forums due to their fanaticism, lack of normal boundaries of behavior, and hyperactive energy and there is nothing one can do about it. To try to change this is falling into a trap, you will be entertaining him forever at your own cost in mental energy. Leave him to yammer without your opinions to yammer about. Otherwise too large a part of your mind becomes shaped by an inane useless battle with a funhouse mirror. Your mind will return to its healthy state pretty fast when you stop playing the losing game. It won’t matter a bit to the solid world, nothing is truly lost in retreat from this stage, this is simply a virtual reality show here controlled by an incurable loonie.
Roby – In my younger athletic years at the end of my work-out exercise routine I would punch at a hanging heavy bag. No matter how hard or long you punched it, the stolid heavy bag did not change shape, and at the end of the session it hung at the same position as when I started. Nevertheless, it was a wonderful stress reliever to punch the hanging bag, especially when imagining some villain of the moment in its shape, and coupling solid contact with grunted curses.
For me You-Know-Who is an equivalent phlegmatic mental punching bag. Verbal jabs, undercuts, and KO punches won’t change him, but the factual counter-punches couple with verbal ad hominems are stress-release satisfying. 🥊
Facts logic and reason are like heavy bags.
No matter how hard you hit them you can not change them.
Insults do not change things.
If the long line of insults you post make you happy – good for you.
But they accomplish nothing.
No does liking to the latest neo-con tweet.
If you think you are factually counter-punching – I can recomend a good shrink you are delusional.
Again facts are not changed by insults or #nevertrump tweets.
I. handle the king of the hills differently. I ignore them. But it is hard to ignore so many responses when they start out with personal attacks calling out the king of the hill.
So maybe I am the outlier here and need to move on to something else.
Roby. when I can I say: “Illegitimi non carborundum”, to hogs because sometimes they get slaughtered. I try to wear them down as best I can, although Dave is a tough one. See, I can compliment bad behavior.
So in your world – fallacy and ad hominem are virtuous ?
But the excercise of freedom in a way that does not involve force or interfere in your rights – that is somehow wrong.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…”
J.S Mill
Good article.
https://www.arcamax.com/politics/mod/scottrasmussen/s-2176675?ezine=628
That is an interesting article, Ron.
“On immigration, ScottRasmussen.com polling shows that 79 percent of all voters believe illegal immigration is bad for the nation. Yet 59 percent of Democrats say they’d be likely to vote for a candidate advocating open borders.”
I assume that you’d find similar figures regarding late term abortion.
Last year’s Harvard-Harris poll asked this question:
“Do you favor secure borders or open borders?”
68% of Democrats favored secure borders.
32% of Democrats favored open borders.
BUT those are the Effective Base Results, including those who answered one way or the other, but excluding the Weighted Base number of those participants who didn’t have an opinion- about 30% of the total base.. Therefore only about 20% of Dems favored open borders in that poll.
And as far as I know, no major Democratic Senator or Representative has come out in favor of open borders, but MANY have reaffirmed they’re for secure borders.
The polling numbers are here, but you have to scroll way down to get to the immigration topics
Click to access Final_HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf
So the question of democratic law makers is do you support more than rhetorical border security ?
Regardless the core under your revalations is that polls measure response to words and they do so with little value weighting.
How many democrats value burder security sufficient to impliment effective border control.
I would further suggest that there is a disconnect between Democratic politicians and democratic voters. Though not one easily exploited.
All of the issues that republicans think of as assuring the blessings of government on citizens. Democratic politicians see as a threat to their survival.
Issues like border security,
Voter Idea,
Identifying citizenship on the census.
Voter fraud.
The wall
One these and numerous other issues democratic politicians are at odds with ordinary democrats. There is no pelosi voter that is going to vote republican because Pelosi is on the wrong side of these issues.
But there are alot of republican and moderate voters who may make their voting choice on these issues.
Ron, yes the Dems could blow it again. Why, I ask. Are they that stupid or can’t they run their party without slipping questions to one candidate and tripping others.
I also can’t understand so many Reps supporting Trump, so I guess it must be me, but then again, I am not the tribal type..
“I also can’t understand so many Reps supporting Trump, so I guess it must be me, but then again, I am not the tribal type.”
Well one reason might be Reps got screwed because there were too many egos that thought they wznted to be president and did not understand the impact of spreading votes over too many candidates, thus resulting in voters that crossed over or were part time voters giving Trump enough support to grab the nomination. And now the choice is between a bad GOP candidate and totally unacceptable candidates on the left.
It comes down to a choice between what we have now or PPACA on steroids and Obama pen and paper regulations multiplied. I would much prefer a different Republican/Libertarian, but there is absolutely no way I can ever vote for one of the liberals running today.
Thanks Ron.
Ron/duck, I think that Trump benefited not only from the large GOP field, but from the general Clinton fatigue among Democrat voters.
But more than those two factors, I think that Hillary, and the Democrats in general, failed to give the voters any reason to vote for her. Her campaign platform was, essentially, “I am not Donald Trump.” Compare that to “Make America Great Again,” promises to build a wall, renegotiate NAFTA, get us out of a blatantly unfair climate agreement, repeal and replace O-care, etc.
Hillary was generally disliked, believed to be corrupt, didn’t bother to campaign in states like Wisconsin, and gave voters no reason to vote for her. Trump was flying around the country, rallying for his MAGA platform, reminding voters of how much they disliked Hillary. and how many of their priorities had been ignored by the Obama administration.
For some reason, Democrats seem now to have decided that Americans want socialism. So, this time, it looks as if we’ll may have an election between, Trump’s platform and a candidate who supports unrestricted immigration and the Green New Deal (free stuff for everyone, raise taxes and print more money!! We too can be Venezuela!). If that happens, I can see someone like Howard Schultz getting a very big share of the popular vote, maybe even some electoral votes.
“the Democrats in general, failed to give the voters any reason to vote for her.“
To refresh your memory, more voters voted for her than voted for Dope Donald.
Only because of CA and NY, Jay. There’s a whole other country out there!
Yo, Duckie.. Pricilla doesn’t want the voters in your state or mine to count
And she forgot the other 18 or so states Clinton won, and states like Florida & Pennsylvania & Michigan & Wisconsin where she lost by only 1% to 2%. Trump lied his way through the primaries and election (would he have been nominated if he said taxpayers would have to pay for his Wall, or that he may not release his taxes, etc etc etc?).
Trump indeed has MAGA-ed the US: Made America Gross Again. And in 30 or 40 years if the nation still exists the survivors will look back at MAGA hats with the same shrug of disbelief as we do now at KKK hoods and blackface.
Today is President’s Day in America Under National Emergency Warning: Trump is confronting the emergency on the golf course…
Jay, have you asked your elected officials to propose a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college? Seems to me that Feinstein, Harris and Pelosi would be open to this suggestion.
Ron, I keep calling Feinstein and Pelosi to hook up with me for lunch ( I even offered to pick up the check) but they keep putting me off with excuses. Go figure, right?
And I don’t think there’s a snowball in hell-fire chance of that constitutional amendment ever getting passed.
Your right. Smaller states should have just as much say as larger states. Smart founders huh?
“And I don’t think there’s a snowball in hell-fire chance of that constitutional amendment ever getting passed.”
Because the people do not want what you want as badly as you do.
No, no Jay, dear. I love California and NY. I should have been more clear. If you subtract California and 4 of the 5 boros of NYC (Staten Island being the outlier), Trump won the popular vote. The thing is, when you have a state like CA, which is so populous yet votes so overwhelmingly for one party, anything over 51% just runs up the popular vote total, but has no effect on the election. The plus side for you Golden Staters is that you and NY make up about 1/3 of the Democrat representation in the House. We are still a federal republic, at least until President Kamala abolishes the electoral college, via EO 😉
Precilla, and CA having the most house seats is also inflated because 10% of their seats are due to illegal immigrants being counted in the census. How we correct this will never happen unless congress provides the fix, but Queen Nancy would nover allow that to happen under her watch.
And yes Jay, I do not think illegals should count for representation!!!!
This is what the fight over the census is about.
First if a census is complete that identifies the number of citizens in each state.
States are free to chose to redistrict based on citizens not persons.
Next the apportioning of house seats could be done – without involving congress by the number of citizens not persons.
This is why this fight is so bitter.
Democrats are not affraid that immigrants and illegals will not be counted.
They are afraid that the actual number of citizens WILL.
There are 50 states – Winning only 18 is pretty bad.
Jay that is why the founding fathers were geniuses and created the Electorial College. They knew a handful of states (at that time New York, Pennsylvania, and Mass) could control who got elected, so they created a process where each state had r