Wild Card Debate
Some of my readers have been asking for a separate arena to house their intellectual wrestling matches, and I’ve finally complied. Here’s the perfect place for your general debates, arguments, revelations, recommendations, epiphanies and verbal fisticuffs — any exchange of opinions that wouldn’t tie in neatly with my blog posts. Feel free to discuss the nature of centrist politics, candidates you like or despise, the virtues and vices of capitalism, the state of Western civilization or anything else that might intrigue our readers. This is your space. And of course, I still welcome you to comment on my own posts!
934 Comments
leave one →
Great, Thanks Rick, this will save those of your regulars who Don’t want to listen to the great ideological battle between the Libertarian universe and the moderate universe, or any other tangents and don’t want their mailboxes filled with that.
My first question to Dhlii is an existential one. Since you have explained that moderate positions don’t exist and there is only Marx and Smith and no middle ground in between, then how is it that we are here? Moderates are just another of the many many items that apparently cannot exist based on first principles according to Libertarian ideology.
How can you be debating people who don’t exist?
You are mis-stating my claim.
Ignoring that Smith is probably not the best representative for one pole, there are rational arguments, logic, theory, principles behind classical economics on one hand and Marx on the other.
Essentially we have competing hypothesis’s, models, and we can try to evaluate them against the real world.
If you wish to claim that truth lies between those two poles – you must provide competing arguments, logic, theory and principles for why – and these must be testable – atleast as testable as the existing alternates.
I can conceive of myriads of possible “moderate” theories – models/philosophies that produce an optimum somewhere between. It could even be argued that we are or should optimise something other than economics.
But despite the possibility of “moderate” alternate theories – they do not exist.
I am arguing an army of Classical Liberal Political economists and ethicists primarily against statism, and Marx, and “moderates” are arguing that I am wrong without really postulating an atlernative.
I am not saying there is no other possibility. I am saying moderates have not mad a case for one.
At the same time I will argue that you can not take the statist and classical liberal positions and just compromise them. They are not compatible, they are irreconcilable. They have no theoretical common ground. If you want to stake out a claim for a middle position, you have to construct a framework for it – and moderates have not done so.
You have two cows. One at the left one at the right. The far you move them the more they become extreme left and extreme right. The more you keep them together, the more extremism you avoid, thus you get moderation. Why would there be a third cow? It will complicate the identification of philosophical truths.
If the cow from the left is moving far to the left, what do you get? Far left and center-right? But we already established that distances between the cow from the left and the one from the right measures the extremism. Does it mean that the extreme right cow actually hijacked the center? Or that the cow from the left has left the pasture (Fall of Communism)?
But now we are back having two cows… No mater what you do, you allays have two cows…
We are not starting with Cows.
We are starting with two irreconcilable theories of government and economics.
We do not have a third theory, and the existing theories can not be compromised and still be valid.
Each postulates that conditions improves as they move towards their own ideal.
Real world evidence pretty compellingly refutes one.
But there are not two people, there are billions, and nearly as many points of view. Why talk of two? The existence of this multitude may be inconvenient to the attempts of an ultra simplifying philosophy to simplify, but that does not affect the fact that the multitude still exists. The simple view is rather useless and pointless under these circumstances unless you wish to explain things to a very small child. In the adult world this there are only two model will be an utter failure.
Stop bullying me!
You can explain your “multitude” until cows come home… I still have two cows.
P.S. Ian, I am but a jester 🙂
Just an observation that with just two cows you have a limited future. Somewhere in there you need a bull. Just saying!
Ian;
Brilliant – but only one system allows for billions of people each with different views on every possible subject.
One of the models is based on that, and the other can not work without near unanimity of view.
You have essentially discovered what is called “the information problem” of statism. A problem that does not exist in free markets.
There is an enormous amount information on “the information problem” as it is the fundimental failure of all top down structures.
But you said that I had two cows, now you want them for yourself. Nationalization of the Bullshit industry?
Heh, got it I think.
If you are a fellow with a Hungarian background then I have guessed correctly.
It is known that there are billions of cows. However, not every one of them is yours. Therefore, you must have a finite number of cows. There are infinite number of views but billions of cows divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average number of cows you have can be said to be zero… two cows are better than zero.
…”Hungarian”? What do you thin I am? Holstein-Friesian? Holy cow!
… and to add
The having of two cows is the “golden mean,” the proper balance between deficiency and excess. Happiness results from acting in accordance with rational principles such as golden means; ergo, happiness is having two cows.
… moreover
The having of two cows is the “golden mean,” the proper balance between deficiency and excess. Happiness results from acting in accordance with rational principles such as golden means; ergo, happiness is having two cows.
Ergo, moderation. QED
The hole in your logic is that I, as a moderate, have already been proven not to exist, thus the 2 cows are divided by zero, the cows again are at infinity, not two.
You exist but as of yet, I have not heard any exposition of a moderate philosophy or ideology.
If you chose the middle on an issue, there must be a why. If you claim an approach to be right, it must have underlying premises. If you are going to mix elements of statism and laissez faire, you must have some basis for deciding how to balance them.
Hey, there Ian and Anonymous,
You both have excellent points. There is something to think about here on both counts.
Anonymous – You state that the cows are two. Ok, they are matter and they are big…just like the two Political parties. But, you are also separating the two from each other…which means you have to count in the matter between the two cows (parties). That is the “status quo”. Independents, Libertarians, Moderates, and Centrists in the middle “no man’s land”.
Let’s say a new cow shows up and pushes his way in between the two larger cows because they left a “gap”. Now you have a Moderate group with a party known as Centrists.
Anonymous, you know that if you have seen cows on the pasture that they are always coming up in the middle of two other cows either during feeding time or to get a space in the shade.
Second, the wider the gap the more matter is between the two main cows. Thus, leading to more separated people from both parties…because something is empty (matter) filling the gap. This explains the Tea Party and the “Wall Street” party.
Now, if the matter/status quo in the middle could organize into a new cow (party) appearing. Then the two main cows (parties) would mostly be jealous (because no one likes someone barging in their airspace) and get closer to the middle cow to force them out.
The matter between the two cows is “priceless” it gives just enough space for both cows to exist individually. If they split a great distance from each other (either one), then you have some new matter to the middle. These are the alienated from the cow that moved away. It doesn’t have to be both cows moving away.
The cow analogy is poor. The existance of two polar cows tells us nothing. The views they are placeholders for have values, and make predictions. Each provides answers – even about what the middle looks like. But those answers are different irreconcilable.
It is using Red and Blue as standins for an argument about good and evil.
There are issues and situations where different competing (though not usually opposing) values can be compromised for an outcome that is net optimal.
But all issues do not reduce to compromise. Some issues are binary or at the very least bias heavily one way or another.
Finally, even if somehow you can successfully argue that top down and bottom up are not diametrically opposite, you have the burden for building a stable intermediate position.
Claiming both extremes are wrong, neither makes that so, nor establishes any of the myriads of intermediate positions as right.
Moderates at TNM are like Jello – they are sure everyone else is wrong, but take no actual position themselves – and to the extent they do it constantly shifts left.
If the cows were so close to each other then their would be no matter between them. Thus, a Political Civil War. But this is not the case. The gap is wider than ever before. So the alienated are in the wide gap between the two cows.
The problem is that the Libertarian cow (in the middle) is still too small to worry the two big cows. To solve this problem. Bring in a bigger cow. There are two ways:
Just bring in a Centrist Cow along side the Libertarian small cow and it looks like two. This is similar now to the Tea party and the Wall Street Party.
or Create a “United Centrist Party” where multitude of parties that are “center” can express their ideologues. This would be a huge cow. Considering the wide gap now available.
The organization would include Independents (with no affiliation to any main party), Libertarians (South Centrists), Moderates (Centered Centrists), and Centrists (North Centrists).
You can change the last sentence to Libertarians (Left Centrists—more liberal), Centrists (Right Centrists). When I say left and right it is more inclined to be more social/conservative.
Let’s face it even a Centrist or Libertarian shows some leanings toward the left/right ideas. That is because the Status Quo changes based on the distance between the two cows.
Also, when I say “Social/Conservative”…it is more Liberty/Central Planning.
or Liberty/Fairness or Anarchy/Fairness
Hi Kent,
I think that this has been mostlly under the heading of silly. Someone, I thought it was Valdobiade in disguise was funnin me.
Mostly, you lost me. But the part I like is:
“The gap is wider than ever before. So the alienated are in the wide gap between the two cows.
The problem is that the Libertarian cow (in the middle) is still too small to worry the two big cows. To solve this problem. Bring in a bigger cow.”
And this:
“Now, if the matter/status quo in the middle could organize into a new cow (party) appearing. Then the two main cows (parties) would mostly be jealous (because no one likes someone barging in their airspace) and get closer to the middle cow to force them out.”
is my hope, expressed in cows.
Libertairians are “other.” Dhlii has gone to great lengths to explain that. Libertarians = Adam Smith = the opposite pole from Marxism. Certainly NOT the center, at least by his explanation.
Ian,
Dhlii thinks that Adam Smith was a Libertarian?
Libertarians built their party after Adam Smith.
Marx believed in Capitalism. He just wanted to change it a worker controlled economy.
Capitalism to Marx seemed to be controlled by few over the many.
In other words, bartering controlled by the few non-workers over the many workers.
Marxism still never proposed a new kind of “currency” to combat “money” did he? or a better way to “barter” than Capitalism.?
Ian is fixated on labels. It is easier to dismiss a card carrying libertarian – which I am not. Nothing is nuanced. If something can be labeled – conservative, economic fundimentalist, libertarian – even liberal, then it can be dismissed. Moderates are right – despite the fact that you can not pin anyone at TNM down, and that to the extent you can they are far from moderate – because everyone else can be labeled, therefore they are wrong, and can be dismissed.
I beleive Marx felt capitolism was a way point on the road to communism, not an endpoint nor something to be managed more than briefly.
I still would call it capitalism even though it is a Socialist economy. Money still flows like always. It’s only the Government that dictates where the money goes. People still barter like Capitalists.
Ian;
Things are more complex than you describe.
Smith is just the start the classical liberal tradition – that today is best represented by Libertarians.
I have quoted myriads of political economists. Aparently Smith yanks your chain.
You have carcitured me as a way of dismissing me, you are free to do that to all ideas you do not like, but it does not get you anywhere. Smith’s contribution to economics is greater than Darwins to anthopology or Freud’s to psychology – most of us do not berate Darwin or Freud because they did not get everything right.
Yep, you got me guys! It’s me Valdobiade. I forgot to add my name every time I post, but I am the only one here writing mostly to lift up the spirits 🙂
I came up with the “two cows” idea because actually I wanted to explain that one cow would be K. Marx and another A. Smith. Historically, people have been going back and forth and milking both cows. Why? Because there are only two cows in principle.
The example of “two cows” went from economic to political. One cow will give socialist milk and the other capitalist milk…I think that was unavoidable. Why? Because even if we have a calf in the middle, it will suck either from the left cow or from the right cow. Even if the calf will suck equally from one cow or the another, can our calf came up with better ideas than the old cows?
Humanity knows the Holy Cow, it is the religious cow that dominated most of the human history. That cow went OK with tribalist, slavist, feudalist and capitalist milkers. The capitalist cow kicked out the socialist-communist cow, not completely of course, because some of the socialist milk is still appealing in turmoil times.
Those were the two economical-ideological cows. The US two cows, the cow D and the cow R, they just seem to be opposed, it helps the milkers get the big share of milk. Right now we need a calf that will feed form the old cows, but with the hope that it will became a better cow from which the milker will share its milk… no bull.
Would we want to baptize the calf Moderatist? Will it become the best cow after the Tribalist, Slavist, Feudalist, Capitalist and Communist cows? The problem still persist: who will buy this cow? Would it be the property of a few or the property of the many? I have this feeling that I’m going back to the two cows…
There is a middle cow Ideologue, but not a past philosopher to use such as Karl Marx or Adam Smith.
Adam Smith – 1700’s – Capitalism/Industrialism
Karl Marx – 1800’s – Socialism/Industrialism
Ayn Rand? – 1900’s – Services/Individualism
????? – 2000’s – Meritocracy/Individualism
I think that Ayn Rand was a great person…although I haven’t read her stuff. My schooling is mostly keeping me busy. She came into the time that services sector was just beginning to become the new giant in the late 60’s. Manufacturing was beginning to leave by this time (a.k.a. Hong Kong, Singapore cheap labor). She was a person who saw individuals as different in their own right. Free-roaming.
The individuals free-roam and create their own specialty businesses and then what happens? Specialty skills! Now you have Adult Americans with Specialty skills. Each one has a skill that is important to a certain job. To get more skills on the job…you are learning at Specialty schools. Learning on the job…..you move into Meritocracy. Your skills determine your position.
Unfortunately, between everyone moving up in a company with personal skills…you have to “push” the people that have lesser skills “out of the way”. Unfortunately, those above don’t like this and you get fired, even though you have more knowledge/skills than your boss.
This has been going on for years, but it is becoming more competitive. This is where we are going. A person has to take “evaluation personality tests” just to apply for a job? Plus, what “skills” do you have? It’s not just “show up at 9am and start shoveling manure anymore”. Meritocracy/Individualism…It’s coming! Everyone wants the best employee with skills specific to the job. There is such a wide and growing population that anyone can eventually find the right person.
Rand has a great deal to contribute, but I think calling her a great person is a reach. I have read most of her fiction – despite myriads of weaknesses, Atlas Shrugged is one of the best works of fiction ever written. We the Living is a devastating expoloration of the USSR before Stalin. Anthem is one of the best distopia’s I have read. But I find the Fountain head boring.
Further Rand’s followers essentially evolved into a cult. A very logical and well educated cult. If you expect Rand to answer every question you will be disappointed. If you glean from her writing its most important themes, she has great value.
Ian would really freak out if an objectivist joined this blog.
Can we have a scientist cow? The new improved moderate cow should follow that one and drink only very selectively from the other cows.
As to keeping spirits up, за тебя, Valdobiade, сто грамм для храбрости, молоко или водка, каждый выбирает для себя.
Ian: All I got was “something, something, Valdobiade, something, something, vodka, something, something. Care to translate?
By the way… good to see you back in action Valdo. I missed you.
Hi Rick,
I was replying to Valdo’s comment about keeping spirits up. Since he lived under the Soviet regime I figured I could lapse into Roosky. I offered him a toast, “Here’s To You Valdo, 100 grams for bravery, milk or vodka, take your pick, everyone is free to choose for themselves.’ The 100 grams is a standard dose of alcohol, not too much but noticeable. I was happy to see him and riffed a little off our silly cow conversation. My sense of humor is a bit odd, I can easily lose people.
Yes, Ian the moderate should be able to discern common sense on which existing party to pick ideas, but it doesn’t have to be the extreme of the other party. Unless the issue being debated has swayed too far in one direction.
In this case, and only in this case. Swinging to the other extreme might balance things more logically.
I find that if you take your thought of something that is an issue.
Think of an extreme to it and then think of the extreme to that…..find the middle.
For example, I am pro-life and pro-choice (not pro-abortion…I want humans to exist!).
I am male, can’t abort. So you can if your woman. That’s your life’s business.
Yet, as a pro-life it would be nice to imagine a cute little baby….but if you are truly Pro-Life then all babies must be born….no exceptions! Rape, incest, etc… Does Islam practice this?
If there are exceptions, then you are making a choice. Then you become Pro-Choice (for a choice) in a abortion.
Either way someone can die and it isn’t always just physical, it can be emotional on both ends.
Can we just kill the cow analogy. It starts with the false presumption that we are debating interchangeable objects, not ideas.
Valdo,
Thinking that most people want “new milk” from old cows D and R right now is incorrect. Read the percent that think Congress is going down.
People want inspiration, feel good about themselves, the environment, do things, go places. That isn’t happening as a majority anymore. They want “fresh milk” from a new cow.
The agenda has to be something new, fresh and bold. I argue that Meritocracy is coming. Not just in philosophy, but in Government. Only when logic and common sense become strong enough to overwhelm the masses. Education is the key! Do it thru schools…Charter…because public doesn’t work as well or thru politics using a new party to project common sense and logic.
The only way to project thru politics is at a time that people are looking for a better future than the one they have….and that is now!
It is time to get Radical! or someone you don’t like, or a philosophy you don’t like will take hold to the people’s attention instead.
Thanks Rick,
The “you have two cows” example is actually used as a reductionism.
Kent,
I don’t said that the new calf will get “new milk”, but will get some milk. You cannot bring an innovation, an invention , or a new idea if you don’t have something from before. Can you start from “tabula rasa”? Usually revolutions are violent and sometime bloody. I would like a somewhat a smooth transition if possible.
Ian,
“Cows” are abstract entities, so they can be ideologies, political parties, or whatever fit an idea.
These cows can be owned, milked or cut for meat or destroyed if it becomes “mad cow”. A cow is not the owner, the milker or the slaughterer.
BTW,
I am Romanian, not Russian. I had Socialist milk, for about 23 years, for the last 27 years I drink Capitalist milk. The Socialist milk was good for about 15-18 years, then it turned sour. But not because of the cow, but because of the owner. He was milking he cow in his favor and his family only. They got executed.
The capitalist milk, curiously is the same. It was also good for about 20 years, then in the last years it got sour too… The owners are now greedy. It seems that the population protest so the owners keep the cow, but share more milk, or the cow will be slaughtered.
However, the protest against The Wall Street seems stupid. We have to seize and control the means of production not the means of speculation (the Wall Street).
Abstracting on top of an abstraction is pretty unsound. It completely ignores the fact that what underlies the abstraction has meaning. Cows tell you nothing about the merits or falacies of the ideologies they represent.
Sorry Valdlbiade, For some reason I though you were Hungarian, my old head, the memory is going, going… I hope I did not offend you, I never thought you were Russian, I just thought you probably read it, along with your native romance language and English. Your phrase “keeping the spirits up” made me think of ideas that are said well in Russian. Ironically.
It’s OK Ian. There’s no offense in calling me Hungarian. I just jested that I’d be a Holstein cow if you thought that I am Hungarian. It was just in the cow’s context. Holy cow! 🙂
News Item, Europeans more respectful of science than many Americans:
“Europeans believe that dangers of climate change represent a more serious problem than the current financial turmoil, according to a new poll.
The Eurobarometer poll (pdf) suggests that the majority of the public in the European Union consider global warming to be one of the world’s most serious problems, with one-fifth saying it is the single most serious problem. Overall, respondents said climate change was the second most serious issue facing the world, after poverty.
Connie Hedegaard, European climate commissioner, said: “This is encouraging news. The survey shows that the citizens of Europe can see that economic challenges are not the only ones we face. A clear majority of Europeans expect their politicians and business leaders to address the serious climate challenge now.”
She said it was striking that the public were even more concerned about climate change than in the runup to the landmark Copenhagen summit on climate change in late 2009.
The number of people rating climate change as a very serious problem has risen slightly, from 64% when the poll was last conducted in 2009, to 68% this year. When asked to rank the seriousness of the problem, people put it at 7.4 out of 10, compared with a score of 7.1 out of 10 two years ago.
People also said there were economic benefits to tackling climate change, with eight out of 10 people saying that dealing with the problem would provide an economic boost and create jobs. Two years ago the number was just under two-thirds.”
Entire article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/07/europeans-climate-change-poll
Not an issue that is going to just go away.
Best is busy producing a new record of surface temperatures. There results thus far have challenged sacred cows of both skeptics and warmists.
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/study.php
Regardless, they are generally respected, conducting real science with open data and methods, using sound statistical methods.
Thus far they have basically confirmed that despite serious skeptical criticism with respect to quality of data, Urban Heat Island’s and poor method’s, the warming theme of surface temperature records kept by CRU, GIS, … are essentially accurate.
I still personally take issue to their dismissal of UHI, even Phil Jones eventually had to concede that it was a likely factor in modern warming. But I am aware of BEST’s approach to examining the issue and there methods seem to demonstrate diminished significance for UHI.
At the same time their results (everybody is using the same data) depart from all other records with respect to the 19th century. Their analysis of the data continues the 20th century trend through to the begining of the 19th century.
I do not beleive there is a single warmist scientist that has ever claimed that human CO2 could have effected climate prior to 1970. Absent an accelerating warming trend, there is no argument for CO2 based athropogenic global warming.
Just as I an not in agreement with BEST’s analysis of UHI, warmists are critical of BEST’s q9th century results.
We decide science by poll ?
Europeans are wrong on lots of things why shouldn’t AGW be one of those ?
There are also studies that show skeptics are primarily White males. Of course the studies show that warmists are primarly white males.
There are studies that show that the more you know about climate, and climate science – the more likely you are to be a skeptic. Yet I am constantly told only stupid people disbelieve the climate cabal.
I get irked by this “redistribution of wealth”. Let the rich keep their richness. Let’s just have a govern that will print money to give to the people to have enough to live decent.
Is there a problem with that?
There are myriads of reasons this is an abysmal idea.
Weimar Germany, as well as episodes in Bolivia, Zimbabwe, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Greece, Tiawan come immediately to mind. I do not think there is a single economic school – not even keynesians that advocates wanton printing of money.
But the basic fallacy is a failure to understand the nature of wealth.
Wealth is created. Increasing the money supply does not increase wealth. Without an actual increase in wealth you can not create a better standard of living. Even redistribution fails – in theory if redistribution had no effect on production, redistribution would produce a small increase in the standard of living of the least in return for a large decrease for the well off.
However much you think the top 1% you have to divide that by 100, the top .001% by 10,000.
It looks like the Global warming skeptics have lost at least one of their more respectable supporters and one important argument, that about the accuracy and validity of the data the scientific community has come up with on warming. Richard Muller, who gave the skeptics a respectable sympathizer has left their skeptic fold.
Muller’s group has completed a huge review of temperature data and concluded that the data that he had scathingly criticized (see youtube videos) was accurate after all and the scientists had avoided bias. Climate gate just lost a lot of its teeth.
Muller just wrote a long opinion piece in the WSJ The Case Against Global Warming Skepticism.
The piece states that he makes no conclusion about whether or how much of the the warming is caused by humans. But as Muller is known for having gone after the climate gate principles quite vigorously the following is sweet music to my ears:
“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.”
Will deniers give up? Hardly. But they have lost a key battle on this one.
It is funny how we can see the same information and reach different conclusions.
While confirming that the machinations of Hanson, Jones and company have not seriously corrupted the surface temperature record, is of value – and yes skeptics have been wary of the accuracy of those records, very few skeptics have claimed the surface temperature record was off enough to matter.
Dr. Mueller has not back off this
Whether BEST’s analysis of the 19th century is correct or not ONE of the key points of contention is past temperatures – not the 20th century – The 19th is only significant to the extent that it demonstrates that the “Little Ice Age” really occured, and that the 20th century is not unusual. More important still are the past two thousand years.
The Mann, Biffra, Jones, Hockey stick is an absolute fraud. Both in that it was a deliberate deception, and bad science. Even more important, it was wrong. The scientific “consensus” that is emerging is that there were atleast two and possibly three periods in the past two thousand years that were as hot or hotter than any thus far in the 20th and 21st centuries.
If you accept that CO2 was not an explanation then, how do you claim it is the only explanation now ?
I do not beleive the earth is warming due to CO2, but of the possibilities we have going forward that is one of the better ones. Past periods of warming have coincided with prosperity, cooling not so much. There is a very real though small possibility we should be far more concerned about cooling.
We are in the midst of the weakest solar cycle in over 100 years, possibly almost 300 years.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
Dramatic solar minima have in the past corresponded to serious global cooling.
The vikings left what had been thriving colonies in north america and greenland – when they became too cold to inhabit.
Wikipedia keeps an abreviated list of fairly well respected scientists that do not accept Anthropogenic Global Warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Skeptics are in a fairly prestigious crowd.
For reference I have not seen crying and gnashing of teeth among skeptics over the BEST work – it is being embraced – despite minor quibbles. While warmist sites are actually attacking it. They are very upset – a colder 19th century is a far more serious blow to AGW than independent confirmation of the 20th century record.
I would also specifically refer you to Muller’s conclusion in his editorial
“Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”
There are very few people who doubt that the planet has warmed since the depth of the little ice age.
The have been two primary issues with respect to the human surface temperature record. Those are: Was the warming from 1970 through 1999 unusual ? To the extent BEST addresses that the answer is no. BEST is currently being savaged by the AGW community because their 19th century results are at odds with and essentially refute the conception that man has anything to do with this.
The more minor issue is the Urban Heat Island effect. Many of us still think Muller is incorrect with respect to the significance of that – though the issue is complex.
Sorry, dhlii, you and I live in entirely different universes.
Your characterization of the reaction of the two camps to the Muller BEST report is unrecognizable to me. its spin, not truth. I see the AGW camp being quite pleased and the skeptics being mostly quite put out. There may be a few exceptions that you are trying to make into a case.
Note that when I posted this I deliberately included the words you just reposted to make the context clear that cause was not addressed by BEST and I did not try to overstate the meaning of the report. This is in contrast the tactics of you deniers. Deniers are losing 98-2, its the bottom of the 8th and you finally get a runner on first, and declare that you’ve won and the debate is over, the AGW “Cult” is defeated. Once a month at least I see some permutation of this story by the denialists, a la “AGW proven to be a fraud.”
I have seen who the skeptics are, Some are very successful people, many are complete loonies. Even taking the best of the skeptics. they are dwarfed by the prestige that is on the AGW side. Its every major National Academy of Sciences, every government, including ones like Russia and China whose economic plans are not consistent with admitting to AGW. Its 98% of the climate scientists. Its European public opinion.
Your recent characterization of the hockey stick as a “fraud” in nonsense, Muller and BEST came up with the same conclusion, as have the US National Academy of Sciences and many other separate groups. I previously asked you for references on your temperature claims and you answered that you would not provide any. I provided the graph published by the US National Academy of Sciences showing many different ways of estimating climate for the last 100+ years, which showed the “Hockey stick” clearly. You provide a shotgun full of nonsense.
And then you recently asked me why I believe that only human emissions are involved in climate change.
I don’t think that! We settled that long ago. Only an idiot would think that. Its a strawman and its your best attempt to debate me. Why the strawman yet again? Because you have such a weak case.
You have a whole shotgun full of extremely weak arguments and you never concede any point, no matter how obvious. Its a not very honest attempt to obscure reality. Not a word of it is your own either.
Why do I even try to reason with you?
You don’t like to be called a conservative, but the people who make up the hard core skeptics are nearly 100% conservatives. Its American conservatives (minus, Hunstsman, Romney, and McCain) against the world, armed with total belief in the the 2% of climate scientists who disagree with the consensus.
Its not impressive, and I’d love to be impressed as I have no reason to believe we will cut GHG emissions any time soon.
.
To the extent that BEST covers the period in the Mann Hockey stick, they are not even close. You do not seem to grasp how great a fraud the hockey stick is.
You can’t have both BEST and Mann.
Here is the Mann Hockey Stick from the 2001 IPCC
I used the older one as a decade worth of beatings have forced Mann and company to introduce a tame version of the MWP and little ice age. But even the current version is irreconcilable with BEST.
This is Best from 1800-2000
The values in the graph above are 10 year rolling averages, therefore they stop in 2003 and do not show the subsequent decline.
This is a wikipedia graph from 1850-2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg
Here is a reconstruction based on Loehle and McCulloch (2008)
Loehle is one of the more dramatic ones showing the MWP is significantly hotter that the present. But there are myriads of others.
Proxy reconstruction of the past is fraught with problems. Various proxies and methods produce significantly different results – virtually no one beside Mann, Biffra, and Jones, obliterate the MWP, Little Ice Age, ….
At the bare minimum BEST provides strong evidence of the Little Ice Age using actual temperature records rather than proxies – this is irreconcilable with Mann.
There are other issues with the Mann, Biffra, Jones proxies – there is far more wrong that just a bogus graph. But critiquing that could take a book.
Once you have BEST trends from 1800 and 1850 through the present with no significant trend deviation since 1970, AGW is in trouble.
I will agree with you that the media has claimed the BEST results backup AGW – but warmist sites are busy attacking BEST’s methods for interpolating data – they are very disturbed by both the re-appearance of the little Ice age, BEST’s colder representation of it, and the fact that BEST went back to 1800. It is possible that those criticism’s may have merit – but if they do, they undermine the entire rest of BEST results that have made the media happy.
Aside from the fact that Anthony Watts is up in arms because BEST has undermined his claims regarding UHI, I am not seeing a serious skeptic site that is unhappy about BEST.
The AGW is a fallacy stories continue – because it is. If you do not grasp that you are not paying any attention. I do not think there is a single facet of AGW that has not been solidly slapped down in the past decade – and things are just getting worse. The stories you complain about are being driven by studies and evidence.
The energy budget does not work.
The cloud model in the GCM’s is wrong.
Trendberth keeps trying to drive the missing heat – we have not seen predicted warming in the 21st century, deeper and deeper into the ocean – because nobody can find it where he claims it is – and this is despite that fact that decades ago the warmist claimed AGW heat had to be near the surface of the ocean – otherwise we can not get the requisite warming.
I have no idea what claim it is you are saying I said I would not provide.
All this stuff is readily available on the web anyway.
If you accept that all warming in the 20th century was not due to CO2. What portion was ?
Take a good look at BEST. Any deviation from prior trend is miniscule at best.
Here is a UAH graph up to the present.
Whatever trend you thought you had between 1970 and 1997 is gone now.
It is arguable whether the planet is warming at all. It is not arguable – not even Jones, Mann, Trendberth, Biffra, or Hanson are arguing that we are still following the trend of the late 20th century.
I would throw your own argument about conceding points back at you.
The Artic Ice cap has been on the verge of disappearing my entire life – while the trends are debatable – the Antarctic has been increasing and net global Ice is just about constant – of course the global climate models (GCM’s) predict the predict polar warming 3 times that of the rest of the planet.
Everyday we have some new AGW prediction – next Global warming will make us sterile.
These are continuously being refuted.
The change in language from “Global Warming” to Climate Change – is a tacit admission, the expected warming is not happening.
Will you atleast agree that BEST seems to prove the existance of the Little Ice age ?
That atleast BEST thinks it was colder than Mann, and the Warmists ?
Will you agree that whatever has happened during the 21st century we have fallen below the trend warmist predicted, and the trend in the late 20th century.
I do not know what the next decade or century will bring. But if had to bet my personal integrity on predictions of future global temperatures there is no possibility I would bet on AGW. I am far more concerned that we may be looking at a repeat of the conditions that led to the little ice age. I am not certain of that. I am not betting on that. The evidence is controversial – though no more than AGW. But the consequences will be far worse than warming. Given those two extremes – I hope the warmists are right.
We live on a planet where change – including climate change, has been the norm for almost 4 billion years. Why do you think the past 4 decades have been unusual ?
You are probably about as old as I
Of all the cataclysmic disasters that have been predicted during our lifetimes, which one has come true ? Why do you still believe the chicken littles ? You are old enough and experienced enough to know better.
Dhlii. I start from a more reasonable position. With the weight of every major formal scientific body in the world behind AGW, I only claim its probable the scientists are more correct than not. With the weight of a small group of scientists and a larger group of knucklehead conservatives, most of whom are semi literate judging by their obnline comments, behind denialism, you claim that you are sure that AGW cannot exist.
I am not a fanatic, I don’t want AGW to be correct and I do not foresee major or even any reductions in human GHG emissions anytime soon.
You are a fanatic, you have made a huge investment in this and consider your opinions to be more informed than the scientists. That is a a delusion, as the idea that every portion of the theory has been “slapped down.” Its been hotly disputed, yes, your side continually, comically declares that you won the disputes.
Most of your arguments are so primitive that I just laugh when I hear them..
2005 was the hottest year on record, 2007 second. Temps fluctuate from year to year and decade to decade for a whole complex series of reasons, but the human GHG influence is superimposed on them. It does not mean that this year can’t be colder than last, by land surface temp, water temps are not even considered.
I looked over data and arguments today that there has been no warming since 1998. Your side considers that you have proven this, game over, the AGW side has plausible explanations of why this is not so (2005 was the hottest year, water temps, an influence of ocean currents in the 1990s. etc.)
If you want my advice, stop declaring victory, its comical.
I’ll try to look at all your graphs tomorrow.
Oh, and what earthly meaning could there possibly be in MY Opinion as to how much of the heating is due to Human GHG emissions? I leave that to the scientific community to determine and debate. I’m not competent in that field.
You think science is not political. Besides have you followed the numbers of prestigious scientists who have resigned from the very institutions you are citing specifically because they have taken scientific debate and turned it into a religious litmus test ? Do you understand how difficult it is to get funded, or published, or join any of those renowned bodies today if you do not lean left ?
You claimed skeptics were near universally conservative – well warmists are near universally liberal, and liberals own most of academia, the media, …..
How many times do the high priests have to manipulate and modify their arguments before you grasp you are in a cult ?
I am aware of the explanations of the failure of the earth to conform to predictions since 1997. That does not change the fact that it has not. The burden of proof is actually on the warmists here. They need to more than explain it, they need to prove it. Further, their explanations are increasingly self contradictory. I have been in this long enough to have heard the very same people arguing that AGW would warm the ocean surface, but that it would take decades possibly centuries to warm the ocean depths. Now these same people ask us to beleive that warming that is not ocuring at the surface is being hidden in the depths.
You say you looked at the data – really look at the BEST trend line. They are using a 10 year rolling average so their graph ends at 2001. Still without the past decade that has stubornly refused to follow the GCM’s the period from 1970 through 1997 hardly looks unusual. Even if the next decade reverts to the trend from 1970 through 1997, once 1998-2011 are added the trendline will be exactly as it has been for 200 years – more than 160 of which everyone admits humans had no effect on. And if the next decade follows this one as currently seems likely, we will be below the trend of the past 200 years.
Of course Lindzen, Plimmer, …. are conservative neanderthals and idiots – they disagree with the “concensus”, they are by definition nutbars. Do you actually read what you write ? Keynes is wrong – because his General Theory has failed – not because he is conservative, liberal or an idiot. He was actually quite brilliant. Smart people are capable of being wrong.
Hordes of scientists and intelluctuals were behind almost every sky is falling scenario of the past half century – and they were wrong.
Judith Curry is now being excoriated as a denier – because she dared challenge mount olympus after climate gate – she is still pretty solidly in the warmist camp, just no longer enamored with Biffra, Jones, Mann, and their fraud.
I think we all agree that weather and climate are not the same thing.
I am not arguing weather. Nor am I arguing one year. I am not even arguing – though it appears to be true, that on the whole warming has stopped – I am arguing that for more than a decade the overall rate of increase has declined dramatically – below what the GCM’s predict without any effect from CO2.
I am arguing something that most warmists scientists have accepted – that they are busy trying to explain.
Which argument do you wish to make ? That the past decade is weather ? Or that the warming of that should have occured in the last decade is trapped deep in the ocean
Evangelicals are the acknowledged experts on certain areas of theology – their own, and they are numerous and have a consensus among themselves, my personal opinion of the merits of their views has no significance – yet I do not defer to their expertise, I do not concede that they should set global policy because of their expertise.
If I visit my doctor because my toe hurts and he offers operating on my liver as the cure, I am going to want to review everything I can find before going under the knife – and I trust my doctor far more than “climate scientists”.
I beleive you said you were a biochemist – you know that it in most areas of science it takes decades, sometimes centuries for scientific knowledge to reach reasonable certainty – and even then absolute certainty is unacheiveable. Climate science is in its infancy. History is filled with myriads of discarded scientific theories that were believed by almost all scientists – until they were not.
I am not particularly worried that my views on global warming will be proven wrong – I just do not see that happening. What I am concerned about is that the AGW high priesthood will come up with even more voodoo explanations for why things are not actually as they are. I am afraid that even though belief in AGW will fade, that we will miss the recognition that another fraud has been perpetrated, and be guilible enough for the next idiotic concensus – whatever that may be.
I do not like being called conservative, ultra-conservative, fundamentalist – because I am not.
Though I call you out on it because it weakens your arguments – your world view places the center left at the center, and has everyone to the right of that falling off the edge of the planet.
For the most part I could care less – or atleast I try not to care what you call me. You are free to speak as you wish – but I am not obligated to agree.
I do not think conservatives are inherently evil people. I do not even think they are wrong on many issues – but like liberals they are wrong on some.
I strongly suspect that conservatives are more likely to disbelieve AGW. I think conservatives are more likely to disbelieve almost all the chicken little catastrophism – and they are right to do so. At the same time I have not polled Lindzen, Plimmer, ….. on their political or religious views. Rand was an extreme atheist, does the fact that I am not mean I must think she is always wrong ? The left is right about many things. They are nearly universally wrong about the means to accomplish them. And means matter. Worse still with a near unending record of failure they still have faith in means that are not only ineffective , but actually evil.
Libertarians mostly get along better with conservatives – because for the most part conservatives are not busy trying to concoct new ways to have the government take over everything. Though conservatives are not dependable advocates for limited government liberals are dependable advocates for bigger government – to the extent that very smart liberals will beleive almost any claim of impending catastrophe that justifies government takeover of anything.
Even in the remarkably unlikely event that AGW somehow proved true and catastrophic – the most sure way to screw things up would be to allow government free range.
1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).
2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”
8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”
18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”
19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”
23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”
38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”
42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”
44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”
47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”
”Why should I see AGW is anything less than another effort by the extreme left to destroy humanity in the name of saving the world ?”
That was a question for you, not a statement by me.
There are myriads of facets
Is the earth warming ?
Click to access 012009_Doran_final.pdf
The paper that your 98% figure is derived from (I beleive the actual rate is 97.4% 75/77)
also has 10% of the scientists surveyed answering no to “has the earth warmed since 1800”
18% answered no to is human activity a significant contributing factor.
It did not ask whether this warming was “catastrophic”.
That is not even an appropriate question for climate scientists as it is fundimentally economic
Nor whether we could or should do something about it.
http://www.economist.com/node/718860?Story_ID=718860
And that is my point.
I asked you to essentially do a Reductio ad absurdum – and you certainly jumped to absurd.
Technically Dyson is not a sceptic – he just beleives the Global Climate Models are incomplete and therefore inaccurate. Pretty much what Frauenfeld’s quote seems to mean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?pagewanted=all
Here is Anja Eichler’s paper.
Click to access Eichleretal_GRL2009.pdf
Ignoring the richly deserved diggs at Gore, note that A Nobel Laureate taking a pretty firm stand against AGW – or atleast against the unwillingness of scientific societies to allow debate.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/still-denying-climate-change-reality/story-e6frfhqf-1226139979203
I do not know most of the rest weel enought to say whether they would disclaim the above comments, but are you seriously going to argue that Christy, Lindzen, McIntrye, Singer or Spencer have recanted ?
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
There are literally millions of scientists in the world. Few of the 400 listed are climate scientists
Ten minutes of research on this list go me the following info:
. “Inhofe’s “scientists” include economists, the retired, TV weathermen, mathematicians, amateurs and industry spokespeople”
MANY OF THE PERSONS LISTED HAVE ASKED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST AND THAT REQUEST HAS NOT BEEN HONORED.
“At Grist, climate scientist Andrew Dessler, has continued running “The ‘Inhofe 400′ Skeptic of the Day” repeatedly identifying some skeptics who were completely unqualified and others who are qualified but not actually skeptical. His latest posting is so good, parts deserves repeating here. Meteorologist George Waldenberger is on the list. In response, George sent an email to Inhofe’s staffers that began:
“Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I’ve never made any claims that debunk the “Consensus”.
You quoted a newspaper article that’s main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific … yet I’m guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
You also didn’t ask for my permission to use these statements. That’s not a very respectable way of doing “research”.
Yet, as Dessler notes, “he’s still on the list.” Dessler’s other conclusions:
Second, the more I look through this list, the more it perfectly demonstrates the weakness of the skeptics. The AGU, for example, has 50,000 members, the majority of whom are Ph.D. Earth scientists. Inhofe would have been tickled pink to take any one of them. But he couldn’t. Despite the huge numbers of qualified scientists out there, Inhofe could barely muster a few dozen for his list.”
Back to my opinions. Guess what, if we take a political poll we will most likely find out that all of the VOLUNTARY and QUALIFIED members of the list, the true skeptics, will turn out to be political conservatives who let their political irritations leak into their views on climate science.
Another question: How many of these guys signed the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming? Your old buddy Roy Spencer, #43 on your above list of quotes, is a member of the Cornwall alliance and a proud signer of the evangelical declaration.
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”
When we get done with this piece of your best supporting evidence it just turns out to be pathetic.
You are aware of all of these issues I’m sure and yet you still post this as your best evidence when just that fact alone that Inhofes list includes unwilling members who deny having made any statements denying AGW makes it untouchable political garbage..
Dhlii,it gives me no pleasure to say it, and I’m not actually trying to be nasty, its just a fact you have proven over and over.
You have no intellectual integrity.
Its a very strong statement.
http://claimtree.org/exhibit.php?tree=7-6-10
Many of the scientists contributing the the various IPCC reports have specifically asked to have their names removed as purportedly endorsing it.
Many prominent sceptics have contributed to past IPCC reports an a few still contribute in the hope of small influence.
Maybe there are millions of scientists in the world – too my knowledge we have not polled them all. Regardless, there is little reason to beleive that the majority of scientists are informed enough to have a meaningful opinion.
What we do know as true is that the better informed one is the more likely one is to be a sceptic – and that includes better informed scientists.
10, 50, 400, 30,000 – it really does not matter, what the numbers are, what matters is that there are extremely intelligent highly educated and knowledgeable people that see AGW for one reason or another as a crock.
Atleast one list is just quotes from various scientists. Dr. Curry is on that list, she is generally consider an AGW proponent – but more recently she has become highly critical of the IPCC process as well as the way in which the high priests control and blackball publication and dissent.
A list of quotes from various scientists, is not science, no more should be drawn from it than the content of each quote. But you can not unsay something you have said – most are not looking to retract what they said, they are looking to get off a list that may negatively effect their careers. It is more meaningful than Dr. Spenser’s signature on some document drafted by others.
If the fact that some people want off a sceptic list discredits the list – then the IPCC report is equally discredited.
Sure some of them are weathermen, and some are probably evangelicals – lots of “consensus” scientists are marxists, virtually all are liberals, many are social scientists. Both sides claim lots of physicians and vets.
Go play the Youtube video of Muller berating the hockey stick, and talk about intellectual integrity – or even qualifications, remember that the “Climate scientists” that are responsible for the hockey stick are at the pinacle of the IPCC and of this entire mess.
Climate Science did not exist a few decades ago. Most warmists are not “Climate scientists”, their degrees are in other fields, they are “climate scientists” by self proclamation. An extremely large proportion of sceptics are from hard sciences – astronomy, physic, mathematics, chemistry, geology, engineering.
We also know from climate gate the extent to which the high priest go to blackball, not only those who disagree, but even those who do not unconditionally agree.
I will be happy to pit my intellectual integrity against that of Mann, Biffra, Trendberth, Jones, … any day.
I do not care whether Spenser or whoever has ties to evangelicals – or even is one – evangelicals are the largest single religious group in the US – more than 1 in 4. Are you intent on disqualifying all of them from having an opinion ?
Do you beleive there are no evangelicals that believe in AGW ?
If I found an evangelical scientists that beleives in AGW would that discredit AGW ? Would it discredit them ?
Go bother to read Dr. Spenser. He is well respected – even in the climate community – atleast by all but a very tiny fraction – the high priests.
Real scientists cope with the fact that people disagree.
Spencer and Dressler are actively engaged in an ongoing debate over their respective papers on radiative forcings. You have already written Spenser off. Fortunately Dr. Dressler is not so arrogant as to discount the criticism of a fellow scientist because of religious affiliation.
The IPCC is preparing their next major tome. Despite active ongoing debate over the issue of radiative forcing – that issue will not be included.
Svensmark’s theory of cosmic rays and cloud formation has been ridiculed by climate scientists for three decades. The results are in Svensmark is correct, the remaining debate is only about the magnitude of the effect of Cosmic rays – with the low end being 25% of the magnitude attributed to CO2 and the high end dwarfing that of CO2 – yet there will be no mention of Cosmic rays in the next IPCC report.
Would the IPCC be your model for intellectual integrity ?
Do I need to send you to a bunch of links on the leftist, marxist rantings of many of the most prominent AGW enthusiasts ?
If being conservative or even evangelical disqualifies ones opinion on the issue of global warming – does being a marxists, or some other extreme leftist ?
You presume all conservatives take common marching orders – but not the left ?
I will be happy to agree that there is some correlation between ones position on the political spectrum and ones views on AGW – but that works both directions. All of the chicken little catastrophe scenarios of the past half century have come from the left. Why should I see AGW is anything less than another effort by the extreme left to destroy humanity in the name of saving the world ?
Dhlii,
Using your doctor visit scenario- What if 9 doctors told you that the liver operation was necessary and 1 doctor told you otherwise? I am sure you could find as much documentation that the one doctor was correct, but wouldn’t you trust the 9 out 10 doctors? And why do you continually say that the only reason that overwhelmingly published data supports AGW is because anything stating otherwise won’t be published? How did you come up with that assessment. I don’t have a clue wether AGW is correct or not, but I will defer to the majority of experts in that field. Yes, the majority of experts have been wrong before, but why deny completely and write it off as propoganda? Anyone can research statistical information to support our own ideas, but without the training to properly analyze the statistics, eventually you have to defer (in some form, even if in a limited amount) to an expert. It sounds like you are choosing to defer to the minority analysis because of bias.
In the end the decision would be mine – not that of 9 or 1 doctor. I would have to make it based on the information I gathered including the relative credibility of each doctor.
Some of the strongest attacks on AGW have been from scientists and mathematicians in the areas of statistics and forecasting – something that most of the “climate scientists” are completely ignorant of.
I am used to being on the minority side of numerous issues, I have been so most of my life. In those rare instances when I have accepted some purportedly majority end of the world catastrophic consensus – I have been proven wrong.
If 9 out of 10 surgeons told you they needed to remove your liver because it was cancerous and the oncologist said not to – what would you do. Much is made that many sceptics are not “climate scientists” – Hanson is a physisct and astronomer, Mann is a physicist and geologist.
Most of the experts on both sides are old enough there was no such thing as a climate science education. McKitrick is an economist, Mcintyre a mathematician.
Which of these are qualified to opine on the significance of two thousand years of tree ring measurements ? Which are more qualified to address whether the purely statistical aspects ?
Scientists as a whole are notoriously bad at mathematics and statistics. Yet only a brief look at the land temperature graphs for the past two centuries – no matter whose you chose, should leave you grasping that AGW is going to hinge on statistical analysis and forecasting.
We have two centuries of irregular upward sloping data. The AGW thesis requires you to isolate a signal that can only be present in the past 4 decades – before that everyone acknowledges there was no human effect. I will be happy to concede that the slope from 1970-1997 looks the smallest amount steeper than anything that preceded it. I would expect that any rational person would also conclude that the slope across the last 4 decades is shallower than most of the past two centuries. That does not disprove AGW – but it should fairly well establish that the proof will be mathematical and statistical, based on isolating a small signal that is on top of a much larger signal, all mixed in with alot of noise.
“Climate Scientists” have put forth their hypothesis. Its validity rests less on the credibility of the underlying science than on the mathematical and statistical analysis. Why are “Climate scientists” more credible on that ? Why is any scientist that fights tooth and nail to keep their raw data as well as their statistical methods secret credible on anything ?
If I am to decide whether a building will stand – do I ask 9 carpenters, or a structural engineer ?
Thanks AMAC. What dhlii does not understand is the power of science.
Example:
Both linguists and molecular biologists worked independently of each other for decades on the question of how humans had originated and then migrated through the world from Africa outwards. Both sets of scientists had to find some characteristics that were most basic, the root of a tree, and work outward. I was aware (a bit) of both sets of work, I used to sometimes read articles in Science or Nature in the lab about the molecular side of it. I thought they were really reaching, it seemed like an impossible problem to really tackle with certainty. On the linguistic side they had to decide which parts of language were the most primitive and the most basic, its an even much harder job than the molecular side, I never would have believed their reasoning and choices.
Then, the two groups discovered each other and got together and compared results. The maps of human migration compiled by the molecular Biologists and the linguists agreed with each other nearly perfectly.
That is the power of science.
I’ve seen it myself at a smaller scale in the lab in my own work. You run a protein sample of some protein you have altered the sequence of via gene manipulation through a flourimeter many times, excite it at one wavelength, observe its spectrum, and repeat that process many times on many samples. Every run looks a bit different. When you average them together after weeks or months a fuzzy picture comes out, but its just above the noise level. Then you do several other types of experiments on the proteins, binding curves, radioactive time resolved assays,and they all have similar issues of the data being just above the noise. Then you consider the experiments together and, boom, a clear picture of agreement emerges and you start to believe your results.
Every little area of science has its 2% of total skeptics, The field in which I did my post doc work involved how muscle fibers work at the molecular level, how actin and myosin work together to make heart muscle contract. There is a well-known theory of muscle contraction that has been worked out over literally a hundred years, its in all the physiology textbooks. There are a small number of perfectly intelligent people, who wee normal students did their doctoral studies and post docs, got their own positions and then became skeptics who think that one of the earlier variants of muscle contraction are more fetching. They are considered as harmless cranks, they have great difficulty getting published and therefore getting funding. The field has moved on long ago to more subtle questions, the basic theory was long ago convincingly settled by enormous weight of evidence. Its true in every little field and no one notices it, because the science is apolitical. Its just some law of human nature.
There are some people who can never be convinced of anything, whether its that NASA really put men on the moon, or whatever. I accept that. I accept that dhlii and his 2% will never change. The world will move on.
The science you describe – whether is is that of linguists or molecular biologists or what you do in the labs is vastly different from what has occurred in climate science.
The normal progress of science involves offering ideas, that often are not accepted, but become stronger as the are examined sceptically. Data is collected, everything is made public – sceptics are expected to attempt to repeat and refute the experiments, to challenge your data, your analysis, to gather their own data, and when your hypothesis continues to hold up under intense scrutiny it gradually gains acceptance. Along the way myriads of other promising ideas are discarded or revised – because they did not hold up.
Climate science has not been conducted that way. From nearly the begining its truth has been an article of faith. We are still chasing Trendberth’s missing heat, first it was here, then there, now it is in the ocean depths. I am certain there will be some explanation that warmists will accept when it is not found there.
We all fixate on the hockey stick – there are numerous reasons it is important – first because it is a pretty blatant fraud by some of the most prominent warmists. What “Hide the decline” means is not that current tempertures are declining, but that the Biffra, Mann, Jones tree ring proxies that are at the core of thousands of scientific papers on paleoclimate – suck as proxies. Next because it predicted a fairly stable planet for the previous 2 millennia – this is necessary otherwise warmists must explain why current conditions are unusual. It is also important because there is actually no current means to distinguish human caused warming from warming from other sources. The entire AGW hypothesis is based on the ability of the Global Climate Models to accurately predict the future. One of the earliest challenges was to demand that they accurately predict the past – a much easier task. The GCM’s predict the hockey stick. If the hockey stick is false the GCM’s are in error. And if the GCM’s are in error, we are back to not knowing what causes temperture variation.
More on Sen Inhofe’s hilarious list of dissenters, this an excerpt from an Atlantic article:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/inhofes-650-quotdissentersquot-make-649-648
Inhofe’s 650 “dissenters” (make That 649… 648…)
The Senate’s proudest global-warming skeptic, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, recently released a list of “MORE THAN 650 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS” who “DISSENT OVER MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS.” Exciting! Let’s take a look.
First, a bit of background: In January, Inhofe posted his initial list of more than 400 “prominent scientists” who, he claimed, disputed that man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for rising global temperatures. Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science. Worse still, when Andrew Dessler started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror, and then e-mailed Inhofe’s staff and demanded to be taken off, since they didn’t disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.
Well, fine, every list has its warts (and, in fairness, Inhofe’s list still looks more reasonable than Rolling Stone’s best-of-2008 album list), and we’ll grant Inhofe a do-over. So here’s the latest release. Many of the names are the same as before. But now, among other things, Inhofe’s website cites a study allegedly proving that half of recent warming is due to the sun. Well, Joe Romm e-mailed the paper’s author, Anja Eichler, who replied that she was “misinterpreted” on this point, and that her study actually shows something perfectly compatible with the IPCC consensus: Variations in solar activity have been correlated with temperature change in the past, but over the last 150 years, that hasn’t been the case. “In this time,” Eichler notes, “the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature.” That’s… pretty much what all the other recent scientific studies say. Not an auspicious start.
If you are going to use cites from The New Republic – I am going to start using ones from Climate Audit, or Climate depot.
So how many of Inhoffe’s “scientists” have backed away as compared to say the number who contributed to the IPCC reports who claim the results do not represent their work ?
I am unfamiliar with Eichlers studies but there have been myriads of studies correlating the earth’s temperture to solar cycles – no one desputes that, nor do they dispute that the sun is and has been a factor since the 70’s. The only debate is over the relative magnitude as compared to that of CO2. I am pretty sure the IPCC previously accepted that approx 25% of the increase is solar. Most everyone in the climate community also knows that the correlation between the earth’s temperature and the sun is an order of magnitude stronger than anything the GCM’s predict for CO2. The only thing missing from the pure solar model is the mechanism by which the sun is driving warming. Inside the narrow bands of solar radiation we have examined there is insufficient variation in total energy to account for the amount of warming we have had – BTW – that is also true throughout the past two millennia – we have no explanation for the Little Ice Age, nor the Medieval Warm Period – basically no explanation for any past climate variability. And we know it was not man made CO2 then.
Yes, the majority of weathmen – many of which have degrees that would lead you to beleive they know something about the earth’s weather – i.e. climate science, do not beleive in AGW. Equally important that grasp that weather is – well weather, that hurricanes, tornadoes and many other “catastrophic weather events” follow natural cycles, and that aside from still following those cycles, there is no evidence that these have changed in some important way.
Do you understand that if your method of discrediting everyone who disagrees with you is to denigrate their views because of their politics, religion, profession, what you are essentially saying is that you will only beleive something from a very narrow perspective. You are claiming that the extreme political left owns the truth. You are claiming that the very same people who have been wrong repeatedly in the past are somehow finally right about something.
My last one on Inhofes so called list of dissenters, I promise, (gotta get some real work done today)
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/how_many_inhofes_list_compared.php
Shortcut on White Paper More on Inhofe’s alleged list of 650 scientists
How many on Inhofe’s list are IPCC authors?
Jim Prall has compiled a list of the authors of the IPCC Working Group 1 report for AR4. There are 618 WG1 authors, which is more than the 604 names on Inhofe’s list. There are just three names on both lists, which is no surprise given the shortage of climate scientists on Inhofe’s list.
First Erich Roeckner. He’s not a sceptic at all. Brad Plumer explains how Inhofe quote mined Roekner:
I see Inhofe’s “Gang of 650” also includes Erich Roeckner, a renowned climate modeler at Germany’s Max Planck Institute, who’s quoted as saying there are still kinks in current climate models. But that’s not controversial; all climatologists recognize that their models can’t account for every last physical process. Inhofe’s report then cites Roeckner telling Nature in 2006, “It is possible that all of them are wrong”–implying that he’s casting doubt on the link between human activity and climate change. But he’s not! Roeckner was referring to the IPCC’s emissions scenarios, which involve assumptions about the rate of growth of greenhouse-gas emissions. (Scroll down here for the full quote.) We already know that emissions are growing faster than the IPCC’s worst-case scenario, and that’s bad news, not good.
Anyway, Roeckner’s as far as you get from a “dissenter”: See this 2004 paper, which yet again establishes the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and temperature increases. Or see this link, where Roeckner is quoted in multiple news stories sounding downright alarmist about the consequences of man-made warming. “Humans have had a large one-of-a-kind influence on the climate… Weather situations in which extreme floods occur will increase,” he informed Deutsche Welle in 2004. “Our research pointed to rapid global warming and the shifting of climate zones,” he told ABC News in 2005. Quite the heretic, that one.
Second, Oliver Frauenfeld. Inhofe quotes him from his chapter in Shattered Consensus:
“Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it. Before we can accurately understand the midlatitudes’ response to tropical forcing, the tropical forcings themselves must be identified and understood … Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain.”
Frauenfeld is talking about the modeling of ENSO events by General Circulation Models. He doesn’t think they are as good at this as the IPCC does, but he is not saying that GCMs can’t successfully model the rest of the climate system.
Finally, John Christy. He really does belong on Inhofe’s list.
So, Inhofe was only able to find one (out of 618) IPCC WG1 AR4 authors who is a skeptic.
It is not only possible that all the IPCC scenarios are wrong – at this point it is pretty well certain.
This is not even your own stuff, please do not bother my with third party opinions about what other people though about what someone else said. I could care less what Mr. Lambert has to say about Inhoffe.
I am still trying to find the actual Frauenfeld quote to get the real context – as opposed to what some other idiot says it means. Besides that why do you think ENSO is insignificant ? It is an important part of climate. Is it uninfluenced by CO2 ? If it isn’t than what else isn’t.
If we can not accurately model ENSO – which is far simpler than the global climate, then why are the GCM’s right about everything else. And how is it that our inability to model ENSO prevents us from making policy decisions – what policy decisions would be forestalled by an inability to model ENSO. As I said I still have not found Frauenfeld’s actual quote with context, but I think the argument that it is narrowly confined solely to ENSO appears unlikely.
What is happening more and more, is that numerous scientists – particularly those not part of the AGW high priesthood are hedging their bets. There is substantial politics in science. We all know that politicians can cite their own past speeches and votes to demonstrate that they were on whichever side of the issue is convenient at the moment.
Dhlii:”Why should I see AGW is anything less than another effort by the extreme left to destroy humanity in the name of saving the world ?”
Lets repeat that, it sums your worldview up pretty nicely: “Why should I see AGW is anything less than another effort by the extreme left to destroy humanity in the name of saving the world ?”
Ah, Libertarian moderation.
You don’t know when to just walk away and stop trying to spin a disaster into something respectable. Inhofe’s list is a disaster. I was absolutely sure, and there are very few things in this world I am absolutely sure about, that you would not repudiate Inhofe’s comical and obviously dishonest list.
Do you really think I am going to read just one more link, look at one more graph, read one more report provided by a person who cannot tell S*** from Shinola? The work of the US National Academy of Sciences on climate is just so much crap to you, but Inhofe is rock solid?
You complain that I caricature you, I don’t, you caricature yourself: “another effort by the extreme left to destroy humanity in the name of saving the world.”
The threat from Global warming is an issue that most liberals take seriously yes, but along with the last GOP presidential candidate and the most likely next GOP candidate and many intelligent conservatives, moderates and liberals. The far left is a tiny group, less than 5% of the US, if you think that the AGW scientists and the public that support their work are far leftists and marxists, well, its irrational and illogical, i.e., it sounds just like you.
The AGW Scientists, who would seem from my recent reading to outnumber the denialists by more than the 98-2 I previously believed, are from all political persuasions. They come from countries all over the world, they are international and the US right-left divide is not in play in places like Russia and China, is it?
Climate denialism is phenomenon that is overwhelmingly driven by US conservative nutjobs like Sen Inhofe. Worldwide, denialism is a much smaller factor. It is one of the many reason that I do tend to think of many US Conservatives as nutjobs, yes its true. Your comments above just support my idea on this.
So what happens to your world view when there is no Catastrophe ?
Most do not believe the world is going to end in our life time because of AGW. We are worried it is going to be drastically change for the worse for future generations, and eventually it will lead to a disaster. Planets die and most believe that climates can change for the worse on planets. Why is it so hard to believe that it can’t be rushed by man made pollution? We have seen what man made pollution can do from other sources other than CO2. Why can’t we believe that CO2 could be as harmful in the long run? How is it such a stretch. This is not an end of the world, sky is falling, apocalypse scenario. Scientist are warning we are harming the planet. If you forget the fact that government intervention may be needed, could you not agree with that?
Be overjoyed, as I have said many times. You don’t hear anything you don’t want to hear. Its not a plus for you.
I suppose if I argue with skeptics long enough I might eventually get my brain warped in the opposite direction that skeptics have their brains warped and WANT AGW to be a disaster just to prove you wrong, I have got to stop myself from arguing with you before that happens!
The IPCC’s worst case projection is 4C warmer than 2000, its best case scenario is 1C warmer. The likely scenario according to the IPCC is 2-3C.
During the past decade we have already dropped almost a full 1C below the AR4 projections.
BEST had the earth warm by 1C in the 19th century and 1C in the 20th.
There are myriads of studies of different proxies confirming the Medievil Warm Period – even Mann, Biffra, Jones, have finally accepted it – albeit far colder than most.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
Most of these have the MWP atleast 2C warmer than the present, A few have it as much as 4C warmer, even Mann has is as warm as the 60’s
I would take note in the Mann graph all the proxies diverge from the human record – decline, in the 60 – just as Human CO2 based warming is supposed to start. What any rational scientist would conclude is Mann’s proxies are poor quality.
From NOAA/NCDC we have the past half million years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
This is a version of Gores famous CO2 causes warming chart. It is hard to tell at this resolution, but even here CO2 lags temperature by about 600 years.
Regardless, the past has been both warmer and far colder – and is very
cyclic. Since every 100,000 or so years the earth is almost 10C cooler than present I would ask what causes that ? That is an enormous amount cooler, and it is fairly regular.
I will not argue that some parts of the world will be in worse shape if the earth is 4C warmer. It is also inarguable that some off the world would be far better off. There would be substantially more arable land,
There are far more deaths worldwide due to cold than heat.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/494582_2
The US BTW has only shown .10F/decade increase since 1895
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
Regardless, let us assume the IPCC’s worst case scenario a 4C increase by 2100. Exactly how on net, will the world be worse off ?
Given that I have a choice for my children of a warmer or colder planet, I would choose warmer.
A decade without warming.
Click to access pnas-201102467.pdf
2010 was warmer, but 2011 restores the flat trend.
On cosmic rays – this is a middle of the road estimate if correct it would diminish the purported effect of CO2 by more than a factor of 2.
Click to access 223.pdf
Its amazing, you have misinterpreting the point of absolutely everything I have written or posted. You are absolutely not able to interpret any fact, no matter how toxic it is to your case, as not meaning that you are right about AGW or economics. There IS NO evidence that would convince you, If an angel with huge white wings came down with a tablet from God saying that AGW is real and must be stopped now, you would have some way of interpreting that as meaning that Mann is a fraud. You are a fanatic. Why do I argue with you, I know that you are programmed and cannot be deprogrammed, not on economics and not on AGW. I accept it. I must just love to argue.
The argument sketch by Monty python is close at hand.
Dhlii: Do you understand that if your method of discrediting everyone who disagrees with you is to denigrate their views because of their politics, religion, profession, what you are essentially saying is that you will only beleive something from a very narrow perspective.
Me: Oh, the irony, if only you could see it. You have rejected the findings of 99% of all climate scientists scientists because it is “an attempt by the extreme left to destroy humanity” and now you want to lecture me…I tend to believe the side that has the NAS of every nation in its camp. You claim to have weathermen on your side. You don’t know when to stop digging yourself a hole.
Dhlii: You are claiming that the extreme political left owns the truth.
Me: Show me where I sad that! Another strawman. By the way, I have supported nuke power forever and pay no attention to the views of the International Union of Concerned Scientists on that subject because they are biased by their left-wing political views. I’m a moderate, Dave, I reject mixing either left wing or right wing politics into science. Its a reasonable view, but I fearlessly predict you will not understand it or you will find a way to misinterpret it to mean that Mann is a fraud.
Religious people are welcome to their views. but since Roy Spencer is giving his Religious point of view when he denies AGW, based on his religious conviction that God would not allow AGW to exist in his perfect design of the world, and since I do not subscibe to Spencer’s religion, I am obviusly not going to listen to Spencer. We have gone over that point a few times, still, you cannot wrap your brain around it, simple as it is. In some ways you seem to be an intelligent person, in others… Why should I have any respect for or pay attention to the opinions of a person who cannot understand something so simple?
OK, I have put about 15 minutes into arguing with an oak tree this morning, and now, I go onto more rewarding things.
Again it is a question.
Why should I trust people who have engaged in fraud ?
Why shouldn’t I be sceptical of new claims by people who have been repeatedly wrong in the past ?
Yes, I will be perfectly happy to weigh far less strongly the assertions of a group regardless of its size that has a past history of failed predictions of catastrophe.
When Nobel prize winners are resigning from their professional societies because the societies have become political rather than objective – again why should I pay attention to those societies. Regardless, If a simple majority of a group beleive something, and the group is a strict democracy, then the expression of the group will be the same as the majority of its members. Essentially when you say all the proffesional societies are on one side of the issue, you are being redundant.
Further what do all these groups claim ?
Do they claim the earth is warming – apparently 10% of scientists disagree, but I will be happy to agree that up to 1997 the earth has been warming. I might even agree depending on the latest data available, that there has been a minimal amount of warming since 1997.
If all professional societies are claiming that how does that advance your argument ?
Most of us agree the sky is blue, that says nothing about why ?
Do they claim that humans have contributed to that warming ?
Even Dr. Spenser – who you go out of your way to malign beleives that.
The critical debate is over the causes – Pielke (An IPCC contributor) as an example believes land use and other human effects is far more important than CO2.
Most so-called “deniers” beleive CO2 is a contributing factor – but do not accept the claims of positive feedbacks. CO2 alone would produce less than a 1C rise over the next century. Higher figures depend on positive feedbacks, they also depend on eliminating all other non-CO2 factors such as cosmic rays. There is also increasing reason to beleive that CO2 sensitivity rather than log linear – #C/doubling has a diminishing rate for each doubling, with an upper bound. Whether the cause is positive feedbacks or just an unlimited trend based on CO2 alone, the assumption that any process is unbounded needs seriously questioned. The planet would have self destructed otherwise. Whether caused by CO2 or not the global temperatures have cycled over more than 10C in the past. Why do they reach a peak and fairly abruptly drop ? Why do they bottom ? Having bottomed why do they start increasing fairly steeply ? We know none of the answers. It is not necessary to know everything to credibly predict the future, but everyone concedes climate projections are incredibly complex. The GCM uses gigantic arrays of the most powerful grid computers in existance. Runs take substantial amounts of time, and there has been little improvement in computing power over the past decade. Many fundamental processes that are actually known have to be plugged rather than computed – as the computing horsepower just does not exist. The cell size for computations is large – too large to reflect many know processes, but we do not have the power available to do more fine grained calculations.
Finally the GCM’s do not work backward. They do not produce either the little ice age or the medieval warm period – this is also part of the importance of the hockey stick – a nearly flat past proves the GCM’s, while significant variation is inconsistent with their predictions of the past. If you can not accurately model the past, why should we trust your model of the future ? If we do not understand the past – why should we beleive we understand the future.
Do they claim AGW will be “Catastrophic” ?
What even does catastrophic means ? And why is what is best described as an economic value, being opined on by scientific societies ?
Regardless, at times I have found myself on the side of “scientific majorities” and I have universally ended up wrong. At others I have found myself in the minority – and time has proven me correct.
The track record for Catastrophe predictions, particularly those claiming we will shortly grow ourselves to death, and must impose a statist solution or die is abysmal. Many have had substantial scientific support. You are old enough to know that. Why are you buying the latest end of the world scenario ?
When you reject without examination anything from a conservative or someone with a religious identification, you are making truth political. You are doing precisely what the Bush people were doing – only tipping the scales using different ideological weights than they choose.
You are fixated on Dr. Spenser. I have read his blog and papers for a long time. I have never heard a religious or politically conservative argument from him. The closest thing is that more recently he has chosen to publish a booklet on economics – that is essentially libertarian. I had no idea what his religious or political views were – and so long as they did not enter his arguments – which they did not, I did not care. I weighed his arguments – not his views on other issues.
Spenser has been fairly vigorously defended – on the substance of his arguments, and on his personal integrity as well as the unscientific viciousness of the attacks against him – the very attacks you are repeating. If you wish I can bombard you with quotes from the AGW community about world government, communism, … These are actually more germane to this debate. But I have avoided that. It is not their political views that matter – except where they propose political solutions.
What of the myriads of others I have cited ? I grasp they are not the majority, but you presume this is a battle of good vs. evil – and anyone that does not exactly toe the AGW line is evil.
Need I remind you again, that Dr. Spenser believes in CO2 based human caused global warming – what he does not beleive is that the human portion is nearly as significant as the IPCC.
You make this a binary issue – either one accepts Catastrophic human caused CO2 driven global warming demanding statist intervention, or you are an idiot.
You position is more religious than those you criticise.
Dhlii: You make this a binary issue – either one accepts Catastrophic human caused CO2 driven global warming demanding statist intervention, or you are an idiot.
You position is more religious than those you criticise.
Well, it might be AS religious as the skeptic position if I HAD actually said that.
Since what I have actually said instead, over and over, is that I consider that it is probable that the consensus is more correct than not and that I do not see any chance that we are going to reduce our GHG emissions any time soon, this goes goes back to the most fundamental of your problems. You have a GIGANTIC reading disability. You get nothing right. You see ONLY what you want to see. Its fanaticism.
Is that not the position that you think is the consensus ?
I would be happy to agree that Global Warming has occurred – since the depth of the little Ice age.
I will even agree that since approx. 1970 there is possibly a small human component due to CO2.
Depending on how you interpret Doran’s questions that would label me as a warmist and count me (and Spencer, and just about every so called sceptic I know) as part of the 97%.
I do not beleive the human component is significant, nor do I beleive that regardless of what is driving climate change and even if we manage the IPCC’s worst case – which I think is less likely than Vesuvius erupting – something that is going to happen with near certainty, we just do not know precisely when, that that worst case would be net negative for humanity.
regardless, if your position is not Catastrophic man made global warming requiring state intervention – then what is it ? And in fact if it is anything less than that – why are we even having this debate ? Remove any adjective and there is really no problem.
If it is not catastrophic – why are we debating this ?
If it is not primarily man-made – how can we be so arrogant as to beleive we can prevent it ?
If you place yourself anywhere but the most extreme position – you are indistinguishable from Spencer, Pielke, and all the other so called sceptics.
If you decide that all those prestigious institutions are not at the extreme of “Catastrophic man-made global warming requiring state intervention”
Then their positions are not irreconcilable with my own – or Spencer’s or most other sceptics.
This is why I am saying that you and other warmists have made this binary.
Absent every adjective – there is not an issue requiring state intervention.
Yet you are saying your not that extreme – then you are a sceptic.
How is “God would not allow” distinctly different from “the laws of nature or thermodynamics prevent” ? If you beleive in a god that created everything, then he created science and its laws.
The declaration of independence sets God up as the source of all rights and power, the foundation of nature.
My view of God is likely different from Spenser’s or yours. But I do not disagree with the assertion that whatever the cause it is extremely unlikely that nature has some run-away feedback loop leading to self destruction. And if Spencer wishes to base the dame conclusion on a view of God – why should I care ? What matters is the scientific quality of his arguments.
Here is an excerpt from New York Magazine. Its obviously from the liberal perspective. I can’t find a strong Khaddafi angle in it, well, its about getting some money back from the top of the pyramid, as may now happen in Libya, how’s that? <— Humor, don't bite.
God help me, after months of discussing economics with dhlii, I seem to becoming (or admitting to myself that I am) a liberal (notwithstanding the fact that I can't stand the loony left or even many more ordinary but still obnoxious liberals) because I find myself agreeing with most of this.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/the_ideological_fantasies_of_i.html
"Rising income inequality, like climate change, is an ideologically inconvenient issue for conservatives. They would prefer not to discuss it altogether. If forced to discuss it, they will generally either deny its existence or simply carry on as if it doesn’t exist.
The underlying facts, like the facts of climate change, are stark. Over the last few decades, income growth for most Americans has slowed to a crawl, while income for the very rich has exploded. That’s a reversal of the three decades following World War II, when all income groups got richer, with the poor and middle class rising at a faster rate than the rich. Crucially, the Congressional Budget Office’s new analysis shows that changes in government policy over this period have made inequality worse. (In CBO-speak: “The equalizing effect of transfers and taxes on household income was smaller in 2007 than it had been in 1979.”)
We’re not having a debate about how to reverse or even stop the growth of inequality. Nobody has a real plan to do that. The Democratic plan is to slightly arrest the growth of inequality by hiking taxes on the rich a few percentage points, so as to minimize the need to cut the social safety net. The Republican plan is to slash taxes for the rich and programs for the poor, thereby massively increasing inequality.
That is a hard position to defend in the context of exploding inequality, and conservatives would rather not defend it. Instead the right’s response has been to persistently deny or ignore the facts. Rick Perry, pressed by a reporter to explain why he was proposing a tax plan that would widen income inequality further, replied, "I don’t care about that." The Wall Street Journal editorial page today dismissed the Tax Policy Center, whose calculations persistently show the ways in which various Republican tax proposals would widen inequality, as “liberal.” It didn’t even pretend to dispute the substance of the calculations. Eric Cantor gave a speech about income inequality centering on stories about how his grandmother worked hard and pulled herself up by the bootstraps in the old days. It was a nice speech if you like stories about plucky grandmothers. It failed to grasp the central dilemma, which is that it was a lot easier for poor people to move up sixty years ago, when tax rates on the rich happened to be far higher, than it is today….."
I have repeatedly been willing to debate income inequality and Global warming with you.
Both are based on bad science, and particularly bad statistical analysis.
To a small extent I will even agree with Perry – income inequality is irrelevant. What should matter most – even to the left, is what benefits those on the bottom the most, and what benefits the majority the most.
Transfers fail. Whether you grasped it or not that was the clear message of those myriads of papers on the cost of taxes and government spending.
The greater you engage in wealth redistribution the worse off you make everyone.
I have rebutted the other premises of the inequality argument repeatedly.
But again like AGW, we are facing another everything is going to hell proposition offered by those who want government – which has done such an abysmal job in the past, to take over everything and save us from ourselves.
Again we are dealing with something that all you need do it look around you to know is false.
I have mentioned that I manage a 4 unit apartment building before. My tenants are all in the lower quintile. One family in particular, is from Cuba. The parents speak almost no english. The father was mauled by police dogs in Miami and is on probation for resisting arrest. He has a crappy job. The mother has none. Neither have a high-school education.
They have cell phones, a huge flat screen TV, a game system. They bought and additional refrigerator for their apartment, they just purchased an SUV that is newer than any care I own. They are preparing to move to a better apartment.
in 1981 after I graduated from college, I had no tv, no computer or computer games, no cell phone they did not exist, no car. In a few years I was able to marry, buy a small used car and a house – in a worse neighbourhood than my apartments today. No TV, No Cell, no ….
I did not think of myself as poor at the time. I had friends that actually were poor. They rented, had no car, no TV, pretty much no nothing.
The cuban family appears to be doing the best of my tenants. But all of them have more than I had for several years after I graduated from college.
This is all anecdotal, but the NBER statistics I provided you before confirm the same thing across the nation. The poor today possess more wealth than they did 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. I have no interest in whether some arbitrary measure of grevance has increased. Should it matter to those on the bottom whether the income of the rich has improved faster than theirs – if they are better off ? The average American still moves up two quintiles during their life time. If you are poor today, the probability is extremely high you will not be for long.
In the face of that the left still wants to fixate on GINI indexes and statistics that do not mean what they purport to. If you really want a low GINI index – return to the 50’s. To black and white TV’s, shorter life spans, three networks – most of us only able to get one, most of us unable to afford a TV. No computers, phonographs, few radio stations, fewer goods all of which were more expensive. For half of the 50’s Polio was still a grave threat. The average home was less than 1/2 the size today. Paul Krugman may wish to go back – but I do not.
John D. Rockefeller’s grandson contracted scarlet fever. Rockefeller offered $1m to any doctor that could cure him, but this was the early 20th century and one of the wealthiest men on the planet did not have enough money to cure a fatal illness trivially cured today.
I am struggling to find this great sceptic outcry against BEST that you are claiming.
I am having no problems finding warmest sites claiming this is the end of the world for sceptics. I am also not having much problems finding warmists sites that are unhappy with BEST.
Watts published a scathing statistical criticism – that would apply equally to all the other human temperture records, including as one would expect a strong critique of their dismisal of UHI. But the critique ended by asserting that BEST probably had things generally right and was better – or atleast no worse than any existing sources.
A few off the track sites poked fun at the fact that BEST like the other records flies in the face of the 1970’s claims of Global Cooling – loosely based on work by Hanson. but that was more a stick in Hanson’s eye.
Steve McIntyre’s preliminary look was favorable.
So where are all the sceptics quaking in their boots ?
Yes, I would have been happy had Best found all kinds of bogus manipulation in the datasets – and given the nature of many of the people involved (at CRU and GISS) I still reserve judgement on that. But aside from demonstrating another reason to distrust people I already do not trust that would be meaningless.
There is little dispute over the general shape of the human recorded land temperature curve for the past 200 years. Aside from issues such as were the 1800’s colder as BEST indicates, were the 70’s colder as many now warmists were claiming at the time (which would actually faver the AGW claim), and to what extent has the warming trend declined or ever reversed, there is not some incredible fight over the general shape of the temperature curve.
The dispute is over analysis. It is over the hockey stick – which best pretty much refutes.
It is over the difference between natural warming and man made warming – almost all of us accept that there is some of both. It is how much that matters. And I can not personally look at BESTS curves and say honestly that I see anyway that the human contribution is significant.
But maybe yours eyes are better at finding catastrophe in gnat hairs.
Precisely what this means is still debatable.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1282.html
Regardless, the GCM’s do not handle it. At very best for warmists, it indicates that variations in solar UV – which are much greater than variations in IR, have a significant effect on circulation patterns. At worst it is a new mechanism by which the Sun varies global temperatures. The current analysis suguests it effects only the distribution of heat rather than the average global temperatures – but it is disconcerting because periods of decrease Solar UV activity strongly correspond to periods of serious cooling.
On consensus
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478007a.html
If we stayed level at today’s CO2 level, perhaps things would not be too bad.
But we aren’t, the human GHG output grows exponentially (perhaps not as strongly in a financial downturn.) If this trend remains unchecked there is almost no level the CO2 won’t reach given enough time. That is the problem, its not even today’s high atmospheric CO2, its where we will get, faster and faster, in the future.
I don’t say a catastrophe is certain, I say its possible. You say its impossible. I say you and your fellow denialists are reckless and give much more of a damn about your obsession with a regulation-free world than the environment, which you have pretty much stated is protected by your nutball theory that positive feedback can’t exist in a natural system. I give a damn about the environment. As usual we live in two different universes, we have two nearly completely different sets of values.
CO2 has gone from 285ppm in 1880 to 380ppm in 2010 The increase has been slightly faster since 1970.
No one is claiming the increase prior to 1970 was caused by humans. The theory is the human contribution is the difference between the rate of increase prior to 1970 and the slightly higer rate of increase post 1970.
Human produced CO2 is trivial in comparison to natural CO2 – particularly that of the ocean. But again the theory is that despite the fact that our contribution is dwarfed by that of natural processes, that there are no negative feedback and anything humans create must increase the net atmospheric CO2.
Regardless, CO2 has been increasing for a long long time – Gore absolutely got it right that CO2 increases and temperature correlate. He just screwed up the causation part. CO2 increases LAG temperature increases. It is increased temperatures that cause increased atmospheric CO2 – there is potentially a positive feedback, though it is very small.
Of all the GHG’s that we know of CO2 is perhaps the weakest.
A great deal of the current debate is trying to derive the actual temperature sensitivity of the earth to CO2 increases.
The first issues to note is that the form of that sensitivity is X degrees C per doubling of CO2. So the effect of CO2 is logrithmic rather than linear.
Numerous aspects of the debate between so called sceptics and warmists is in deriving X.
Warmist claim the low range for X is 1.5C and the high may be greater than 4C.
They have their studies to try to demonstrate this.
There are other studies that appear to show sensitivity from 1.2C to below .5C. There is also evidence that the sensitivity is not log linear. – that the effect of CO2/doubling decreases with each doubling, and that there is an upper bound beyond which CO2 can not increase the earth’s temperature.
The debate between Dressler and Spencer is over deriving the energy budget for the earth – and from that calculating the actual sensitivity of the earth to CO2.
Today’s concentrations are not particularly high historically.
I do not claim catastrophe is impossible. I claim that in comparison to all the things we could worry about it is extremely unlikely.
If the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 was 4C or greater/doubling we would know that by now. The past decade would have been far different.
The past decade has been a gift to sceptics. Whether we understand what is going on or not it is absolutely clear that climate is far more complex than the models suggest. That there are other very large factors at play.
I personally beleive the evidence that the effects of the sun are far greater than the IPCC credited. But even should that prove false – the earth is just no behaving as the models have predicted.
Sure in another year or decade or century global temperatures could start climbing dramatically. But without knowing why the past decade was different, we can not claim to really understand enough about climate to derive causes with confidence.
I think it is highly unlikely that when all this is resolve that science will conclude that CO2 is a significant driver of climate.
During the later quarter of the 20th century it was somewhat reasonable to presume significantly warmer temperatures in 2100. Though there have been periodic unexplained – atleast by warmists plateau’s and even brief drops in global temperatures what is otherwise a strong increasing trend – a trend that accelerated slightly from 1970 through 1997, and it is probably one way or another that that small increase in the trend was the signature of humans (even if it may have been caused by something other than CO2)
A warmer 2100 is still not the same as a catastrophe.
As I have said repeatedly – I sincerely hope warming continues.
The effects of Global Warming are net positive. Those of cooling almost all negative.
Absolutely there must be some point at which warming becomes a catastrophe.
As we have moved forward the catastrophic predictions from as much as 4C of warming have proven increasingly unlikely. I am not exactly sure where we are now, but ocean level increases have declined from 100’s of meters to a few centimetres. The melting of the poles is increasing unlikely. In fact the southern hemisphere – and particularly antartica is cooling (and growing) and the infamous maldives are growing rather than shrinking.
Presuming the earth does resume its warming – which I suspect it will probably when the sun leaves its minimum in a bit more than a decade, 4C in the next 100 years will be highly unlikely. But even if it somehow occurs, it is highly unlikely to be catastrophic.
I will not argue that the effects for everyone will be positive – they will not. People will die who would not have died otherwise – but more people will live who would have died otherwise.
Essentially we are back to the same argument as free markets.
Leaving things to work as they do on there own will cause both harm and good. But the good will outweigh the harm.
Ah, some actual progress, a slight softening of the rhetoric and an admission that a positive feedback Could occur. Bravo.
Yes, it would be ironic if we made a massive effort to combat global warming and then global cooling occurred. But that seems like a red herring to me, yes we are in an interglacial, no we have no idea when the pendulum will swing back. As well, since we both admit that that climate system is terribly complex, destabilizing it may in the end lead to cooling after the warming. Which is the reason I am really prefer to talk about climate change rather than global warming. In the long run, a warmer planet can lead to a colder one via cloud and albedo effects, its certainly an unknown but its possible. Just don’t destabilize the climate; that would be the Conservative thing to do.
When one tries to correlate CO2 with heat over the entire earths history it does not work, because CO2 has a warming effect, All Other Things Being Equal, but through the earths history everything was FAR from equal, continents move, ocean currents were not the same when the continents were in a completely different configuration, etc. The vegetation has been different. The Sun has been different. The biosphere has changed, oxygen producers, oxygen users have waxed and waned. The atmosphere has been different. If its hard to sort out the effects of CO2 now, then its about impossible to pick out its contribution to a series of radically different systems. So, I just ignore that, its interesting but highly deceptive and just not relevant. I’d call the CO2-temp relationship over hundreds of millions of years one of the weakest denialist arguments.
Its as much time for pontification as I have today, I’ve got work deadlines and a car repair to do.
I am glad that you seem to recognise that negative feedbacks are possible.
I would ask, pretending you are have never heard of AGW, would you presume that the earth response to warming by say CO2 would be dominated by positive or negative feedbacks ? Unregulated Positive feedbacks are rare to non-existent. They are nuclear chain reactions, and result in destruction. If we really are on a CO2 positive feedback ride – we might as well go back to living in caves, because one way or another that is where we are headed.
Actually we have a pretty good idea that the pendulum is poised to swing back. The hysteria over Global cooling in the 70’s we because we are near the inflection point. The question is how near – 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years ? Cycles ranging from 10,000, to 1million years can not be measured that precisely. Further though the cycles are regular, they are not perfectly regular. This one could be longer or shorter. Beyond that we do not know enough about what causes these cycles to accurately predict the future beyond the generalisation that sometime soon – in geologic time, the earth is going to get much colder.
Further most of the problems we have predicting the start of the next ice age apply equally to Global warming. We do know the transitions are sharp – again in geological time, and preceded by abrupt warming.
I am pretty sure the past correlation between CO2 and warming is fairly well established.
Yes, CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. And if the direct effects of CO2 were all we cared about this debate would be over and I would have one handily. No one argues that CO2 alone can sufficiently warm the earth to be a problem. The vast majority of AGW theory depends on strong positive feedbacks. The quest for the elusive CO2 sensitivity value is the search for the planets response to CO2 in the system as opposed to the laboratory.
The lab effect of CO2 is insufficiently large to be a concern.
The AGW theory is:
CO2 mildly warms the planet. This warming increases water vapor – which is presumed to be a strong positive GHG – possibly as much as 4 times as potent as CO2. Further the warming reduces the oceans ability to hold CO2, releasing even more into the atmosphere.
CO2 is a mild GHG. Warm water can hold less CO2 than colder water.
The later is the likely reason that CO2 lags warming and not the other way around.
But the behavior of water vapor is extremely complex, and the Global Climate models for it are extremely simple.
One of the most significant debates has been over the nature of water vapor as feedback. There are studies showing it as both strongly positive and strongly negative.
Even clouds are not simple. The sign on the feedback of clouds seems to vary with their altitude. If I recall correctly low clouds contribtue to surface warming, but high clouds result in net cooling. This is why the CERN Cosmic Ray results are so threatening to warmists.
Anyway Aside from Al Gore i am not aware of any warmists of consequence still arguing that past warming was directly caused by CO2. Though most everyone agrees that CO2 has a minor warming effect, It is considered a follower in the past rather than a driver.
AGW posits that this time is different.
Even if you think the lags argument is weak, until recently the Climates sensitivity to CO2 has been based on that past that is complex and not clearly understood.
It is only within the past few years that we have had the tools to try to derive the climates sensitivity to CO2 through other means. Again this is the Dressler Spenser argument.
What is the energy budget of the earth ? If we can accurately observer the earth from the OUTSIDE, the energy budget of the planet becomes much simpler. How much energy goes in, how much out ? There are other complexities, but they are far less than dividing the planet up into myriads of cells, and mathematically modelling each of these.
Further from outside observation and measurement, we can accurately derive values such as the CO2 sensitivity that we have had to fudge before.
While it is arguable that more recent increases in the rate of CO2 increase are not due to humans, It is likely that the minuscule human contribution is responsible for the increase in the rate of increase since 1970.
Warming has all but stopped over the past decade. CO2 has continued to increase.
AGW has no credible explanation for that. Of the thousands of pro AGW papers over the past 3 decades, only a handful relatively recently have addressed this.
AGW theory is like a bowling ball being held up by tooth picks – it can be done, but it only takes a few tooth picks to fail before it comes crashing down.
Dhlii
Out of curiousity, what are you basing your comment that warming has stopped over the last decade on? The recent data I have read does not support that at all.
I have been careful in my choice of words. While I personally beleive we reached a peak in 1997, have plateaued and are starting to decline – following natural cycles that predate all this AGW hysteria. I also beleive(hope) that we will see a return to significant worming – probably in a decade or two. But that is speculation no better informed than that of the IPCC.
You can argue with me over whether we have had slight warming, cooling, or no change over the past decade.
There are even a few warmist sites playing statistical games that can produce graphs that appear to show something close to a continued trend.
But you can take just about every major source of temperature data and compare the last decade to the preceding three and unless you are blind recognize that we are no longer following the same path we were for the preceding thirty years.
We are well below all but the most recent warmist projections.
We are almost a full degree C below Hansen’s 1988 Scenario A nearly as much below Scenario B and still below his best case scenario C
We can argue about the accuracy of past predictions and many are. Regardless, it is hard to credibly argue based on current data for an increase of more than 1C in the next century. I beleive that is less than the preceding two centuries.
We are only 1 decade into the 21st century and predicting based on one decade are weak (just as the warmist predictions based on three decades are weak). Anything could happen in the future – and that is the point.
Dhlli: “Warming has all but stopped over the past decade.”
What are you basing this comment on. The data I have reviewed does not support this claim at all.
Dhlli: “Warming has all but stopped over the past decade.”
What are you basing this comment on. The data I have reviewed does not support this claim at all.
Are you honestly prepared to argue that the past decade has continued to follow the 1970-1997 trend ? Or even the trend from 1850-2000.
There are pissing contests between various factions over whether we had warming or cooling since 1997. I have heard no one – not even the IPCC high priests like Trendberth and Jones argue that we are still following the trend of the last quarter of the 20th century.
Here is the past century and a half from NOAA.
So because we have a 10 year period not following the same trend, and you claim warming has stopped?
AMAC;
The earth has been warming since the depths of the little ice age.
The AGW claim fails completely if warming between 1970 and the present is not significantly greater than at any time in the preceding 200 years.
I have specifically avoided claims that warming has stopped or even that the earth has cooled in the past decade – it is possible to play statistical games and get a 10 year warming or cooling trend with equal credibility.
What you can not get is anything close to a continuation of the preceding 30 years. i would note that the solar cycle is 11 years long and that is a harmonic for other longer cycles – like 33 years.
Further adding the past decade to the preceding thirty years AT BEST you get warming at a rate matching that of the preceding 200 years – a time when no scientist on the planet thinks humans had any effect.
However you look at the current trend, it is increasingly impossible to attribute any consequential portion of the planets warming to humans.
My best guess based on the anticipated behavior of the sun, is atleast 1 more full solar cycle of cooling, possibly more, followed by a resumption of the warming as it was 1970-1997. But that is a guess. It is entirely possible we are at a peak, preparing to enter another “little ice age” – there is again another 200+ year solar cycle that suggests that, or worse that we are approaching the end of an interglacial – which is almost certain, though whether we are 10, 100, or several thousand years away from the beginning of a real ice age is unknown.
My explanations do not matter. I am not claiming to know everything about climate. I am not claiming to be able to predict it enough to make public policy decisions of enormous cost and consequence.
What does matter, is that this is inconsistent with AGW theory. The desperation with which Trendberth is pursuing stored heat deeper and deeper into the ocean is specifically because of this.
Whatever the earth is doing, it is not what the GCM’s predict – not even close. I will not pretend that the high priests of AGW have no explanations, but the explanations are getting more and more complex, and convoluted, and are starting to contradict critical elements of their own theory.
This is a big part of the spat over Spencer’s remote sensing article.
Trendberth has been looking for the “lost heat” for some time. Dressler purportedly demonstrated that it had to be here somewhere, Spencer’s paper essentially demonstrated using physics and thermodynamics, that in all likelyhood the “missing heat” had radiated into space.
Regardless, warmists do not actually know where it is, the thesis that it is deep in the ocean is because we have pretty much proven it is not anywhere else. But that theory has problems – the capacity of the oceans to store heat is enormous, even if the missing heat is deep in the ocean that would do serious damage to the models – though things are even worse if it is not. Separately, while we do not have good records of deep ocean temperatures, we have fairly good records of shallower temperatures and any heat in the deep ocean had to pass through the surface and it has not.
Forgive me a moment of political reflection, but I’d like to take this opportunity to discuss something that’s been on my mind for a very long time.
I’ve always understood the Republican Party to have, as its central platform, the idea that human beings should never be dominated by a monolithic government which tells them how to live their lives. I like that. It feels like a fundamental truth, and I can’t imagine any right-minded person finding fault with it.
I’ve also noticed that there are many in the Grand Old Party who insist on telling people exactly how they should live. For example: Alcohol, yes. Pot, no. Straight marriage, yes. Gay marriage, no. Jesus, yes. Others prophets, no. The death penalty, yes. Abortion, no. Capitalism, yes (by force if need be). Collectivism, hell no! Added to this is an inclination to find anyone who chooses these other paths to be deeply repugnant. All of which causes me to wonder, is there a middle ground? In fact, are there big political gains awaiting those of a conservative bent if they can figure out a way to celebrate individual freedom while simultaneously tolerating diversity of opinion and lifestyle?
With that in mind, I humbly propose the following slogan designed to both embrace this paradox and ignite the general electorate in the coming presidential campaign.
“Vote Republican and be free to live your disgusting life”
AGW skeptic Blogs sweep the “Bloggies” – including a lifetime acheivement award for Watts up with that.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/skeptic-weblogs-sweep-global-award-categories-this-one-is-on-the-readers/
Are alarmists ethical ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ethicists-blast-chair-of-science-ethics-panel-for-taking-global-warming-skeptic-groups-papers/2012/02/22/gIQAMZqjTR_story.html
What is fairness going to get you
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/02/26/want-more-fairness-look-to-europes-basket-cases/
Some say corporate greed does not exist and would not be any problem if it did. Some say otherwise!
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs
By GREG SMITH
Published: March 14, 2012
TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
Enlarge This Image
To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.
It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.
But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.
I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.
How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.
What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.
Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.
When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.
My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.
I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.
Ian, a very telling letter. Thank you for posting it. Moral bankruptcy, moral confusion, and “culture” (within companies and collectively as a nation of people) are the core and also all around the core of our country’s problems and the world’s problems.
By now I shouldn’t be astounded at the Black Knight’s post below, but the post below is particularly glaring as an example of a mental handicap.
I have no idea how to distinguish “Greed” from Legitmate self interest – and I doubt that anyone else does either.
I have no special love for Goldman – I know that giving Goldman $10B while allowing Lehman to fail demonstrates the evil of government picking winners and losers.
As to Greg Smith – he is free to chose where he works, free to voice his opinions, and Goldman’s customers are free to stay or go. One of the problems with all the ranting about greed is that if Goldman is not truly serving the interests of its customers – it will not survive long – that is how free markets work.
We repeatedly hear arguments that the poor the less well educated the less able need governments protection – otherwise evil greedy corrupt businessmen will deceive and cheat them. The presumption of liberalism is that the rich and powerful – AKA Goldman’s clients are knowledgeable and powerfull enough that they do not need the protection of government, yet the argument here is the opposite. If Goldman’s rich and powerful clients are sufficiently weak to be vulnerable to deception by Goldman – then those same clients are insufficiently powerful that the rest of us require protection from them.
In fact absent the minuscule percentage of us truly incompetent to manage our own affairs, the rest of us are capable of making our own choices and deciding our own values in life – where we invest, work, bank, eat, seek healthcare. If we are unable to take care of ourselves in one, we are unable in all, and we have all seen how badly things go when government tries to run everything.
I am not seeking to defend Goldman, just expecting that they are judged by the only group entitled to judge them – their clients, by the only standards that matter – the extent to which they meet their clients expectations.
dhlii, really? You have “no idea how to distinguish “Greed” from Legitmate self interest – and (you) doubt that anyone else does either. ” ??? Really. Wow. Amazing. It’s that nuance thing. Subtlety of meaning.
Actually, the distinction between amassing wealth and greed is quite recognizable and has been recognizable by the populace now and throughout history.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/25/the-greater-greed.html
Deciding where “excessive” comes in during a particular time period in history doesn’t have to be tangled in confusion with morality and perceptions of God. It can be very practical. People engaging the market place can be motivated by self-interest, competetive, agreessive. Those who put others out of business because they came up with a better way–that’s fine. Humans will allow that. Accumulating wealth by legitimate means–by providing something people actually need–people will allow that. Like heat applied to a material, there’s a WARPING point. The warping point comes in at a particular scale of dishonesty and trickery, knowingly harming people while providing no benefit to people, for the purpose of personal gain. People will hope it caves in upon itself like a rotten pumpkin, but sometimes it goes on and on and on, causing damage. Eventually, people will not allow it.
The distinction between legitimate self-interest and Greed–it’s just the sort of thing you have trouble with. I don’t know whether to remain frustrated by you, feel sorry for you, or be impressed that you can argue at all given your blind spots.
I think both Ian and dhlii have really missed the mark here. The “True Republicans” (codename for most of the Tea Party) believe that the best way for America is the corporate way. The Liberal agenda appears to be more of a socialist theme where doing the RIGHT thing (typically a leftist program) is good for America. Crows and Cows may make for interesting metaphors for squawking Republicans or cows that provide the masses milk, but they are a distraction from the core point. The Moderate position would be to do what makes sense.
One might ask where are we today? Both political parties practice something a friend of mine has termed as “Crony Socialism”. One of the things that change when power shifts from one party to the other is which crony gets paid with our tax dollars. In today’s political environment, the right and the left do everything possible to crush the other side which has led to political gridlock. There is no moderate voice that might sway either side for what is best for America. If moderates could elect 20 or more representatives to the House of Representatives, ten seats from each party, I believe we could see a fundamental shift in Washington politics. This is an opportunity for moderates to seize the day.
Michael, thank you for your post above. I agree that the “Moderate position would be to do what makes sense.” The moderate position adjusts depending on the conditions. So, for example, if our nation is addicted to foreign oil, and if this addictioin is causing problems for the nation’s people, then we do what is within our means to develop alternatives via private and public means. If in the future we see that we will soon be overwhelmed by the hum of a zilliion wind turbines, then we adjust our course accordingly. We don’t just continue because it worked previously.
Some would argue that “what makes sense”in a given situation is not knowable, or is merely an opinion of a small group of people, and therefore it is best to follow some principle or ideology that they are convinced is “the way things really are,” such as trickle-down type economics making all the boats float or a belief in government or belief in free markets or what-have-you.
Ok Rick, in your Orlando article, you correctly pointed out how righty sees assault rifles for civilians as necessary to overthrow a dictator should the need ever arise. You somewhat dismissed that notion by saying something like, good luck taking on state of the art military weapons with your glocks and AR-15s. Granted, an assault rifle cannot overcome a modern tank. But there are plenty of modern examples of rebellions and insurrections that either topple a government or put up quite a stout resistance with only small arms vs. tanks and such. One reason is that while a tank may be able to obliterate a house, it isn’t well suited to search a house, or successfully run a road checkpoint. You generally need people outside the tank to do those things. While there are lots of tyrants that would not give a second thought about indiscriminately killing their own population to get an enemy, in practice, it is hard to pull that off, the more they kill people that would have otherwise either supported or at least tolerated their tyranny, the more enemies they make determined to bring them down.
So, I searched the phrase, “were mattis and petraeus drinking buddies?” and I found this great article that explains everything that is wrong with the state of our society today. Now, let’s see if Mattis is not the one who would stab Donald Trump in the back. After all, he is one of four top generals who the White House has eliminated within the past decade. He is at risk of turning against the White House that stripped him of the only thing he valued in his life, namely his military career. In addition, he will not tolerate Congressional interrogation sessions that last several hours in duration as well as Dempsey tolerated it. Cheers. Okay, I hope there is no one chasing me around with a .38-six revolver tomorrow.
I would like to comment on the extremists debate over creation vs. evolution. First and foremost, I do consider myself a moderate. God, however, is not merely a “belief” to me but a fact. He has spoken to me audibly and has healed a broken hand of mine miraculously. I have also broken my left foot which had to have it set in a cast; the point I’m attempting to make is that God works in processes as well as in miracles. Perhaps evolution was a process and Adam and Eve were created miraculously. Unlike the far left evolutionists I don’t believe life evolved from a single life form or that us humans are related to tomato plants. If macro evolution was a reality, perhaps it was on a limited basis. Conversely, with regard to the far right proprietors of creation who believe that all life forms were created instantaneously, I would like to bring up this point; as an artist, I like to create paintings. I enjoy the process. It would not nearly be as fun if I just pointed my finger at a canvas and “instantly” created a painting. God is known as the Creator; perhaps He took his time with evolution because he enjoyed the process. Robert Carey
Hi Robert,
The advantage of labels is that they can transmit a lot of information quickly, the disadvantage is they often transmit some wrong or erroneous information at the same time. So in the interest of speed, let me label myself as a young-earth creationist Christian. I flatter myself that I have learned not to make to many assumptions, you are using the English language and you state you believe that God is a fact. The assumption might be that you believe the god that is described in the Bible, but I am deliberately trying to avoid that assumption about you. All that being said, the God that I believe in, speaks of a time when something called sin entered the world and it was sin that led to the existence of death. So if God painted creatures into existence, not so instantaneously as a spoken word, or let us call it 6 calendar days or whatever, but if He developed it over a longer period of time, He did it without the use of death. No lions killing the slower weaker antelope, no ant eaters eating ants, because that would be incompatible with my belief in the time line of Adam and Eve, then sin, then death. Not saying I am right (of course I believe I am right but I don’t claim to have either science to fully back my claim nor any moral authority to impose my belief on anyone else), I am just trying to point out the incompatibility of most all of evolutionary theory to most people that believe in the Bible and Christianity as I do.
Mike Hatcher
Hi Mike,
I’m glad you did not make any “assumptions” about me. I too, believe in the God of the Bible as well. When I say that God is a fact to me, let me elaborate; God spoke to me audibly twenty-two years ago, instantaneously healed my broken knuckles with a miraculous healing and answered a seemingly impossible prayer. Thus God, to me, constitutes a fact and not merely a belief (belief being in the eye of the beholder, and not necessarily with the masses; the masses once believed the world was flat.) It is good Mike, that you are a bit reluctant with regards to labeling, In retrospect, I really can’t even call myself a “moderate.” God has formed me into such a high level of individualism, and that I draw my beliefs from so many different venues, that to group me into any descriptive noun category is unfair. I do, however, have a basic science background and am currently working on my Bachelors of Divinity degree. As far as sin leading to death in the world, and correct me if I’m, wrong, but the only scriptural reference to this is Genesis 2:17, and this is relative of death to Adam and Eve, and not to the rest of the animal kingdom. I am well aware of the belief that when Adam and Eve sinned, the entire world was thrown into chaos as well. Once again, there is no scriptural references(correct me, please, if I am wrong) to back up this theory.I can, however, see both sides of the argument. I can see the old earth theorists side, in which God “took his time”, much like an artist or a sculptor would do. Conversely, I see the creationist side too; God could have “instantaneously” created the world in six literal days, as he instantaneously healed my knuckles. I just pray, Mike, that the world “wakes up” out of this us vs. them mentality and realizes that the real enemy is Satan, and not each other.
Robert,
First let me say it is a real pleasure to discuss anything but the current “hot topic” of the day with the same guys as I do on Rick Bayan’s current articles. A different topic with a different person, fun! Ok, I will restate what I think I hear you saying, and then it would be your turn to correct me if I have incorrectly stated your position. The Bible, as you read it, states Adam and Eve brought death upon themselves from disobeying, aka sinning but that did not necessarily change the status of animals. They, perhaps were already eating and killing each other prior to the sin of humans. I have a question, and I am not being rhetorical, are you stating that under this possible scenario, that humans were created to be immortal, never to die, but they lost their immortality to sin (a statement I happen to agree with) but that animals were not created immortal (a statement I would disagree with)? Ok, jumping ahead to any Biblical scripture to support my disagreement (assuming I understood you correctly). The first texts that pop into my mind are from Revelation chapter 21:4 which depicts a future that is absent from pain and death. This I concede, offers no more clarity as to if animals are inclusive, but as I have always understood it, if death is no more, then it does not remain anywhere, including no pain or death of animals. Isaiah 65:25 also comes to mind, wolves and lions becoming vegetarians. But even that, I admit is speaking of a future time, not definitely claiming “that is how it was in the past”. So I will have to take a rain check on that, I don’t have anything off the top of my head to definitively refute your concept with scripture, but I will search and try to make a better case, from scripture, soon.
Mike Hatcher
Hi Robert, Here is what I came up regarding sin having caused the existence of death. Starting at Romans 5:12 and ending at Romans 6:23- In short, sin came by one man, and the wages of sin is death. Ok then there is James 1:15- Lust becomes sin and sin fully developed becomes death. (Again I am just being choppy with my wording. I wrote down 1 Corinthians 15;21 – Has the same idea as Romans, by man came death, although sin is not mentioned in the last one, it seems quite in harmony with the other texts I gave. My summation is that the Bible explains that one man brought sin into the world and with sin, death was brought into the world. Still might not close the door on animals, but I would say there is pretty strong support that the Bible teaches that it is sin that causes death. In the absence of any reference to animals having sinned before Adam and Eve, I have to conclude they did not die prior to Adam and Eve’s sin.
Mike Hatcher
THE Old Lady, TNM, and a Train
Once upon a time a crippled old lady tried to wheel herself in her wheelchair across a railroad track at TNM. Unfortunately her wheel got stuck on an elevated spike in the middle of the tracks and she was too weak to dislodge or get out of her chair. Off in the horizon, a train appeared, heading to the old lady. Comments had exceeded 200 so Rick was gone, JB and Roby were on a self imposed exile, and Pat had recently got angry about something so had stepped away just to cool off for awhile. This left Jay, Mike, Ron, Priscilla, dduck12, and Dave. Jay was first to act, he immediately started screaming obscenities at the conductor of the train and insulting him for driving too fast. Mike said the situation reminded him of a story from his past and started rambling about some memory which no one understood or cared for. Ron P recognized the wheelchair as one of those astronomically overpriced government subsidized devices and ran to the restroom to vomit.
Trump had just tweeted that morning that people who were stupid enough to get themselves stuck in wheelchairs should have to prove citizenship before receiving aid. Priscilla stated that she thought Trump’s statement was rash, and she disagreed with the policy, but she felt that his policies should be given a chance to work, so she would abide by them until further notice. Dduck12, sat back in an easy chair and fussed at the others in the group for not doing anything. This left Dave, he approached the woman and first explained that he had nothing against euthanasia and she was free to allow the train to hit her if that was her choice. The woman assured Dave that it was her desire to receive assistance from Dave in getting out of the train’s path. Dave then offered a contract where he would unilaterally assist her without charge, he explained that he intended to use kinetic energy to dislodge the woman from her chair and the path of the train. He further explained that while some might label this action as “force” it was not, citing a 7th century BC Scythian Philosopher, that absence of coercion, there is no force. He then further elaborated that his planned action was more closely aligned with the definition of “work” according to the textbook PHYSICS by Randall Knight, on page 17 where work is defined by velocity multiplied by (SPLAT!) The End
Mike Hatcher
Oh, my. Giggling.
Hahaha, good one, Mike!
We couldn’t even help a crippled old lady off the tracks!
Congratulations Pat! You were the first to comment on this that did not get a direct email from me on it. I had sent it directly to Roby and to Rick who both indicated concurrence with my assessment.
Mike Hatcher
.
Wow, spacious and porcine free, thanks RonP.
Sanity: I believe Trump is sane in A Neroian way, but he is driving everyone else, right, left and center crazy.
I never really thought he was crazy, but then when Oprah’s name popped up I began thinking.
So a man has a great life in the twilight of his life. He has all the money one could want. He
lives in a penthouse of one of the taller building in NYC. Plays golf whenever he wants. Has a great looking wife and a young son that he can spend time with. And his older children have wonderful careers themselves. He gives all this up to put up with unending BS in DC, with unending personal attacks.
I have decided you have to be insane to make this decision.
He is responsible for his own craziness, and we are responsible for ours.
While I agree that Trump is “driving the left crazy” – that fault is their own not his.
As any parent of a toddler could tell you there is no “but he did it first” excuse for bad conduct.
I would further note that the anti-trump crowd is far more crazy than Trump.
Every tweet he writes is put under a microscope looking for the tiniest of errors and once the least problem is found frothing and foaming begins.
This has also sorted people out in my mind.
There are many on the left and right who did not vote for Trump, who do not like him, who accept that he is president and are capable of evaluating his actions objectively.
Alan Derschowitz is being crucified by the left for applying the same civil liberties and law standards to Trump as he has others throughout his life. He openly admits to disliking Trump and voting for Clinton – but still argues that much of this “witch hunt” against Trump is lawless and will ultimately cost all of us more of our rights.
Lawrence Tribe a highly respected constitutional lawyer has bought every evil Trump conspiracy theory that Louis Mensch has offered. I stand back and watch as someone I have greatly respected even when I disagreed with him. Someone who has been a significant influence on constitutional law in this country babbles obvious nonsense.
Trump did not make Tribe act like an idiot.
I can go on and on with myriads of examples both left and right.
dhii: You said you had no problem using the other thread, so why don’t you stay there? Let the rest of us with computer problems use this thread.
There are myriads of possible causes for the “slowdown”.
My educated guess is that links – particularly video’s slow page loading.
So I am avoiding links here.
I have lots of things I would like to link to.
David Stockman (a virulent Anti-Trumper) has a long and detailed column on antiwar,com shredding the entire Russia garbage piece by piece.
Stockman notes that the vaunted Intelligence community assessment is publicly available and laughably thin. It rests primarily on Russian propaganda on RT.
There is an excellent “The Hill” article by Alan Derschowitz noting that Mueller’s Flynn Plea almost certainly means that Trump/Russia is dead.
There is an article on CityJournal addressing exactly what takes place here on TNM.
Instead of confronting unpleasant Truth’s that do not fit into leftist naratives, we attack expressing them.
Free speach is supposed to permit offering repugnant lies.
Yet today even the Truth must be silenced if it is politically inconvenient.
The debate of the moment seems to be Trump’s comment about “people from shithole countries”.
Skipping all the inflammatory rhetoric and accusations of racism, in the end we still need to decide what we are doing about immigration.
I am disappointed in the debate over DACA as that debate seems to deliberately avoid directly confronting principles regarding immigration.
The 8-11million immigrants currently in the US under DACA are not the real issue.
The wall is not the real issue.
The path to citizenship is not the real issue.
The issues are:
Who are we going to let come to the US ?
How are we going to stop those we do not want ?
What does being allowed into the US legally mean ?
What does getting into the US illegally mean ?
What strikes me with respect to both the left and the right in the current debate on immigration is the illogic and incoherance of their arguments.
If you favor increased immigration – do you understand how that will run into conflict with our existing laws ?
What is your answer to the immigrant who does not have the skills necessary to be productive in a $7.25/hr job ? Do they go on welfare ? Do they work on the black market ?
What about the healthcare needs of this new cohort of immigrants ?
How are we paying for their healthcare ?
Are we prepared to turn immigrants away at ER’s ?
What of other government benefits ?
What does it require – besides occupying space in the US to be entitled to welfare, medicare, social security TANF, CHIP, SNAP, …. ?
What does it require to become a citizen ?
What does it require to be allowed to vote ?
We are currently calling Trump racist for seeking to deprive people from “shitholes” the ability to immigrate to the US.
If we allow everyone who wants in – and in that way avoid the appearance of racism.
How would denying them some or all of the other “rights” of US citizens and residents not be equally racist ?
The problem with any system of positive rights, is that we do not have the ability to provide those rights to the entire world, so we are obligated at some point to say these people get those rights and these others do not. That is inherently discrimination.
So where are you discriminating ? At the border ? At the job ? At the social services offices ?
For over a century we had a system where anyone could come to the US.
Where there were no government benefits, no entitlements, no minimum wages,
That arrangement had lots of problems, but it was also a period where standard of living for immigrants and everyone else in the US rose more rapidly than ever.
Whatever it is that you favor – how do you see that working ?
Regardless, whatever your position on immigration, I think it is reasonable to expect that you have thought it all the way through. That you have answers to more than who is allowed in. But what will happen when they arrive and how they will be dealt with.
I am not interested in screetches of “racism” unless you are fully prepared to provide illegal immigrants fresh over the border all the same rights as those who have been here for generations.
My answer is to open the borders, and completely eliminate all positive rights.
If you can not do that, you are inevitably force to discriminate somewhere.
Dave, I did not read all the rambling in this comment, but did read the important part. When Trump makes comments like the one they claim he made (and I believe he probable said it), then nothing else matters. All the energy is focused on him and his behavior. Doesn’t matter what else is going on. The gift to the democrats that keep on giving. Elizabeth Warren should be dancing in the street, she will be our first native american president.
Trump may possibly deliberately choose the most inflamatory way to say things.
But that fact is that Haiti and El Salvador are “shithole countries”.
That says little about the people from them.
With specific respect to immigration, unless you are accepting most everyone from everywhere you are GOING to have to discriminate.
My preference is open borders no postive rights for anyone. No automatic path to citizenship.
You are free to come here – but we guarantee you nothing.Not even a path to citizenship.
But I would retain “birthright citizenship” – those born here are citizens.
But we are not going to do that.
One of the things I do not understand about the DACA debate.
There is a huge distance between “we are deporting the dreamers” and we are guaranteeing them citizenship. I have no problem with “You can stay, but there is no guarantee you will become a citizen”.
Bur back to the real world.
We are not going to have “open borders”. Outside of libertarians no one is really arguing that.
Given that is the case – I find calling Trump racist because Haitians and El Salvadoran’s are not at the top of his list very disengenuous.
If we are not letting everyone in – we are saying no to someone. So who is that ?
And do I get to call you racist when you decide that certain people do not get in ?
Thinkprogress – not a right wing nut site, reports that the IRS spent 20M collecting 6.7M in delinquent taxes.
In search of the mythical russian collusion the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee have subpoena’d campaigns and others for all information they have involving contact with russians and those of russian descent.
An estimated 3M people in the US are of russian descent.
This exposes one of the holes in the “social media” Russian influence meme.
Social media allows anonymous accounts. It is not possible to ascertain the precise owner/user of these accounts.
Twitter/Facebook and others have searched their records for anonymous accounts. They are reporting as “russian influence” annonymous accounts based on guesses about who actually opened these accounts,. It is probable they are right – some of the time.
Tracing the ownership of thousands of accounts with certainty is not possible.
Further the criteria they are using are very broad. Everyone who opens a bunch of accounts is not a tool of the russian state. Everyone opening an anymous account in eastern europe or even Russia itself is not a tool of Putin.
When you cast a wide net – you catch alot of fish. But they may not be the fish you are after.
Prez $hitHole Speaks
Jay;
Unless you are for open borders then the only difference between you and Trump is who you are going to exclude.
Who are you going to exclude BTW ?
I would note that what Trump purportedly said is “shithol countries”.
Are you saying Haiti and El Salvador are not “shithole countries”.
Or are you saying it is racist to describe a sewer as a conduit for shit ?
More Bull $hit from President $hitHead
“Reason I canceled my trip to London is that I am not a big fan of the Obama Administration having sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for “peanuts,” only to build a new one in an off location for 1.2 billion dollars. Bad deal. Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!”
He cancelled because he was told the Nrittish people think he’s $hit and would treat him that way!
AND Bush ordered the embassy location closing, not Obama.
I can not find Trump approval ratings in the UK – but in Germany his approval is higher than Merkel’s. I would suspect that is true in Much of Europe. May’s approval is not so hot at the moment either. The odds of her surviving 2018 are far far lower than Trump.
As to Embassies. I think we can cut the state department by atleast 50% including embassy staff throughout the world.
Again I would suggest reading “the ugly american”.
Charles Murray a relatively (in)famous modern libertarain, moved from the left when while living in Thailand he discovered that US aide to Thailand did absolutely nothing for the Thai people, in fact it likely made their plight worse.
Our foreign services do an enormous amount of busy work to make themselves look important, but they do nothing meaningful.
If Murray and “The Ugly american” do not do it for you – Try Washington’s farewell address.
“But the president’s comment is appalling. For starters, this is the Oval Office and it is a responsibility of the president show some respect for his surroundings. Conservatives objected to Bill Clinton’s infamous behavior in the office, and then blew a gasket when President Obama put his feet on the Resolute desk. Any conservative who raged about all of that but shrugs at this sort of language in one of our national secular sacred spaces is a grade-A hypocrite.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/455394/donald-trump-makes-execrable-comment-about-haiti-and-other-countries
That grade-A hypocrite is you, Dave.
They must have read your side stepping shrugging it off comment earlier.
Why is the presidents comment appalling ?
Are you saying that el salvador and haiti are not “shitty countries” ?
BTW the Remarks were not made in the oval office.
With respect to Clinton – is it the fact that the BJ was in the Oval or that it was workplace sexual harrassment that is the issue ?
The president does not owe respect to a building or a room.
This is what we expect of the president
“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Not conservative. If Obama put his feet up on the Resolute Desk – more power to him.
Again Jay:
Who gets to come to the US and who does not ?
Any answer except everyone can come – which can not be made to work without eviscertating our system of positive rights, make you as discriminatory as Trump.
I am not interested in postured anger for people who hide from the reality that choices are going to havre to be made – and they know it.
Accusing others of being racists, gets us no where.
That is what is actually hypocritical.
Dave “Why is the presidents comment appalling ?”
Dave WAKE UP!!! Are we talking about the economy or are we talking about shit today?
That’s the problem. I could care less if the countries are shitty or not.
What I care about is this country not having another Obama or worse for president!!!!
Ron P;
I can not even find an argument in your article – besides “the critics are wrong”.
Exactly how would “national security” be harmed ?
We actually know from the Snowden and other WikiLeaks dumps from CIA, NSA, etc that mass surveilance has NEVER prevented a terrorist attack.
I would also suggest reading the report of the 9/11 commission.
The failure in 9/11 was not a lack of actionable intelligence, but an analysis failure caused by TOO MUCH intelligence.
NSA, CIA, FBI are so fixated on mass intelligence gathering they do not know how to find anything meaningful.
I would specifically note this is BECAUSE we have inverted the law on searches.
One of the reasons we require “probable cause” for a search, is that forces government and law enforcement to focus their efforts where they are likely to succeed.
Lets assume that we eliminate the need for a warrant all together and allow FBI to make whatever queries it wishes.
The results will be disasterous – the FBI would have to grow exponentially to be able to follow every possible lead it could find from unlimited information and Queries.
Even with more limited data collect and narrower legal authority our national security apartus failed on 9/11/2001.
Not because it did not have enough data – but because it had too much and no ability to gather what was known and convert it into a meaningful assessment of what was occuring.
Beyond that much of your article says “its legal, because its the law”.
I want to eliminate the law – so that it is NOT legal, and return to following the constitution.
You have far more confidence than I that our government does much that is actually useful.
Dave, so you do not believe this is a problem?
In paragraph 3 it states:
“Under current practice, the FBI is authorized to review its FISA data without a warrant, as long as the bureau follows specific court-ordered safeguards (called “minimization procedures”) and internal policies designed to protect privacy. Critics, however, consider such queries “backdoor searches” that circumvent the Fourth Amendment because they may reveal Americans’ communications”
Ron,
I am not sure what we are disagreeing on.
I do not want any warrantless searches of US Persons – not in the National Security context, not in that of law enforcement. Not Locally, not Federally.
I am near absolutist. I will give you REAL exigent circumstances, REAL inevitable discovery, and REAL in plain sight. That is it.
If your house is burning down and the police and firemen come to put out the fire and find a meth lab inside – I think you are screwed.
If the police knock on your door – without a warrant, and hear the toilet flushing, they do not get to break the door down because you MIGHT be flushing drugs.
Regardless, the law as it is is BAD.
I am not going to get what I want.
But we could atleast try to make it less bad.
The house did not.
Plunge Deeply!
Money Money Money Laundering Makes Prez $hithole’s World Go Round
“Secret Money: How Trump Made Millions Selling Condos To Unknown Buyers
A BuzzFeed News review of every sale of a Trump-branded condominium in the United States provides the first comprehensive look at how many went to unidentified buyers who paid cash, an indication of possible money laundering.”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/thomasfrank/secret-money-how-trump-made-millions-selling-condos-to?utm_term=.wv9OrQYjA#.kxvpANXyJ
The gist of your article is that neither Buzzfeed, nor the left, nor the government like it if they can not analy probe everyone involved in any free exchange.
I presume you have paid cash at McD’s or the grocery store.
If so – by the ignorant argument in this article – you are a money launderer.
BTW, there are about a bazzilion ways to accomplish exactly the same thing – without using cash either.
You can buy realestate with BitCoin, or with stock, or CDS’s or CDO’s or MBS’s or Bonds.
You know that just about every major merger or acquisition that ever takes place happens without exchanging any cash.
One of the things we do not understand as we enter the era of Crypto Currencies is that most “money” in the world today is NOT government issued in any form.
It is privately issued equities. It is just not the currency that most of us use.
Again you do not know what money laundering is.
Are you saying that you can not sell your home for cash to someone without doing a background check first ?
When you buy groceries at the Grocery store – do you pay cash ?
If so, does the Grocery Store have to check you out to be sure that you did not make that money selling drugs or as a hitman ?
Get a clue Jay. Free exchange is not a crime.
Money laundering should not actually be a crime.
Money is not governments business any more than lemonade is.
As a practical matter we should not be criminalizing ANY free exchanges between willing buyers and willing sellers.
Prohibition did not work.
The war on drugs has proven far worse.
Who’s talking about cash sales for groceries dummy. Million dollar cash sales for real estate?
That as it should sets off warning bells for investigators trailing drug money, and other illicit transactions to hide crimes.
from iPad email
>
So your argument is that you are allowed to pry into the business of others – if the amounts are large enough ?
Get a clue Jay,
Exchange is exchange. Groceries, real estate, frisbees.
What two people freely exchange with each other is NOT your business, nor the business of govenrment.
You are not entitled to meddle int he lives of others – just because you are curious.
In the instant examples – Trump got money, his buyers got real estate.
A perfectly legitimate transaction.
The whole POINT of money, and the who fallacy of money laundering laws, is that money itself carries no history, no moral value. It does nto care where it came from, or where it is going.
What you do not grasp is that it is SUPPOSED to be that way.
If you obtained money illegally – it is what you did to obtain the money that is the crime.
Not what you do with the money.
Nearly all money in US circulation has traces of cocaine on it – can we conclude that everyone possessing money is a drug dealer ?
Are you required to be able to provide the provenence 10 levels deep of every dollar you have ever acquired. ?
No amount of money exchanged for no asset should ever “set off bells”.
That is just a stupid slight of hand to pretend there is a back door into invading the privacy of others.
The value of ANYTHING is what a willing buyer and a willing sellor agree to.
No price shoudl ever set off bells beause all prices are legitimate.
Because no one else’s non-violent transaction of anykind is your business.
Your entire argument boils down to
I have a right to know what others are doing in their private life.
NO YOU DONT.
You have no more right to know about Trump’s real estate deals than you do what two men are doing in the privacy of their bedroom.
Other peoples voluntary non-violent exchanges are not your business.
This entire “shithole” debate is stupid and phony. Trump was obviously referring to the fact that Democrats only want to accept immigrants from extremely poor, uneducated countries.
First of all, this was a behind-closed-doors meeting. I have no doubt that this kind of salty language is often used in negotiations that are supposed to be confidential.
Secondly, the list of countries that Trump called shitholes (I’m not going to censor it here, since CNN and every other mainstream news outlet are all saying the full word) are, in fact, shitholes.
The Oxford English dictionary defines the word as a slang term for “a wretched place…a) a dirty or dilapidated dwelling, b) a remote, downtrodden, or unpleasant city, town, etc.” Examples in the dictionary go back to the 1930’s:
“1930 A. M. Frey Cross Bearers xxxiv. 249 But that will soon be over, he hopes; over as soon as he can get out of this ‘shit-hole’—the soldiers’ term which the officers adopt.”
and in the 70’s : “1973 W. Crawford Gunship Commander 11 I have already spent four miserable, rotten years of my life in that shit-hole and I am not going back.”
Finally, Jay, your often disgusting and scatological insults directed at Trump and Trump’s supporters are generally FAR worse than calling a shithole a shithole.
The pearl-clutching is quite amusing. And utterly fake.
Priscilla, do you REALLY think the media is going to tell people what the definition of “shithole” is? Do you really think the people are going to look it up?
NO!!! It is going to be the subject of conversation for the next month unless Trumps ignorance causes him to mouth off some other absolute stupid comment.
The best thing that can happen in this country is for someone to challenge Trump and due to his unfavorable ratings, maybe they can pull off an upset. And then maybe we can get a strong GOP candidate without Trumps baggage to run and defeat Mr or Mrs Ultra Liberal the dems are going to offer.
Oh and by the way, I believe he will also be fighting a Democrat congress after 2018 so there will be many more moronic comments for that two year period to build a campaign on.
Anyone trying to call Trump’s “Shithole countries” reference “racist” needs to move to Haiti or El Salvador.
If we are going to piss on anyone – it should be the Clinton’s among others – who profited from “relief” to Haiti while leaving the place an even bigger “shithole” than when they started.
I really do not like profiting off the misery of others.
Haiti currently is in double digits in every component of the “misery index”.
Regardless, I want to know how those criticising Trump are planning on limiting immigration ?
Or are we going full open borders and bankrupting our social safety net ?
The fundimental issue with immigration is that positive rights – entitlements, Minimum Wages, …. do not work.
Keep rationalizing the dizzying drool from a low-brow low-life president of the US: it splatters you with the same despicable slime as the simpleton who makes it.
It’s sad you lack the decency to speak out against this kind of behavior. Instead you have become a brainwashed apologist, making light of it.
tRUMP doesn’t have the decency, courage, or sense to just apologize for his inappropriate language, suggestive of racist inclination. Like you, he has to defend it. You two are peas in the same sorry pod.
Jay
the only one “rationalizing” is you.
Do you have a problem with calling a country few people would choose to live in a “shithole nation” ? If so please explain why ?
You and the rest of the left are busy calling Trump a Rascist, for accurately describing conditions in two countries.
The fake outrage is yours.
Are we not allowed to say that some places are really sucky places to live ?
Nor have you answered yet, whether you are advocating for open borders – MY position, and if so how are you solving the fact that our system of positive rights will fail with open borders ?
If you are not advocating for open borders then what are your criteria for restricting immigration ?
Ultimately you have to choose – and all choice is “discrimination”.
Yes, this is a trap. One created by the real world not me.
You can fully expect that the moment you identify some criteria for choosing who can immigrate and who can’t, that I am going to start calling you some kind of “hater”.
Because that is the hypocritical game you are playing.
I am not embarased by Trump’s remark and have no problem defending this one.
Are you able to be honest and then defend your own position against the same slurs you lobb at Trump ?
“It’s discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.”
Noel Coward
Ron, I don’t think that anyone is going to define shithole, and I’m not suggesting that it’s an appropriate term to use in public….although the term “hellhole” pretty much means the same thing, and is used all the time to describe places like Haiti, Ghana, Liberia, Afghanistan, etc.
What’s lost in all of this excitement over the word “shit” is the fact that the so-called “compromise” DACA proposal that was brought to Trump yesterday is worse than what we have now. Doesn’t stop chain migration, substitutes “temporary” sanctuary for diversity lottery, and gives outright citizenship to all DACA recipients. No E-Verify. No wall, Trump was obviously furious, used the word “shitholes” to describe the list of countries that would be allowed to legally migrate under this plan, and his words were twisted to sound as if he was specifically describing insulting the poor people of these countries.
Now, if this weren’t being blown up way, way out of proportion, or if Trump had used this kind of language in a press conference to describe certain hellhole nations which have been encouraged and incentivized to flood America with illegal immigrants, I would be really angry with him. As it is, I’m annoyed that he keeps distracting from his own success with his big mouth.
I no longer hold out any hope that a moderate Republican could win the Presidency ~ nor , for that matter, a moderate Democrat.The media would make it their business to destroy any GOP candidate. They called John McCain senile, they said he was a bloodthirsty warmonger. They called Mitt Romney a heartless, woman hater, who was responsible for the cancer death of a man who had lost his job at a steel plant that Bain Capital closed, and mocked him for not understanding that Russia was no longer our enemy. No moderate Republican would be treated any better than either of them, and every Democrat would be treated with the slavish respect that the media treated Hillary, or idolized as it did Obama.
Trump fights back. He may be coarse and crude, but he’s trying to accomplish what he promised in his campaign. Actions over words.
“It’s sad you lack the decency to speak out against this kind of behavior. Instead you have become a brainwashed apologist, making light of it.”
If I weren’t such a nice person, I’d tell you to go straight to Hell, Jay.
Priscilla;
I STRONGLY oppose e-verify.
It is not the role of private businesses, landlords, or employers to enforce the laws.
Government should not prohibit landlords for renting to anyone,
Employers from hiring anyone.
or businesses from exchanging with anyone.
The responsibility to enforce the law is with th government – not private businesses.
A path to citizenship is an entirely different discussion.
I support open borders. That does not inherently mean anyone who crosses a line in the dirt becomes eligable for citizenship.
I am perfectly comfortable with
automatic birth right citizenship.
Difficult or even impossible citizenship for immigrants.
Chain immigration is also a different issue.
Given that I think that anyone should be allowed to come here – but that just because they have crossed a line in the dirt does not create any obligation for the nation to them, I have no opposition to immigrants bringing their spouses, kids, grandparents, …..
But I am not getting what I want.
If we are allowed as a nation to decide who may enter and who may not.
We may also decide whether they can bring their relatives.
What Jay fails to grasp with his fake outrage over “shithole” is that ultimately we ARE going to DISCRIMINATE. No matter what criteria we use to limit immigration, it will likely be “racist” or some other form of odious discrimination.
Trump got elected because people are tired of being called hateful hating haters, because they do not duck their heads in the sand and pretend the world is or can be perfect.
I do not know the “nuances” of Trump’s meaning regarding “shithole nations”.
But I do know that we are not having open borders – whether I like that or not.
And that means we are going to tell alot of people NO!.
It does not matter whether we tell black people, brown people, yellow people, poor people, or muslims, NO! We will be “discriminating”.
The left needs to back off the holier than thou rhetoric OR start talkign about actual open borders and how to make that work. Otherwise this is a pretty vile form of hypocracy.
Calling someone else racist, because they are honest and you are not, is pretty “shitty”.
I do not personally give a damn about the wall.
Except that of all the possible wasteful government spending. Some low number of Billions for a Wall and a deal on this issue is a reasonable trade for me.
Dave, the way I see it, E-Verify forces private businesses to obey the law, and it takes away the ability of identity thieves to steal jobs and benefits from eligible citizens. I’m not sure how we do that otherwise…..
DACA amnesty for an end to chain migration and the diversity lottery would be a fair trade , in my mind. I don’t care about the wall either, but since it’s Trump’s signature thing, he’d need to get some $$ for it, I suppose. I certainly would be opposed to $40B.
No e-verify does n to force private businesses to obey the law.
The law has no business telling others who they can and can not hire.
Regardless, this is not making private businesses obey the law – it is making them enforce the law. That is governments job.
It is also stupid – though I have problems with this too, every employer in the country has been required to get two forms of ID from every hire. Every employer is required to report to the state and federal government the names, wages, and SS# of every employee working for them 4 times a year. That is perfectly sufficient for government to verify status.
Further, government can detect whether someone is using a fake SS#. An employer can’t.
e-verify just adds another stupid step. It also makes an employer both responsible and into a criminal without good reason.
What do you call “DACA Amnesty” ? The left is after more than “legalization” they are after citizenship.
I do not consider allowing someone to enter the country and granting them citizenship to be equivalent. I have far more problems with government infringing on immigration than I do with their restricting citizenship.
While I see plenty of room for compromise here.
My personal objective would still be:
Open borders,
Difficult citizenship
an end to positive rights – at the very least an end to positive rights for non citizens.
So, more importantly, was Fusion GPS allowed to run unsupervised FISA-702 queries, as an FBI contractor?
Certainly is looking as if that may possibly have been the case.. if it turns out to be true, it will be a scandal of unprecedented proportion. Even bigger than the President saying “shithole”!
https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=34867
Priscilla, what a good review of this information. Many here may not believe this, but somehow I think all of this is going to be swept under the rug like so much other underhanded stuff the government does so people do not become interested with their government and what it really does.
Right now we have people living in their own little worlds thinking our government can pass surveillance laws and it will never impact them. Just like the re authorization of the FISA 702 section that I believe should be totally unconstitutional, people also believe that “some” gun control can be passed and it will never infringe on rights. If they can snoop on foreign officials phones and attach that to private citizens phones that have any contact with the one being investigated, then why should we believe anything our politicians tell us? The fourth amendment states we should be secure in our.persons, homes, papers and possessions. These are not to be searched without a warrant being issued.
According to numerous sites, the following gives a very good description of what I consider unconstitutional searches. “The NSA, CIA, and FBI are all permitted to search 702-acquired information with U.S. person identifiers (such as names or addresses). Critics have dubbed this the “backdoor search” loophole, because it enables the government to obtain information that would have otherwise required a warrant. Today, the NSA and CIA can only query 702-gathered information with a U.S. person identifier after creating a “statement of facts showing that a query is reasonably likely to return foreign intelligence information.” However, this restriction does not apply to the FBI.”
AND, with any information acquired through this method, the FBI can pursue legal action in other cases with information acquired by this means. That is one of the sticking points I have heard concerning some of the investigation into the Russian issue and the Trump tower meetings.
So everyone enjoy the warmth of the pot of hot water you are setting in. The frogs did!
If you conduct a search for information on a US person you must get a warrant.
We have played too many games with the 4th amendment.
Whether it is in the context of NSa surveilance, or SWAT raids – GET A WARRANT!!!!
If you want records on someone held by a third party – bank records, phone records GET A WARRANT!
Jay is ranting that Trump’s sales of condo’s might be money laundering.
Why is Jay or anyone else entitled to know what others are buying and selling ?
Why is what your neighbor is doing your business ?
Right, Dave, it’s not our business if our neighbors are committing crimes.
Or their business if I’m committing crimes.
And if Schlump is doing something to skirt or break the law, it’s nobody’s business.
Thanks for clearing that up.
If your neighbors are not harming you – then no, it is NOT your business.
You deciding that some behavior of others that you do not like is a crime – does not give you the right to invade their lives.
If your neighbors are growing Marijuana in their basement – is that your business ?
BTW there is no “skirt the law”.
You are breaking the law, or you are not.
If you are not guilty you are innocent.
Law actually is BLACK AND WHITE. Or atleast it is supposed to be.
To paraphrase Judge Learned Hand
“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that he obeys the letter of the law; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best suits the spirit of the law. There is not even a patriotic duty to obey the pirit of the law. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to skirt the law. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to obey the spirit of the law.
The obligation to make laws clear belongs to legislators.
This is also why our laws must be as limited as possible.
Finally, If Trump is not acting to actually harm other people, if he is meeting the voluntary agreements he has made, and if he is making whole anyone he actually harms – then I have no interest in what he is doing, and no right to know. And I do not care if it violates YOUR laws.
This is true for Trump, and for Ron, and Jay, and Prescilla and all.
You know, Ron, for many years, I have always believed that we should give our intelligence agencies whatever tools they said they needed, to protect us from terrorists and others who would do us harm.
And I could not understand why “crazy libertarians” opposed the Patriot Act, and why Rand Paul wanted to filibuster bills that he said would violate our rights under the guise of protecting us.
But, now, seeing how we’ve been gently warming up in the soon to be boiling pot of government water, I get it.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Ben Franklin
Buying government claims that for a small part of our liberty they will provide security never works out.
I have been repeatedly asserting that all good things of the modern world that we attribute to government, are not the conquence of government, they are the consequence of producing more value with less human effort allowing us to seek more with the surplus.
Almost no one cared about pollution in 1500 – because survival was more important.
We have consistently made our lives cleaner, and better when ever we can afford to do so.
Passing laws that demand what is inevitable is stupid.
Just as I do not beleive that the EPA has made our air and water cleaner – that was happening regardless.
The NSA and CIA and FBI do not make us safer.
For 150 years we ran the country perfectly well with none of these.
Even in the modern era the USSR was destroyed by its inability to compete with free markets not our diplomatic or national security aparatus.
While I am not inclined to absolutism here. I can not think of any instance in which these organizations have actually “saved” us.
Mostly they use every bad thing that happens as an excuse to tell us that with more power they can prevent it.
Government is the only thing in the world that grows stronger the more it fails.
I do not know if what you linked to is true.
But even if false Fusion GPS should not be a government contractor.
We do not have the DNC as a federal contractor.
We do not have lobbying firms as federal contractors – or atleast I hope not.
We should never allow private contractors access to either foreign intelligence or criminal prosecution data.
Dave, please note paragraph 3
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/11/_fixes_to_fisa_could_severely_harm_fbi_national_security_investigations.html
Matthew Dowd – Country over Party – Independent – has these words to say about the Vile ShitForBrains presidents remarks:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/opinion-trumps-hole-remarks-sad-moment-america-white/story?id=52309275
Jay;
While I do not have any problem with calling a “shithole” a “shithole”.
Sen. Durbin the source of this garbage has just shit himself further by claiming the term “chain migration” is an offense to people who came here in chains.
And hoop earings are “cultural appropriation.”
What is increasingly clear is this is all garbage and democratic brinksmanship.
On Jan 19th congress must pass a budget or shutdown.
Democrats are using the shutdown threat to leverage a better DACA deal.
I have ZERO problems with that. But I think it is a dangerous gambit that may well backfire on them.
Durbin’s efforts to equate not capitulating to democrats on DACA to “racism” is an effort to paint democrats as the “good guys” in this.
They are not. They do not even know what they want.
Obama’s DACA directive – found illegal by the courts, did not create a “path to citizenship”.
Democrats want more than DACA. They want real “amnesty” far beyond the fake version Obama provided.
Most of us have sympathy for the “dreamers”, we also have sympathy for Hatians and El Salvadorans, and … no one should have to live in a “shithole nation”
But that does not alter the fact that we are not obligated as a nation to raise the standard of living in Haiti or to guarrantee that Hatians can come here.
There is a deal to be made on this. Give Trump his wall. End or narrow “chain migration” or whatever less offensive term you wish to use, and allow the non-criminal dreamers to get a green card. That is what Trump is offering. The majority of people think that is reasonable.
Durbin and Senate Democrats are resorting to the PC politics of hate, because that deal will look too much like a loss for democrats.
If that is losing – they had better be prepared for more.
Durbin has seriously pissed off Trump. Trump may say F’it and let the government shutdown.
A republican president shutting down the government has the ability to better shield his constituency than the House did in 2013 with Obama who went out of his way to shutdown parts of the government that were self sufficient in order to anger Republican voters.
Personally I am for a LONG shutdown I think we could function quite well on the about 70% of the federal government that remains in a shutdown.
But I am not sure that particularly in an election year Republicans have the balls for that.
I would also suggest that it would be unwise to assume the political fallout from this.
From the initial insurgency in 2009 – Republican voters have been angry – with Republicans. Republican party approval has been in the tank. And yet election after election democrats keep getting turned out of office.
Regardless, you claim to be “moderate” you claim to value “compromise”.
Are you capable of demanding that democrats finance the government – and the law is changed to permit the socalled Dreamers to stay, and that in return you are prepared to cede to Republicans some of the security demands they have made.
I would further note that there is some important history and bad blood you are missing.
Reagan was promised the Wall in 1986 The Wall is already LAW.
Democrats have refused for 30 years to fund it.
There are still a very large number of people very angry about being betrayed by republicans and democrats. The Reagan “amnesty” is to most republicans proof that democrats are not trustworthy.
Naw, not true, even tho the WSJ says so: Donnie would never grope, pee on prostitutes, or have sex with a porn star while married. No way. Un Un. Faux news.
Lawyer paid $130k to silence adult-film star over sexual encounter with Trump: report
BY AVERY ANAPOL
A lawyer for President Trump reportedly arranged a six-figure payment to a former adult-film star to keep her from discussing a sexual encounter with Trump, according to a new report Friday.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Cohen, an attorney for the Trump Organization at the time and now Trump’s personal lawyer, arranged for Stephanie Clifford, known in the industry as Stormy Daniels, to receive $130,000 as part of a nondisclosure agreement one month before the 2016 presidential election.
So Trump had an affair with a porn star – one that was actually reported on at the time, and pair her 130K to be quite about it ?
What is your point ?
We could only hope that the worst Clinton did was pay people to be silent about affairs.
Clinton got in trouble because he was a serial sexual harrasser, rapist, and lied under oath.
And even so he managed to stay in office.
Trump’s conduct with women bother’s me – though nothing about this particular affair does,
but he is still not near Clinton, at worst he is Franken or Biden lite.
there ya go again in whataboutism mode.
You are pathetic.
He’s a hypocrite liar adulterer who deserves focussed contempt while in office.
No “whataboutism”
“Consensual sex between adults is nobody’s business except theirs & their spouse/partner.”
Glenn Greenwald.
I long ago condemned Trump for his actual sexual harassment.
I do not need to do it 4 times daily.
I would prefer that all our politicians had good character and treated people – men and women decently. But that ship has sailed.
It is NOT “whataboutism” to note that if we are going to fix things – we should start with the most egregious offenders. Trump is pretty far down that list.
“He’s a hypocrite liar adulterer”
that description fits most of congress.
I do not have enough hours in the day for that much “focussed contempt. “
Well dont this beat all. Whats the difference between a shit show and a shit hole?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3485830/Barack-Obama-warned-David-Cameron-destroy-special-relationship-did-not-boost-defence-spending-free-riders-aggravate-me.html
So is Obama a racist ?
Is it ok for Obama to use shitshow in communications with foreign leaders but not acceptable for Trump to use shithole in communications with members of congress ?
There is alot to berate Trump for.
There is no need to make garbage like this fake outrage over shithole up.
This will fall on despicable deaf ears, but what the hell…
Jay, it is possible to consider a country like Haiti a shithole, and have sympathy for its people.
I have great sympathy for the Haitian people, whose nation was robbed by the Clinton Foundation, to the tune of many billions of dollars, after the devastating earthquake that struck Haiti in 2010
Perhaps, if the Clintons had been even a little less greedy and corrupt, Haiti today would be less of a shithole, and its people would have decent homes, along with good schools and hospitals.
But, I’m sure that you don’t want to hear about that…..
Grow up.
Here’s another sane moderate conservative voice.
Pay attention to the ‘ear wax’ reference.
Still not getting it.
Unless you are an open borders proponent AND going to explain how you are going to make our system of positive rights work with openborders – you are nothing but a hypocrite.
You are WORSE than Trump.
I can make a perfect moral argument that barring Hatians and El Salvadorians is racist.
I can also make that argument without any hypocracy – because I actually do what open boarders, and I want to end our unsustainable system of positive rights.
But you do not accept those positions.
And anyone holding any other position while criticizing Trump is just a hypocrit.
Just to be clear as aide organizations go – the Clinton foundation is not alot worse than most. ‘
The fact is no government aide, and very little private aide is effective for undeveloped countries.
Arguably it makes things worse not better.
We know what works. China went from $300/yr to $11,000/yr since 1974 merely by slowly increasing economic freedom at the margins.
Aid does nto work – free markets do.
You want to help people – give them freedom. Nothing else comes close.
So it is OK for Obama to use “shitshow” in conversations with the IK prime minister, but not OK for Trump to use “shithole” in conversations with members of congress ?
Please spare us the fake outrage Jay.
Again – are you planning on taking every immigrant who wishes to come to the US ?
Or who are YOU planning on discriminating against ?
I am not interested in your pissing over Trump saying what everyone knows – that choices will have to be made, unless you are actually going to advocagte for open borders and tell us all how you are making that work ?
You seem to like to accuse others of hypocracy. How about your won ?
Why are you better than Trump ?
Atleast he is honest about what he intends – how about you ?
Read this and STOP rationalizing.
My views are close to Jonah’s.
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/455420/trump-shithole-comments-authenticity-misunderstanding
WordPress Sucks, second try
Jay, this guy can say much better what I have been trying to say since you went on your trump hemmorrage with trying to keep up with Dave on the number of comments daily.
“Many liberals seem to think that if they can just prove Donald Trump is racist, The Trump Show will be cancelled. But it doesn’t work that way, not least because — all evidence to the contrary — we are not living in a reality-TV show”
I remember a story about Truman giving a speech, possibly to an agricultural association and he was talking about the benefits of manure. One of Bess’s friend leaned over and asked her why Harry could not use the term “fertilizer” and Bess said ” do you have any idea how long it took me to get him to say ” manure”?.
I dont condon what Trump said. It is typical of those that have total control of a business where they can say anything they want and all their minions are going to go off and never mention what their boss did or said. Otherwise they just quit and go to work somewhere else. And, then there are the women that get paid for silence.
It doesnt work that way in politics. Trump still acts and operates like everyone will keep their mouths shut. Never happen.
So we are stuck with him until 2020. And then the liberal agenda can progress. Free college for everyone. free healthcare for everyone, bans on all new drilling, massive tax applid to oil products, size and weight limits on vehicles not considered commercial, no right to work laws in any state, tax increases on upper incomes and esrates exceeding 1,000,000, more controls on fat, sugar and calaries with high taxes applied to those products, reduced military spending and extensive EPA regulations further !imiting individual lroperty owners rights.
But one good thing, the net will be neutral.
“So we are stuck with him until 2020. And then the liberal agenda can progress.”
Unless that is the Republicans do what’s best for the nation ( they won’t) and dump ShitHole Trump for a respectable candidate.
Republicans are responsible for electing him.
Now we all will pay the price for that stupidity when the pendulum sharply swings to the Left.
Eeyore;
Do you have anything to actually offer – beyond more generic “Argh! Trump!” the world is going to hell blather ?
Trump as president has been DOING alot of what is “best for the nation”
He has been shrinking government, fighting regulation, getting government out of the way of growth. And we are seeing benefits from that.
Republicans have passed tax reform – imperfect reform, but still a significant improvement.
Trump and Republicans are serious about immigration reform. They are prepared to give far more than I would have expected. But they are thus far committed to not repeating the political mistakes of the past. They are after commitments from democrats that have teeth, that are enforceable, that are not going to lead to another inrush of 1-1.5M illegal immigrants a year and the problems that come with that.
What I see right now is democrats fixated on style rather than substance.
Durbin’s “Compromise” was no compromise, and it was DOA.
Democrats have their own very serious problem here.
There base, that they require if they are to stand any chance in 2018 is demanding no capitulation on anything. At the same time public support for every Trump immigration change is over 60% and many have 80% support.
Republicans are not responsible for electing Trump – voters are.
The pendulum is not swinging left, the left and the right are just moving farther apart,
The middle is increasingly thin.
Jay “Republicans are responsible for electing him.”
I thought this debate had run its course months back on another thread. Guess not.
NO, Republicans are not responsible.
1) He never got more than 35% of the primary vote until after many of the others had left the race due to money or other factors. (Note results of Iowa and what would have been with just 2-3 running)
2) 12+ other candidates split 65% of the vote allowing a minority to get him where the money dried up for those others running.
3) Democrats had a chance to put someone up against him that could win. Instead they ran the Entitled Bitch that also had high unfavorables.
4) He still only had 35% solid support before the election and she had 35% or so solid support. That means 40% had to hold their nose and pick someone. His shit just stunk less than her’s to enough swing voters in three key states to get him elected.
5) Most of the country DOES NOT want a liberal democrat that appeals to California, New York and Illinois voters. But who ran against her that offered something more centrist. And with super delegates, could they have overcome her “entitlement”? Could someone more centrist have carried Penn and the other 2-3 states that swung the election to him? I suspect that would have been a good possibility.
6) “EB” did not campaign in three key states she lost.
While I agree with your remarks.
They are inconsequential and built on a false assumption.
You can not monday morning quarterback and election.
Change the initial conditions and you do not get to keep everything else the same.
Trump won the election because he figured out how to win according to the rules at the time.
If you change the rules – Trump is going to change his strategy.
The most likely correct assumption is that the perosn who best understood how to win using one set of rules, will figure out how to win under a different one.
Regardless VOTERS are responsible for electing Trump.
All of this “blame” game forgets that.
I do not think any elected president is the first choice of the majority of voters.
But they are the first choice of voters of the last two standing
Regardless, trying to “blame” some group for Trump, elides the fact that he DID get elected,
and alot of people wanted that – and still do.
Goldberg is sometimes wrong.
All of us are to some extent racist. Get over it. Contra the left – that is NOT the issue here.
The PC idiocy of the left is. While ot some extent this is Trump “telling it like it is” the more important story here is the left’s – like YOU JAY, unwillingness to directly address reality.
How many people are you going to allow to immigrate to the US each year ?
If the answer is anything less than as many as wish to, then YOU are going to have to explain how you are going to decide who gets in and who does not.
Good luck figuring out how to do that without coming off racist.
I am not the slightest interested in smug lefties ranting over Trump’s racisim – when they do not have the courage to come out into the open with what they intend themselves.
If choices must be made – those who hide from the choices and lob grenades at those who do not, are “hypocritical cowardly racist”.
No one is “rationalizing Trump” here – I am calling you out as a closet racist, who is ready to throw others under the bus, but unwilling to own your own choices.
The “rationalizing” is yours.
Whining “oh it is horrible we should not have to make choices like this” does not exculpate your responsibility to make those choices, and to own them.
Nor do you get extra virtue points for whining just because choices must be made.
I hope this thread doesn’t get clogged too soon.
May I repeat another s—- term that applies here on TNM and to our president: ” s—- for brains”. For every one of his core supporters and rationalizers that enjoyed his comments at this meeting, I think there are an equal or greater number of moderates or indies that have switched in their minds to the Dems point of view and future Dem candidates.
Shit/shite holes: “Irish and German Immigration. In the middle half of the nineteenth century, more than one-half of the population of Ireland emigrated to the United States. So did an equal number of Germans. Most of them came because of civil unrest, severe unemployment or almost inconceivable hardships at home. Maybe that’s why the Drumps (Trumps original family name) came here. The Ryans, the Laguardias, the Einsteins, also came from s— holes, as did those fleeing religious persecution such as the pilgrims and puritans. Of course most of them were lily white, which Trump thinks is OK.
Nigerians (non-whites) came/come here for educational purposes:
A disproportionate percentage of black students at elite universities are immigrants or children of immigrants. Nigerian immigrants have the highest education attainment level in the United States, surpassing every other ethnic group in the country, according to U.S Bureau Census data.
Pakastanis also came to avoid Indian persecution and often highly educated.
Does immigration need to be fixed? You betcha. Chain immigration sucks and overstaying visas is big, largely ignored, problem as is this one:
Some women, mostly from Asia, come here (usually on visas) to have babies, the child becomes American and then both return home. The now “American” child can now return later and apply for educational benefits and even bring his parents here.
So, duck, my question to you is this: would a compromise such as legalizing DACA recipients, in return for an end to chain migration and the diversity lottery be something that you would support?
This seems to me to be an obvious win-win, but for political reasons, it looks like it’s not going to happen.
And that has nothing to do with Trump’s bad language, whether you think he’s a bad guy or a good guy, whether he colluded with Russians or not, and all of the other media circus distractions that consume 80-90% of our attention. It also has nothing to do with who “cares” the most about immigrants, minorities,the middle-class, or whatever other group that politicians endlessly virtue signal about.
It seemingly has to do with a complete unwillingness of Congress to actually solve the problem.
Priscilla, it appears near certain that the entire Durban thing was a setup.
Particularly given Durban’s subsequent rant about “Chain migration” being offensive to slaves.
The objective of Durban’s “bi-partisan” deal – was to provoke Trump and get him to say something inflammatory so that democrats could pretend to blame Trump for shutting down government.
Dem’s beleive – possibly rightly, that they have the upper hand because Republicans will not allow government to shutdown.
Government shutdown’s have proven to work badly for Republicans and they are scared of them.
That is something they are going to have to figure out how to deal with. Otherwise Democrats will ultimately be able to get nearly anything they want on anything in return for avoiding a shutdown.
The furor over shithole nation is particularly disengenuous given that Obama’s use of Shitshow with UK prime minister Cameron.
But as usual those on the left only care about words.
Durbin’s “Bi-partisan deal” was garbage byu any measure.
Dem’s are not serious.
If Trump manages to figure out how to communicate this effectively, this will harm the left far more than the right. Often he can manage that. This time we will see.
Dave many of your thoughts are much like mine, but sometimes I think you write things just to get a reaction from others here.
“The objective of Durban’s “bi-partisan” deal – was to provoke Trump and get him to say something inflammatory so that democrats could pretend to blame Trump for shutting down government.”
This is not the Democrats problem and it is not one to blame on them. This is 100% Trump!. The comment you made (copied above) is like the kid that gets in a fight and says “well he started it by sticking his tongue out at me”. Or the NFL football player that gets called for a personal penalty because he punched another player and says “ref, he pushed his fingers into my face mask!” That’s all BS, but at least the kid is still learning!
Trump said it, it makes no difference why. He is ignorant as to how people take things and how bad it makes him and the GOP look. He is the number one reason why the GOP is going to lose both houses of congress in 2018. And why we will have some liberal shithead as president in 2021 giving away the store. How can the GOP get anything positive on the news when they have Trump walking all over positive messages.
If Trump had an ounce of intelligence, he would keep his damn mouth shut and let the other members of congress communicate the crappy proposal that was brought to him. This is not an employee bringing him a building plan and him telling them they are not going to build in the “N” section of town. He is president, one where words matter.
I do not trust any of these people.
But I trust Trump far more than Durbin or Schumer of McConnell, or Graham.
Regardless Trump was not elected to defer to republicans in congress. He was litterally elected because a huge portion of republicans think that the republican congress failed them.
Words do matter – allittle, actions matter alot.
I certainly wish, as do many Republicans and others, that there was a Ronald Reagan-type guy, that could be blunt and truthful about our immigration problems, using humor and avoiding bad language. A large part of Reagan’s greatness was his ability to tell the truth in articulate ways.
Trump is not like that. He is not articulate ~ he speaks like a guy from Queens, who’s spent most of his life dealing with people who use the “f” word 4-5 times in every sentence. He hasn’t spent a lifetime developing his own, personal political ideology.
But Reagan was called stupid throughout his presidency…and at the end of it he was called stupid and senile. When he issued his famous declaration, “Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall!” he was called crazy, and a warmonger, as he was when he left the table during the SALT II talks. Of course, now, after his death, he is credited with the fall of the Soviet Union, but back then, he was treated as a dolt.
And he called Simpson-Mazzoli his biggest mistake, because it granted amnesty, without border security.
Priscilla;
Trump had a whitehouse meeting on immigration that Trump invited the press into.
And that went well – except that it is nearly impossible to negotiate a deal like this in front of the press.
Trump’s purportedly vile remarks – which I do NOT find “racist” – Haiti is a shithole nation.
I can make that into an argument for accepting more immigrants from Haiti.
were made in a PRIVATE meeting. Aside from not being offended, they were acceptable in that context.
I am offended by the idiots claiming everyone should have left on hearing them.
BZZT, wrong. They were there to solve a problem, to reach a deal on immigration, not correct the manners of those they were negotiating with.
In the real world we have to work with difficutl people, in difficult circumstances, we have to reach deals with people we do not like. We have to tolerate bad conduct if necescary to get what we want.
Finally we have negotiations in private – because we can not say what we need to say in public.
Trump can resolve the issue with Durbin trivially – never meet or negotiate with Durbin privately again. That is the normal cost when someone plays this kind of chickenshit in a private negotiation.
I think Trump has layed out his position well enough he can work under the clare of the Press – Durbin can not.
Dave. whether or not one finds Trump’s remarks unacceptable and distasteful or not, one must keep in mind the following.
“Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk”
Now because DC is full of nothing but skunks, they can not smell the stench they are creating.
There is another issue for Democrats to consider here.
The only reason they are in the negotiations at all is because the Budget needs to get past cloture.
Democrats obliterated the core of the filibuster
Republicans have been whitling the exceptions.
It is within the power of republicans to make a rule change – no filibustering the budget within 30 days of a shutdown.
Then this whole mess dies, Trump gets whatever he can sell to 50 republicans.
There is substantial evidence that Trump knows how to turn on and off his coarse rhetoric as necescary.
Some people can do that – some can’t. My wife can. I can’t.
My wife is a Public defender – inside her office language would make Truckers blush.
She then has to step into a courtroom and be polite and respectful to a judge, prosecutor, defendant, police officer that she thinks are vile humans and has vulgarly excoriated to coworkers.
Some people can do that some can’t.
The Durbin meeting was private. Further the “shithole nations” remark was accurate and not racist is still a bit coarse.
I think the outrage is a bit manufactured, and I do not think it is working as well for Democrats as they think.
But we will see.
I am not a proponent of a Wall. But I am well aware as you note of the long history regarding the wall.
Even right now – congress does not have to approve a wall – it is already approved, it is already law. All that needs done is to appropriate funding.
There is a very very large body of americans who beleive they were promised a wall decades ago, and that democrats have lied to them repeatedly.
Regardless, while polls show broad public support to find a way to keep dreamers.
On every single other issue Trump is looking for there are SUPERMAJORITIES supporting Trump.
Priscilla. “Trump is not like that. He is not articulate ~ he speaks like a guy from Queens,”
I would relate Trumps language more toward white rednecks sitting in the woods above the Cahulawassee River (Real name Cattahoochie River) playing their bango, harmonica and guitar waiting for the white guys floating down the river. And then, these guys may be smart enough to not use the language in the settings Trump is using it.
I have worked in the construction industry – both as an apprentice while in HS and College and as a professional afterwords.
I do not think any Carpenter, plumber, electrician, building inspector, engineer, or contractor I worked with would have described Haiti as politely as a “shithole nation”
I have worked for defense contractors and met with the military and other military contractors.
My wife works as a Public Defender.
My daughter as an EMT.
In all of these “shithole nation” would be the more polite way Haiti would be referred to.
What I see as the big mistake Trump made is using Norway as the alternative. That opened him to being called racist – god forbid we could call a crappy place a crappy place without being called racist. Trump should have used Singapore or Taiwan. That would have confounded the left.
Apparently Biden called Haiti a “hellhole”.
I am sorry Ron, this is all fake outrage.
I would prefer not to see “shithole” on Twitter or in a press conference.
But its use in private conversations with politicians does nto offend me
No one “enjoy’s” Trump’s comment.
The truth is not always pleasant.
Speaking the truth is neither racist nor stupid.
Hiding from it is both.
I have no idea what “moderates and independents will do.
We get to find that out in November. I am far from certain you are right.
Regardless of how moderates and independents vote – if they think calling Haiti a shithole is racist, or that grasping that we have to make difficult choices is racist – then I respect those moderates LESS than Trump or his supporters.
Pointing out that past immigrants came from “shitholes” alters nothing.
Are you going to take everyone who wishes to come ?
If you are – how do you plan on making that work ?
If not, how are you going to choose ?
Until you answer those simple but hard questions, your rants about Ireland or …. are “rationalizing”.
Tough choices need to be made. When you are prepared to make them and own your own choices, THEN you get to criticise others.
The educational attainment of Nigerian immigrants is incredible.
It does NOT surpass every other group.
Asians absolutely OWN every other ethnic group.
Regardless, you must choose yourself – before you get to criticize the choices of others.
If you do not have the courage to choose and defend your choice.
I do not care about your opinion of others.
dhlii: Like I said Trump ain’t the only one with SFB.
Priscilla: I would “support” common sense and compassionate compromises to achieve a fairly good immigration policy. A really good one is impossible at this point with an idiot involved.
“Priscilla: I would “support” common sense and compassionate compromises to achieve a fairly good immigration policy. A really good one is impossible at this point with an idiot involved.”
If you are going to criticize others for their characterization of things.
You should commit to your own.
“common sense”
“compassionate compromise”
“fairly good immigration policy”
are all meaningless phases.
There are specific issues being debated.
Pissing on others for their positions is hypocracy unless you are willing to commit to your own.
As for example calling Trump “racist” is egregious hypocracy – unless you want “open borders”.
And if that is your plan – you had better be able to demonstrate how you are going to make it work,
ortherwise you are an idiot rather than a hypocrite
Simple questions:
Do you support open boarders ?
If so how are you going to make that work in a country with strong positive rights ?
If not who are you going to keep out ?
dduck (and everyone). ddicks comment ” A really good one is impossible at this point with an idiot involved.”
Please provide me with the date the USA changed its constitution to provide for a monarchy instead of a president ? I missed that happening when the president did not create legislation and only had veto power over something congress passed.
Yes, wonderfully expressed summation dduck.
Too bad there are not more people with your moderate balance of views posting here.
Jay, neither you nor dduck12, nor any of the frothing Argh! Trump! crowd has as of yet actually addressed immigration reform.
It is not “moderate balance” to mumble platitudes.
No one is demanding you nail your views to the masthead.
Only that you raise specific views that are subject to criticism – like Trump has, like Priscilla has and like I have.
You can not stand in opposition unless you stand for something.
As Nassim Taleb “The Black Swan & AntiFragile” notes, your views are worthless unless you have “skin in the game”.
We see this on immigration right now – but it is the same on issue after issue raised here.
I disagree frequently with Ron and Priscilla. But the both stand for something. The hold positions, they defend them, with facts and arguments. Often I think they are wrong, but I respect them, and their oppinion, even when I disagree, because of that.
Moogie on rare occasions offers socialist nonsense, but she atleast takes a position and makes minor efforts to defend it before degenerating into ad hominem and insult.
Can anyone here tell what you stand for ? On anything ?
We all know what you stand against. You have insisted you are no leftist, based on as best as I can tell past opposition to perceived stupid leftism.
But you seem to have no value – beyond everyone else is wrong.
You have not staked your reputation on anything.
Generic insults are easy.
Try something hard – actually take a position.
Even your opposition is generic and bland.
Just a raft of Trump has made some comment, and you found someone on twitter to malign it.
If Trump’s “Shithole” remarks are wrong – WHY ?
If Haiti not a shithole ? Are all parts of the world the same ? Is it improper to speak inconvenient truth’s ?
What is wrong with what Trump said ? If you can not tell us how things should be. At the very least you should be able to tell us why what has you frothing is wrong ?
You are opposed to Trump as a concept.
If Trump hugged a puppy – you would find some pundit on twitter to link to a frothing comment.
Atleast own the basis of your own anger.
Corrections: Drumpf. LaGuardia.
No president has been as evil as Trump!!!
The alien & Sedition act of 1797 – one of the most egregious violations of free speach and free press ever under which meany people were jailed was signed by John adam’s.
Jefferson allowed the law to expire and freed those jailed under it.
Jefferson subsequnetly ordered Aaron Burr arrested and charged with Treason and personally directed the prosecution from the whitehouse.
Abraham Lincoln arrested and jailed atleast 13000 people for opposing the Civil War. Arrested the entire Maryland legislature to stop them from voting, and signed an arrest warrant for Supreme Court Justice Tanney. Many historians believe Lincoln may have jailed more than 30000.
Woodrow Wilson signed the alien and seditions acts of 1917 and 1918 that were used to prosecute 100’s – including famously Eugene Debb’s.
Wilson resegregated the Federal Civil Service which had been desegregated since the Civil War.
Forcing thousands of blacks out of federal jobs.
Wilson is certainly the most racist president this country has had (and the most progressive),
entertaining the KKK in the whitehouse.
Immediately after being elected FDR reduced FCC radio licenses from 3yrs to 6months, and openly used the FCC to shutdown any discussion of news or oppinion on radio unfavorable to the administration. NBC and CBS publicly announced that they would not allow stories or comentary critical of the government.
LBJ’s use of the so called “Fairness doctrine” to silence criticism during the 60’s is infamous see Red Lion vs. FCC
The Obama Administration IRS targeted hundreds of Tea Party groups delaying their approvals for many years.
And then we have the Obama administration using 702 to investigate political opponents.
Muct of what is said about that is in regard to Trump and the missuse of the Steele Dossier.
But there are leaks suggesting that the political used of unmasking and 702 queries stared possibly as early as 2010 and definitely by 2013.
Dave, thanks for the historical review. I think that we sometimes lose perspective these days, in a world that generally ignores the lessons of history, and uses it primarily to justify tearing down statues.
Anyway, if, and it is still a big IF, the Obama administration intentionally and actively used the intelligence apparatus of the government ~ OUR government ~ to spy on and to sabotage Trump, it must have only been after they had already used those agencies for domestic spying on others. And Hillary Clinton, as part of the administration, had to have been an active participant in this.
I doubt that they woke up one morning and thought “Hey, I’ll bet we can de-rail this Trump guy by using 702 queries to listen to everyone associated with his campaign, and eventually we’ll come up with something that we can use to charge them with something!” They had to have been doing it before, and the back-door processes were known to them.
I do not support ANY of the noted actions of any of our past Presidents – not Adam’s not jefferson, not Lincoln who should have known better.
Nor JFK’s sanctioning the execution of President Diem which likely ended hope for a peacefully resolution of Vietnam.
But I am not going to work myself into a spittle spraying lather over a coarse but True remark to Durbin in private.
A separate argument I did not make is that this is a mistake by Durbin.
Politicians do not generally comment on the private remarks of other politicians.
This is a mostly followed unwritten rule.
It is because much of the work of crafting laws is done privately.
Politicians typically separate their public posturing from their private negotiations.
Trump’s bringing the Press into the meeting for 55 min was brilliant.
Anyway Durbin has pretty much guaranteed that Trump is going to be very carefull negotiating with Durbin in the future. Trump will likely exclude Durbin whenever he can, or deal with him entirely in the public spotlight.
It is not Trump’s comments that were poor manners, and violated norms or decency. It was Durban speaking out of school.
Durban has scored a few points with the democratic base and the media.
Maybe this will resonate with the public – breifly. But in the long run this is costly.
The best he can hope is that Trump and republicans will capitulate.
And in this instance – he needs BOTH.
My guess is that house and senate republicans may cave – they are terrified of a shutdown.
I am less sure of Trump.
Priscilla;
We are way way past “if” there is no doubt of that anymore. The actual actions of the administration are well documented. In many circumstances the strong political biases of the participants are also established.
The questions that remain are about the extent this was a conspiracy, or just a wide collection of private actors in government acting badly that informally reaches an end that looks conspiratorial.
No conspiracy needs to be established to punish the individual actors.
Pretty much none of these people should continue to have jobs in public service EVER.
Yet, that has not occured.
Further the evidence that exists is sufficient to warrant an investigation of far more consequence than the Mueller investigation.
Maybe there was no conspiracy or just small deliberate coordination.
Honestly given the vastness of this – from the UN to the NSA, to CIA, to FBI to the National Security advisor to DOJ and even to actors outside of government
strongly suggests a conspiracy.
The odds against accidental coordination are enormous and increase to more interdependencies there are.
Several of the Strzok texts can not be understood anyway except as atleast a small conspiracy.
Regardless, it is not necescary to have a smoking gun memo from the whitehouse.
All that is necescary is the very high odds against coincidence.
The expansion of 702 political spying occured FIRST.
I would note that Obama actively engaged in surveilling journalists.
The Obama administration slowly expanded its illegitmate use of surveilance.
Then when Trump was running, then used it as a matter of course.
A major part of what I am concerned – is that the lack of outrage will encourage this to become the new norm.
It is going to be very hard to reign in Trump or Pres. Oprah in the future.
We go full tilt foaming and frothing over “shithole” in a private conversation,
and we could care less about NSA/CIA/FBI and the rest of the administration spying for political purposes.
Unclog the Toilet
Jay, are you just trying to fill this blog with more idiotic memes?
Tell us how to get him impeached or leave the wild card debate to meaningful comments!
RonP, the resident idiotic memes in chief is Uber-Libert., dhli.
Jay is not filling this blog to the slowing down or busted condition, it is dhli.
BTW, No one on this blog knows how to impeach Drumpf, so why ask.
Again I wish to thank you for this thread suggestion, but I know who should leave it. It is dhli that who said he could manage with the other thread. Let him return to it then and debate himself (his only really worthy opponent).
So you know what the problem with the blog is ?
I am pretty sure I can get you a ton of well paying work if that is true.
The how of impeaching Trump is trivial. Persuade the house to vote for impeachment.
You can not accomplish that because you have failed to make a persuasive argument.
Your failure is your problem.
Yes we all know that you are absolutely certain what OTHERS should do.
My continuous repetitive POINT is you have no right to dictate to others.
Your false certainty that you know how to run the world does not make it so.
I am responding to you where you speak. If you wish to return to another thread and post something I wish to respond – I will respond there.
You seem to think that moving here somehow entitles you to exclude others.
If you want your own private blog – go start it.
Regardless, what is your objective ?
To debate issues ?
Or to insult people ?
Yo, Dave – even the most Conservative of sources thinks you’re a Grade-A Hypocrite.
National Review: ” Yes, one can fairly ask why the United States takes in a particular number of immigrants from a particular country.
But the president’s comment is appalling. For starters, this is the Oval Office and it is a responsibility of the president show some respect for his surroundings. Conservatives objected to Bill Clinton’s infamous behavior in the office, and then blew a gasket when President Obama put his feet on the Resolute desk. Any conservative who raged about all of that but shrugs at this sort of language in one of our national secular sacred spaces is a grade-A hypocrite.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/455394/donald-trump-makes-execrable-comment-about-haiti-and-other-countries
You just keep confirming what we already know.
You have no actual views of your own.
You do not know how to speak for yourself.
You have no skin in the game.
You are no more than your twitter feed.
We could just connect it to TNM and we would not need you.
Better still those you keep posting would atleast likely defend their own positions.
I can find alot of sources that agree with me. But I am not even slightly interested in fallacious appeals to authority.
And even if I were – I am not a conservative so why would I care what conservatives think ?
Regardless, you keep this “the president said something offensive” crap up.
Something is offensive – because it is contradictory to our values.
Which value would that be ?
Lying ?
Or are you saying that it is offensive to call a shithole a shithole ?
You still are unwilling to come out of the closet yourself.
Still not interested in criticism from people who can not think for themselves, and hold not views – except that others are wrong.
Put some skin into the game – commit to something.
Allow yourself to be held accountable for your own views.
Are you equating someone’s private speach with thier conduct on the job ?
I do not care if Obama put his feet up on the Resolute desk.
I barely recall it getting mentioned in the press.
I would guess there are 1000times more stories already regarding a word Trump used in a private negotiation as compared to a published picture of Obama.
If Clinton was getting Blow Jobs in the East Wing from women not in his employ, I could care less.
If he responded Truthfully under Oath I could care less.
AT THE TIME I disagreed with the SCOTUS decision to allow the Jones suit to proceed.
That was a mistake.
Obama’s comment about clinging to guns and bibles was appalling.
I am much more interested in Trumps and Obama’s and Clinton’s ACTIONS.
“Any conservative who raged about all of that but shrugs at this sort of language in one of our national secular sacred spaces is a grade-A hypocrite.”
Absolutely!!!!!
I am not aware of any significant conservative anywhere ever going balistic over Obama or Clinton’s “language in one of our national secular sacred spaces”.
Even the Reolute Desk issue – which was so small I barely remember it, was a published picture and an ACT, not a word.
And I would still agree with you any conservative upset about it is a hypocrite.
If the president can not put his feet up on his desk – what good is being president.
dhli: don’t you go back?
Do you wish to discuss issues ?
Or do you wish to discuss the logistics of posting ?
YOU complain that the blog becomes slow as the number of posts increases.
My suggestion would be that we should aggree to dicuss issues here – rather than
engage in pointless character assassination, ad hominem, or who posts where.
But you can do as you please.
Apparently there is more to this Whitehouse meeting than had been reported previously.
Durbin and Graham were invited by Trump to the Whitehouse to discuss their bill.
When they arrived they found not only Trump, and representatives from DHS and other involved agencies, but several republican congressmen who were most strongly opposed to Dubrin/Graham.
Durbin Graham was likely DOA as it is not even close to anything that Trump has said would be acceptable.
But Durbin and Graham were incensed because they thought they were getting a private meeting with the President to lobby for their bill.
The big deal here and what set Durbin off was not Trump’s remarks, but the fact that he and Graham did not get the private hearing they hoped for.
another Dave with similar views. You’re in sympatico company dhlii.
Every time I think you can not stoop lower, you surprise me.
You really want to be this person ?
Besides – given that I am pretty sure you do NOT support open borders, that would me you have more in common with Dukes than I do.
You do not seem to get – I do not agree with Trump on Immigration.
But Trump’s error does not make others right.
In fact Trump is wrong, but he is less wrong than you and more honest than you.
I am not going to discriminate against others – not even people from Shithole nations.
But I am also not going to guarantee them or you “positive rights” that are bogus and unsustainable.
You are hypocritical – you want to pretend that the impossible is possible.
You want to pretend you are not discriminating when you are.
You want to pretend you are better than people who are atleast honest.
You have more in common with Dukes than I.
When a $hitHead makes $hitHead remarks the $hit Hits the Fan
The Idiot keeps making idiotic diplomatic mistakes.
http://thehill.com/policy/international/368866-african-union-trump-shithole-remarks-dishonor-american-creed
Still incapable of expressing yourself in your own voice.
Why do I care what the worst developed and most politically corrupt nations in the world think of Trump ?
If you want to attack Trump, try because he is impeding good people from escaping the oppression of shithole nations with corrupt governments.
“According to Census data, more than 43 percent of African immigrants hold a bachelor’s degree or higher — slightly more than immigrants from East Asia. Nigerian immigrants are especially educated, with almost two-thirds holding college degrees — a significantly higher percentage even than Chinese or South Korean immigrants. African immigrants are also very likely to hold advanced degrees, many of which are earned at U.S. universities. By many measures, African immigrants are as far ahead of American whites in the educational achievement as whites are ahead of African-Americans.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-13/it-isn-t-just-asian-immigrants-who-excel-in-the-u-s-
I would suggest that you actually check the data.
If you really trace these claims, it is not “African immigrants” it is immigrants from a few select african countries.
Deliberately excluded are the countries most immigrants com from – places like Somalia.
Once one of these stupid leftist cherry picked data memes start myriads of people buy them and they are impossible to kill.
when I can find information on these claims – it turns out they are for select countries in sub saharan africa.
In 2016 less than 2M people in the US were African immigrants. Of those less than 1/4 were sub-saharan africa.
I am sure that if we only look at US immigrants from Singapore, Tiawan, and South Korea, we can flip those numbers too.
There are 13M Asian immigrants in the US in 2016 of those 4M come from East Asia – China, Taiwan, Japan Korea.
50% of the chinese immigrants in the US have a bachelors degree.
74% of the Indian’s in the US have a bachelors degree.
50% of the philipino’s in the US have a bachelors degree.
Those are all higher than native americans.
About 55% of all foreign born with a bachelors degree are from Asia.
About 10% are from Africa.
Asians have higher labor force participation than natives, and higher than all other immigrants.
They are about as likely to be employed in service occupations as natives, and much less than all other immigrants.
They earn more than the median US income and nearly double that of other immigrants.
They have lower rates of poverty than natives and less than half the poverty of other immigrants.
All that is ACTUAL Census data.
“Nigerian immigrants are especially educated, with almost two-thirds holding college degrees — a significantly higher percentage even than Chinese or South Korean immigrants.”
You are quoting bloomberg.
Which ELSEWHERE states that 43% of nigerians have college degrees.
At Least you could use a source that is consistent
Regardless, Nigeria is ONE country in Africa
Just as India is ONE country in asia.
African immigrants overall are far less well educated than Asian’s.
Sub Saharan African immigrants overall are far less educated than east asians.
Nigerians immigrants are far less well educated than Indians, or Taiwanese, or singaporean’s or immigrants from Hong Kong.
The statistics I cited were directly from the US Census. You can check them yourself.
I noted this in a prior post but there is an interesting video of Prof. Stephen Pinkerton of Harvard noting that the left continually buys false naratives, and rejects true facts that they find offensive.
You are way too trusting of the media. The stories you read in NYT or Bloomberg, or … are written by people. Journalists, usually young, almost never expert in what they are writing about, almost always from the left.
The NYT has run 3 different purportedly well sourced stories on the evidence used for the FISA warrant for Trump Tower and Carter Page. Within the past few days it has been confirmed – their first story was true – the Steele Dossier was the basis. BTW that was the only possiblility that actually fit the time line.
My point is the media is notoriously inaccurate and biased.
You need to learn some critical thinking.
No one should Trust Trump’s tweets.
Nor should you be trusting what a reporter says someone else says – particularly an unidentified source.
Even summaries produced by government purportedly of their own data and research should be scrutinized.
Confirmation bias is powerful. Start with the data, not what someone else tells you the data says.
Try some real data.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/asian-immigrants-united-states
Try an enema.
So your response to noting that Bloomberg and others who are misreporting immigration data – even contradicting themselves in their own stories, and asking you to actually check the census data they claim to be using is
scatalogical ad hominem ?
He needs to remove his head from his bottom first, Duckie
How about addressing the actual issues – rather than spray insults ?
With respect to the specifics.
Nigeria has a GDP/PPP of about 2500. That is about 1/6 of China.
It is 36/53 in africa, and 171/191 in the world
For comparison the GDP/PPP of Haiti is 1800.
Nigeria’s literacy rate is 68% 126/161
0.7% of Nigerians get a post highschool education.
5% get a high school education.
Nigeria is not a particularly appealing country.
It is correct that a fairly high proportion of Nigerian immigrants have college degrees.
In fact – outside of nations that receive temporary preferences legal immigrants from all other countries have very high levels of education.
Put differently whether it is Nigeria or Israel, you are more likely to be permitted to immigrate to the US if you are well educated. If you are not – your odds are extremely small.
More on the issues.
I am going to assume – because you have not responded that you are not in favor of open borders. If I am incorrect – that would make me happy – in fact you would be agreeing with me.
Though you will still have to address how to make an open immigration policy sustainable in a nation with significant positive rights.
Assuming that you do not support open immigration, that means you support some restrictions on immigration.
In that case the ONLY difference between you and Trump is the details of how you plan on restricting immigration.
There are myriads of different means and criteria we can use to limit immigration – but once you have accepted that it is to be limited, there still must be criteria.
Trump has been relatively open that his criteria is the benefit an immigrant brings to the US.
I would be interested in hearing your position.
But it is hypocritical and deceiptful to attack Trump personally – rather than attack his position, when you will not express your own.
This is particularly troubling because any limit to immigration means DISCRIMINATION.
Whatever the reasons you are hiding your won views it masks the fact that you are calling Trump out as a racist – I am sure he is, we all are, for coarsely expressing a preference that is NOT inherently racist, when whatever criteria you have is near certainly as easy to represent as racist.
You are just playing word and outrage games.
But that is what have been going on with the left for decades.
The politics of political correctness is the politics of outrage.
If Obama had announced he was limiting immigration to the highly educated, or in any other way defined rules limiting education, There would have been no explosion of outrage from the left.
If Trump says “Today is Sunday” we will get 48hrs of left and media garbage claiming the use of the word Sunday (or Today) is racist, and that he is wrong.
Merkel announced today that Germany will restrict immigration to 1,000 new immigrants/month.
Accross the world there are 243M people who live in a country different from the one they were born in – immigrants.
The largest number 20% of these live in the US.
The next 5 countries with the largest number of immigrants combined, equal the total immigrants in the US.
Yes, and where the devil is the GOP PR machine making this informaiton known. Most all countries have a “need” oriented immigration policy except for the refugees in the last couple years into Europe and now they care cracking down on those. We are the only ignorant country that allows every Tom, Dick and Jose to come to this country and live off the taxpayer dime, And the only think our leaders can argue about is Dreamers who are more American than our past president.
When is this country going to wake up and realize every damn politician is not worth donkey fart in getting something done. And I put Trump right there with his asinine comments that totally defeat anything good he has proposed or completed.
You are correct that the GOP is doing a lousy job communicating.
But that is not new.
But you miss the fact that the left is not interested in communicating.
You and Priscilla have been willing to rationally discuss what we should do regarding immigration.
Neither Jay nor dduck12 – nor honestly any of the left are interested in discussion.
They want amnesty and citizenship for dreamers and the messed up status quo on everything else.
They are more interesting in expressing fake outrage and calling Trump racist, than debating the issue.
I have been open about what I want – open borders and an end to positive rights (AKA entitlements), or at the very least an end to positive rights for non-citizens – though I would greatly prefer than the only discrimination between citizens and non-citizens would be participation in the political process.
Regardless, Open Borders, No open Borders – “a path to citizenship” is NOT A RIGHT!!!!
New Immigrants, Dreamers, whoever, we have more basis to discriminate who gets to be a citizen than who gets to cross a line in the sand.
I think that military service should result in citizenship.
I do not think that going to college should.
I support birth right citizenship – even for the children of immigrants.
But otherwise citizenship is a priviledge and it should be difficult to attain.
As we are not going to have open borders, the discussion on how to limit immigration will occur with or without me.
I am prepared to listen to many arguments for favoring different groups.
I have no problem favoring persecuted groups throughout the world.
I have no problems favoring religiously persecuted groups.
I have no problem favoring christians facing persecution in islamic countries, and muslims facing persecution in buddhist countries.
Regardless or what I wish, an immigration policy requires deciding if we are going to favor persecuted groups.
We must also consider how that factors into immigration overall.
Do we decide that we will allow 1M legal immigrants into the country each year and then set criteria ?
Or do we decide we will allow persecuted groups in regardless of numbers ?
We have in the past allowed in immigrants from countries after disasters – earth quakes massive cyclones, or other temporary factors.
Again are these over an above some total limit ?
And are they “temporary’ or permanent ?
Do we prefer highly skilled and highly educated immigrants ?
Do we prefer ones that already have a job ?
These and myriads of other questions exist regarding immigration.
Anything short of open borders means that we MUST make choices.
IF you are not arguing for open borders, I think it is immoral and hypocritical to spray insults at someone else – because you do not like their particular criteria for discriminating.
Once you accept that we are going to choose who can come and who can not, you are obligated to sit at the table and negoiate for your preferences – not spew ad hominem and insult and throw a childish tantrum and pretend that you can discriminate without discriminating.
The hypocracy on this issue astounds me.
Trump is a racist – as are we all. Let go of the stupid hypocritical outrage fest and attempt to resolve immigration as favorably to your interests as you can accepting you are not getting everything you want.
I think this is a politically dangerous fight for both sides.
The left appears certain they have the upper hand, and certain that if government is shutdown the blame will fall on Trump and Republicans.
They might be right. As you note the Republicans are abysmal at getting their message out.
At the same time – I am also strongly suspicious the left has significantly overplayed its hand here.
The vast majority of us want a resolution of the Dreamers issue – and we want the Dreamers to be able to stay.
But we do NOT want this issue returning in another decade or two – as it has since 1986.
And we do understand that some nations are “shithole nations” and that we are going to have to make choices regarding who we let in, and probably those from “shithole nations” are towards the bottom of the lest.
I also think that Brexit and Trump’s election reveal something that is not in the polls.
That we can be angry with some Trump tweet, and still vote for him.
At the moment I think Europe is far more xenophobic than the US is.
But very few americans share my Open Borders views and almost no one is prepared to terminate our system of positive rights for it.
The vast majority of americans support legal and limited immigration.
The vast majority of americans are CLOSER to Trump than to the left on this issue.
As a nation we are MILDLY XENOPHOBIC – and we do vote that way.
And democrats may wish to consider that.
Dave: “But you miss the fact that the left is not interested in communicating.”
1) It is not the responsibility of the left to communicate positive accomplishments of the right. It is the responsibility of the right to put that out in ways it is read and heard by millions on a daily, weekly or monthy basis.
Immigration:
1. I want the borders secured by physical barrier, where practical, electronic surveillance and human enforcement where practical, drone surveillance where practical and/or a combination of some or all of those where practical.
2. I want all treaties with Mexico that limits our ability to secure the borders on our rivers repealed.
3. I want immigration reform that eliminates the number of legal immigration’s yearly and repeals the number by country.
4. I want immigrants to be an asset to this country without regard to numbers by year, either offering technical, professional or trade abilities that promote our economy. Included would be Visa’s for college students that could convert that to other legal means of staying in the country should they obtain employment within a certain period of time.
5. I want legal status provided to anyone brought to this country as a child by their parents, educated in this country and who are now providing a positive return to the country by being employed or by the fact they are a husband or wife with USA child citizens where the spouse is providing a positive return to the country.
6. Included in any of this would be the requirement that all immigrants would be required to learn to speak, write and understand english for legal status to continue.
7. And I will include I want a constitutional amendment. Just because you are born in America should not make you a citizen. If you are born in America but spend more than 70% of your life before 18 years of age in a foreign country, you ARE NOT American! A piece of government paper does not make one American if they spend 13 years of their first 18 in a foreign country while someone raised in the country and now in their 30’s with kids of their own are not.
Oh yeah 8) I want a million dollars after taxes. That will happen before any of the first 7 occur!
With regard to communication – I agree.
That said – I would still ask what is the objective of the left ?
The interests of the american people ?
Or stoking outrage at Trump ?
This issue is fundimentally different from Republicans seeking to shutdown the government to kill ObamaCare – though that should have been inside their power to accomplish.
Ending PPACA created atleast the perception that some ordinary people might be at risk.
Right now the risks are already real. Without some legislative fix, the 700,000 so called “dreamers” can be deported starting in March.
Most everyone does not want to see that happen – though we are not unanimous about what we do want to see.
Further – whether the left likes it or not, very large majorities of us are very unhappy about immigration.
There is ZERO doubt there is a win-win deal to be made here.
The left has a choice between the best deal they can get.
And frankly most americans would consider giving Republicans everything they want in return for the Dreamers a pretty good deal – and of those who do not, the majority of them wany everything AND deporting dreamers.
But democrats do not seem to be interested in a deal.
They want total victory – no strings attached citizenship for Dreamers, and the status quo in everything else.
They are offering an ultimatum – everything or shutdown.
If there is a shutdown over this messaging will be somewhat critical – and republicans suck at that.
But despite having the megaphone of a media in pocket, the Democrats have the problem of a logically weak message.
Most people will not need a talking head to ask – why not the easy deal – the dreamers plus all the changes that republicans want ?
I think this could backfire horribly on Democrats.
I think it could go badly for them even if they win.
Trump said he will take the heat for this if a deal can be reached.
But he is not going to have to. If there is a shutown and he capitulates.
Those who want tougher immigration are not going to punish most Republicans in 2018.
They are going to punish Dems.
This is an off year election and energy matters.
Republicans are purportedly depressed and democrats energized.
I think assuming it will stay that way through Nov. is a bet against the odds.
With specific respect to immigration.
I do not want what you want. But I can live with most of what you want.
So can the vast majority of the country.
I have a major problem with #7.
The US is one of only a few nations in the world that has “birth right citizenship”
We are seeing in Europe the bad results you get without it.
While their immigration policies are wreaking havoc on their countries.
Europe has a very serious problem – it actually needs immigrants to cope with a shrinking population.
We can argue about the numbers they need. But the absence of birth right citizenship has created ghetto’s of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants throughout europe with no hope.
Birth right citizenship is critical to asymilation. To the functioning of the melting pot.
We think that mexicans or other “races” are permanently distinct and different from the irish, and italians and poles and .. that preceeded them.
A study I read recently noted that intermarrage with hispanics – both with blacks and whites is higher than any other immigrant body, and that 4th generation “immigrants” of hispanic descent self identify as white.
In otherwords little is really different from the Irish or Italians.
But if you end birth right citizenship – you end that. We have seen that in Europe.
I would also note that birth right citizenship and “chain migration” is not the same.
I do not as an example have any problem giving preference to the relatives of citizens with respect to immigration.
But first they must qualify. i.e. if you meet all the other qualifications – such as some of what you noted to immigrate to the US, THEN if you have a relative here, you advance to the front of the line.
More narrowly – I like Rand Paul’s suggestion ALOT.
Establish a total quota for immigration. That is the number of people we will naturalize each year.
Where they come from and who they are is a SEPARATE question.
If we decide that someone who has arrived illegally – such as the Dreamers – or any other illegal immigrant we wish to favor, should be allowed to stay and be naturalized. Then that reduces the slots for new people coming in otherwise.
If we naturalize 200,000 dreamers/yr over the next 4 years – then the number of immigrants from other nations should be reduced by 200,000 for those years.
Establish the number of people we will allow in, and fix it, requiring Congress to change it.
After that the debate over dreamers and Haiti and …. just becomes one of Who we accept.
9) Ron can have 8 when I get the same.
but it’s none off our business – or her neighbor’s business – what companies Betsy has invested in. Right Dave?
jay, please start checking your facts before posting crap like this. In the article it has no data or documentation as to the performance of the companies selected other than one person saying the company was marginal.. So the next step for me was clinking on the link to the education departments evaluation and you will find that both companies “performance” rating was satisfactory or excellent. The company in question was satisfactory. The only area where it was marginal was “management” and who the hell cares about management if the jobs getting done. Managers don’t do a f’in thing other than take credit for the staffs “satisfactory” performance in most cases and get paid more for that.
in addition, what percentage of collections is this company taking compared to other bidders. Collection company collections cost can run from 15% to 50% of the total collections. That can be based on the age of the account at the time of collection with newer accounts charged at the lower rate. Some companies is flat 50%, some 35%, some 25%. Some companies is 50% of the first $X amount collected, 35% on the next $X amount collected and on down to 20-25% on the remainder.
So find out what the basis for their payments from the government will be, compare that to the other bidder contracts and let me know what you find out. Then we can have a much more enlighted debate.
Thank you Ron.
You make a number of excellent points regarding process and Jay’s unwillingness to acquaint himself with the facts of his own arguments and examples.
I am prepared to listen to arguments from Jay that something is wrong with the process – if he wishes to raise those. But government contracting is messy – and that can not truly be fixed.
I have bid on an won government contracts before and I have helped to write and administer them from the other side. There is no means to acheive perfection. Worse still it is impossible to acheive the efficiency of the free market in public contracting.
Public projects will ALWAYS cost more – often much more, and can not possibly be allocated “fairly” – because there is no universal definition of fair.
But Jay does not check the facts – because Jay does not care about the facts.
Jay starts with the presumption that everything associated with business is corrupt.
It does not matter to Jay what company wins this contract – whoever does is going to PROFIT – and is therefore evil. Because these evil profits are involved – it must be true that no matter who the winners are – they are inherently the most evil – because hey are going to profit and because the won.
Jay’s premise that all business and profit is evil means that he need not care about the facts.
“Jay starts with the presumption that everything associated with business is corrupt.”
How did you come up with that stupid conclusion?
I was a partner in a $20 million a year sales US mfg company, from which I still collect royalties for a patent product I invented. I was a partner in another company that manufactured Turn of The Century oak roll top desks and furniture, successful for a decade until the overseas rip offs put us out of business.
My Betsy point was that elected officials should be properly vetted to be sure they or family or friends don’t profit from favoritism from those officials.
You’re the one always bitching about unnecessary government.
Why are you complaining about an article questioning the propriety of this deal?
Jay “My Betsy point was that elected officials should be properly vetted to be sure they or family or friends don’t profit from favoritism from those officials.”
I missed this big time. Can you provide me with the facts that support her family or friends profiting. The only thing I saw was she had invested in this company and divested from it when she took the Sec. position.
Her family and friends are not profiting.
But even if they are that is not the issue.
The issues are:
Is the law being followed ? If not prosecute.
Is the law approrpiate ? If not change the law.
Are the people getting the best deal ? If not change the legislation.
I do not care if Betty makes a couple of Billion of the DOE – so long as she is the low bid in the process that is perscribed by law.
If the law is wrong change it.
If it is being violated prosecute.
If none of the above – go away.
“How did you come up with that stupid conclusion?”
Self-evident from your own remarks and your refusal to actually bother to find out the facts about anything and the fact that you jump to conclusions without facts.
“I was a partner in a $20 million a year sales US mfg company”
So Trump presided over billions of dollars in businesses and you constantly call him an idiot.
“My Betsy point was that elected officials should be properly vetted to be sure they or family or friends don’t profit from favoritism from those officials.”
What does that even mean ?
DeVos divested herself.
What is “favoritism” – this was a competitive bid process.
Frankly – why do I care if DeVos shows “favoritism” ?
For someone who claims to have had some involvement with business you are economically and business clueless.
The objective is not to avoid “favoritism” it is to get the best deal possible.
I do not give an Flying F if the winning bid is your brother – so long as they are the best deal.
“You’re the one always bitching about unnecessary government.
Why are you complaining about an article questioning the propriety of this deal?”
The part that is unnescary is the government loaning out money in the first place.
Once it does such a stupid thing – unfortunately collecting on the loans becomes necessary.
I am not complaining about the article – the details in the artcile make clear DeVos has no problem here.
You appear to have keyed into the headline, your hatred for all things Trump and jumped to stupid conclusions.
I am sure if I ripped this deal apart I can find much wrong with it. But not your asinine claim.
There are three relevant issues:
Should the government be making loans at all ? The answer is NO!!!!! – Always and with regard to everything.
Given that government has done something stupid and loaned money
Was the collection service the government is buying necescary – unfortunately yes.
Was the process of selecting those performing the collection task done according to the rules – yes.
Any problem with the rules is a problem for CONGRESS – not DeVos, and not the courts – unless the rules are unconstitutional.
But I did not hear you arguing about a problem with the rules.
You made a claim of favoritism – based on a past relationship.
We are all connected to everyone else somehow.
Regardless problematic “favoritism” is not being connected to someone else. It is not having a preference, it is not wanting a particular vendor to win.
It is violating the rules for someone you favor.
Do you have evidence that occured ? Of course not.
You presume that bad things have occured automatically – and hence my observation that you presume everything associated with business is corrupt – because you do.
Do not worry it is a common logical error.
Even Warren Buffet makes it periodically.
So no I do not think you past business involvement shields you.
I am not very good at sales. Some time ago I picked up a “little black book of sales rules”.
#1 All things being equal it is who you know that decides.
#2 All things bing not so equal it is who you know that decides.
That is life. Get a clue. It took me a while to understand but it is actually a good thing not a bad one.
You presume that every business competition is determined by quantifiable tangibles on some RFQ. Guess what – it isn’t.
I get about half my work today because the people who hire me know me well.
And alot of the rest because they know me a little.
Those who know me well will pay MORE for my services. They will reject lower bids, they will just hire me outright without any competitive process.
Why ? Because they know exactly what they are getting. They know my strengths and weaknesses. They know how I deal with problems. They can predict up front what the outcome will be – even if problems arise.
Some other business seeking the same work, even at a lower price, even with stellar referenes – though mine are difficult to beat – they are still and unknown.
And get a clue. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Further, with the shoes reversed I have done exactly the same thing.
As Business manager for a 55 person firm for 22 years every year I was buying a variety of services, copy machine contracts, health insurane, business insurance, professional insurance.
I “bid” these all the time. So long as the vendor I had an established relationship with, was close to the best price – they got the contract. Because I knew what I was getting from them and changing has costs and risks and that has value too.
“favoristism” is not inherently bad – not even in government.
What matters is that the process is competitive, and that value is actually delivered.
Corruption in government occurs most commonly when there is no bidding, and the government pays without receiving any value.
Or when those seeking government contracts bribe people to get them.
None of this is hard. If you really were partners in this 20M venture – this should be stuff you know.
That would be correct.
Jay, you do not seem to read past the headlines of the articles linked to by the tweets you cite.
If you actually read the ProPublica article, you would find that the actual facts do not support your hysteria. This is a common problem with you and the tweets you link.
I would encourage you to actual read the articles from the tweets you link before spraying spittle.
Quite often the facts in the article so not support the headline.
This is one of those.
Suggesting that you actually read what you cite as an authority is not “Rationaizing” – a word you do not seem to know the meaning of.
Regardless, I would suggest reading the articles linked to by the tweets you post – if for no other reason than because you can be sure I will.
I have no problem with laws and regulations regarding how government conducts its own affairs – infact these are essential.
Were any of these violated ? If so – prosecute.
If not, is there a problem not addressed by those laws and regulations ? If so – revise those laws.
You seem to be arguing that Because Betty DeVos is wealthy and has myriads of investments – many in education, that any business that she has invested in should be barred from doing business with the government,.
That is not the law. If you want that to be the law change it.
Regardless, I would suggest you actually READ the ProPublica article.
1). A federal court ORDERED DOE to award contracts.
2). BEFORE becoming Secretary of Education DeVos sold her interests in this company.
3). The company is one of SEVERAL that won a competitive bid process.
4). It is likely that process is going to be challenged by the losers.
What part of this is it that bothers you ?
Should government agencies be precluded from selecting the contractor with the best price if that contractor ONCE had someone in DOWE as an investor ?
Put more simply should the government have to pay MORE to satisfy your whim to F’over people you do not like ?
I do nto personally care whether DeVos is CURENTLY invested in this company – which she is not.
All I care about is that there as a properly administered competitive bidding process and that DOW selected the lowest bid from qualified bidders.
Nothing in the ProPublica article says otherwise.
The internet is wonderful. CSPAN video surfacing from about 2013 with Sen. Durbin speaking publicly to the Senate in favor of the Dream Act, assuring us that it will permanently end “chain immigration”.
Separately Sen. Perdue not merely confirms that Trump did not say “shithole” but that Durbin has pulled this kind of stunt before. That Durbin frequently lies about what is said in private meetings.
Trump and Putin in a meeting
Trump: I bet I can get CNN to say “shithole” 100 times tomorow!
Putin: No F#$king way, Dude
Trump: Five Bucks ?
Now that’s funny.
It would make a good cartoon.
But if you posted it, Ron would complain it was consuming too much data.
If was a cartoon.
I did not post the cartoon, because my educated guess is that links increase the page load time – particularly video links.
So I have been avoiding them.
Also because dduck12 would definitely bitch.
Rand Paul had an excellent interview on this on Meet The Press.
1). Paul has no doubt of Trump’s concerns about Haitians and other central americans, as BEFORE the election Trump was a major contributor to Paul’s trips to Haiti and Central america funding Paul’s charitable work doing eye surgery.
2). Worldwide there are 700M people who want to immigrate to the US. That is beyond our capacity. There will have to be some limits on immigration. The only debate is over what those are.
3). There are many possible arguments for favoring one group or another – including favoring those from “Shithole nations”. Regardless, increasing those meeting one criteria comes at the expense of those with another criteria.
4). We should return to a work requirement. If you come and you can not keep a job, you should be deported.
5). Paul offered a compromise to democrats on the Dreamers more than 6 months ago.
Naturalize as many of them as you wish – immediately or over several years, but the numbers of naturalized dreamers come out of the allocated immigrants for that year.
Basically Paul is saying that he does nto care whether you give green cards to immigrants already here or ones looking to immigrate from a foreign country, that we establish a limit to the number of new people we naturalize each year and any “illegal immigrants” that are legalized come out of that years quota.
6). The fake outrage over the presidents comments has stalled any efforts to resolve this issue. Trump and Republicans are prepared to compromise. There are only three absolutes, an end to the repeated cycle of illegal immigration followed by amnesty, meaningful border security, agreement on limits to immigrants from all sources.
All that sounds reasonable to me.
None of it sounds like something Trump would have difficulty with.
dhlii; “So I have been avoiding them.
Also because dduck12 would definitely bitch.”
How about cutting the size and frequency of your comments if you care about this fine blog?
Caring about the blog, is not the same as caring about what you think. or what you think the problem is.
You still do not grasp you do not control other people.
THE PORN PRESIDENT
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455428/donald-trump-porn-star-payoff-why
I was sufficiently offended by Trump’s access hollywood remarks and by some of the stories of his conduct that I did not vote for him.
I probably would not have anyway, but that iced it for me.
That said I do not consider having consensual sex with pornstars – not even 3-ways an issue.
Trump’s reputation as a philanderer is extensive, and frankly I am surprised he paid off these women. With alot of his voters this makes him more appealing.
Regardless, the person with the legitimate complaint regarding this is Melania. And under the circumstances I do not see that she has all that much to complain about.
An 11 count indictment was issued Friday against Mark Lambert
This is the owner of a Trucking company involved in the Uranium One deal.
This is in connection with a bribery scheme during Hillaries term as Sec. State that leads to Tenex, and then to the Clinton Foundation.
Let me talk to you in Trumpian style language: you’re full of $hit.
This indictment has NOTHING to do with Hillary or theClinton Foundation.
“Lambert’s aim was to win contracts to ship uranium to the US.”
And that, you deceptive dissembler, has NOTHING to do with Uranium One. As you well know, Uranium One only allows the mining and distribution of uranium within the US.
Yes, the alleged bribery attempts were discovered during the Uranium One investigation, but it’s the same kind of ‘byproduct’ uncovering of possible criminal activity that you claim exceeded Mueller’s charges against Flynn, etc.
Stop being a $hithole of false information.
No this is not a “byproduct”.
This indictment is the direct result of an investigation into bribery.
You are right that it is mostly a product of earlier investigations by the FBI.
Investigations that were kept secret and supressed by DOJ and the whitehouse in order to protect the U1 deal.
Further the investigation is the consequence of an informant – who reported to the FBI attempts by the Russians to bribe him.
Aside from the administration slow walking or even killing this investigation, it is a normal investigation, done inside the scope of the FBI’s actual authority, while following the rules.
Specific crimes were alleged that triggered the investigation.
To the extent warrants were secured – actual crimes were alleged and real evidence of “probable cause” was produced.
How do I know that ? Because the FBI informant was released from his Gag order by the courts recently and we therefore KNOW what crimes were alleged and what evidence exists to support them.
Will this lead to the Clinton’s ? Who Knows ?
It is not there yet but unlike the Mueller investigation the train is on the track and LEGITIMATELY headed in that direction.
There is a charge of Money Laundering here.
I am pretty sure that bribes are illegal and therefore “laundering” bribes would be a crime.
That would be as opposed to legitimate publicly reported fees for political consulting that Manafort is being charged with.
Further this was and is an FBI investigation. It is not a Special Prosecutor investigation.
To my knowledge there is no current DOJ official or anyone currently in the whitehouse who is a target. Therefore there is no need for a Special Council – and no need for a specific letter of scope and authorization. The FBI investigation is constrained by the ordinary rule of law.
I expect as seems to be true thus far that they will abide by the 4th amendment,
They are clearly investigating an identifiable crime, this is NOT a counter intelligence investigation. It is a bribery and corrupt practices investigation.
The trail is somewhat cold – so maybe it will die.
But if it does not there is a seriosu potential for alot of heat directed at Democrats leading up to the next election.
Regardless the last thing that democrats need is more Clinton’s in the news.
Lambert provided transportation services to customer in the US and Abroad.
The bribery is of an official at Tenex. Oops.
Presumably you are familair with Tenex ?
You can not talk about the U1 mess without running full force into Tenex.
Further Tenex is connected the to legal and lobbing firm APCO.
APCO is thoroughly entangles with CGI – Clinton Global Initiative.
If your argument is – this indictment is not an indictment of Bill or Hillary – you are correct.
But unlike the Mueller’s indictiments and pleas – it leads TOWARDS, Tenex, APCO and CGI.
There is a further problem with this indictment. It is also an indictment of the Obama DOJ./FBI.
This is a prosecution that was possible 4 years ago.
It was stalled to protect Clinton during the election,
and to hide from Congress the corruption in the U1 deal so that Congress would not investigate.
That is criminal political corruption.
Everything .. I repeat EVERYTHING above you said is bullshit.
Lambert provided transportation for Russian nuclear products shipped INTO the US. Their is NO U1 connection. The US started importing Russian uranium in1987, long before the Obama administration. There’s ZERO U1 connection.
Tenex has nothing to do with U1.
Your claim of Obama/FBI/DOJ interference to protect Clinton during the election is speculative partisan hogwash, like most of your opinions. Get it? These are your unproven distorted OPINIONS. Stop fabricating false associations.
From Justice.gov press release
“An indictment against a former co-president of a Maryland-based transportation company that provides services for the transportation of nuclear materials to customers in the United States and abroad, was unsealed today for his alleged role in a scheme that involved the bribery of an official at a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation.”
NOTE: In the US and Abroad
“The charges stem from an alleged scheme to bribe Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official at JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX),”
Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation has Two subsidiares:
Uranium One and TENEX.
And TENEX is connected to CGI thru APCO
None of this is “secret”.
Please read what I wrote.
First the DOJ/FBI slow walking of the Russian corruption investigations is fact beyond debate.
All that is in debate is WHY ?
William Campbell was approached by the Russians in 2009. He immediately reported this to the FBI and subsequently became and informant.
There is a substantial amount of federal court activity on this – possibly as many a 9 sealed indictments from 2014 and 2015.
In approx 2014 Campbell was hit by DOJ with a federal gag order.
He was threatened with prosecution if he talked to ANYONE about his work as an informant – including congress. He has been working through a private attorney to air his story – without going to jail since then.
In late 2017 Trump order DOJ to allow Campbell to testify to congress.
That is the first time the details of any of this managed to become public.
Prior to that we knew there as an investigation, and informant, one prosecution and conviction and then everything disappered from sight.
We KNOW that Rosenstein was involved.
We KNOW that Mueller was involved – atleast towards the begining.
We KNOW that Comey was involved.
There are a few others but I forget them.
Campbell has testified to congress. We do not know much about that testimony.
Why was all this kept hidden ?
You are correct we do not know why.
But we do know who – and that would be the named people in DOJ/FBI.
It is possible this was done to conceal the Russian Corruption from congress as a time when the U1 deal could have been tanked by congress.
It is possible it was done to protect Clinton during the campaign.
It is possible it was both.
Maybe there is some other reason.
But whether you like it or not this is directly tied to TENEX, and that ties it indirectly to Rasatom, U1, and the Clintons.
We also know that this indictment is likely only the tip of the iceberg.
Where exactly it goes – who knows.
But it is NOT likely to be good for Clinton or Obama no matter what.
It does not matter whether it results in prosecution of Clinton or anyone from the administraiton.
All that is necescary is for DOJ/FBI to be saying TENEX, Rastaom, and Uranium One regularly for the next year. And that appears near certain.
Even if DOJ/FBI never utter CGI or Clinton or Obama the press will connect the dots.
While the US MSM is heavily biased, they are also completely unable to avoid chasing the blood in the water.
Absolutely there is speculation – as I said WHY is not understood.
Regardless I have been clear about what is fact and what is speculation.
The FACT is there is an 11 count indictment today against a US businessman.
The FACT is he was involved in fraudulent Uranium Transportation contracts with TENEX in the US and abroad
The FACT is Both TENEX and U1 are subsidiaries of Rosatom.
The Clintons are inextricably commencted to U1.
They are also more indirectly connected to TENEX.
There have been stories in NYT I beleive about Bill Clinton’s ties to TENEX for a years.
Yeah, Jay-tarmac brain, there is no there there or if there is it depends on what is is.
I would say “time will tell” with this. But this is close to a certainty.
AGAIN, there is far more circumstantial evidence of political corruption regarding U1, the Clinton’s and Obama than there is related to Trump/Russia and the election.
I do not think the primary reason that the Russian bribery investigation was slow walked was to protect Hillary. I think it was done to keep congress from finding out and tanking the U1 deal.
During the election alot was made because Hillary could not approve the U1 deal alone.
So ? You can bribe one person to get half what you need.
Regardless, Though I do not beleive Obama was being paid off, the whitehouse wanted the U1 deal. The Clinton’s merely used their position to profit from what might have been inevitable.
But it is not going to be necescary to connect all the dots.
All that needs occur is to Have Russian Bribery come up over and over accross the next couple of months. Add to that the fact that Rosenstein, Mueller, and Comey will also come up at the same time – over and over.
I do not know whether the Obama administration tried to protect Clinton before the election by slow walking this investigation. We may never know. It will not matter.
People are going to connect those dots on their own.
We now have a compelling story of the FBI and DOJ falling all over itself to protect Clinton during the email investigation. Are people going to convict her based on that – probably not.
But are they smart enough to grasp that ordinary people do not get that kind of kid glove treatment, that Flynn certainly didn’t.
I have told you before that what really makes me want to jail Clinton is “Nakoula Basseley Nakoula”. This is the guy who had the misfortune to have Clinton pick his Youtube video as the cause for Benghazi (Innocence of the Muslims was her 2nd choice, the first choice had to be dropped because no one in the mideast had seen it) anyway after knowingly Scapegoating Nakoula publicly, Clinton proceeded to force jailing and prosecuting him.
That was just too much for me.
Nakoula did not choose to play in Clinton’s world – she drug him into it and then sent him to jail to cover up her own incompetence.
That sticks in my craw. That is a reason to jail Clinton.
That is a reason she gets no sympathy from me.
Matt 18:21-35 The parable of the unforgiving servant comes to mind.
Anyway most of us already beleive Clinton got highly preferential treatment by the FBI/DOJ.
Just hearing Clinton, Russia, Corruption, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstien, Uranium One
all regularly on the news for a while is going to be very damaging to democrats.
It also raises another point.
Whatever else Uranium One was – it was a deal with the Russians.
You have sold this Trump evil corrupt Russians meme.
Constantly hearing about Russian Corruption and the Obama administration is not going to help your case against Trump.
How do you have the balls to accuse Trump from being overly close to “our mortal enemy”.
When Clinton and Obama were in bed with them prior to the election ?
Also if there is all this corruption in the Uranium One deal – then why didn’t Russia – which purportedly favored Trump leak just a little of that ?
Your memes are coming apart.
Also in the news is a story about Chelsea Clinton and Haiti.
Apparently in the Wikileaks emails are several from Chelsea while in Haiti.
Chelsea does not have the Coarse Queens touch that Trump does.
But here emails describe Haiti as a “shithole” in less coarse terms.
And separately chastize the british Red Cross for bungling their construction of latirnes aka shitholes.
Chelsea would used different words – but to convert her emails to Trumpspeak
“The british Red Cross Shitholes in this shithole are shitty”
You really are PATHETIC.
Chelsea wrote her own emails. I had nothing to do with them.
The real point of all this is that pretty much any time you play “much ado about nothing” regarding Trump, it will not take very long to come up with lots of similar antics by democrats that went unheralded.
Trump says Haiti is a shithole.
Biden says it is a Hellhole.
Obama says Libya is a shitshow.
Durbin says saying “chain immigration” is offensive to americans who came here as slaves.
Links to CSPAN with Durbin promising to and “chain immigration”
And finally Chelsea writing about how horrible Haiti is an to ice it how the British Red Cross screwed up digging the latrines – aka shitholes.
I told you at the start of this – calling Haiti a shithole is just speaking the truth.
If it is racist – then Hellhole is equally racist and Biden is a racist.
If it is vulgar then both Biden and Obama are vulgar.
If noting that Haiti sicks is racist – then Chelsea is racist.
If Trump refering to Chain Migration is racist – than Durbin his accuser saying the same thing is equally racist.
In the end what you have is alot of fake outrage.
And frankly I think you know it.
Trump said some coarse things in a private negotiation – like every president since Washington.
Get a grip.
you adumbrated her WORDS with your own BS substitutions, you despicable dunce. That’s what was pathetic. As was your interpretations of her remarks.
My summary of Chelsea’s email is far closer to what she wrote than anything you have ever produced regarding Trump.
Devious or dunce ? Neither, one, or the other, but not both. Make up your mind.
Regardless my summary and her email are both available for anyone to read and judge for themselves.
I did read them and you misrepresented them, you devious dunce (a dunce for flimsily concocted deviousness )
Jay;
I long ago grasped that you are not even close to objective on anything.
I really do not care than you think I misrepresented Chelsea’s email.
As noted Both my summary and the actual email are available for OTHERS – those capable of critical thinking and objective evaluation to judge.
You are a foil not an audience.
Nor do you appear to be capable of thinking for yourself.
Almost nothing you post is not litterally someone else’s views
It is impossible to get you to express yourself – beyond “Argh!Trump!”.
I have asked you several times – how are you going to cull the 700M people who wish to come to the US to the about 1M that we accept each year.
I really do not care how you answer – most any answer is legitimate.
At the same time most every answers arguably as discriminatory in someway as Trump’s
You lob grenades, but you are unwilling to defend a position of your own.
unfortunately it is the new normal
What part of this bothers you ?
That Trump dated porn stars ?
That he paid them ?
Did he rape any of them ?
Did he assault any of them ?
I would be far happier if:
Moore,
Franken.
Weinstein,
Spacey.
…..
had been dating and paying off pornstars than engaged in sexual assault
One day is enough, methinks.
Dated? Paying for sex isn’t dating, dummie: in Lake Tahoe where the transaction took place prostitution is a criminal act. Donnie participated in an illegal enterprise, then paid a bribe in the form of a non disclosure contract to cover it up. Then lied when asked about it, and continues to lie, as he has about numerous other sexual improprieties.
Again, you are pathetic: asking if he assaulted any of the woman he paid for sex, suggesting that as innocent compared Weinstein/Spacey/Franken (Franken, really?) and IGNORING all the sexual harassment/assault allegations made against the GROPER?
Still having problems with timelines I see.
Trump did not pay for sex. He paid to keep it quite.
Regardless, you are arguing with a libertarian.
I do not give a damn if Trump paid to F$#k his way from one end of the Playboy mansion to the other, as long as it was consensual
You keep bandying about terms as if you can add them like spices.
An enterprise as a meaning. A porn star is not an enterprise, A three way is not an enterprise.
If you can not use words properly you should think about not using them.
Bribery has a meaning too
Bribery:
The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties
Pornstars are NOT officials, and they were not paid to influence the discharge of their public or legal duties.
People are legally paid to do things – like keep silent all the time.
I have no idea whether Trump lied about this. I can not recall his saying “no I have never had sex with porn stars” but if he did, people lie about sex all the time.
Unless you have him lying under oath about it, you should relax.
Now asking questions is criminal ?
Grow up, and chill out.
If Trump did something non-consensual with these porn stars – you have a story.
I have not heard that yet.
All you have thus far is Trump living out the dreams of most of his male voters.
I do not think that is going to get him impeached.
And no it is not at all comparable to Biden, Franken, ….
As to the remaining allegations against Trump.
Eliminate the “oh, my the producer of a Paegent looked at me funny” stuff, and the “not here, not now” stuff, and there are not many credible allegations left.
But yes, I take those seriously.
Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton for Sexual Harrasment.
The same avenue is open to those making sexual harrassment claims against Trump.
There is a way you can actually get him to testify under oath.
Regardless, I am not ignoring anything.
I already told you repeatedly – I did not vote for him.
My views of his Sexual misconduct assured that if there was a chance I would that ended.
But he still got elected, and I accept that.
You still don’t.
He is president.
I got to cast my vote on his conduct.
I am not pushing to impeach him for something I have already punished him for.
For something the women he assaulted can seek compensation for.
Show me actual serious misconduct in office – and none of this “oh, my gosh Trump spoke coarsely” garbage, and not “I disagree with his policies” and not “hateful, hating hater” garbage and we can talk impeachment
You don’t know what he paid to keep her quiet about.
That story about him and Stormy had been circulating long before the election run. Why the bribe at that time?
To coverup orgiastistic inclinations, when his wife had just given birth to his son? And doesn’t that lend credence to to Dossier report he had sex with Russian Prostitutes?
“You don’t know what he paid to keep her quiet about.”
Nor do you, but given that the story is out it is reasonable to infer.
Regardless, there is still no allegation of anything non-consensual.
Nor a bribe – these women were not government officials induced to ignore their duty.
Misuse of words distorts meaning and communication.
People not intent on deception do not call the private exchange of money “bribery” because the use of money to induce government actors to ignore their duty is extremely different in character and consequence.
You are fixated on the motives for the actions of private people, where neither their actions nor their motives are your business.
Does this give credence to the Trump Dossier ? No. Just as Eliot Spitzer’s dalliances in NYC do not give credence to my claims that he had sex with prostitutes in Kiev.
Most of what is in the Steele Dossier has been proven impossible – because the people where not where the Dossier claims them to be at the time. In fact the entire Russia/Trump meme is suffering from a massive timeline problem It is increasingly evident that what little contact the Trump campaign had with anything even vaguely russian was too late in the campaign to have had anything to do with the purported Russian hacking. Even the Social Media mme fails because nearly all the adds ran after the election.
It is not credible to beleive that Trump was colluding with Russia from 2015 or early 2016, when in july of 2016 Trump Jr. was agreeing to a meeting with Natalia in the hopes of dirt from high in the Kremlin on Clinton. If there is already a high level channel to Putin why risk meeting with Natalia ?
But logic has never been a strong suit of those on the left.
With respect to the Russian Prostitute story.
Like the rest of the Steele Dossier it is fabrication.
As some ex-CIA people noted. Steele was paying Ex FSB officers for dirt.
The more he paid, the more dirt he was going to get.
They would be happy to make up anything that they thought would appeal to Steele as long as they got paid. This is the norm with paid sources in intelligence.
They provided stories that would appeal and were not trivially falsifiable and consistent with what they thought Steele wanted to beleive.
If you really want to make a Putin hates Clinton argument,
Consider that maybe Putin set Clinton up with the Steele Dossier.
What do you think would have happened had Clinton gone public with it and:
Trump had been able to falsify key portions
It came out it came from the Russians ?
You do not seem to understand that there are two rock solidly documented cases of Collusion with Russia – and that is the DNC/Clinton campaign and the FBI.
There is a separate slightly weaker case of collusion with Russia on the U1 Deal with again Clinton and the Obama administration.
But lets directly confront the Russian prostitute story and say it is true.
So Trump had sex with Russian Prostitutes ?
I highly doubt that would have effected the election.
BTW if Trump is paying off Porn stars – why not Russian prostitutes ?
If Trump actually had russian prostitutes pee on a bed slept in by Obama,
and you had video of that – while not criminal that would have been damning.
I certainly would not have voted for Trump after that – oh wait, I didn’t.
So the russian prostitute argument becomes people who voted for him knowing he was an admitted “pussy grabber” are going to change their vote because he hired russian prostitutes to give Obama’s russian bed a golden shower ?
Regardless, it is not a crime, so the only issue is how it would have effected voters.
We can game those types of whatif scenarios forever
Whatif we learned that the FBI and DOJ people investigating Clinton we heavily pro-clinton ?
That might have thrown New Hampshire, Nevada and a few more states Trump’s way.
Anyway, the only things I care about the Steele Dossier are:
Why was the FBI involved with it in any way at all ?
Given that almost nothing in it has been verified – even today – they certainly did not verify it.
In fact we know they did not try because they did not interview Carter Page – who had worked with the FBI previously and therefore was someone they could go to and ask.
Why is the left making a huge deal of failed efforts of Trump to get OPO research from Russia, when Clinton totally succeeded – though they fed her garbage.
Jessica Drake, another porn star at the same Lake Tahoe event he was chasing Stormy around in his ‘whitey nighties’, alleges Trump offered her $10,000 in exchange for having sex with him. She says she turned him down.
Why would you assume he wasn’t offering money to Stormy as well? You think women like her who get paid to have sex in films would want to have sex with Schlump for free?
Why would Schlump pay for an NDA right before the election to hide him having sex with Stormy, when it had been reported years before? But hiding a criminal act would justify paying out $130,000 for silence.
tRUMPS a slime bag. You’re a slim bag by proxy for defending him.
Those who applauded Clinton getting impeached for lying about a blow job (did you?) should be demanding to know if Horney Donnie paid other woman for sex as well in places it was illegal. Prior undisclosed criminal behavior is surely reason to impeach.
from iPad email
Generally the way this is done is that someone like Trump pays to spend the evening with the Pornstar, and the sex is incidental.
In fact alot of times they are paid for companionship and do not perform sexual favors.
Regardless, I am libertarain – why do you think I care whether Trump paid for Sex ?
I do not care if Trump paid for companionship
For a night with a porn star on his arm.
For a happy ending
For their discretion.
I have not heard anything that constitutes harassment or non-consensual sex.
Or a violation of a public duty.
Honestly I do not know what Trump paid these women for silence.
I do not think their stories hurt him at all.
In fact they discount the stories of actual harrassment.
It is less credible that a man who will pay 10,000 for a night with a porn star is going to do something non-consensual. One of the reasons you pay for sex is to voluntarily get what you can not have for free.
I wish Franken, Moore, Biden and Clinton were paying Porn Stars or Prostitutes.
Why do I defend Trump ?
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Because that is what Libertarians do – defend those being falsely attacked or attacked for conduct that should not be illegal.
When Trump actually comes after you, you can count on me to be there – no matter how repugnant I think you are.
I will attack you for saying stupid shit, but I will defend your right to do so.
Clinton lied under oath. Further he had sex with an intern which is an abuse of power.
Clinton also used AK State police to secure women and to coverup his daliances.
You should actually read the articles of impeachment for Clinton.
You can impeach Trump because you do not like his hair.
But it is not going to occur unless a majority in the House of representatives chose to do so, and Trump will not be removed unless 2/3 of the Senate choose to do so.
Given that almost two years of attack on Trump have degenerated to “his speach is coarse”.
you have nothing.
But dream on.
When in your lifetime has a major American newspaper made such a damning accusation against a sitting president?
Do you still not understand what jeopardy of division this asshole has placed the nation?
Well here we go again, second try and only a few hundred comments.
Jay,
you know who I feel sorry for? The 30 year old mother of two working in an attorneys office who was brought here when she was 6 months old. Thousands others like her that face the possibility that she will face a order to return to her “home” country. So what does she do with her two kids and husband that were born here? ( This lady was featured on the news but I can find no links to include with this post)
She does not face this problem because of Trump. She faces this problem because of congress. Not just the 115th, not just the 114th nor the 113th. Even the 112th when DACA began was not completely responsible. Each and every member of every congress since the 111th is responsible since this is a great election issue and as long as it continues to be an issue, that Texas mom is living with the possibility of deportation.
Trump IS NOT KING!!! Start blaming the real problem in Washington. Congressional members today could meet at a local bar and in a couple hours have the basis for a plan worked out. But that would undermine their planned 2018 campaign they have been planning for a year or so.
I really like Rand Paul’s proposal.
Set the total number of legal immigrants we are going to accept per year.
Now everyone you give a green card to each year comes out of that total.
You want to favor the Dreamers – you still have only 1M green cards.year.
You want to favor Haiti – you still have only 1M green cars per year.
Essentially Paul is looking to put a price on greencards.
Prices make us think about what our values are.
They help us understand we can not have everything we want.
We have to make choices.
Buy a Mercedes or send my kids to college, one but not both.
Thank you, Ron!
Trump is not King, he doesn’t think that he’s king, and, as far as I can see, he doesn’t want to be king.
The illegal immigration problem has been ongoing for decades. Trump is just the latest in a long line of presidents, who has tried to resolve it, by getting Congress to pass enforceable legislation. The proposed bargain always ends up being the same: Grant amnesty to all of the illegals currently in the country, in return for empty promises that border security will be improved. Wash, rinse, repeat……
Birthright citizenship was never meant to encourage pregnant women from foreign countries to travel or migrate to the US to have their babies. It was meant to grant citizenship to ex-slaves.
We currently have a situation where “Birth Tourism” is happening on a grand scale, for the specific purpose of giving birth to an “anchor baby,” who will be able to sponsor a large, extended family to come to the US. LA does a huge business in this sort of birth tourism with Asian women, NYC with Russian women, and of course, it’s a major incentive for Central and South American women to risk their lives by illegally crossing the border, Most other countries that have, or had, birthright citizenship. have amended their laws to discourage this kind of thing.
It’s obvious, “common sense”, compassionate, whatever you want to call it, that ending chain migration (or family-based migration for those who are triggered by the word “chain”) is the way to effectively end this problem. Same for diversity based migration, i.e. lottery migration.
The idea that Trump is a racist and hates immigrants, or that he could wave a magic wand and solve the immigration problem that Congress refuses to solve? It ignores the facts, and it’s just politics.
You can end birth tourism without ending Birthright citizenship.
Though I do not understand why you wish to keep wealthy pregnant women from eastern europe from coming to the US spending lots of money here, in order to have a child with dual citizenship, who is not likely to be someone we do not want. But you can do as you please.
Those countries that do not have birthright citizenship have far worse problems.
We can all complain about US immigration, but one thing that is absolutely true about it is that
immigrants to the US eventually assimilate. Some faster than others.
Most of us tend to retain some reflections of our cultural heritage, but ultimately we all become americans first and foremost.
Even those who are “fresh of the boat” and are poorly assimilated, still mostly have a sense of being american that is NOT true in most of the rest of the world.
Immigrants to europe remain separate for many generations. That creates enormous problems. ‘
When I was young Europeans chastized the US as racist and vile with respect to our treatment of minorities and immogrants. Today it is quite obvious that increasing immigration is tearing their countries apart.
Whatever problems the US faces – are miniscule compared to those of Europe.
Trump is a racist – so are we all – blacks and hispanics too.
But my generation is far less racist than my parents who are less than their parents and my children are less than I – well maybe not. My adopted Chinese daughter has a bit of a red neck streak in her. My Korean son likes all things Japanese and really does not like Korea – this is despite the fact that Koreans are literally the blacks of Japan.
Regardless, the significance of race in the US has diminished radically since I was young.
Anyone who can not see that is blind.
Yes, I do think Trump is looking at the people immigrating here and thinking – and saying, “I want those more like me, I want those with a better education, and higher standard of living who will be more productive”.
So ? I do not completely agree with him,. But it does not matter. The moment you decide you are not taking everyone who wants to come, you are forced to choose.
I personally do not care much how we choose.
We can select applications completely at random.
We can continue the diversity lottery
We can favor those from “shithole countries”
We can favor those who have jobs,
We can favor those who have education.
We can favor whatever groups we choose.
But ultimately we MUST discriminate in some way.
I find it ludicrously disengenuous to froth over Trump’s purportedly racist criteria.
Haiti is a “shithole country”. Our efforts to fix that have failed.
We can choose to exclude people fro “shithole countries” or we can favor them.
But ultimately we are going to have to choose.
Pissing over Trump is a way to throw up roadblocks, not solve problems.
There is an editorial in NYT today pleading with Democrats to strike a deal – almost any deal with Trump. Sanity from the NYT. One of the things they note is that Democrats are actually unlikely to win the no deal scenario. Even if Democrats retake the house and senate, Absent supermajorities they will still have to work with Trump.
And Trump is in a position to deport the crap out of immigrants if he so chooses.
Anyway I am not so bothered by birth right citizenship as you.
I am less inclined to care much about a “path to citizenship”
Keeping birthright citzenship avoids the mess europe has made for itself.
It continues the focus on gradual assimilation.
I agree with you Ron, but we’re not going to solve major problems with this Boob as president. He’s a force for continual divisiveness. He has to be REMOVED from office.
Jay “but we’re not going to solve major problems with this Boob as president.”
your right. Didn’t happen with 43, didn’t happen with Obama, won’t happen with Trump and most likely will not happen with 46,47 and maybe 48.
it makes too good a campaign issue to allow it to be eliminated with sensible legislation.
Sorry Ron,
But overall Trump is doing a pretty good job as president.
WE have gotten alot of authoritarian garbage out of the executive.
We are shrinking government, putting constitutionalists on the courts, and eliminating regulation.
We have cut and simplified taxes – I would have wanted more simplification, but take what you can get.
Mostly congress is doing nothing – which is a good thing.
Standard of living is rising.
Dave, I didn’t say that I wanted to end birthright citizenship, although I do believe illegal entry for the purpose of conferring upon one’s child the rights and privileges of American citizenship should annul the child’s right to be a citizen . If the mother is here illegally, the child should not have any right to stay. I would be fine with birthright citizenship being restricted to those children born mothers who would be entitled to become permanent residents, whether or not they actually did so. That would eliminate those mothers who entered the country illegally.
I noted that the 14th amendment was not meant to encourage tourism for the purpose of obtaining citizenship, nor was it meant to confer citizenship on a child whose mother broke the law to give birth here. It was meant to confer citizenship upon people who were brought here as slaves.
Additionally, I said we need to end is family-based, or chain migration, because without that, “anchor babies” would not exist. They would just be babies born here, and the geography of their birth would not give them a right to be future sponsors of 4,8, 15, or even 25 extended family members who want to receive the largesse of our government, without contributing anything, other than their Democrat votes.
I do not want to change the law regarding birth right citizenship – not even a little.
I am not sure it would not require a constitutional amendment.
Originalism does not mean guessing what our founders would have meant had they encounted the situations we see today.
Our founders as an example explicitly opposed general warrants.
They explicitly requires specific warrants to enter anothers home.
Knock and announce is actually ancient – going back to England in the 1500’s.
When colonists talked about having the priviledges and rights of british citizens – they meant that colonists had the same rights as the poor in England – which was not the case in 1776.
If faced with millions crossing from Mexico, maybe our founders would have decided differetnly.
But they decided a specific way. If we beleive modern conditions require changes they WE must make those changes. Appealing to what our founders might have done is deceitful.
We stick to what they did and apply that to today. Changing the law or constitution when we decide they were wrong.
But on this they were right.
Further you can more simply address this a different way.
The citizenship status of a child gives THEM the right to stay – not the parents or the rest of the family.
Deport the mother – and the child is going with her. Maybe you will see the kid again at 18, maybe not.
The fundimental problem is “chain migration” not birthright citizenship.
I would note some small part of this debate actually applies to my family.
My daughter was born in China. My son in Korea. My daughter has a chinese passport, and my son a Korean one.
One of the last things that got through before Clinton left office was a bipartisan law change that made the adopted children of US citizens automatically citizens.
Absent that law, my children would have had to go through naturalization.
Both received a “green card” in order to come to the US.
Oddly when you adopt in the US (we also adopted our daughter in China),
you get a new birth certificate for the child, It is a US birth certificate but it says born in Korea or born in China.
We needed no special paperwork to enroll them in school or to get them drivers licenses.
but when they went for jobs, they had to apply for passports – because they have no proof of US citizenship.
They are not citizens by Birth, they are citizens by law. Something the US never had before.
We actually waited to get their passports – because for years despite a law that flat out says they are citizens, DHS still required them to go through the naturalization process.
Within the past few years the State Department decided to ignore DHS for passports.
We had to provide the State department with birth certificates and proof of adoption and they received passports.
DHS wanted (and still wants) several hundred pages of paperwork(and alot of money) to issue a DHS certification that they are citizens.
But a passport is absolute proof of citizenship.
Because my kids are asian they do not go anywhere without proof of citizenship.
Even during Obama there were myriads of stories of citizens being deported because they did nto have documentation on them.
There were even rare stories where ICE would confiscate someone’s US passport – and then deport them.
Do not presume that the left is better at making the bureacracy not F things up.
Or that the Obama was not deporting as many people as Trump.
NYT is indistibguishable from Brietbart and InfoWars.
Trump Tweets headlines from NYT – and NYT and CNN go ballistic and accuse him of lying.
NYT has traded its credibility for a few more years of life and the love of the left.
Another DUMB assertion from the resident Dumb Ass.
What part is not True ?
Just off the top of my head
NYT ran the “Trump Wiretapped” headline in early 2017.
NYT ran the story that the FISA warrants were based on the Steele Dossier in April 2017.
NYT constantly runs stories that are purportedly well sourced that are completely inconsistent with stories they ran a month or two earlier.
New York Times used to be the cold standard of american journalism.
They have become Brietbart for the left.
Regardless, they have a rough road ahead. The transition away from print has been terribly hard for the aging queens of american journalism.
“Well here we go again, second try and only a few hundred comments.”
Speak up and criticize your fellow tribesman, dhlii, just as Reps should blast Trump and Dems the Clintons.
“Speak up and criticize your fellow tribesman, dhlii, just as Reps should blast Trump and Dems the Clintons.”
You are going to have to be clearer ?
Are you asking me to criticise Ron ? If so you are going to have to be more clear about why, because I missed it.
Or am I supposed to be criticizing Rand Paul ? I have done that before, but I can;t think of a recent reason. I thought his meet the press appearance was excellent.
Or are you pretending I am a republican again ?
Regardless, I am not playing “guess the outrage”.
Identify what you think I should criticise and if I agree I will.
Try a larger enema, the quote was Ron’s and you are f—– up this blog from operating properly (too many comments). CLEAR?
I quoted you.
If the blog software is not operating properly – that would be a wordpress problem.
As to the cause – we are all guessing.
Cosco sells the Super Enema brand, that might help you.
If you actually beleive the number of posts is the problem – then your gratuitous enema insults are a more significant cause than any of my posts.
16 USC §668dd(f) & 50 CFR §32.63 make it a federal crime to go noodling in the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge.
My, comments are “a more significant cause than any of” yours?
OK, forget the enema, it is too late.
In a story that demonstrates how the overreach to the left can become the overreach of the right.
The intercept just ran a story where Watcom county, Washington prosecutors have secured – with the help of facebook and DOJ a warrant for all information on Facebook about the people who staged a protest against the construction of a pipeline.
I keep saying that the constitution requires that probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the target of the search has evidence of that crime before a warrant can be issued.
I have no problems with the construction of pipelines.
I have problems with the use of eminent domain to do so.
I have no problems with protests against pipelines.
I have no problems arresting people who tresspass on private property during a protest.
But none of the above is at issue here.
The “issue” is that protesters cross a public road, blocking it briefly, this is the “crime” that is the basis for the warrant and what prosecutors are investigating.
So how did DOJ get involved ? Because during the inaugural there was some vandalism and DOJ used that as the basis to get the court to compel facebook to turn over the names of thousands of people who visited or merely liked the protest site.
I have no problems prosecuting vandals.
I have major problems with government searching through information on many innocent people in the faint hope of finding a few guilty ones.
This is one of the few rare instances the Trump administration has actually acted totalitarian.
And this I strongly oppose.
The Whatcom case is even more interesting as the warrant application rightly failed twice.
It was not until Facebook told the Whatcom prosecutors to seek DOJ’s advice in crafting the warrant that the prosecutors were able to construct a warrant that the courts approved.
Though for the life of me I do not know why.
Tying this back to the left. This is also what is wrong with Mueller.
The them in all of the above is there is no crime sufficiently related to the investigations and warrants requested.
When we take an incredibly expansive interpretation of the law, the results will be bad.
They will be bad – whether it is republicans or democrats.
When you support an expansive interpretation of the law to empower your Tribe to chase down your boogey men, expect that the same interpretation will be used against you in the very near future.
Left or right, playing fast and loose with the law and the constitution is shortsighted.
Whatever benefit you gain today – you will likely be the victim tomorow.
Trump should not have been allowed a warrant for the Facebook records of Inaguration protestors, Whatcom should not have been allowed a warrant for the Facebook records of Pipeline protestors, and Mueller should not have been given a brief to conduct a counter intelligence investigation – the special counsel law is specific to investigations of actual crimes where there is a conflict involving the whitehouse or DOJ.
No crime has been alleged, there is no basis for a special counsel, and certainly none for a warrant, which also requires probable cause of a crime.
When we shift to the rule of man not law, we become lawless.
A great deal of the current fight is over DACA.
So lets address the dreamers themselves.
We know that some of them are criminals – not many, but I am using that to make a point.
All of the dreamers are not those who deserve preferential treatment over others who might want to immigrate.
But lets assume that the Dreamers should “go to the head of the line”, from that position at the front what are reasonable criteria for granting them a green card, and allowing them to stay ?
I think few of us would object to keeping those with a job,
those who are or did serve in the military,
those who graduated from college
those who are attending college,
those who graduated from high school,
or are attending high school.
Those who are not on public assistance.
The statistics I am seeing might be wrong – that does not matter.
If we set reasonable criteria for determining who we will keep and who we will not,
Whether that ends up nearly all or only a few does not matter.
That said the statistics I am seeing are:
A large portion of “Dreamers” have never done anything to clear up their immigration status though many would have been able to in the past.
Their average age is 24 – not 14,
Less than 5% have graduated from college,
few are in school.
Most are not employed and those that are are paid below $15/hr.
Fewer than 900 of the entire 800,000 have been in the military.
Regardless, the more I think about it the more Rand Paul’s solution strikes me as appropriate.
Establish a limit to the number of greencards that will be issued each year.
Congress can raise and lower that limit each year as it pleases.
But there still must be a limit – because that puts a price on the choices we make regarding who we allow and who we do not.
Then separately decide the criteria we use to select who gets a greencard.
I do not much personally care whether we favor “shithole nations” or whether we favor Norway, or China, or places where there were natural disasters.
My criteria would be to ignore all of that and favor those “yearning to breath free”.
From Norway, or China or Haiti, what I want is those who really are “dreamers” who are coming here to pursue the american dream.
There is an excellent article in “the hill” positing that the improving economy is less the consequence of Trump’s presidency than Obama’s departure.
Natelson’s primary argument is that the Obama administration was the most lawless we have ever had. That for 8 years we were governed by exceutive fiat. That though we had seen some of this in the past that during the Obama administrating it uniquely permeated ALL of government.
As a consequence ANY new president would near certainly get a boom.
While I think that Natleson is only partly right – that Trump’s mostly strongly anti-regulatory and anti-federal power posture while rhetorically shared by other repubicans is unlikely to have taken nearly the effect under another president. Nor do I accept that President Hillary would be substantively different from President Obama.
Regardless, the core point – the erosion of the rule of law and the erosion of prosperity go hand in hand is correct.
A point that Natelson does not make but that occurs to me from his remarks is that a part of the reason we are not outraged but the political use of the machinery of govenrment by the Obama administration is that after 8 years we have become inured to it.
Regardless, the least that the Obama administration should demonstrate is that government by “experts” fails.
Questions trending today on social media:
Does oh so religious Donnie believe God meant for marriage to be between a man, his 3rd wife, & several porn stars?
When Donnie ejaculates does he shout “Oh Me!” .???
That is more a bad reflection on social media than Trump.
There are 700M people world wide who have said they would come to the US if they could.
Very very few of us left, right or otherwise are willing to take a fraction of that.
Current legal immigration is about $1M/yr.
I beleive the largest legal source of immigrants is asia.
Regardless, ultimately democrat, republican, Trump, Romney, Durbin – Jay,
You are going to have to CHOOSE – to discriminate, or you are going to have to accept 700M people
Either you are too stupid to understand this or you are deliberately deceiptful.
There is not a third alternative – not for you, not for Durbin, not for Romney.
The poverty of an aspiring immigrant is relevant – if we choose it to be.
The race of an aspiring immigrant is relevant – if we choose it to be.
The religion or an aspiring immigrant is relevant – if we choose it to be.
Given that we are unlikely to take more than 1/10 % of those who want to come here each year.
We are going to have to make choices.
Even if you pick randomly – that is still a choice, it is still discrimination.
Very little repulses me more than “holier than thou’s” who are ducking making difficult decisions that must be made.
I do not have to agree with Trump to respect the fact that he took a position.
Trump is not especially hypocritical on immigration.
Those prestending we are going to solve this problem WITHOUT making unpleasant discriminatory choices are huge hypocrits.
That would include you arne Romney.
ROmney, a polite gentleman meant POTUS: President Of The United $hitHead
The real reason he was deported: they discovered he was having extramarital sex with porn stars.
Your article says Jorge Garcia was too old to qualify for DACA.
That is a hilarious statement.
We have fake outrage over the deporting someone who would not have qualified to remain even with the unconstitutional non law of DACA.
The rules of a non-existant law do not matter.
If you want Joge to remain – sit down with Trump and change the law.
If you think the law is inhumane – fix the law.
Trump did not write it, congress did.
Jay “Surely this should not be happening. ”
Like I said and you seem to have a mental block in understanding the situation. This makes for a great campaign issue for 2018 and years to come. Just think of the thousands(or millions) that will read this, this will make it to their social media platform or the left will use it for Democrat campaign ads. You can’t buy information at no price that can do what this will do for them.
And don’t forget from the perspective of the right, they can find some “wetback” (used for demonstration purpose only) that came to this country illegally and ended up killing someone either due to drunk driving, gang violence or some other violent means. They will use that for the conservative campaign messages.
Been that way for more years than I can document, but at least more than 15. How many congresses has that covered?
Ain’t gon’a change. Best damn campaign issue to come along since LBJ had to decide not to run because of Viet Nam and at least that was of his own making. Bush 43, Obama and Trump are presidents, not kings, and presidents do not make legislation. congress does. If you don’t like this, write congress!
The number of Deportations under Trump is lower than Obama.
My wife defended people who had living in the US longer than 30 years, who served in the military who were deported under Obama because they got busted for having a joint in their car.
Obama was actually extremely agressive with deportations.
The Jewish guy that Trump just commuted, was part of one of the largest ICE raids ever. Hundreds were deported as a result of a single raid on this guys kosher foods business.
Regardless, if you wish to address these problems – SIT DOWN AND REVISE THE LAW!!
Trump is enforcing the laws we have.
I think most of those are bad.
The solution to bad laws is NOT to not enforce them.
It is to get rid of them.
That is congresses job.
Someone did a good job putting this together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mfEJ-j2pNo&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
What troubles me would be the same idiots who said this never happens will continue to spray and beleive the same kind of garbage tomorow and the next day.
When you make such ludicrously false statements no one should take you credibly again.
Technically this is not “fake news” because predictions by pundits are not news.
But it certainly was “fake economics”.
Meanwhile we are fighting over whether Trump said “I” or “I’d” on an unclear tape.
Honestly listening several times I hear “I” but many respectable people hear “I’d”.
That said based on the rest of the sentence – I’d make more sense logically and gramatically.
But this distinction becomes another pivot point over the left again accusing Trump of lying.
A bunch of someone’s are doing a good job taking it apart:
1- “After Walmart’s flashy announcement of bonuses of up to $1,000 for some of its workers, the real story played out quietly.
On Wednesday, as news of the bonus announcement was lauded by Trump and Fox News, Walmart abruptly closed down 63 Sam’s Clubs stores. More than 9,000 people lost their jobs. Some only learned about the decision when they showed up to work and found the doors locked.”
2- “On Friday, there was news of more pain for Walmart workers. The company confirmed to Business Insider that about 3,500 “co-managers” will be laid off across the country. They will be replaced by new, “assistant manager” positions, which would have a lower salary. The laid off workers will be able to “apply” for these new jobs.
As ThinkProgress reported, while the bonus announcement looked amazing it was much more complicated than it first sounded.
Walmart employees are eligible for the $1,000 bonus only if they’ve worked at the company for 20 years. Most Walmart employees, of course, haven’t worked there that long. Those employees will receive a smaller bonus based on seniority. Walmart didn’t explain exactly how the sliding scale will work, but said the total value of the bonuses will be $400 million. Walmart has about 2.1 million employees, which works out to be an average bonus of about $190.
The one-time bonus Walmart announced this morning amounts to just over 2 percent of the total value of the tax cut to the company.
In fiscal year 2017, Walmart had pre-tax profits of about $20.5 billion and paid an effective federal tax rate of around 30 percent. With a new corporate tax rate of 21 percent, the corporate tax cut is worth at least $1.85 billion to Walmart every year. Since this cut is permanent, the true benefits to Walmart will grow much larger over time. But it’s safe to say that, over 10 years, this corporate tax cut will be worth over $18 billion to Walmart.”
You keep saying you are not a lefty – yet you cite “thinkprogress” ?
I visit think progress regularly. Yglesias in particularly once in a while has an economic insight that is really good.
But overall ThinkProgress should be called ThinkRegressive.
And it is pretty close to the worst place to get any information on economics.
Progressives are totally clueless about economics and blind to the blatantly obvious contradictions in their own economic values.
Regardless, walmart like every other business in existance is always going to be seeking to do more with less. If it does not it will be out of business quickly.
WalMart and every other business that announced wage increases or bonuses is going to deliver those where they will benefit the business the most.
That will be the most productive employees – which are usually those who have been their the longest or those holding key positions.
If you hold an easily replaceable highly competitive low skill job – you are pretty much guaranteed to see minimal if any wage increases – EVER.
AS I have said before – the value of a burger flipper today is no higher than in 1970.
In real dollars the wages should be exactly the same.
The same is true of cashiers and myriads of other low skill jobs.
As noted before – the US manufactures more today than ever in US history, and manufacturing is growing.
But manufacturing jobs are going down dramatically – while the skill level or those jobs that remain is increasing and the pay is increasing.
Pay raises and layoffs are completely consistent.
We are seeing substantial pressure on wages – and likely will see even more.
That will be felt more by skilled workers, but should effect even low skill workers.
Why ? Because unemployment is declining. Businesses are taking more risks and investing and part of that investment is in hiring people to produce more.
So long as that continues – wages will rise.
We have driven unemployment down so much that labor force participation is rising again.
Leftist economists told us that was impossible.
That reductions in labor force participation are “structural” do to demographic changes.
Why do people beleive these idiots ? LFP is rising. Unemployment is declining, Growth is rising. Throughout the Obama administration we were told that combination was no longer possible.
Clearly it is . So quit listening to idiots who told you it wasn’t.
Not listening to ThinkProgress on economics would be a start.
“You keep saying you are not a lefty – yet you cite “thinkprogress” ?”
Its asinine statements like this that continues to define you as an a$$hole.
Two very recent cites from me were from Romney and Bill Crystal. Previous to that I cited National Review. And PopeHat. And other Republicans/Conservatives who ALL share my view, overall, of tRUMP, as they undoubtedly do of your defenses for him, as bull$hit.
So rather than Progressive you would identify as a statist or neo-con ?
Yes, we all know that you delight in finding anything that anyone who is not far left says that is derogatory about Trump.
But I think that even you grasp that a quip here and there is not the same as broad disagreement with Trump’s policies or broad agreement with those of the left.
I am surprised you have not cited anything from Ben Shapiro or Jeffrey tucker – both of whom have at times been highly critical of Trump.
I think even here you will find that priscilla and Ron would prefer that Trump express himself less coarsely – and even I on occasion.
All that said the words that have you frothing are overall inconsequential.
There will be a deal on immigration – or there will not.
If there is not – Trump’s coarse language is just an excuse.
You treat speach you do not like as an actual assault, as the same as an act.
That is pretty much exactly what irks everyone about our milenial children on campus today.
As the childhood nursery rhyme goes “sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me”
If Trump actually said Shihole nation – and I am mostly inclined to beleive he did, or something similarly offensive. Than he spoke the truth – coarsely maybe, certainly offensively. But still the truth.
If you are so sensitive you can not bear hearing unpleasant Truths – I am sorry for you.
But your sensitivity and offense is your own problem.
Maybe in some perfect world I wish Trump was eloquently and perfectly shredding the left and the media. But we do not live on a perfect world.
And frankly I think his confrontations with the left and the media are necescary.
They harm his approval – but there are even more destructive to the left and the media.
And that is good for the nation in the long run.
Trust in government and trust in media is at a nadir – deservedly so, and we are as a people better for it. We have limited need for both. We are capable of managing most of our lives completely on our own, and we are better for that. Diminished trust in the media, in the left in government leads us to rely on ourselves more – again very good for all of us – both individually and collectively.
Anyway, maybe someone else here cares about what Neo-cons think. I certainly don’t.
In 2016 they shifted back to the democratic party – good riddance.
For all the flaws of the blue collar white Trump voters, The trade is still net positive for republicans.
I did not vote for Romney either. I am sure he is a good person, and much better spoken than Trump. But we did not need Obama lite when we had the real thing.
I still respect him, and I do not respect Trump very much. But Trump has been a far better president thus far than Romney could possibly have been
That is part of what distinguishes you and I.
I do not care that much what Trump says.
I care what he does.
After you have all had your hissy fit over “shithole nations”, you are going to have to figure out whether you wish to solve a problem or score political points with the far left.
You made a big deal about Jorge Garcia – who would have been deported by every president in the last 30 years – if he was caught.
If you want to do something – you have the opportunity now.
Get past your attempts to score political points over outrage – and take a seat at the table.
Figure out what you actually want, and then ask for it – out loud.
It is easy to attack others. It takes much more courage to take a position yourself.
So far you have shown no courage on anything.
Based on the evidence you stand for “Argh!Trump!”.
That is not of much consequence.
Take an actual stand on immigration.
Do not call everyone else racist. Stake your own position.
Actually beleive something.
Do more that snipe for the sidelines.
I snipe alot – possibly more than you. But if you do not know where I stand on every issue, you are not paying any attention.
You claim I get you wrong. Probably. It is much harder to discern what someone stands for from what they hate.
Walmarts Quarterly profit margin for Q4 2017 was 1.42% for 2017 it was about 2.3%/Q – that is about 9%/yr.
How much do you want to bet that no matter what happens to Taxes that Walmarts yearly profits will not vary more than 2% over the next 10 yrs Probably less.
Get a clue. Any Tax savings is going somewhere – not in a hole or under the matress.
In the long run nearly all of it goes to price reductions.
The long term benefit to WALMART of business tax cuts is ZERO.
As I noted profits will only vary a small amount over the long run – unless Walmart goes bankrupt.
Then they will go to zero.
If the tax cuts do not go to profits, they must either go to price cuts or expense (like labor) increases.
3- “two major companies that publicly announced large bonuses for their employees after the passage of a massive GOP-led tax overhaul — which represented a windfall for wealthy Americans and big corporations — quietly laid off hundreds of workers at the same time.
Comcast laid off more than 500 sales employees right before Christmas, according to documents reviewed by media outlets including the Philadelphia Enquirer, Philly.com, and the Daily News. The documents were confirmed by at least one former Comcast employee who was not identified in the press.
AT&T is also in the process of laying off thousands of employees, according to the Communication Workers of America (CWA) union, which represents AT&T workers. CWA filed a lawsuit against the company claiming that some of those layoffs are needless, and that the timing of the terminations — just two weeks before Christmas — represents “an extraordinary act of corporate cruelty.”
How much do you want to bet that Unimployment for Q1.2018 is BELOW Q4.2017 ?
How much do you want to bet that Labor Force participation for Q1.2018 is higher than Q4.2017 ?
How much do you want to bet that median wages rises ?
You do make a point – all the stories about bonuses are meaningless – beyond demonstrating that the pundits are full of shit.
Just as all the stories about layoffs are meaningless.
Economy wide the only thing that matters is the trends.
4- more Trickle Down Pink Slips
“INDIANAPOLIS — A new round of layoffs is taking effect this week at the Carrier Corp. factory in Indianapolis a little more than a year after President Donald Trump touted a deal that staved off the plant’s closure and saved some of its jobs.
About 215 people are being let go starting Thursday, leaving about 1,100 workers at the plant, according to the company. That’s down from the some 1,600 factory, office and engineering jobs at the facility when Carrier announced plans in early 2016 to move production to Mexico.”
If Carrier is shedding jobs there are only two possible reasons:
Their productivity is increasing and their market is saturated. So they need fewer people to produce the same amount of equipment.
They are unprofitable and losing ground to competition.
You have said more than once that you were a key person in a $20M business.
Everything you do not seem to understand is pretty basic stuff that even some guy running a corner grocer should grasp.
It was a mistake for Trump to strong arm Carrier.
There were reasons they made the decisions they made – and those reasons were not magically going away.
Regardless unemployment for skilled workers is very close to 0.
It is amazing. It is always possible to find stories of stores closing. Plants closing, layoffs, …
There will be lots of stories about this – when the economy is tanking – and when it is booming.
There is always plenty of bad news.
We do not hear the good news much.Just because we do not hear it does not mean it does not happen.
You already know that the economy is on a roll and the short term expectations are that it will continue to do so strongly.
We should get Q4. 2017 numbers soon. There is alot of Buzz that Q4 growth may have reached 4%.
Ao you have noticed that businesses both reward success and punish failure concurrently.
All that time in that 20M business taught you something.
Regardless, it has absolutely NEVER made any sense to tax business profits at all.
Doing so is stupid and economically counter productive.
The entirety of the economy serves humans, and can do no other.
All business profits end up with humans one way or another.
Either profits are:
distributed to shareholders, who pay taxes on them and then either re-invest them or use them for consumption.
reinvested growing the business, creating new jobs, creating new value, or increasing the value of what businesses already create.
distributed to employees
Of those choices the objective of the 2nd and 3rd is ultimately to increase the 1st at some time in the future.
There is not some other sneeky option. The left has mistaught too many to think of businesses as somehow self serving. They are not and can not ever be. All businesses are ultimatly humans working in free association.
You would be absolutely correct to to presume that businesses do not distribute to employees out of altruism. If businesses are offering wage increases or bonuses, then they beleive they need to to remain profitable.
The ultimate goal is ALWAYS profits for shareholders.
But the functioning of the economy guarantees that profits to shareholders require delivering ever increasing value to consumers so ultimately profit spikes are uncommon and unsustainable.
While price declines or value increases are the norm.
With respect to the tax cut – there are many things businesse can do, but they ALL ultimately benefit people.
I would also note that a properly functioning economy absent government managment, the long term trend is ALWAYS deflationary.
All prices decline over time – including wages. But wages decline more slowly than other prices.
and so standard of living rises.
I expect the assorted bonuses and wages increases are nearly all certain.
Contra your claims, businesses can not afford to not live up to commitments.
Employees and consumers will revolt.
But the change that tax cuts will most strongly drive is price reduction.
More value delivered to consumers, not wage increases or investment or dividends.
Of course people are losing their jobs – and more will do so all the time.
A rising economy is disruptive and has lots of job loss.
Standard of living can not rise without producing more value at lower human cost – i.e. increasing productivity.
Increases in productivity lead either to price cuts and job losses, or to price cuts and production expansions – one or the other. They must.
AGAIN the ONLY way to raise standard of living is to produce greater value with less human effort.
Surplus labor is then available to produce something else. Further greater productivity means more resources available to hire people to produce something else.
Jay tell me you are not that stupid! Do you really believe a company as big as Walmart made that decision in a week to 10 days after the tax legislation?
That decision was made well before the holidays. They knew months ago that certain stores needed to be closed and by the holidays they knew which ones. No company makes decisions this big and gets everything in place to act as quick as you give them credit.
The raises and bonuses were not known until after the tax legislation passed.
It does not matter when the decision was made.
These are independent decisions.
It is possible that WalMart closed fewer stores as a consequence of the Tax Cuts – we do not know.
But stores that are not profitable are going to be closed – even in a strong economy.
Brick and Mortar Retail is in serious distress. Many Chain Stores are closing.
I would note that Think Progress ranting about Walmart’s closing is ludicrously hypocritical.
I am sure google will find me several articles on ThinkProgress telling me how evil Walmart’s are and opposing their opening.
Typical Left-wing logic
Walmart is opening a store in town – evil Walmart, that is going to destroy businesses and jobs.
Walmart is closing a store in town – evil Walmart, that is going to destroy businesses and jobs.
Progressives are not economically credible.
Jay constantly cites progressives, it is reasonable to identify him as progressive.
Telling me that he is not because he was one part of some business – is not meaningful.
Ron tell me you’re not stupid enough to understand Wallmart gave the bonuses to dull criticism of the layoffs.
Time will tell if the tax cuts help or harm us long term.
Reagan’s 1st term tax cuts proved harmful to the economy and he raised them 2nd term.
It’s the DEFICIT, dummy. that has to be reduced. And the export of jobs.
Jay, “Ron tell me you’re not stupid enough to understand Wallmart gave the bonuses to dull criticism of the layoffs.”
Jay, I can not put myself in the place of Walmart executives, but there have been business articles in our paper about Costco and how much better they are than Sams. I had a Sams card and now I have Costco. The two stores are like night and day in the number of people in them.
Whatever the reason, this will not be the last negative report from Walmart. With Amazon, Walmart will be closing more stores. You can buy cheap Chinese crap easier their than at Walmart.r
Jay’s critique presumes the market is static – that nothing changes – that if there are any negative changes – that is the consequence of greedy evil choices of businesses and positive changes are the consequence of good choices by government.
Your observations regarding Walmart, Sam’s and Amazon are highly likely correct. There is lots of data indicating that Retail is growing substantially BUT that Brick and Mortar retail is shrinking substantially. The weakness appears to be mostly in the big chains. The truly weak players – Sears, K-Mart are on the chopping block. Walmart is still profitable – but not ALL Walmart’s.
Costco is doing Well, and Amazon is doing incredible.
But that is not the point. A free world is dynamic. That is what freedom means – constant change.
Some good, some bad.
Corporate tax cuts mean many things – what they do not mean is higher profits in the long run.
They do mean lower costs for goods and services to consumers.
They do mean higher wages for those employees who contribute the most value to business.
They do mean more investment.
They do not mean a free ride for the non-productive.
The free market rewards productivity and punishes failure.
Government rewards failure and punishes productivity.
Again with the pretense that you can know the motives of others.
I have no mind meld with the Walmart board of CEO.
I do not know why Walmart made specific chocies.
The only reasonable assumption is that they did so rationally, based on sound economic reasons – because if they did not their shareholders and board will hold them accountable.
If Walmart or any other businesses gave Bonuses after the tax cut. They did not do so to curry favor with washington, or to prove progressives wrong.
They did so because they beleived they needed to do so to retain those employees and because those employees were of value to them. They did so because parts of the labor market are highly competitive right now. They did so because they correctly expected other businesses to do the same and they did not wish to lose important portions of their staff.
You note the structure of the bonuses is not across the board – of course not.
All portions of Walmart’s labor pool are not equally competitive.
Walmart does not pay anyone out of the goodness of their heart.
They do not give bonuses out of the goodness of their heart.
They do not close stores out of satanic impulses.
They make choices based on real world conditions and the interests of shareholders.
They open stores or close them – because it benefits shareholders.
They lower prices or raise them – because it benefits shareholders.
They lower wages or raise them – because it benefits shareholders.
They respond to the demands of the market, the demands of consumers, the demands or employees – because it benefits shareholders.
And if you have an IRA in this country and most of us do – then YOU are the shareholders that benefit.
Unemployment is 4.1% and declining.
Labor Force Participation is rising – something that has not happened since 2007.
And you are worried about the export of jobs ?
There are about 140M people in the US workforce. Standard of living rises one of three ways:
They are able to purchase the goods and services they want more cheaply – and lower cost goods produced by cheaper foreign labor accomplishes that.
They are able to produce more value in their current jobs.
They switch from jobs that produce low value to jobs that produce greater value.
At the moment we are very close to historical maximum levels of employment.
We still have some slack in Labor Force Participation.
That inherently means that upward preasure on wages in increasing.
And that means businesses must increase productivity.
Either you produce more at your current job,
Or jobs that can not justify market wages more elsewhere and people move to jobs that do.
You seem to beleive it is possible to do the same job in the same way your entire life and magically get paid more for you.
Wages are a free market exchange – like everything else.
A trade of value for value.
What you are paid is what your labor is worth to employer, the value you produce for them.
Adjusting for inflation wages do not go up unless you produce more value.
This is econ 101.
It is also trivial logic.
Who cares, I’d or I, it it still a silly statement. Who knows whats in that so called brain.
Move on, there are other idiots that need your attention.
“When you hear someone seeking to close down, prohibit or criminalise an opinion, you can generally guess which side of the political spectrum they’re coming from.”
****Second try ****
OK, you are a CEO of one massively large chemical company. Somehow all the alarms go off that warns of a large chemical leak. The sirens scream in town and all the residents know they only have minutes to take protective action. People rush to schools to grab their kids in hopes of avoiding the deadly gas. A few minutes later, the warning is cancelled and everyone notified this was a mistake.
You, as the CEO,are outraged this could happen. If you are like most CEO’S, you call in your senior management, tell them you want to know how this happened, who was responsible and want plans to make sure this does not happen again. And that plan better be in your office within 170 hours from right now.( 1 week). And if it is not, you better have a very good reason or start looking for another job!!!!
Now compare that to Hawaii. There are calls for an investigation by both the state and federal government, Hawaii, being state government will take a month or so to name members to investigate. Then they will call witnesses. After that they will review the information and by 8 – 10 months, a report will be issued, providing the state department 90 days to take the corrective actions proposed. All toll about 12 months.
Feds will follow same path, but with two committees. One House, one senate. But due to the limited number of days they work, their report will be issued in 18 – 24 months.
Lord, government is so predictable! Just love the money we spend on it.
Didn’t they already determine what went wrong, without an expensive investigation?
A dumbly designed warning launch computer screen, without a fail safe error button.
Jay I heard today a couple of times in different jnterviews that there are calls by legislators to open investigations in both the house and the senate.
It is government – there will be an interminable investigation – actually several
A problem that likely has a trivial fix, will produce 10,000 pages of recomendations.
We will probably have to hire 50 more people and create a three layer bureacracy in front of the button.
And Should North Korea actually launch on Hawaii, they might agree to push the button and notify people a few seconds before the ICBM explodes.
This was a problem with HI-EMA – Hawaii’s Emergency Management.
It is Hawaii’s problem, not the Fed’s.
Dave, I know that.
I was not the one who proposed that congress investigates.
You need to tell the Representatives and Senators who are proposing they send this issue to a committee. I can not find anything where these interviews were put on the web, but I did see some.
Regardless, the FCC is involved in the investigation. If it is an Hawaii issue like you say, why are they involved?
Every reply to you is not a disagreement. Often I wish to amplify some point of yours that I consider even more important that you did.
I am not honestly sure what the value of a warning system in the event of a nuclear ballistic missile would be. Most assessments I have read suggest that NK is 2.5 generations beyond Hiroshima weapons. That is at or very near hydrogen bombs. Regardless, it is weapons for which there is little or no protection in Hawaii.
Maximum warning time for Hawaii is about 7m. IF the warning was near the moment of launch and IF it was possible to accurately predict within 1000ft the impact point at that time, it MIGHT be possible – if no one panicked, for a large number of people to be evacuated from the critical zone.
That is alot of if’s. Absent accurate knowledge of the point of impact evacuation is futile and even seeking shelter of limited value unless the weapon is small. The most likely consequence of early waring is panick, gridlock and higher casualties.
With respect to investigations.
The information getting out is pretty damning.
Apparently HI-EMA has a web page that is used to send out “alerts”, and the operator clicked the “wrong” link. There was no verification, so a real alert went out instead of a training message.
And for the wrong disaster.
HI-EMA uses this system for a variety of alerts, including Tsunami’s earthquakes, volcano’s and tropical cyclones (outside the east coast “huricanes”).
Yes, I think that is a Hawaii specifc problem – but congress and the FCC are not going to listen to me.
Ok Dave, maybe you could add a sentence or two. Start with who you are replying to. Then copy a sentence from original comment. The comment ” i agree”
For instance in this case, ” Ron, I agree that the feds should not be involved because…… ”
Sometimes it is very confusing to me when the agreement and what that is is not clarified.
Just a suggestion, not a criticism and maybe reduce the number of my comments.
I am already excoriated because of my long winded posts and you want me to make them LONGER ?
I understand it is confusing.
Once in a while I have found myself in a passionate argument with someone only to discover that either:
I missed a “not” or some similar negation in their initial post or they missed a “not” in mine, or worse still I actually dropped a not in my own post.
Regardless, I disagree with you alot – about inches. I disagree with Roby and Moogie by miles.
Jay seems to hold no view on anything beyond “Argh!Trump”
With very few exceptions I could live happily with a government that was exactly as YOU wish.
I would still argue. I am never stopping that.
I would further note – and this relates to Priscilla’s link to the Andrew Klavan article:
I do not recall you ever engaging in ad hominem or arguments whose purpose was to silence others – regardless of their views.
For argument on a blog which always has the tendency to get nasty and personal, you present facts, logic, reason. Sometimes I disagree with those – though usually only a little.
My views and yours are closer than mine and Priscilla’s, but she too avoids the nasty and personal.
I strive to do the same – and I think mostly I do a pretty good job.
But it is difficult, when the typical argument goes:
Dave: The facts are as follows ……
Other: Asshole!.
——
Ben Shapiro pretty regularly says, if we can agree on the facts – the rest is easy.
Way too many today not only can not agree on the facts, but do not actually care what the facts are. Disagrements over most facts are relatively easy to resolve – if both parties care about the facts.
Anyone who doesn’t think this an Amercan travesty is a travesty.
Them’s the rules.
If you do not like it – CHANGE THE RULES.
Everyone is waiting for democrats to come to the table and discuss doing so.
But democrats do not want to “change the rules”. They want the same bad rules, but another one time mass amnesty for “dreamers”
BTW no one is discussing anything that would have benefitted Jorge Garcia. He was toast no matter what.
They are the rules today.
They were the rules under Obama
They were the rules under Bush
They were the rules under Clinton.
If Jorge Garcia was caught under Obama – the exact same thing would have happened – though the news did not report on deportations under Obama.
Bush deported more people than Clinton – by far, Obama more than Bush.
There was a decline – in the rate of increase after the 2008 crash – because a poor economy draws less illegal immigrants. illegal immigration was way down under Obama – and yet deportations were still higher than Bush.
It is a tragedy – and across the world there are 700m more like Jorge Garcia – all tragedy’s too.
They all wish to come here. Most of them live shitty lives, in shithole countries.
Most of them will be much better off here, and most of us will be better off because they are here.
So change the rule!!!!
Get past this emotional garbage and take a position. Your feelings do not matter at all – unless you are prepared to take action on them and accept the consequences for that action.
That means a wise person would THINK before they act.
So AGAIN Jay – what should the rules be ?
If you wish to do so – I am prepared to agree to completely tear down all barriers to immigration.
I am prepared to allow anyone who wishes to come here.
BUT I am going to end all positive rights, because you can not have unlimited immigration and positive rights.
That means no minimum wage. It means that SS and medicare have to ba a work based system where the benefits your receive are based solely on your contributions.
And that likely means getting government out of them.
That means an end to PPACA.
That means an end to EMTALA
That means an end to welfare.
That is the price of a sustainable open borders policy.
I doubt you are prepared to pay for that.
Regardless, take a position – stand for SOMETHING.
I am not interested in your pissing on everyone and everything else from the sidelines when you have no “skin in the game”.
#2nd Try.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-12/don-t-thank-trump-for-pay-raises-just-yet
Mostly the article is pretty good.
“Trump said pay would rise, and see, it is; his critics said the windfall would all go to wealthy shareholders, and see, it isn’t.”
In otherwords the short term effects are as the Tax Reform supporters claimed and NOT as it’s detractor’s claimed.
Score 1 for supporters.
The article CORRECTLY notes that the real proof is in the long term.
The article CORRECTLY notes that it will increase deficits and therefore borrowing.
The article notes those will have a negative economic impact without going further.
Government borrowing is a proxy for future taxes or future inflation.
Regardless, there is ample evidence that tax cuts on business and investment have substantial short and long term positive economic impacts.
That is actually a no brainer.
There is also ample evidence that government borrowing has substantial long term negative impacts on growth.
There is also ample evidence that government spending has substantial long term negative impacts on growth.
It is unlikely that tax cuts will “pay for themselves” – a claim that a few supply siders have made that progressives have used to completely tar and feather “supply side” economics – also know as classical economics – or just plain economics, as compared to keynesian, or neo-keynesian or socialist or myriads of other failed schools of economics.
The article also asserts that the tax code reform is complex – true. But it is also on Net a substantial simplification of the existing tax code.
On the basis of complexity arguments – the reform is inherently net positive.
This reform is Far from what we should do.
But it is a move in the right direction.
It will result in higher growth.
It will not do as well as better plans could.
It leaves open the opportunity for spending cuts – which will be far far more beneficial economically.
Duck Report: This thread is working nicely so far— for me.
At what number of comments will it slow down and act erratically?
Mine started getting erratic about 350, not bad yet, just a couple that would not post, but it said it was a duplicate when I tried to repost the exact one. Had to add “second try” so it looked different. I suspect 1000-1200 is the limit for my fire device ad 1500-1700 for my desktop.
I strongly suspect the issues have nothing to do with the number of comments.
But the total bandwitdth required to load the current set of comments.
POT – Plain old Text is by many orders of magnitude the least bandwidth consuming of anything.
I would guess that absent images and video’s and links we could get to hundreds of thousands of comments.
I single gif takes up more bandwidth than every text comment posted so far.
A video would take atleast as much bandwidth as a gif probably several times more.
The cost of a link will depend on whether it is expanded.
I am not sure if that is a function of WordPress or your browser – but if you see the top of the article linked to – then that link is expensive in bandwidth.
If all you get is a link it is likely very cheap
I would also note that different browsers and devices will be effected by badwitch differently.
Tablets have very limited resources and low bandwidth connections.
Desktops and laptops have far more resources and bandwidth.
And there are differences between browsers.
I use Chrome under Linux with 20-50 tabs open – and Chrome is a pig. But when things get unstable for me – I close or suspend tabs, and the problem goes away.
I am sticking entirely to POT until a new topic is opened.
Yes, I think that links, especially video links, slow the site down a lot.
For the time being, it might be a good idea to just mention the article and site, and we’ll all be able to find it, if we want to. I read a good piece yesterday by Andrew Klavan, in the City Journal, titled “Of Crudeness and Truth,” in which he argues that “No person of importance on the right seeks to silence anyone on the left. The Left, on the other hand, is broadly committed to ostracizing, blacklisting, and even criminalizing right-wing speech.” and concludes:
“We have seen the effect of uncontrolled immigration on Europe. It is very, very bad. The fact is: some countries are shitholes. I don’t want this to become one of them.”
I am generally a very polite person, and I try not to offend. But I’m generally not offended by profanity unless it’s excessive and/or directed at me…and, even then, I consider the source.
Trump is a rude guy ~ that’s pretty much who he is. Rudeness is not a virtue, by any means, but is a politely expressed falsehood better than a rudely expressed truth? I certainly don’t think so.
I have been trying to avoid links. Doing as you suggested.
If nothing else we will see whether that theory is right eventually.
I suspect the “already posted” messages are of a different cause.
I have not read Klavan’s article.
But I absolutely agree with your explanation of its thesis.
More Broadly, I do not care whether the left is more guilty than the right.
There is a reason some forms of argument are considered fallacies.
That include ad hominem
and that is they divert the argument away from the merits to extraneous things.
While there is some argument as to whether Trump called Haiti a “shithole” country.
The DHS secretary who was their was clear testifying to congress:
1). She did not hear Trump say that.
2). Lots of people were speaking at once, there were multiple concurrent arguments, and there was alot of volgarity and the vulgarity was from the senators and congressmen as well as Trump.
I personally beleive Trump did say “Shithole countries”, I also beleive the rest of the points above.
It is a fact – Haiti is a “Shithole country” Arguably we bear some small responsibility for that.
Finally I do not give a damn what the language of the president and others in private meetings is.
What I do care about is that the Durbin nonsense as well as much of this Trump said something offensive are effort to kill communications, to end discussion to stop debate.
More simply they are fallacious.
I do not think the remark was racist.
But lets assume the whole enchalada – lets assume for the sake of argument Trump is a raving Bull Moose Loney Racist.
He is still the president. You want to avoid deporting the Dreamers – you either need the agreement of a “racist” president, or you need 2/3 of congress. The former is easier.
If your response to a debate in which you can not get what you want is to call your opponent racist. that suggests you do not care that much about what you claim your objective is, and you are more interested in making your opponent look bad,.
Put differently calling Trump a racist – even if it is true is STILL an ad hominem fallacy,
because the argument is over immigration not Trump.
I would also note that calling someone a racist only works in one of three instances.
Your goal is to silence them
They are NOT a racist and they are sufficiently unhappy about being called racist to change their behavior to suit your wishes.
They are a racist and you can persuade others of that and in doing so out vote them.
Trump was elected because this PC ad hominem nonsense calling everyone a racist transphobic, homophobic, mysoginstic hateful hating hater FAILED!
For the last year the left has continued the same tactic – on steroids.
While they have been SLIGHTLY more successful in the past year, that success has been small and I am highly suspicious that it is TEMPORARY.
Those relishing the possibility of a democratic Sweep in November should consider:
The economy is likely to continue or even accelarate its improvement.
The Russia Collusion crap is pretty much dead at this point. No one is listening anymore.
Unfortunately that also means they are not listening with regard to the incredble political corruption that created it.
This constant “Argh!Trump!” crap requires a HUGE amount of energy on the part of the left.
At the same time Trump seems to actually thrive on it
It is HIGHLY likely to wear down the left.
It is also like crying wolf, again and again. Eventually you must produce a wolf or not one listens.
I could be wrong – the left might be able to manage to keep this same “hate, hate, hate” rant up through November. They might not exhaust and frustrate their own troops. They might also not provoke a backlash – as they did in 2016. Or they might accidentally stumble onto something that actually has some substance.
But I do not think I am wrong. I honestly think that the left is over confident right now, and I think that the left is far too deeply in their own insular bubble hearing only their own voices.
Clearly that was true in 2016.
There are a number of pundits claiming the GOP loses control of both the house and the senate, that 2018 will be a democratic Tsunami.
I would remind them the only election Republicans have lost that they should not have lost – was AL Senate – and even that they nearly won with a pervert. That should scare democrats.
When you almost can not beat a really creepy pervert you are in trouble.
I read another assessment recently.
If Republicans win every district that Trump won in 2016 by more than 3 points, they will GAIN 5 seats in the Senate, and still retain control of the house.
There are very few of the Trump +3 districts that stand any chance of going democrat.
If Republicans win every district that Trump won by any margin – the republicans may GAIN in the house.
I do not know what is happening in November. But I think the past year of Trump bashing was an incredibly stupid political mistake by the left.
Democrats need to figure out why they lost in 2016, and why they have been losing for a decade, and why the few wins they have had have been against really crappy republican candidates.
I know alot of Clinton voters, and I know alot of Trump voters.
I can not think of a person I know who voted for Trump who is not going to vote for him again.
They are all Happy with him. Most remain quiet and only peak in “safe” environments.
Look at the crap I get here for saying “Trump is not a two headed satan”
Most if not all are more committed and more ferverent supporters than ever.
They are voting in 2018. They are more likely to vote than ever.
Most of the Clinton voters I know are depressed, and exhausted. They still do not understand what happened. They still think Clinton should have won by 40pts. they have made no effort to figure out what happened. IF I admitted to voting for Gary Johnson among them – I would be shunned. If someone actually said they voted for Trump they might be murdered.
I do not think many are voting in 2018.
Short of a candidate like Oprah I do not think they are all voting in 2020.
The left is incredibly angry. they are NOT incredibly energized – they are in fact exhausted.
Then there is the “never Trumpers.”
Most of those think Trump is an even more repugnant person than ever.
But most of them DO NOT think he has been a bad president.
We have absolutely seen than in the right media. Most of the #nevertrumpers hold their noses and skip on issues like “shithole countries” or write scathing editorials about Trump’s vulgarity.
But the right as a whole – has grasped there is nothing to this Russia nonsense.
Trump is not being impeached, and with respect to republican policy issues he has done quite well.
I think the #nevertrump movement is nearly dead.
Trump’s approval is higher than in nov 2016 though still bad.
It may never get high.
That does not matter – we hate everyone else in politics more.
“At what number of comments will it slow down and act erratically?”
Or maybe it is the number of links ?
Or maybe it is the number and complexity of the links ?
Loading a text comment requires your browser to load a couple of thousand characters at the very most.
Loading an image requires your browser to load a couple of hundred thousand bytes at least.
Loading a video link requires at least as much bandwidth as an image and probably an order of magnitude more.
Mine is starting to cause problems: not posting on first try, slow loading, etc, like last time.
I think you can get broad agreement here that government debt – federal, state and local is a serious problem that we must address.
While I will absolutely assert the fundimental problem is government spending.
And that there is very strong data confirming that the more government spends the slower the standard of living rises – this also should be logically apparent.
And I would greatly prefer we start limiting spending significantly NOW.
I am still prepared to discuss numerous options to addressing debt – including tax increases.
With one critical caveat:
Whatever we do we must strengthen the connection between taxation, government spending and ordinary people.
One of the good things about the latest Tax Reform is that it radically reduces corporate taxes.
This is important beca corperate taxes like all business taxes are INDIRECT taxes on consumers.
I do not care overall much what the tax rates are.
I do not care that much how much government spends.
What I do care about is setting in concrete the understanding of ordinary people that government spending increases mean tax increases on THEM.
If the american people wish to pay 35% of their income so that government can spend 25% of GDP – so be it.
But we must end this stupidity that the cost of government will be paid for by someone else.
It is false and delusional.
It is just another of the many lies of the left.
There is no free lunch.
Taxing business is taxing your own consumption – inefficiently and indirectly.
Jay “The debt now exceeds the gross domestic product by 7 percent.”
I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have been complaining about the debt and deficit on this site ever since I began commenting. And most everyone said “oh its no big deal, we are no where near anything of a problem.” I commented we needed legislation like Simpson Bowles and many comments, not just Dave’s, was that was not a good idea. Got all these comments about debt to GDP ratios, economic growth and how that impacts deficits, etc.
AND NOW with Trump as president, the Liberals are having a cow because of the debt and deficits. They are going to take one of the conservatives campaign issues of the past two elections and make it their issue.
So if the liberals want to make this a campaign issue and propose and get passed legislation to require a balanced budget by 2028, with requirements to cut the deficit by certain amounts until that is reached, the I will vote for every liberral I have a chance to vote for!!!!!
If this is Trump is the one thing that can make Liberals get a fiscal brain, then all power to him!
But remember guys, Trump is not a king. Congress makes the budget, congress passes legislation. Nothing gets done if McConnell and Ryan do not want it done! They also may not be kings, but maybe crown princes.
Ron.
We are absolutely agreed that debt is a big problem.
Even Jay appears to be agreed at the moment.
Recognizing the growing debt as a problem is not the same a blessing every possible proposal regarding it.
Simpson-Bowles was a well intentioned bad idea. It near certainly would have been as bad as what we have done anyway.
One of the most fundimental issues is that even outside ideological arguments for limited government, current tax rates are very near – probably slightly over the “revenue optimizing maximum”. The Christine Romer tax studies I frequently cite, while not doing that analysis themselves, provide evidence that strongly suggests the revenue optimizing maximum tax rate is very near 35%. That higher tax rates will bring in LESS revenue.
I would further note that the “revenue optimizing tax rate” is NOT the optimal tax rate.
The “growth optimizing tax rate’ is – and that we know is 20% or below.
Simpson-Bowles presumes that higher taxes will produce greater revenue. Historically that is very very rarely true. Obviously it is not never true – government (federal state and local) somehow manages to collect just under 50% of GDP.
My point is that FIRST we must grasp this is NOT a revenue problem.
You can bitch about the current tax reform, but it is not the problem. and may well be not a problem at all. Now that it is “finalized” there are some analysis coming out that rather than costing 1.5T/decade it may increase revenue 1.5-2T – that is based on models consistent with the actual results of the Reagan Tax Cuts.
I do not know that those are correct, but I do know that we are so close to maximum possible revenues that the negative impacts of tax cuts are likely to be very minor.
We have a SPENDING problem. Simpson bowles attacks both spending and revenue and in doing so could actually make things WORSE.
There is plenty of historical evidence that tax increases can easily DECREASE government revnues. It has happened many times – including dramatically to FDR during the great depression.
If Jay and others here are prepared to talk seriously about deficits – I am prepared to listen.
I am even prepared to make compromises against what I think are the best approaches if we can do something that has a good chance of improving things.
Simpson-Bowles as well intended as it is, was more likely to make things worse.
BTW, I am similarly disposed regarding immigration. And I would not only look to similar compromises, but seek to incentivize immigration reform in much the same way.
The first big principle I would suggest for BOTH issues, is structuring solutions to make sure that everyone has “skin in the game”.
I really like Sen. Paul’s proposal to FIRST establish the total limit for “green cards” each year.
AFTER that we decide who they go to.
If you want to give them to “dreamers” I have no problem with that, in fact I strongly support it for most. But doing so requires either explicitly voting separately to increase the total greencards issued, or implicitly reducing those available to others.
We want to issue green cards to people from shithole nations, from people who are discriminated against from people who are the victims of natural disaster, for the desparately poor, for the well educated, for ….
I do not as an example has a special problem with the diversity lottery.
But what I want is to end this stupid nonsense of the left where if you are not prepared to allow their angst group of the day a direct route to citizenship and the voting booth that you are a heartless racist.
We must make choices, and choices have costs.
I am prepared to let everyone in who wants in AND to address the cost of that.
But I am absolutely totally completely tired and fuming at the leftist nonsense that we can do infinite good motivated solely by our feelings and magic beans will make it all work out.
It wont. Doing ANYTHING is hard, and comes at a cost. Doing the right thing is often the hardest and most costly. It does usually produce the best results IN THE LONG RUN.
In the short run it is usually very painful.
This is also true of debt and deficits.
We must structure whatever we do so everyone has “skin in the game”.
One of the reasons I support the recent tax reform as it imperfectly moves us closer to that.
More specifically on debt:
There are many things we can do.
Increasing taxes is with near certainty something that will make things WORSE.
It will not likely increase revenue and it will likely significantly harm the economy and standard of living.
That leaves TWO big things:
Cut spending and increase growth.
Government does nto promote growth – it supresses it.
But ending some of the supression does result in increased growth.
Trump’s deregulatory efforts are likely the most significant factor driving the post Obama growth increases.
So that is a big big start.
I am not sure whether the current tax cuts are long term pro growth. I am sure they are short term. I am also pretty sure they are at worst neutral long term.
The last big deal is cutting spending.
That is a REALLY REALLY big deal.
Because the positive impacts are exponential.
Cutting spending directly reduces the deficit
AND it is strongly progrowth.
Reducting spending is the most certain pro growth measure any government can take.
But reducing spending MIGHT be short term nagative and long term hugely positive.
Anyway regardles of above I want voters to have “skin in the game”.
The mere perception that the cost of government is paid by someone else is incredibly bad.
When ever anyone says the rich should pay more, or businesses should pay more.
Those are both HORRIBLY bad ideas – because they also mean, I should be able to spend like a profligate pig and someone else should pay the bill.
That is the most disasterous thing we can have.
Voters must know that the costs of any spending are paid for by THEM.
That is the most critical requirement for good spending decisions.
People almost NEVER make good spending decisions with Other Peoples Money.
Fix that and the rest will take care of itself.
Tablet has an excellent article
“Did Glenn Simpson Lie to Congress?”
Most of the article is NOT about Simpson’s testimony to congress.
It is about what we actually KNOW to be true to this point.
It is an absolutely fantastic end to end summary of actual facts.
Who contacted who, and when and how they are all connected.
There is very little speculation, and the speculation is clearly identified as such,
The article mostly does not draw conclusions, though it allows you to draw your own.
one important facet of the article is that it is chronological.
The timeline for much of this is important.
Such things as – we – the american people did not find out that the Steele dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign and the DNC until recently.
But the FBI KNEW this to be true when they were using it in 2016.
The author further notes that Fusion was not merely heavily involved with the Steele Dossier but concurrently heavily involved in massive anti-maginsky act efforts for Russia, and that Simpson testified that there was bleed over between these activities.
The author further notes that although Simpson only rarely identifies which parts of the Steele Dosser are the results of Steele’s work, his testimony makes it clear that significant portions of the Steele Dossier are either the results to Fusion GPS investigations, or collaborative efforts with Steele.
This is significant because while Steele was gathering information for intelligence sources who were often in russian and russian. Steele was not actually in any relationship with Russia.
Fusion GPS was directly and indirectly working for Russia.
An excellent far side cartoon regarding the Hawaii “button”
pbs.twimg.com/media/DTlvzGiX4AA8TB1.jpg
Jay..Oh No!!!! Presidents physical came back that he is in top shape, elevated cholesteral but nothing really bad, he needs to exercise more and change his diet. There was a detailed cognitive test performed to identify dementia to ID mental problems. He answered all questions perfectly. No indications he is nuts!
So the 25th amendment is out of question. We are stuck with him for 3 more years.
SORRY! No more tweets or cartoons about his mental ability to exercise the responsibilities of the office. OK?
what cognitive test as he given?
I bet I know the answer: the standard Mini Cog given by practitioners during the routine checkup Dumb Dumd seems to have had; the same Mini Cog my doctor gave me last visit.
Here’s how its administered. The Doc will ask you to remember three words, like Banana and Chair and Sunrise (or point to three different parts of his/her body or clothing (nose, sleeve, tie). And wait a few moments then ask you to repeat them. Next you’re asked to draw a clock, with the hands pointing at a specific time like 2:30. That’s it.
The test can indicate advanced memory problems. It’s about as sophisticated and reliable in alerting for mental instability as kicking the tires of a car to diagnose anything but a loose wheel or flattening tire.
In other words, a cognitive test is not a mental exam
That would be correct – it is not an IQ test. It is a test of the functioning of various different parts of the brain. Getting a score of 30/30 does not tell us how smart Trump is. But it tells us that each part of his brain is functioning normally.
If Trump had even mild cognitive impairment hoe cld not score 30/30.
MoCA is an excellent test of EXACTLY what you are accusing Trump of.
He can still be a moron, or an evil genius. He can still have an IQ of 80 or 150,
But a 30/30 MoCA says there are no signs of even MILD cognative impairment at this time.
All “cylinders” in his brain are firing fine.
Jay, it was the MOCA test or the Montreal Test. I can’t tell you if the test is good or bad. All I know it takes about 15 minutes to 30 minutes to complete. The total score is 30, with 26 being a score that a physician woukd not recommend further dementia testing.. Trump scored 30 out of 30. I looked at this on line and rememberntaking this myself when I applied for long term care insurance. Not hard, but I did not do well on remembering words 5 minutes after they were given to me. I sure did not score well because I was not paying attention and I have always been someone who remembers things just long enough as needed and then immediate purge from my brain.
Anyway, I think the liberal press is going to have to call the admiral White House physician a total quake to keep up the mental derangement message.
Coincidentally I have a check up tomorrow.
I’ll see if my doctor has any feedback on the test.
MoCA is the gold standard for detecting mild impairment. As you noted it is not hard. It is not a test of mental horsepower, it is a test of mental functioning. Each question or set of questions tests the functioning of different parts of the brain. Even mild impairment in even one part shows up. Each question is sort of like an eye test – either you can do it or you can not. Skill is not relevant.
Short term memory is the portion that gets most of us – many unimpaired people can not remember 3 words for 5 minutes.
I am not surprised that Trump has excellent short term memory. That is likely a prerequisite for his accomplishments.
I knew the liberals would find a way to shoot down what his ” QUACK” doctor said about his mental ability. If the facts dont support the liberal positions, then the facts are wrong.
So Dr Jay, when one suspects mental issues and one is administered to detect cogintive deterioration and the results do not support the facts one wants to hear, what does the medical community go to next?
For example, multi millionaire begins giving away his money to charities. His kids are outraged, that is their inheritance. They demand, and after months ir legal maneuvers through a company policy they and their father own, he takes the test. He scores 27 out of 30. They still do not believe he is sane. What’s the next step/test?
So he doesn’t have advanced Altzheimers.
That doesn’t rule out Napoleonic Complex.
Or delusional Disorders (mine is the biggest).
Let’s wait and see what other experts have to say.
Jay, not delusion of grandeur syndrome. WebMD says “People with delusional disorder often can continue to socialize and function normally, apart from the subject of their delusion, and generally do not behave in an obviously odd or bizarre manner.
That does not define Trump. The problem identifed of Trump by many is his odd and bizarre behavior.
Not Napoleonic syndrome. Free medical dictionary defines this as “A popular term for the inferiority complex that short men (under 5’9′) in society are commonly assumed to possess, which causes them—at least per theory—to overcompensate by trying harder than men of average height (5’10′) in life’s activities
Sure not this. Trump has something 180 degrees from inferiority complex.
Whats up next Doc?
Trump shows symptoms that correspond to several personality disorders.
BUT you can not diagnose a personality disorder from one or two symptoms.
Further Personality disorders are not considered mental health problems.
Narcissism is an example of a personality disorder – it is a problem for those around the person with narcissism, it is not a problem for the narcissist.
Trump has some symptoms consistent with narcissism, but almost certainly not enough to actually be a narcissist.
One of the problems is there is no such thing as “normal” nearly all of us have some traits corresponding to one mental health issue or another.
Each of us has our own unique levels of fear and suspicion – there is no fixed “norm”, but most of us are within a std. dev. or two of a “norm”.
You are correct. The MoCA is a test of cognitive impairment.
It can identify alzheimers and verious forms of dimensia relatively early.
It is not a test of a mental disorder. It will not identify psychopaths or schizophrenics or bipolars.
BTW most of your “complexes” are called personality disorders. There is a spat in the psychiatric community as to whether they should be included as mental health issues at all.
As they are entirely problems for those arround them, not problems for the person with the “disorder”.
What is it you are waiting for ?
The MoCA is pretty conclusive regarding cognative impairment.
No Doctor is going to test further with a MoCA score of 30/30.
Trump was not subject to any of the tests for things like psychopathy or schizophrenia.
While there are now some physical tests for some of these – such as specific types of MRI’s
Or a few tests similar tot he MoCA that identify specific brain deficits associated with specific disorders. for the most part the state of mental health diagnosis today is very poor and highly subjective. Which is part of the reason that a psychiatrist in barred from diagnosing someone they have not extensively interviewed.
I highly doubt Trump is going to agree to any psychiatric assassments – I would not.
And given the highly subjective nature of those – you are not going to accept the results anyway.
You would rather deal with the ravings of a shrich who is no longer licensed and is violating the standards of the profession.
The MoCA is not a sanity test. There are actually separate tests for some specific mental disorders.
The PCL-R is the standard test to identify Psychopath’s. Most people score 4-8. Most criminals score in the low 20’s a score of 30 is needed to be diagnosed as a psychopath.
The test was developed by Dr. Hare – an early expert on Psycholpaths.
More recently Dr. Keil has been able to identify Psychopath’s conclusively using MRI’s.
It is also possible to identify psychopaths by certain word association questions or by timing certain responses.
They have determined that psychopaths have poor development is specific portions of the brain – most noteably the amigdala
Anyway some other mental disorders can be diagnosed similarly.
This is much like a physicians reflex test, You can’t “fake” them.
We all know what should happen, what the right reaction is, but we can not fake it.
My expectation is he was given the MCA – Montreal Cognative Assessment. that is the standard, and likely the “mini” assessement you are talking about.
The word component you refered to is one part. There are 30 questions. The questions are not difficult for people without cognative imparement – they are not designed to be. This is not an IQ test, each question is a test of a different portion of the brain – if that portion is functioning correctly, the question is easy. If it is not, it is near impossible.
In fact your statements about the test are completely wrong – it is very good at detecting mild impairment, it is poor at distinguishing between moderate and severe impairment.
My father died of complications due to vascular dementia – which is dementia caused by repeated mini stokes, His scores(26) on the MoCA indicated mild impairment after his first stroke, within a year his was scoring as severely impaired(14). He was given the test so many times he practically had it memorized. Still he could not perform it. My father was an accomplished architect. He engaged the graphic portions of his brain to draw things daily for over 6 decades. At moderate impairment the clock he drew looked like something from a Salvador Dali painting.
If Trump passed the MCA he is not impaired.
The word test you noted, tests short term memory. You can not fake it. If your short term memory is impaired it will show up.
Drawing the clock tests your visual processing. Again you can not fake these.
The MoCA is very reliable at detecting mild impairment. It is 30 questions long and each questions is worth 1 point. Each of the tests are trivial for someone without impairment and impossible for someone with it.
As the former head of a Psychiatric Society said, maybe he is just a jerk. That is what I have been saying, although like many of us older folks, I think he has lost some- brain power, for want of a more accurate word.
Right. But I’d sub asshole for jerk. Now his supporters can’t rationalize his stupid semi racist statements and obnoxious daily tweets as the result of cognitive word-drooling.theyre diarrheal excretions.
Jerk is a more accurate appellation, that is why I would use it.
When you are a white, economically comfortable male, you may- may-, have tunnel vision, concerning yourself and others like you, uncaring/non-empathetic about all others not like you, be misogynistic, and yes you may be, or appear to, be a racist.
Of course, this type of person may also truly believe that they are not a racist. However, acts and actions, not just words that are not intended to incite adverse actions by others, could lead to a conclusion that one is a “racist.”
BTW, Andrew Young’s intelligent comments on the subject resonate with me:
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-young-interview-it-doesn-t-help-to-label-people-racist-1136809539738
Get a clue – your blather is meaningless.
Assume Trump is racist, and Obama is not.
what difference does it make ?
Obama made a big public splash about “The Dreamers” making himself look enlightened.
At the same time ICE was deporting people in almost double the numbers as Bush.
Deportations under Trump are actually LOWER than Obama.
Obama is likely responsible for Trump’s low deportation numbers – but primarily because low influxes of illegals combined with very high deportation rates reached a point in 2015 fo diminishing returns.
Regardless, the only real difference between Racist Trump and enlightened Obama is that Trump is actually seeking to act lawfully rather than lawlessly.
All the character assassination in the world will not alter the fact that the real differences are between lawful and lawless, not racism.
Obama deported 2.5M people during only 7 years as president. Bush deported 2M during his entire presidency.
During the entire 20th century less than 2.5M people were deported.
Trump is deporting people at a rate of about 16K/month
At that rate total Trump deportations will be just over half of those of Obama and less than Bush.
Regardless, let go of this nonsensical fixation on semi-racism and sit down and work out solutions.
“Right. But I’d sub asshole for jerk.”
Probably – he still got elected.
There is no constitutional bar to assholes and jerks as president.
Part of the reason for that is one persons asshole is another’s hero.
“Now his supporters can’t rationalize his stupid semi racist statements and obnoxious daily tweets as the result of cognitive word-drooling.theyre diarrheal excretions.”
Let’s see – You claim he is cognatively impaired, and as that fails.
You assert that his supports can not continue to use cognative dysfunction as an expanation for racism”.
Talk about beating a straw man. I am not aware of any supporters arguing that Trump’s “racism’ was justified by impairment.
Regardless, you are dancing all over the error that Klavan noted in the article Priscilla provided.
You have spent two years assassinating Trumps character.
He still got elected. While you are free to froth over it as long as you wish.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with any substantive debate.
If Trump is a full blown card carrying member of the KKK – he is still president and we still need to decide what we are doing about immigration and Trump is still a significant part of that discussion and Trump is still taking the position that he advocated for as a candidate and that voters elected him to implement.
Save the “racism” garbage for the next election.
Character assassination is not rational debate. It is not productive. It is what cost you the last election, it is why Trump is president it is a moral flaw of yours and the left.
There are issues I might join you on, but frankly the left so putrifies itself that I can not stand to be associated with you. However repuganant Trump might be he is LESS than those of you who would silence anyone you disagree with even slightly.
You claim Trump is racist. Racism is just a specific form of intolerance, and the left reeks of enormous intolerance.
God; forbid someone should call a “shithole” a shithole.
Now you are offering this “semi-racist” garbage.
Guess what ? We are ALL Racist. We all have preferences to some degree for those most similar to us. We group based on race, sex, religion, age, politics, physical abilities, place of birth, culture, ….. All other things being equal we will choose the person we share the most similarities.
That is natural.
We are debating immigration. For each of us it is pure random chance that we were dealt the royal flush of life and were born in the wealthiest free nation in the world.
We are no more deserving that those from eastern europe or Haiti.
If your value is “fairness” or equality we owe more to the starving kids in Somalia or Ethiopia than “poor minority” kids in baltimore or chicago. The poor in the US today are still the top 1% of the world
Get a clue – fairness is not definable, and does not exist, nor does equality.
There are choices to be made and the cosmic roulette wheel has given you the power to make those choices – whether you like that or not.
So get past the name calling. the ad hominem the idiotic political correctness and express YOUR values – because guess what ? We are not taking all 700M people who wish to come here.
If you want to advocate for that – fine, I will defend you, particularly if you are willing to do the rest of what is necescary to make that work.
But you are not going to advocate for allowing all 700m people who wish to come to the US to do so. So let go of the total hypocracy and name calling and insane garbage about reacism and commit to priorities.
Dreamers,
Those already here.
the educacted,
the less educated
the skilled
the less skilled
the rich
the poor,
those from unstable countries
those suffering from persecution.
…….
Myriads of other attributes of those 700m people who wish to come here.
Of all those who would like to come – we are only likely to accept 1 out of every 700.
So tell us all what are the criteria for accepting ? Or rejecting ?
Become an adult, stick your neck out, solve the problem, make tough decisions.
Deal with the fact that no matter what criteria you use, you are going to F#$k over an enormous number of Jorge Garcia’s.
Your choices are going to screw people who are no worse than you, whose only “crime” is they lost out in the national birth lottery, and you did not.
If Obama was still president, or Hillary had been elected we would STILL be rejecting about 1 in 700 people. We might not be having this discussion. Maybe a few more Jorge Garcia’s would slip through the back door, but we would still be descriminating against almost 99.9% of the people who wish to come here.
The actual differences between Trump and Obama are miniscule.
The most fundimental differences is that Obama made most of these choices lawlessly,
While Trump is following the rules and asking you to commit to changing the rules if you do not like them as they are.
Fluid IQ is higher in the young. Crystalized IQ is higher int he old.
But you can do things to minimize the reduction in fluid IQ.
People involved in mentally challenging occupations lose fluid IQ more slowly.
Heavy readers tend to retain more fluid IQ.
Trump is unique among presidents and successful people in that he is not a reader. That is very unusual.
I would strongly suspect that he has some kind of cognitive issue that impedes his ability to learn through reading, and that he has compensated by learning other ways.
Success in multiple fields does not occur outside high IQ people. It is highly unlikely that Trump’s IQ is below 130 or above 160.
Sorry, I screwed up. I should not have put in that link. 😦
You are forgiven, duck. 🙂
I only listened to a few minutes of it.
Young was clearly struggling. If you wish to see what someone with early problems due to age actually looks like – watch the first few minutes of that video – no disrespect to Young intended.
Beyond that though some of what he said was milding interesting.
the entire discussion is completely off point.
Even Young “racially insensitive” or whatever is irrelevant.
More leftish gobbledygook that if you are not as “woke” as I you are an inferior person.
I would be surprised is any other poster here has as diverse and immediate or extended family as I do. But that is irrelevant. we are no more obligated to be well informed and sensitive to all the issues facing blacks as we are asians, the mentally ill, the phyiscally impared, the unattracive the ….
We have lives to live, we are not obligated to wallow in dispair over all the inequities of life. Over the fact that we are each different, over the fact that life is not fair.
Young notes that wishing away 800m people in china is not going to make them disappear.
When MLK had his dream those 800M people were among the most impoverished int he world. as a consequence of the growing freedom in china today China has gone from the bottom of the 3rd world to the bottom of the 1st world while doubling its population.
All this occured without an Asian Lives Matter movement.
All of this occured without any consequential effort by aemericans to engage in introspection regarding their thoughts and predjudices about asians.
No one tells us that we must be woke to what life is like as an asian to decide what our immigration policy should be regarding asia.
We do not live in a perfect world where each of us has infinite time to develop a full appreciation of what life is like as some other.
Get over yourselves. This racism garbage is intolerant lefist garbage intended to shutdown efforts to solve problems.
I do not care, just quit blaming me for your problems.
Phew.
Jay, your state may soon be bankrupt ~ it is already insolvent. Jerry Brown has been pardoning hundreds of illegal felons facing deportation, and has made it clear that he will not support the enforcement of any federal immigration laws that would require the deportation of illegal immigrants for any reason. The percent of violent crimes committed by illegals is 10 times their percent of the population, and the state prisons cannot hold all of those convicted. Illegals in California receive free public services and education, and many, if not most, likely vote, having registered via “motor voter” laws. Most pay no federal taxes.
One thing is for sure…any illegals who do vote, and estimates put the number of those votes in the millions, vote for Democrats. For all intents and purposes, the GOP no longer exists in California.
Democrats have a vested political interest in sheltering illegal immigrants, and encouraging those immigrants to bring in low-skilled and uneducated family members, because Democrat Party power in California is increasingly based upon it. The census counts non-citizens for the purpose of representation in Congress, as well as the apportionment of much federal funding. FiveThirtyEight has estimated that CA would lose 6 seats in Congress, if non-citizens were eliminated from the census count. And that’s 6 electoral votes, as well.
Do you seriously believe that California politicians support sanctuary policies because they care about poor immigrant families? Or maybe they just care about the spoils of political power that they will lose if illegals were deported….
The decision who can vote in a state election – is up to the state.
Voting for federal offices is more constitutionally ambiguous.
At the state level creating districts is up to the state itself.
How people are “counted” is up to the state – this has gone to SCOTUS several times.
SCOTUS has ruled that what constitutes a person for the purposes of creating a congressional district is up to the state.
Whether you count immigrants, or fellons, or …. is up to the state.
I had not considered that the Federal government must determine the number of districts for each State. I am guessing how people are “counted” for that is based on federal law.
There are myriads of studies of the costs/benefits of immigrants – legal and otherwise.
Overwhelmingly they are economically a net good.
As a rule of thumb more people is ALWAYS better economically
This is something many do not grasp, It was Malthus’s basic mistake two centuries ago.
I would strongly suggest reading Julian Simon’s “The Ultimate Resource II”.
Simon is an economist that started in the 60’s with the standard basic premise that things were going to hell, that the earth was over populated and everything was going to get worse, that we were going to run out of everything.
He decided to actually put together the data to prove these things and found over and over and over that every single limited resource malthusian claim he was sure was “common sense” proved false. Once in a while as some resource became scarce with our current levels of ingenuity the price would briefly spike – that would drive investment, new more efficient means of securing the resource would be developed – OR we would substitute something else and the price would drop to LOWER than before.
Almost all long term price trends slope DOWN.
Simon eventually concluded there was only one Resource that had limits that mattered – the human mind. That universally more people means more rapid progress. While different nations including very poor ones with large numbers of people do not start at the same place, that in all cases improvement is faster the greater the population is.
That DOES NOT mean that the US with 330B people will progress more slowly than China.
They starting points are not the same nor are our relative levels of education etc.
What is True is the rate of improvement in the US will be greater the higher the population is.
AND the rate of improvement in China will be greater the higher the population is.
Simon went further and looked at the earth’s “carrying capacity”
With minimal changes in land use, and little more than widespread use of technology that already exists is well established and in common use in developed countries we are capable of supporting a global population of about 50B people.
With technology that exists but has not been broadly deployed we can support global populations closer to 500B people.
We are not likely to reach those levels – global population growth is nearly stopped.
As a generalization more people is better – even more low skilled people.
I would note that we could add 1M people per year, 10M/decade at the very bottom.
Which is pretty much what we have done over the past 50 years.
Mathematically that should drive down median standard of living BUT have every single individuals standard of living RISE at the same time.
In reality over that time Median standard of living has doubled. Which should tell you that anyone saying things have gotten worse over the past 40 years is a total idiot.
There is absolutely no limit to our ability to make use of more humans.
ALWAYS more humans mean greater wealth for all.
It is MOSTLY true that adding higher skilled people is better for us than lower skilled people.
But even that is only partly true as we need people of all skill levels.
The biggest impidiment to the productive use of low skilled labor is the minium wage.
Which could be more accurately stated as any use of labor incapable of producing X amount of value is prohibited, as well as any person without the skill level to produce X value can not have a job.
There are myriads of cost/benefit studies of immigration. legal and illegal.
Many have poor methodology – the most common problem is to look too narrowly at the benefits.
As an example illegal immigrants as a whole pay MORE in taxes than they consume.
But this is frequently missed – as we do not typically attribute the property taxes paid by landlords to their tenants, nor do we factor in that these people pay payroll taxes but most frequently can not collect benefits like SS and Medicare.
That does not mean that illegal immigrants can not have a net negative impact for a state or locality. But they do not have a net negative impact overall.
Nor does it mean that all immigrants are equal. The consumption of government benefits varies greatly from one group to another.
23% of households with one or more european immigrants are receiving some form of public assistance. While 73% of households containing mexican immigrants are receiving some for of assistance.
Contra the left we do know that there is in person voting fraud in the US at far larger scales than the left admits.
By far the most common is voting by college students in the state they are attending college.
Most state laws make it difficult for out of state students to become state residents – primarily because instate tuition is much lower than out of state tuition.
Legallly most college students are supposed to vote in their home town.
Anyway we are pretty sure this is the largest portion of in person voter fraud in the US.
This almost certainly tipped the 2016 Senate election in NH from Alloyette to Hassan.
There is a smaller portion of people with actual dual residence who are voting in multiple states.
This is legal – so long as they do not vote twice for president.
Whether a person who legally resides in multiple states should be permitted to vote for senators and congressmen in two states is a matter for that state.
Clearly if you are a resident in multiple states you should be allowed to vote for local and state offices in both states.
We also have the standard mass voting by dead people. The infamous 60,000 dead people who voted in Cook County in 1960 throwing the election to Kenedy.
Regardless, dead people vote throughout the US in large numbers.
We further know we have incredibly large amounts of voter registration fraud.
But we do not know home many of the fake voter registrations turn into actual votes.
Finally we do know that people who are not legally allowed to vote do.
There are complexities to this because – who can vote in an election is a function of STATE LAW.
There are plenty of places where you do not legally have to be a citizen to vote for mayor.
We also know that we have plenty of voting precincts throughout the US that have regularly recorded more votes than registered voters.
We also knwo that the more difficult voting is the more an election leans conservative.
This is the root of the left’s charge of voter supression.
IF election workers delivered ballots to every registered voter and assisted them in voting from their homes – that would increase the progressive vote by several percent.
This begs the question should we be electing representatives based on the votes of people who do not feel strongly enough to make their way to the polls.
This is a more important question than seen at first glance.
Most every other choice we make in life has costs and benefits and our decisions are made by weighing those.
A burger from a fast food joint requires a trip to that location and paying money for the burger.
The more difficult that is the less likely we are to buy the burger.
Further the cheaper the burger is the more likely we become.
We always want the cost of things to be accurately reflected in the price – because that incentivizes good decisions. The same is true of voting.
The easier voting is the more inclined we are to make poor choices.
It is unfortunate that the courts and constitutional amendment barred poll taxes, because small poll taxes are an excellent idea.
It is unconstitutional for unnaturalized foreign nationals to vote in an federal election. To vote in a presidential election, you must be an American citizen.
LMAO. The KMB (king of meaningless blather) accuses me of “meaningless blather”. Too funny.
Here comes a thousand word piece of retort blather.
“First, I think saying, “I’m a libertarian, so I’m fine with people having sex with porn stars” sails past a few important details. I know plenty of libertarians who are not fine with people cheating on their spouses with porn stars or anybody else. There is literally nothing inherent to libertarianism that requires people to be “fine” with adultery. That’s libertinism, not libertarianism.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/455505/trump-porn-star-affair-social-conservatives-should-condemn
Jay, there is a difference from “being fine” with individual having sex with porn stars and approving of that activity if the individual is married. ” Being fine with that indicates approval. But if one does not approve of that activities does not mean one has the responsibility to make laws against the activity, try to correct the activity or impose ones own moral compass upon the offender
This is the problem with society today. Everyone has their noses stuck in other peoples business. If it does not fit their moral values then it is their responsibility to change that activity.
JFK had sex with Marilyn Monroe in the White House. She was about as close to a porn star in the 60’s as you could find. The national media knew this and strayed out of that because people were more interested in their own business than someone elses.
By the way, has that story been verified by anyone with documented proof?
“But if one does not approve of that activities does not mean one has the responsibility to make laws against the activity, try to correct the activity or impose ones own moral compass upon the offender”
Tell it to Bill Clinton.
Didn’t vote for Clinton – either of them. Did not vote for Trump.
I do have an even bigger problem with lying under oath.
Jonah’s comments were directed at the hypocracy of social conservatives (for condemning Clinton and others) for not condemning tRUMP’s behavior.
The alleged payoff hush NDA was set in motion within the election timeframe. Do you think it morally acceptable for a presidential candidate to hide that kind of info from the public with bribery?
Jay . where was InTouch magazine during the election. Where was Slate. They both report that this happened. In Touch said they had it in a 2011 interview, but nothing came out during the election from either one.
AND AGAIN I WILL STATE….I don’t give a flying ________ what Trump does. He is not the king. Congress is sitting on their asses not doing a thing about DACA, the spending bills, the funding of the military, immigration reform or anything else the people elected them to do. All we hear about is closing the government because the ______party wants to screw someone. “We can reach and agreement if _____________ happens” Bull Shit. They are not negotiating, all they are doing is positioning themselves for the next election to further insure their careers in Washington.
You say it is all Trump. You say whatever Trump wants the GOP is going to give him. That also is BS.
If congress did something and sent him a bill that passed with bi-partisan support, dare him to veto it!!!!!!! If he did. then he is the problem and I’ll join your band wagon. Right now I have enough contempt for congress that their is little left for a weak, big mouthed, narcissistic asshole in the White House. I’ll worry about voting for the Libertarian again in 2020. Until then we have a house member from my district I need to make negative comments about whenever possible. Maybe I will change one vote! At least my own.
I have no problem with what Trump want’s in return for a route to legalization for the Dreamers.
Nor does the majority of the country.
There are large majorities favoring green cards for dreamers, as well as for the Wall – 56%,
57% want an end to chain migration.
60% end the diversity visa lottery.
57% support everify – I do not. I am tired of government pushing enforcing the law onto businesses.
60% what total yearly immigration to be 500,000 or less.
73% want total yearly immigration to be 1M or less.
Dave “57% support everify – I do not. I am tired of government pushing enforcing the law onto businesses.”
I support the basic position on this theoretically, but not in reality. If business was not part of the problem, then they should not be part of the solution. But, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses that specifically look for illegals because many will work cheaper, will work for cash, which avoids all the insurance and benefit costs( ie Obamacare) and have no recourse if something happens like a work place injury.
When business is not part of the problem, then they should not be part of the solution.
First, I do not support minimum wage laws.
I have the right to hire whoever will agree to work for me for whatever pay they agree to.
Laws that interfere with that are unconstitutional interfereance in the rights of contract, unconstitutional abridgements of my and the workers freedom.
It is irrelvant whether I hire an illegal immigrant or Warren Buffet – so long as the agreement is voluntary. There is no right to a job.
I am not all that happy with government requiring employers to collect taxes from employees – that too is the job of government. Again we are forcing private parties to bear the cost of government.
But accepting that minimum wages exist and that employers must collect taxes.
Every employer today reports to the State and federal government atleast quarterly, the names, social security numbers and wages of every employee.
It is fully inside the ability of the federal government to verify matches between SS#’s and names, and to verify the validity of SS#’s and the absence of duplicates accross country.
There is absolutely no need for an additional system. All that does is impose an additional burden on employers.
I disagree with the law requiring Employers to collect I9 information from every employee.
Regardless, employers already do that, and have been for decades.
It is not the role of an employer to check green cards of Social Security cards or drivers licenses or birth certificates or passports for Frauds.
What you are doing with everify (and other laws that already exist) is deputizing employers into law enforcement without pay, and worse criminalizing them for mistakes or failures enforcing the law.
BTW, I do not care if an employer wants to hire someone for a low wage, who will work for cash, and receive no benefits.
An employer is obligated by the MARKET to offer the wages and benefits necescary to attract the employees they want. Nothing more.
Hiring at low cost means producing at low costs, means consuming at low costs.
I have repeatedly asserted the free market is deflationary – with wages dropping the slowest.
That is how a free market works and it is very good for nearly all of us.
Still playing word games.
Bribery requires paying a government official to act outside his public duties.
That is tripply inapplicable.
I have no problem with politicians paying people for NDA’s prohibiting the disclosure of legal but potentially politically embarrassing acts.
Moral violations are non-consensual infringements on the freedom of others.
I do no see one here.
Story allegedly verified by magazine who interviewed her they have lie detector test results confirming it. And a second interview also stating much of the same.
“Story allegedly verified by magazine who interviewed her they have lie detector test results confirming it. And a second interview also stating much of the same.”
Well what the F— were they doing during the election, especially after the tape of his sexual issues with some other woman (or girls). They are more complicit in this issue as he is because they are the media and that is what they are there for. That is why we have the first amendment. They report, we decide. If they don’t report, how are we to decide?
Now this is something I have no idea about. If there is sex between two consenting adults and one of them goes to the other 6 years later and says,”I plan to run for president, I would like to enter into a contractual agreement where I give you $130,000 a month and you don’t talk about it during the election”. Is that illegal, immoral, unacceptable or just something we can expect from our rich white guys? I suspect many would say the last one.
It is both legal and moral.
All non-violent voluntary free exchange is or should be legal.
Immorality is the use of force to violate the freedom of another.
Given that I do not care if it is true, why do I care if it is verified ?
Has someone lied under oath about this ?
Has someone used force against another ?
Melania should put his balls in a but cracker.
The rest of us had our opportunity to comment on Trump’s conduct in Nov. 2016.
And Stormy does NOT look like his daughter, except for the hair color, skin tone, facial bone structure, eyebrow shape, and lip similarity. 😏
And this is likely ribald speculation, but fun to read in a National Enquirer kinda way:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/01/stormy-daniels-once-claimed-she-spanked-donald-trump-with-a-forbes-magazine/
“And this is likely ribald speculation, but fun to read in a National Enquirer kinda way:”
Damn I love this country. Congress sits on their asses and does noting to address the issues facing this country (except tax reform they could have done months ago had they worked anywhere near a 30 hour week) while we focus on crap like this. And this crap will lead us no where for the next 2 1/2 years.
Given that I do not care that Trump may have had consensual relations with Daniels, I am not particularly concerned about the details.
Maybe you should try a good spanking.
More verification of porn sexcapade:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lawyer-used-private-company-pseudonyms-to-pay-porn-star-stormy-daniels-1516315731
It still doesn’t bother you what out and out liars of leadership are feeding us false information?
Lying Donald and his lying lawyer insisted there was no payout to Stormy, just days ago. I’d LINK to the statements, but why waste more time and energy on an issue that doesn’t concern you.
Trump is accountable for what he says – less so for what his lawyers says.
That is one reason lawyers get paid.
Did Trump lie under oath ?
Is this a lie about his actions as president ?
“Trump is accountable for what he says – less so for what his lawyers says.
That is one reason lawyers get paid.”
Bullshit.
If you hire a hit man to kill your wife, are you stupidly idiotically moronically saying you’re less accountable than him?
Hiring a hit man is an act – it is conduct, not speach. There is a contract to do an act – even if only a verbal one.
Your personal responsibility for what someone else says – even someone who works for you is minimal. You can disavow it if you wish, or fire them or just say nothing.
With few exceptions – mostly associated with contracts, there is very little legal accountability for speech. Your accountability for your speach is outside the law.
You can shun people whose speach you do not like, vote against them, boycott them.
But you can not use force against them – aka law or government.
When you use force or act to induce someone else to use force – you are accountable to the law.
You are pretty close to never legally accountable for the speach of someone else.
I expressed my oppinion of Trump’s conduct sexual and otherwise with my vote, and with my voice.
Those are the only means of addressing the non-violent, consensual actions of others.
I agree with Ross Perot that is a man’s wife can not trust him, then the country can not either.
And I voted accordingly.
By the same token if we can not trust the Secretary of State with the nations secrets, we can not trust her as president either.
I do not want Trump as president. Nor did I want Clinton.
The election is over. I did not get what I wanted.
But the nation did get the lessor of two evils.
And thus far he has done significantly better than I expected.
I am not only not interested by this constant character assassination of Trump – we all got it. Trump does not have the best character, nor do those who are bitching about his character.
Regardless, we are passed that. Like it or not he is president, and were going to get a president of bad character no matter what.
I am interested in real debate of the issues.
We appear to be headed for a government shutdown – because the left can not settle for anything less than everything. Because quite frankly they do not want a deal.
My guess is that Trump and Republicans are going to cave – either shortly before or after a shutdown.
Personally I do not care if the government shutsdown. Those who are harmed might want to restructure their lives to be less dependent on an untrustworthy government.
Most of us will see nothing of consequence.
Regardless, those on the left are more interested in identity politics than addressing the real issues here.
JFK was sleeping with a known german spy during WWII. He was sent to the pacific to get him away from her.
Clinton was aparently sleeping with Mondale’s daughter.
“Jay . where was InTouch magazine during the election. Where was Slate. ”
Where was Fox News? They had the story ready to air, but squashed it.
“Where was Fox News? They had the story ready to air, but squashed it.”
Very good question. I suspect if these three had it, others had it. I have no idea why it did not come out.
But as I said in a comment probably 2500 comments ago here, I think the best thing that could happen ,and I will update for latest news, is for Trump to be interviewed by Mueller, for Mueller to have some ” gotcha” information that Trump does not know he has, to be asked about that situation, Trump answers it in his bragadosious way and have it conflict with the info Mueller already has. Then be charged for lying to the FBI, have it go to the House and whatever other legal way to charge him and the eventual outcome being him removed and Pence taking over long enough to make his own mark. That gives the GOP a much better chance in 2020, than having Trump stick around because he is an albatross around the GOP today.
I think the worst thing for the country is to continue with what we have today.
tRUMP won’t allow Mueller to interview him under oath.
You can count on that!
“tRUMP won’t allow Mueller to interview him under oath.
You can count on that”
Mueller already has his gun locked and loaded, with or without an oath. He is a career FBI agent that has hours of behavioral analysis training. Trump and his attorneys are going up against the best. Mueller could guide a rhino into a swamp filled with crocodiles and before they know what the dangers are, their dead. He will manuever Trumps huge ego to something Trump finds inconsequential and later he will be asked to appear before whatever body Mueller can get him before to begin the process for whatever reason he was appointed.
I am with you. I would like to see Donald ” duck and run” and let Pence take command. Maybe he hax less for the media to attack. But constantly posting others comments is not going to make it happen. And right now there is so much crap about him, I am not paying attention to al!ost all of it.
But it’s had to keep quiet when an unending flow of new stuff about President SpankMe comes out almost daily more outlandish than Cable tv comedy series.
With that in mind, if you have Netflix watch ‘Episodes’ and laff your ass off (or at least smile a lot).
I was shocked recently – one Poll of Oprah v. Trump only had Oprah ahead by 2pts.
The best only had her ahead by 11pts.
There were times Clinton was ahead by 20. Trump is close to the weakest he will be relative to Oprah, and she is the strongest she will be.
But the point is about more than Oprah. I noted in another post that Trumps actions as president are far more popular than he is.
One of the problems with Polls is they are one dimensional. They are very poor at telling the strength of our opinions.
I have noted before that PPACA questions get answered radically differently when people are told it might personally cost them a small amount.
Poll’s do not reflect a person’s views with “Skin in the game”. Elections are not good at that either – but they are still different from polls.
One of the things that has come out as a result of this is Mueller’s actual reputation.
Mueller’s reputation is NOT the best.
It is pretty bad overall. He has repeatedly “failed up”.
He has been involved in numerous high profile investigations that have gone very badly – 2 Hells Angels prosecutions that he lost, Ruby Ridge, the Anthrax letters,
Further he has a reputation for being arrogant, cocky, not taking advice, and bullheadedly going in the wrong direction.
All that said, I would be surprised if Mueller interviews Trump personally.
Further I strongly suspect that the questions will be limited before hand, and might be handled in writing.
Clinton got in trouble in a deposition regarding Paula Jones. The Questions he lied about were clearly inside the scope of the lawsuit, worse they were something he should have been well prepared for.
Clinton voluntarily testified before Starr’s grand jury. That testimony was mostly uneventful.
I have zero interest in president Pence.
I do not care much about Trump’s war with the media – they deserve each other, and Trump is winning.
I am happy with much of what Trump has actually done as president.
BTW this is a huge problem for the left. Many “pundits” have noted that his accomplishments are popular. Trump’s unpopularity is solely attributable to his war with the media.
It is irrelevant whether Trump is interviewed under oath.
18 usc 1001 would apply regardless.
I do not think Trump can avoid being questioned.
But there is very little that Mueller has a basis to ask about.
The courts are not going to allow Mueller to go on a fishing expedition.
The left has wet dreams of Trump being interviewed by Mueller.
Trump has had to testify and be deposed many times in his life.
He is extremely experienced at this. He knows how to answer questions under oath without getting himself in trouble,
It is highly unlikely that Trump is going to be subject to a wide ranging interview by Mueller.
It is near certain that Mueller can force Trump to testify,
but very likely that he will be severely limited in the questions he can ask.
I do not see any basis for Mueller to ask about Daniels. It is far outside his brief and there is no crime involved.
Right now I do not think Mueller can get beyond questioning Trump about anything beyond his communications with Comey and his role in firing him.
Further differences between what the only two parties to a conversation say was said – absent a recording, are not getting you any charges.
I think the country is doing pretty good.
Certainly better than the past 8 years.
There is very little that is worse.
There is alot I would do that Trump has not.
There are things Trump has done that I oppose – but I would have been no better off with Clinton.
If the price we have to pay for all the rest of the good we are getting is Trump’s war with the press – I am fine with that.
First of all, since when does an affair that someone has 10 years before deciding to run for president compare to sex in the Oval Office with a young intern?
If Trump cheated on his wife with a porn star, that is a stain on his character, but it’s not a stain on his presidency. If it should come out, as it did with JFK and with Clinton, that he is conducting these affairs while serving as president, then that’s another story. Other sexually promiscuous presidents included FDR, LBJ, and even ~gasp!~ Washington and Jefferson. According to Kitty Kelly, Bush 41 conducted a long affair with one of his WH staffers.
I don’t admire Trump’s personal morals, and I wish that we had a social and political world in which someone with decency and impeccable personal morality of a Mitt Romney could get elected president. But Romney was hammered as immoral, and even evil, by the media and the Democrats, and he lacked the political ability to energize the Republican base.
My opposition to the Democrat agenda of high taxes, higher spending, amnesty for illegals and open borders is far stronger than my disapproval of Trump’s hound dogging around with porn stars when he was a billionaire reality tv star. He’s accomplished an enormous amount in one year as president, despite his personal flaws.
Ron, the media loved McCain before he ran for president, and they loved Romney before he ran. But both were smeared with whatever dirt the media could find, even if it was cruelty to animals, for putting a dog in a car roof carrier, or mental instability, from being held as a POW. (They’re darlings again, because both are seen as anti-Trump, but the media would do the same again, if they became supporters). How long do you think Pence would last, before the media destroyed him? I’m sure that, even now, there is some personal “scandal” that they are holding in reserve, so that they can hammer him with it, if and when he becomes president, or runs.
If the Democrats and the media succeed in driving Trump from office, they will be empowered to do thie same to all of their enemies. I’m not saying that they won’t succeed, because it is likely that they will. But, if and when they do, the country will be worse, not better, for it.
Priscilla, I am just so tired of the GOP doing everything they could to destroy Obama with birther crap type stuff to the democrats trying to destroy Trump. The GOP has had control of congress for quite a few years and they have accomplished nothing. We basically have three parties in congress, all minority parties. Democrats, The Conservative Right GOP and the Centrist Moderate GOP. Not sure exactly where to put Paul, but seems like he is with McCain/Collins/Graham group more often than not. In parliaments, this would lend itself to one party making a deal to work with another to get something done. In our case, we are heading for rock bottom.
And people say they hate congress, but like their own official. Thats a problem!
I do not much care where Obama was born.
Too my knowledge the DOJ/FBI did not investigate Obama’s birth certificate.
I too could care less where Obama was born also. What I do not agree with is someone born in the states, almost immediately being taken to a southeast Asia country, raised under a completely different set of moral and social values during their formative years and then coming to America when they are in their late teens and being accepted as a citizen of the USA. Compare that same individual, except they are born in Mexico and brought to the states when they are very young, they are educated in America, they marry an American, they have kids in America, they have a job that supports their family and they are considered illegal.
I said I consider the Hispanic American more a citizen than are past president.
I
My concerns regarding Obama’s birth certificate are that I beleive there is good evidence it was altered.
That does NOT mean he was born elsewhere.
My guess is that his father is not Barack Obama.
The other stuff you mentioned is an issue – for voters.
I do not have a problem with someone not born here becoming president. But that would require a constitutional change.
“First of all, since when does an affair that someone has 10 years before deciding to run for president compare to sex in the Oval Office with a young intern?”
A blow job in the Oval Office compared to a year long affair with a porn star that included attempts at three way sex, spanking episodes, and who knows what else? The Dossier Pee Pee accusation is looking credible now, wouldn’t you say?
What you seem unable to get through the denseness of your opinion on this issue isn’t WHEN it happened it’s WHEN it was falsely and deviously covered up. You may fluff if off now, but the electorate had a right to know the depth of his sexual promiscuity before voting for him. And a right to know the sneaky way he hid it with bribery.
Keep defending President Spank Me – it tarnishes you as an apologist for the absurd.
I beleive we know that Trump paid to spend time publicly with Daniels.
We know Trump paid for non-disclosures.
There is little more we know.
Often a non-disclosure is used to prevent the spread of false rumors not just the truth.
If you take 130K to say nothing – that also mean you can not spread rumours or confirm false stories.
As to the rest – is there an allegation from anyone that Trump was in to “water sports” outside the Steele Dossier ?
Apparently you think that if someone has one kink they must have them all.
I have no idea if Trump likes getting spanked. It is apparently a common fetish among powerful men. But there is no reason to believe that if Trump is in to spanking, he is also into “water sports”
In fact it is more proof of the opposite. People are not usually into multiple fetishes.
Clinton has sex with a very young intern in his employ as president and lied about it under oath.
Having sex with a junior employee is more of a problem than with someone not in your employ.
Lying under oath is more consequential than seeking a non-disclosure.
“What you seem unable to get through the denseness of your opinion on this issue isn’t WHEN it happened it’s WHEN it was falsely and deviously covered up.”
You repeatedly offer the delusion that you are entitled to know whatever you want about the private lives of others, and failing to provide that too you is somehow criminal.
Neither Melania, nor Trump not Daniels are obligated to tell you whatever you wish to know.
They are free to keep private whatever they wish. They are free to pay each other to not say whatever they want. They are free to pay to protect their privacy. They are free to pay to prevent disclosure of the truth. They are free to pay to prevent disclosure of lies.
There is no one who was a public official at the time. There is no breach of a public duty.
There is merely an impediment to your desire to pry into the private life of others.
That is it.
I can fully understand why Trump might pay to protect his privacy from you.
No the electorate did not have “a right to know” – if that was the case the entire Trump Russia nonsense collapses – because the DNC hacking merely becomes an effort to satisfy the publics “right to know”.
The press is free to investigate and publish whatever they can find.
We all want to know lots of things we have no right to know.
What we find out – whether through legal or other means may well effect our choices.
But that still does nto make it a right.
You have the most bizarre and self contradictory concept of rights.
It is amazing how your posts feed in to so much of what I am reading about the left.
Truth does not matter to the left -feelings and status do.
You gain status by putting others down. So from your perspective you are superior because you can put me down for not caring about Trump’s legal sexual conduct.
It is more important to you who can insult whom, than what the facts or the truth are.
Your words.
“Keep defending President Spank Me – it tarnishes you as an apologist for the absurd.”
I am ready to discuss immigration or any of the other issues facing the federal govenrment whenever you are.
But you are more interested in tossing insults and establishing an insult driven packing order.
It is very bizzarre because you are channelling social conservatives of the past.
You are making the same kind of arguments as those like the West Borro baptist church that you hate the most.
If being gay or Trans is an acceptable choice, then why isn’t being in to spanking or spending evenings being seen with porn stars ?
You do know BTW that most porn stars get an enormous amount of money for appearances and being seen with people – without actually having to do anything more.
People pay to have pictures taken with them, to dance with them, to go to dinner with them.
The greatest threat we face today is from the left. Trump is inconsequential and his election is a backlash against the identity politics of the left.
The interview between Rubin and Eria Weistein – certainly no conservative below is extremely interesting – some of the best parts start arround 6m.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZpSFzcp9BY
Weinstein notes that prior to the internet the left through control of the media had fairly successfully controlled public discourse. That the internet changed everything providing all of us right and left more opportunity to express ourselves. This resulted in my wider viewpoint diversity
At the same time both as a result of groups like Southern Poverty law center and our own evolution the most extreme groups like the KKK essentially ceased to exist. That on myriads of issues in the “culture war” the left ultimately prevailed. Having no enemy, the left itself moved further left, it made new enemies demonizing anyone not on the far left.
Having lost control of public discourse the left has sought to regain it by demonizing everyone who does not fully agree with them.
The most consequential font of hate we face today is that of the left, who decries any who get in its way.
The left and many posters here rant constantly of Trump’s character flaws – some of which are real.
They are also irrelevant. If Trump’s conduct towards women was illegal – it should have been prosecuted. If it was legal but wrong, the consequences were decided by voters.
What the left and the media are doing to Trump is only different in scale to what they had done to Bush, McCain and Romney before, as well as any who oppose them in the slightest.
It is not Trump that is the threat to the public discussion of divergent ideas. It is the left and the media. The left responds to all attempts at discussion with personal attacks.
There is a reason that ad hominem is a fallacy – insulting the other party in a discussion is damaging to discourse – even if the insult is true, because it has NOTHING to do with the argument.
Jay assures us he is not part of the left, yet he relishes constantly spraying us with posts that assert nothing more than other people think Trump is a bad person.
True or false that is irrelevant. Bad or good he was elected. Bad or good we have issues to confront. Jay has refused to discuss any actual issue.
Concern’s that bad people might gain control of government are legitimate and can ONLY be address by limiting the power of government.
The most consequential threat to free speach today is that of the left and the media, who openly seek to silence any who stand up to them.
I wish we had a more eloquent champion of freedom than Trump. But he is what we have.
We face threats from the Left and the Right.
The greater present threat is from the Right, as they are now in power.
The fact that you’re too brain numb to understand that proves reasoned conversation is useless with you; therefore insult is appropriate, Dummie.
Jay…”The greater present threat is from the Right, as they are now in power.
The fact that you’re too brain numb”
Jay, your comment does not just affect Dave. It is in response to anyone who does not accept the big government, in your face liberal politicians we have in Congress today.
Please remember that one does not need to be brain dead or numb to buy into crap from the left and right. It is called brain washing and the brain is still functioning, only it has been over run with “fake facts” to make it believe anything one tells them to believe.
I say again, Trump is not King. Congress is plenty able to do nothing without Trump. Just look at the spending bill that they can not agree with. Why does the Democrats demand DACA be part of a spending bill? That has nothing to do with money.
I think Trump’s DACA maneuver was brilliant.
End unconstitutional presidential action – which he is really obligated to do.
while at the same time saying that he would be happy to continue it – if enacted legally,
And then use the desire of th left to get DACA to leverage them for things Trump wants.
I have no problem with that.
With respect to spending bills – I think you should have to get 60 votes to increase spending on anything. I think a simple majority should always be sufficient to cut spending.
One of the things the GOP is after is a defense spending increase.
I oppose that. But they will likely get it.
At the same time there is a difference between tough negotiating, and ad hominem.
I do not care all that much that Democrats are prepared to shutdown government as part of negotiations. That is a legitimate tactic. They might lose, but that is their problem.
But Durbin’s ad hominem was not legitimate. That was an effort to shutdown debate to demonize your oponent. It was an ends justifies the means tactic.
The right is currently nominally in control of the federal government.
That is a reason to scrutinize their actions. It does nto automatically make them a threat much less the largest threat.
Aside from a few stupid remarks regarding libel laws and FCC licensing I have not seen Trump or Republicans act solely to diminish our liberty or rights.
Nothing that congress is fighting over constitutes a right.
Trumps remarks threatening FCC licenses or changing libel laws are threats – but he has done nothing to convert them to action.
You, the left and the media are actively seeking to shutdown the speach of others.
That is a real threat, and that is THE real threat we fact today.
It is most egregious on colleges – but we see it in the media, and we see it in your posts.
We can not run a society were discourse consists of shutting down the speach of those you dislike.
Political Correctness, the politics of insult are vile, and illegitimate.
Ad hominem is not valid argument, it is not a quest for the truth but a deliberate effort to sell lies.
We eschew fallacies because they tend to lead to bad results, they do not reveal or uncover the truth.
Insult is not a substitute for argument.
You should no better, because your attack on Trump is based on the fact that he returns your insults with more insults. If Trump is stupid for insulting you back, you are stupid for insulting him.
Though stupid is not really the right characterization.
Morally repugnant is.
At the same time I think that Insults are like the use of force – justified in self defence.
Trump does not initiate most conflicts. But he does punch back twice as hard.
Conversely you clearly initiate your insult fest.
NBC quashed the Weinstein story. In fact that story was quashed repeatedly over the years.
It has been difficult as hell to get the left wing media to cover the political corruption of the Obama administration. Yet they run all kinds of garbage that they must have known was false or poorly sourced at the time.
I am not a “social conservative”. I could care less what Social conservatives think – they are about as repugnant as neo-cons and leftists.
“First, I think saying, “I’m a libertarian, so I’m fine with people having sex with porn stars” sails past a few important details.”
Was forced used ? If not then I do not care.
“I know plenty of libertarians who are not fine with people cheating on their spouses with porn stars or anybody else. There is literally nothing inherent to libertarianism that requires people to be “fine” with adultery. That’s libertinism, not libertarianism.”
Libertarians come in many flavors. Marriage is a contract. If Trump breached that contract – that is between him and Melania. It does not involve me.
I do think that breaching a contract is disreputable. But I do not know what Melania’s real agreement with Trump is, and can not presume to know more than she represents.
Melania has not filed for divorce.
Monogamy is an important facet of my relationship with my wife.
Breaching that would be serious.
That does not mean every relationship shares the same values.
I do not presume monogamy is critical to every relationship.
I do think that marriages that are monogamous are more likely to work.
But something does not become a moral or legal constraint merely because it is functional.
I think that using Heroin is a stupid choice. I still beleive it is your right t make stupid choices.
There is very little that is “inherent” to libertarianism. the broadest definition of libertarian is socially liberal fiscally conservative.
But an extremely common facet of libertarianism is allowing people the freedom to make their own choices in their own lives – even if those choices are mistakes.
Further you conflate many things:
Spending time with Stormy Daniels.
Having sex with her
Having sex with a prostitute
committing adultery
paying for a non-disclosure.
Probably several others.
I beleive we know there was a non-disclusure, and we know that Ms. Daniels spent Time with Trump. The rest is speculation. Possibly accurate speculation but not certainly so.
Given that the world changes little either way it is not something I care to speculate heavily on.
Regardless you are making a bizarre argumentum ad populum.
“Your wrong because other libertarians do not think exactly as you”. ?
Interesting observation – particularly given that the constant use of ad hominem – which is what identity politics is, is a gigantic broadbased effort by the left to completly stiffle free speach.
Do not address the merits of someones argument – just call them a racist, sexist, transphobic, hateful hating hater, and you shutdown discussion.
The message is crystal clear – somethings may not be spoken.
Actual free speach means there is nothing that can not be spoken.
But what we are seeing is worse than that.
Because the left is litterally saying some Truth is too offensive to be spoken.
There are two countries that occupy the island of Hispaniola – essentially the same people.
The Dominican Republic and Haiti.
The Standard of living in the DR is 16,500/person/year, That of Haiti is 1450/person/year.
It is truth to note that Haiti is a shihole country.
But according to the left and the media saying that makes you racist.
Sorry Jay – but the problem here is yours.
Trump has suggested we need to change libel laws. That is something outside his power to do.
He has contemplated outloud lifting Broadcast licenses – Something the left has done or threatened in reality numerous times starting with FDR, and quite actively with LBJ and the badly named “fairness doctrine”. Trump has never taken one step to actually act on threats to broadcasters that several famous democratic progressives have actually DONE.
You can count on my to fight Trump tooth and nail if he tries to act on his words.
Thus far Trump has not sought warrants against journalists – Obama did multiple times.
Trump has not hacked Journalists – again done under Obama.
Obama’s tongue may have been more silvered but he was a far greater danger to a free press than Trump.
The press has been brutal to Trump. It is reasonable to expect he will be brutal in return.
So long as that remains a war of words, I not only do not care – but In some instances I will cheer him on.
Trump is exposing the press for the politically biased fraud that it is.
That is not a threat to a free press, that is a benefit to it.
When you, the left, the media are prepared to have discussions about policy based on facts, logic, and reason, when you are prepared to make arguments, rather than attempt to silence those you disagree with by insult – then I will care about Trump’s coarse speach.
In the meantime, it is you, and the left and the media that is the threat to free speach.
In the USSR the press was an organ of the state – and that was a very bad thing.
In the US today the press is very nearly an organ of the left – that is little better.
An actually free press is not a fact free PC tirade favoring a single viewpoint.
I have repeatedly compared NYT to Brietbart, what is really damning is how apt that comparison is. Brietbart makes no excuses for its political biases. New York Times is blind to its.
Over the past 9 months NYT has run three major purportedly well sourced and vetted articles claiming with near certainty the justification for the FISA warrant of Trump towers – but each story offered an entirely different basis. Atleast two of those three stories must be FALSE.
Further each story had multiple purportedly credible sources. Atleast two thirds of those sources must be highly unreliable. More damning is that each story had MULTIPLE credible sources. Two of the three stories were from the same reporter.
It is not possible to know at the moment which of these stories is true.
It is trivial to know there is something VERY seriously wrong with journalism at the NYT.
BTW according to DOJ/FBI testimony only one single fact in the entire Steele Dossier has ever been verified, and that is ONE of the many meetings that Cater Page purportedly had in Moscow – and even that one is misrepresented, as Page did not meet with anyone from the Russian government or anyone he knew or suspected was a russian agent.
The FBI/DOJ have had almost two full years to verifty the Steele Dossier – and one single partial fact is all that has been confirmed.
And the more we know the smellier this gets. Based on Simpson’s own testimony alot of the Steele Dossier is NOT Steele’s work, but Simpson’s. That would be Simpson/Fusion GPS that IS actually on the Payroll of Russia. That would the the Fusion GPS that has been very actively engaged in paid lobbying for Russia to repeal the Maginsky Act.
So we have a US agent of a foreign government feeding both the US press and the FBI/DOJ false information regarding Donald Trump – likely on behalf of Putin’s Russia.
I have said from the begining of this all that Putin had far more reason to favor Clinton than Trump.
But the left thinks with their guts not logic and thinks everyone else thinks the same way.
The left thinks Putin hates Clinton so much that he was screw over his own country in order to defeat her. What is increasingly evident is that at very BEST Putin was trying to disrupt the election – not favor a candidate. More likely he was trying to get Clinton elected not Trump.
We do not have a “free Press” we have a press enthralled to the left.
I will object when Trump uses the actual power of the federal government to interfere with it. Just as I did when Obama acted to chill a free press.
So long as Trump uses words to combat a hostile press – he is no threat to a free press.
The enthralled press is the threat to the free press.
Fortunately we live in the internet era. CNN, NYT etc,. do not have a monopoly on information.
Regardless the president speaking out against his detractors is free speach, not a threat to free speach.
The remedy to bad speach is more speach, and that is what Trump is doing.
It is the left that seeks to silence other voices and they have been doing so long before Trump.
Yawn.
You’re ranting.
And spewing false tales.
And making ridiculous comparisons.
And overall sounding loony tunes tin hat nutso.
“Yawn.
You’re ranting.
And spewing false tales.
And making ridiculous comparisons.
And overall sounding loony tunes tin hat nutso.”
Still engaged in fallacious argument by insult.
Off point and meaningless.
Better still confirms the assertions I made of the left, that you shutdown argument by insult.
Even PopeHat who you claim to respect has regard for The NY Times “because they seem to put more work into getting things right than most,” and is contemptuous Of Brietbart.
There is no transitive law of respect.
Regardless, I disagree with Ken White on many things.
I still respect him.
Respect does not mean agree.
Ken usually makes cogent arguments – particularly in his field – which is first amendment law.
He rarely engages in ad hominem.
But Ken is not perfect. I do not expect perfection from people.
You seem to think that respecting someone requires always agreeing with them.
I think for myself. I do not take my views from Fox, or White, or CNN.
But I do gather input from many sources – some I respect and some I do not.
In the end I reach my own conclusions – following the facts, logic and reason.
My results are my own. If they coincide with those of others – whether I respect them on not, that is great, but it is not a requirement.
You have no interest in thinking for yourself.
Nearly all your arguments are appeals to authority. You are even trying to change my mind by appealing to people I respect.
Did I say that I thought Brietbart was a reputable source ?
They are not. They are also no worse than NYT.
Any news outlet that runs three different stories over 9 months on exactly the same topic offering 3 different causes, all purportedly well sourced from highly credible sources – thwo of these stories from the same reporter, with no retractions, no corrections, and no efforts to figure out what is going wrong with their reporting lacks credibility.
Worse still this is just one example.
Nor is NYT the worst in the media.
I am watching CNN as we speak related to the shutdown – the anchors are not reporting the news they are literally arguing the lefts position.
CNN’s own polls show a majority of people do not want a shutdown and a plurality b laming democrats if one occurs.
There are plenty of deals to be made here. Democrats are not even trying.
I do not completely agree with what Repuboicans are asking.
But nothing they are asking for is consequential enough to shutdown the government.
And I favor shutting down the government as a political tactic.
Get a clue Jay. Go bother to read John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” – written almost 200 years ago, so you can not claim he was partisan somehow.
Engaging in ad hominem to shut down communications is an effort to supress speach. It is fallacious argument, it is immoral.
Argue the facts, logic, reason and let people decide based on those.
When you demonize your opponents rather than marke your arguments – you are the problem.
I do not “Claim” to respect Ken White – I state that I respect Ken White.
That is a fact based on my own judgement – it is subjective, but subjective with respect to me.
It is not open to mischaracterize as a claim or allegation.
By qualifying my respect for Ken by adding claim – you are again attacking the person not making an argument.
Jay, Ken White is a self-described Trump opponent…he’s not remotely unbiased or fair minded, such as someone like David French or even Jonah Goldberg, who dislikes Trump, but always said that, if he had been forced to vote for Trump or Hillary, he would have voted for Trump. White, on the other hand, is 100% anti-Trump.
That said, I followed him on Twitter for a while, and found some of his legal takes pretty interesting. He writes and tweets a lot about the First Amendment .
Anyway, of course, he is contemptuous of Brietbart ~ under Steve Bannon, it became a hack publication. Heck, I stopped reading Brietbart. But, if you don’t see extreme bias at the NYT, not only in the way it covers stories, but in the way it refuses to cover others, then you are blinded by your own bias.
Everyone who opposes Trump is not evil.
As I noted before I respect Ken White alot.
I do not share some of his views on Trump.
I have followed Popehat for a long long time – before Trump was a candidate.
He is a former US attorney and a strong first amendment advocate.
But he is not always right or right about everything.
I do not have problems with people opposing Trump.
I do have problems with the foaming spittle spewing ad hominem.
I do have problems with seeking to reverse an election absent meeting the constitutional requirements to do so. We do not have a parlimentary system where you can be ousted by a no-confidence vote.
I do have a problem with the obviously fake from the begining Russia Trump collusion narative.
I have even more problems with the political corruption that gave birth to it.
That needs to be punished so that it never happens again.
This is worse than watergate. This was politically weaonizing the FBI and DOJ
Just to be clear, my comparison of NYT and CNN and MSNBC to brietbart and infowars was NOT meant as a compliment to brietbart and infowars.
I do wish Bannon had gotten us out of afghanistan.
I am concerned that “the generals” are molding Trump into another establishment republican.
Particularly with regard to military interventionism.
But for the most part Bannon was an ass. But even an ass is sometimes right on some things.
If you Lump Brietbart and NYT as equally slanted in their coverage you’re the one blinded by your political prejudices.
Noting that NYT has become indistinguishable from Breitbart is just a recognition of the extent to which the MSM has declined.
That decline in one of the most prestigious flagships of journalism in the world is sad.
It is not something to celebrate.
It is evidence of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the left.
Your inability to see that reflects your disconnection from reality.
I hate to besmirch Trump’s sterling persona, but in my day having “to pay for it” was looked down upon. What happened to all the ladies he could just grab? Guess they didn’t comply.
Dduck Jay said he paid for silence. Did he also pay for the sex?
I don’t know. If he didn’t, I retract my insult.
He promised her future business opportunities, and use of his condo, and an appearance on The Apprentice. But didn’t follow through on any of it.
“He promised her future business opportunities, and use of his condo, and an appearance on The Apprentice. But didn’t follow through on any of it.”
Neither you nor I know what was actually promised.
Regardless many promises are contracts, but all are not.
A contract typically requires atleast 3 elements.
Offer
Acceptance
Consideration.
Consideration is what closes the contract.
That is typically an exchange of something of value.
When you order a cake – you place a deposit.
You can make a million promises to someone, that does nto make them a contract.
Further though verbal contracts are binding. they are incredibly difficult to prove – except where consideration is something very tangible.
“If you spank me, I will put you on the apprentice” would be a binding contract – when the other party starts spanking.
But the red ass will not be available to the court at a later date as proof of consideration and therefore a contract.
Generally consideration that is obvious and durable – like a receipt or an actual written contract is more enforceable.
So, the House Intel Committee has voted to allow all members of Congress to view a classified memo, detailing FISA abuse by the FBI and DOJ. Every GOP member of the committee voted to allow Congress to see the memo, every Democrat voted to keep it hidden.
So far, many who have seen it are calling for it to be de-classified and shared with the public, which I hope happens very soon. For over a year, we have had Democrats accusing Trump of colluding with Russia, and Republicans accusing the FBI and the Obama DOJ of abusing the FISA surveillance system.
It’s about time we found out what the hell is going on. None of this needs to be classified ~ it’s not about national security, it’s about protecting the guilty in our own government.
Meanwhile, the media is obsessed with a porn star who says she hooked up with Trump 10 years ago and got $130K to keep quiet. She must’ve gotten a lot more to talk.
We sure have some screwed up priorities.
I have not seen that much in the media I follow about Daniels. I think the fascination with th pornstart is mostly Jay’s.
I’m not fascinated though quite comfortable with porn actors/actresses.
I’ve known some socially (you can interpret ‘known’ to mean whatever your mind encourages you to think it means).
Aside from casual views of promiscuity, some are quite conservative in politics and business, and tend to keep their promises, unlike Prez Spank Me, who is as reliable and trustworthy asa pickpocket.
“porn star who says she hooked up with Trump 10 years ago and got $130K to keep quiet. She must’ve gotten a lot more to talk.”
There’s no indication she was paid anything to talk; only paid to be silent.
Of course there is circumstantial evidence she was paid more to talk.
She can be sued for violating an NDA, she would have to return the money and be subject to damages. People tend not to do that unless they are paid even more to speak.
The evidence is circumstantial – but it is evidence.
Haha!
Actually, I forgot that she gave that interview about 9 years ago, said that her fling with Trump had happened a few years before that…In Touch just printed it this week.
So, she’s not talking now. But I assume she didn’t talk to In Touch for free. And, who knows how much of her story is true? I’m sure that your porn star friends are lovely, decent folk, but the business is not known hiring that type. She looks almost nothing like Ivanka, by the way, although I do see a passing resemblance to Marla Maples. So that part of the story already seems suspect….
So, Jay, I guess you’re not interested in systemic abuse of the 4th amendment and potential treason by the leadership of the FBI and DOJ? Hot take on Trump’s sex life are so much more important to the country’s welfare. 🙄
“I hate to besmirch Trump’s sterling persona, but in my day having “to pay for it” was looked down upon. What happened to all the ladies he could just grab? Guess they didn’t comply.”
And this is relevant to what ? Our we the readers of the national enquirer, fascinated by the personal failings of the high and mighty ?
Or are we interested in resolving the issues facing our government ?
I am interested in what you have to say about actual issues – whether I agree with you or not.
Frankly, I think there is plenty of opportunity to resolve those.
But even if there is not – if Democrats wish to shutdown government over increased border security, or increased defense spending, or over changes to immigration or over amnesty for the Dreamers – fine, but make that argument and be judged on it.
Ignoring substance and shifting purely to the “Trump is a racist” garbage is fallacious and immoral.
dhlii: I suggest that you have sex with yourself and then get a sense a humor, perhaps then you see the relevancy.
“dhlii: I suggest that you have sex with yourself and then get a sense a humor, perhaps then you see the relevancy.”
I think you make my argument perfectly.
Your remark is exactly what is wrong with public discourse.
Hypothetical:
If you agree to have sex with a prostitute for money, in a location where prostitution is illegal, but don’t pay her afterwards, have you still broken the law?
Laws against prostitution are immoral, and improper.
Laws interfereing with contracts – agreements between people are unconstitutional.
If you have an agreement someone to do something for money and you fail to pay – you have breached your contract and the law is allowed to use force to either compel performance or compensate you for damages.
Whether the contract was for sex or a cake.
We agree, prostitution shouldn’t be illegal.
And IF Stormy was offered compensation for sex (condo, Apprentice appearance, etc) you’re saying she could sue for breach of contract for an illegal act?
“We agree, prostitution shouldn’t be illegal.”
Any consensual exchange that does nto actually harm others is a RIGHT, and any law prohibiting or limiting such an exchange is immoral and arguably unconstitutional.
While we agree – my statement is much larger as well as rooted in principle than yours.
It is not merely an oppinion, it is a postition that is part of a consistent principled set of values, as well as consitent with natural rights.
“And IF Stormy was offered compensation for sex (condo, Apprentice appearance, etc) you’re saying she could sue for breach of contract for an illegal act?”
If you want me to agree you should not wreck your argument with superfluous and erroneous words.
1). Your argument starts with if. That requires proving the conditions.
2). Your argument adds the condition “illegal” to the premises. Strike illegal and we are agreed.
As noted before a binding contract is:
Offer
acceptance
consideration.
If you have all of those, and the contract was not fullfilled, then Stormy may sue for breach.
But I would note that it is extremely difficult to establish a verbal contract without witnesses.
Further all offers are not binding contracts.
All offers with acceptance are not binding contracts.
Finally, in the event that Ms. Daniels had a valid contract with DT, that he breached,
that is a basis for damages. That is all.
It is not a crime to breach a contract. The remedy for breach is government enforcement of the contract or government enforcement of damages.
That is all.
Yeah, this guy is mentally sound. Right,
(I’ll refrain from posting anything else today to make up for the posted video)
JJ: The real reason Trump fired Comey was Comey made Trump look small.
Poor Dr. (“excellent health”), Jackson, he is the latest person to look like a jerk, by the 6′, ahem, 3″, hi-LDL, Trump.
Funny, Ryan and Obama are listed at 6’1″, but seem the same height as Trump.
Yes he is obese and lies, by not correcting Dr. Jackson, to America.
This is what passes for argument ?
Short jokes?
Public discourse, my a—. All you do, dhji, is babble for your own satisfaction- private discourse-, deluding yourself into thinking you are making cogent points. Instead you just take up too much space that is sprinkled with condescending remarks offering us absolution to not read (really it is like wading through s—-) your blathering and telling us you don’t care about- whatever. Then you get on your high horse, Rocinante, and tell us in another thousand words that we do not argue/discuss issues with you properly. Sir, I don’t think anyone can meet your standards for discourse, even if they had the time to try and follow your elephant sized verbal scats scattered within endless threads.
More of this garbage where you omnisciently psychoanalyze everyone else.
You claim to know more about what motivates me, what makes me happy than I do.
But then you claim that about everyone.
You rush out to label those you do not like as racists, and wonder when they do not like you back.
Rather than engaging argument – you attack people.
Read your own posts, What is there of substance in any of them ?
Are you actually interested in debating the substance of Immigration. Military Spending, or any of the other issuses that are at the kernel of the current conflicts in Washington ?
No!. You and the left seek victory by insult.
I am purportedly condescending – false, but so what ? True or false that is still ad hominem. It is still garbage intended to distract from argument.
I would far prefer to discuss the issues with you than all this personal attack garbage of yours.
Ron, Priscilla and I have numerous posts here confronting the various issues.
The rest of you have none. Zero Nada.
You want to rant about who posts the most or Trump’s height, or porn stars. or who is more racist or just about anything derogatory you can about anyone in your way.
But you will not address anything of actual substance.
Please find a single post of yours that has any substance besides personal attacks on someone ?
You do not want to discuss issues. You want to insult people into silence and then do whatever you please. Why should anyone trust you with power ?
And that is why you are the greater threat to the nation.
dhlii said: “More of this garbage where you omnisciently psychoanalyze everyone else.” Everyone? I like everyone. As a matter of fact, I think they are all pretty sharp.
“Why should anyone trust you with power ?
And that is why you are the greater threat to the nation.”
I rest my case.
“Everyone? I like everyone. As a matter of fact, I think they are all pretty sharp.”
If you wish to play word games – “everyone” would that include Trump ?
Regardless, One many – you ares still trying to psychanalze others and wonder why they get offended.
Heard enough over the last week. Time for an independent council named by Trump to investigate the investigators associated with the Dossier, Fusion GPS, Obama and the Clintons. If someone apparently higher up the chain of command in the FBI had anything to do with this incident reportedly covered in the congressional memo, their ass needs to be nailed to the statue of Lady Justice in the court room they are found guilty.
Who else but an IC The FBI/DOJ investigating themselves? Thats like naming a candy thief to investigate a candy store robbery.
I do not have a problem with the Steele Dossier.
I do not have a problem with the DNC and Clinton Campaign’s role in it.
I do not have a problem with Fusion GPS.
Similarly
I do not have a problem with any of the inconsequential and fruitless efforts by the Trump campaign to get Dirt on Clinton.
All of the above is politics. Some of it is nasty – and if the press or others can find it and bring it to light and that reflects badly on Trump or Clinton – so be it.
The problem lies when politics pollutes government.
I do not have a problem with the political biases or the political ties of those int he DOJ/FBI.
But if you have those biases or political ties you DO NOT participate in investigations where they might be a factor.
The standard is “the APPEARANCE of impropriety”
What we have after a year of digging into Trump/Russia is close to nothing on Trump/Russia, and a great deal of evidence that the DOJ/FBI and even the IC have participated in an effort to tilt the election. To protect Clinton from public scrutiny and to investigation Trump based on garbage, lies innuendo and political dirt.
It is the role of the press to chase down rumours. The FBI/DOJ are there to investigate crimes, and to do so without political favor.
It is not their job to exhonerate Clinton. It is not their job to impede Trump.
I do not know what this memo says.
I am beyond the point where I think another nail is necescary.
We KNOW there was an extensive FBI/DOJ/CIA/NSA investigation of Trump and his associates.
No one denies that.
Not only has that investigation not born fruit, it has not produced any justification for the investigation itself.
We Knew as an example from the begining that Clinton used a private email server that was not secure for official communications.
That is atleast improper. The communications of public officials as part of their duties is the property of the government.
That is sufficient factual basis for an investigation.
Further all the conduct being investigated was explicitly associated with Clinton’s durtes as Sec. State. There is not right to personal privacy in those actions.
The entire investigation into Trump was based on rumours about private acts,
No crime has actually been alleged through this date – beyond that of government spying on the Trump Campaign.
The entire problem here is the actions of the Obama administration, as well as Obama holdovers in the early Trump administration.
Ron, there is absolutely the need of a special investigator/prosecutor to look into what are apparently clear and ongoing abuses of the FISA warrant system by the Obama administration. Secret surveillance of American citizens, without a warrant is as unconstitutional as it gets.
Liberals get all huffy when this comes up, and say things like “how can you attack the FBI, which keeps us safe and needs wiretaps to catch the bad guys?” I’d like to know what those same liberals would say, if they had reason to sue the government (say class action on lead- poisoned water or eminent domain abuse, etc) and they discovered that the government was able to monitor their calls and emails to their attorneys, or put gps trackers on their cars? This is what the FBI did in the Bundy case, and why the case got thrown out of court. But, not all such victims of surveillance would be so “lucky” as to have the FBI get caught.
I’m sure that the vast majority of FBI agents are decent and law-abiding. But as the bureau, along with the CIA and all the rest of the intelligence community has become more powerful and more political, its leadership has become corrupt, and people like James Comey seem to truly believe that they are above the law. This whole situation seems more KGB than FBI.
When it comes to our democracy, that’s as dangerous as it gets, and the fact that Comey &company may have believed that they could execute a coup against a president shows that we’re approaching banana republic territory. Hugo Chavez would be proud.
Priscilla, you and I believe the same about security. But there are way too many that accept what the left and right tell us and not enough Rand Pauls to get the true message out and too few people listening.
The left is perfectly happy to attack the FBI when it is their ox being gored.
Regardless, I do not care whether the government is abusing power in the service of the right or of the left. It is WRONG.
The left tends to get away with more – primarily because there constant refrain of ad hominem creates the false impression that they are moral and their enemies are not.
Neither the left no the right hold the moral high ground on the abuse of power.
Regardless Section 702 was just re-authorized by BOTH Parties.
Bipartisanship is possible when we are going to screw over our rights.
I am sure the vast majority of the FBI are decent – that does not mean I think that the “decent” people at the FBI get to make up the rules for the rest of us.
Law Enforcement performs a critical function – but our rights constraint it, not its wishes.
All of the “good people” in every agency in government are certain with more power they can do their jobs better. That does not mean they should be given more power.
As has been pointed out before, an IC sounds like a good idea for a specific investigation, but sometimes it goes off in other multiple directions. Right now there is one IC, is it wise too start another? I don’t know, it is easy to say start a new one, and I am inclined to agree if this is potentially a big abuse of power by the government, but it would be cool if they could wait awhile.
Mueller and Rosenstein are both witnesses and targets. They can not be part of it.
The root of this investigation is political corruption and bias in performing official duties.
It is possible to clearly define what and who is to be investigated here and the crimes being investigated, but it is already evident this would be a very broad investigation involving the entire top tier of the FBI and DOJ as well as bleeding into the Intelligence Community.
Given the nature of this – the lead really should be Congress. One of the major objectives is to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.
I am not sure that a SC would not be an impediment. Regardless, I am less interested in criminal prosecutions than in bringing the real scope and misconduct to light and assuring they can not happen again. A major start would have been not re-authorizing section 702 – but that was done in a bipartisan fashion.
But ultimately there will be criminal referals – those can not be investigated by DOJ/FBI the conflicts are too great. That will require a truly independent and competent SC – and aside from being a target Mueller is neither. It will also require a staff of people who are aggressive, dilligent and not political – and I am not sure finding that is possible.
That is also why I am more interested int he congressional investigation exposing all of this to the light – even if that means prosecuting is made more difficult.
One of the issues right now between Congress DOJ/FBI and Mueller is that the PRIORITY is to find out what happened and assure it does not happen again – not to prosecute people.
Further the FOCUS is NOT on those outside of government. I do nto care what dirty deed Glenn Simpson was up to. Or the Clinton Campaign, or the DNC.
Just as this crap regarding Manafort etc. is garbage.
None of those were acting under color of authority in their deeds.
Alot of what we know is related to government corruption regarding Trump.
But we know that the same things that were weaponized against Trump were occuring back through 2010 and that members of the Obama administration were abusing the power of govenrment for political ends having nothing to do with Trump.
I do not know whether this was directed from the top. Nor is that critical. What is evident is that throughout the Obama administration – whether in BATF, or the IRS or the NSA or the UN or the DOJ or FBI there was an atmosphere that encouraged the abuse of the power of government for political ends.
dduck. The issue I have with the current investigation is one of a personal belief. I believe this investigation is being driven by political means. I do not believe Mueller is neutral in his investigative powers and i believe he will overlook something that is favorable to Trump, while using whatever means he has to find something that will have a negative result for Trump. And, I do not believe his current investigation will look at anything his former organization or the DOJ did illegally in regards to the dossier and what took place with that. He will look at that through the means of charging Trump with something, but nothing more.
I have a VERY VERY negative view of him, Comey and anyone associated with either of them. They are way worse that J Edgar Hoover and that is going along way to get there.
Well, Ron, we disagree. While you are negative, I am positive on Mueller and the FBI.
dduck, “Well, Ron, we disagree. ” And that is what makes this a mostly good site to visit and comment. Because we can disagree and share why we disagree. At some point in time, we will find out who is the closet to the truth in thinking.
And since we are sharing actual reasons, we are not calling each other names and disparaging each other like so many other comments end up.
(And yes, I am guilty of this when people do not use facts or just regurgitate someone elses comment)
His past history suggests Mueller is more stubborn and incompetent than politically biased.
His staffing choices are poor. If your objective is a credible outcome you need either a more mixed staff or a more neutral one.
The fundimental problem is the basis for the investigation never was there.
Today that is obvious to almost everyone.
It was politically manufactured.
Mueller does nto appear to have been a part of that.
But it is still a problem.
Worse as it is an egregious abuse of power, we must do something to assure it is never repeated.
The issues with Mueller and those with DOJ/FBI are distinct – though related.
Aside from Strzok’s texts which clearly disqualify him from Mueller’s team, and the issues involving Rosenstein – who appointed him, the rest though troubling is more – Mueller’s team is too heavily democratic. Remember Mueller’s investigation is not truly an outside investigation. It is still the government conducting a political investigation.
The DOJ/FBI stuff is damning. It goes beyond “there are too many Dem’s investigating Trump”.
Prior to Mueller’s apointment it is now apparent that the Trump/Russia investigation was driven by the opposing political party OUTSIDE government from the start. That no real effort was made to verify political opposition research that was used as the basis for not merely the investigation – but also warrants and spying on americans.
This does pose a problem for the Mueller investigation – as it is essentially the fruit of a poisoned tree.
Memo Schmemo..
All the talk about it is Republican hype based on tin hat fantasy.
If you only had a brain…
You would know
President Spank Me could declassify and publish the memo
in the next hour.
But hasn’t and won’t because
There’s nothing in it!
Double DUH!