Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 24, 2017, 09:24:45 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
99733 Posts in 2354 Topics by 1083 Members
Latest Member: TuhonBill
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 170
151  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Way Forward, no end zone dance, just work to do. on: November 10, 2016, 08:03:22 PM
President George W Bush made this statement in his first press conference after the 2004 election that was perhaps the start of his rather sudden fall:

"The people made it clear what they wanted, I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it."

This week conservatives and Republicans won the Presidency, Senate, House, 32 Governorships and close to 70% of the state legislative chambers across the fruited plain.  Someone wiser than George W Bush used to say something about the excessive end zone dance celebrations we often see, "act like you've been there before'.  That was former Minnesota Vikings Head Coach Bud Grant.  The play was designed to go to the end zone.  That's where you expected it to go.  You are a professional, paid to do that and you did it.  Give the ball to the referee and get back to your team ready to play the rest of the game.

If Republicans or Trumpists think they already won it all, achieved it all, have political capital and are going to stick it to the other side just because of the outcome of the close vote count on Tuesday night, they might soon learn otherwise.  There is work to do.  

21 million people will lose health insurance in January if Trump and the Republicans simply cancel Obamacare without having a better plan in place.  Whatever the legislation is, it needs to go through a 51-49 Senate where rules require 60 votes - depending on what the meaning of rules is.  There will be a fight.

Tax reform has been talked about since the Harding administration.  Yes it can be done.  No it won't be easy.

The Penny Plan to cut spending is simple.  Telling Sean Hannity you support it was easy.  But no one has ever done it.

The first Supreme Court nomination is all but ready, coming from a list made and released.  Getting and winning a vote on the nominee is another matter.  A couple of Democrats on the committee (and all their activists) might still be pissed off.

20 or so candidates opined on how they would defeat ISIS.  Trump was the least specific about it.  Yet ISIS controls a good part of the Middle East and has attacks already planned all over the west.  This isn't a debate question anymore.  The plan you're not going to telegraph to the enemy needs to be in place, like now.  Good morning Mr. President, here is your briefing.  Guess what?  The real attack on the homeland isn't in the briefing.  Have a nice day.

Building the wall isn't an artist's rendition anymore.  Deciding who to deport and how isn't a political hypothetical anymore.

And for the Republicans in Congress, writing or repealing real legislation isn't as simple as opposing a President from the other party.  Real laws have real consequences, unintended ones too.

Britain, Canada and Mexico have all signaled willingness to re-open trade deals.  There is a hint of an opening with China too.  That doesn't mean these countries will accept our terms.  Simpler and better trade deals is a great idea.  The threat of a 40% tariff on consumers, a trade war or a new depression is not.

How about the federal dilemma of addressing the legalization of marijuana happening in many of the states, still against federal law.  Is there going to be a civil war against Colorado, Washington, California, Oregon and Massachusetts over pot laws or is the federal government going to make accommodation for what is now a reality in the states?  Even if legalization was a bad idea...

Nice election.  Everybody deserves a little credit.  We defeated an incompetent, inexperienced candidate under federal investigation with no charisma by -300,000 votes.  

Now there is work to do.
152  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Non Citizens Voting on: November 10, 2016, 01:09:51 PM
Very good work, DDF.

Rachel Maddow states that Donald Trump talked about rounding up and deporting more than 10,000,000 people at the 23:20 mark in her/MSNBC's election night coverage here:

Which means, that by democratic admission on total numbers of illegals in the country (because she didn't dispute the number, and in fact used it as a quote against Trump), that the article posted by Doug yesterday, having 13-25% (per the article) of noncitizens casting votes (noting that at times, they are only discovered by their own admission during Customs interviews):

13% of Illegal Aliens Admit They Vote

A poll by John McLaughlin confirms again we may have a significant problem with noncitizens participating illegally in our elections. Based on a sample survey of 800 Hispanics in 2013, McLaughlin found that of foreign-born respondents who were registered voters, 13 percent admitted they were not United States citizens.

This translates into untold numbers of fraudulent votes. Those are only the ones that admit to it. The number could be as high as 10,000,000. If there is no penalty, no danger of being discovered, and huge rewards awaiting, people who are prohibited from voting, could consider themselves foolish not to vote, especially when Barack Obama himself mentions it, if not encouraging it, (and I'm purposely citing SNOPES because of their liberal slant, in order to take away any defense of the matter):

Snopes: "The claim originates from an interview with Obama published on 3 November 2016, in which millennial actress Gina Rodriguez asked the president about a number of issues facing young Latinos. Many of the outrage posts were written around a video in which the majority of the president's response was edited out to give the misleading impression that Obama was urging undocumented immigrants to vote illegally.

In the full interview, it's clear Obama is urging Latino citizens to vote in order to give voice to members of their community who are precluded from doing so by lack of citizenship, not urging non-citizens to vote illegally. Rodriguez's question seems to be addressing a fear that voting will result in scrutiny on one's family which could result in deportation of undocumented relatives." End.

It is clear who Obama is addressing, per Snope's own admission.

The interview transcript:

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don't want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you're not just speaking for yourself. You're speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school...

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

OBAMA: ... who may not have a voice. Who can't legally vote. But they're counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.


Obama could not have possibly been referring to a citizen having "fear" to vote, because it is clearly established by law that any citizen can vote, and he clearly states that:

"there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera."

Obama made it a point, to make that portion clear, when he didn't have to, because there is no legal reprobation for claiming a legal right available to any citizen. The only reason he could make an issue of investigatory practices, is solely to inform people that are legally prohibited from voting.


1.) It is clear that Obama encourages the practice from his own words:

2.) Non-citizens by their own admission and through existing authorities have both admitted to voting and been caught doing so.

3.) There are at least 10,000,000 non-citizens in the country. Other sources claim it to be as high as 13.7% of the total population of which:

     a.)The term "foreign-born" includes naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, visa holders and undocumented immigrants.

     b.) Making it clear, that it isn't just "undocumented" people that can vote illegally.

     c.) USCIS themselves state that in the last decade, 6.6 million naturalized citizens were admitted and that roughly .6 million are admitted annually.

 - (curiously, in 2008, a key election year, more than a million were admitted - bottom of page)

4.) Based on USCIS statistics, US Census figures (Table 1.1 of the following link) and the article quoted above, there are 21,707,000 people pending citizenship (6.8% of the current US population of 318.9 million) as of 2005 , plus, an additional 10-15 million people that are not documented (4.7% at 15 million), making a full 11.5% of the total population (36,673,500 people).

5.) Total voter turnout in 2016 was 130,840,000, with 231,556,622 being eligible to vote (56.5% of eligible voters, voted) , which means that of eligible voters, the numbers from #4.) now represent 16.59% of documented aliens that don't have citizenship in regard to votes actually cast, and undocumented people in the country represent 11.464%, combining to make a total of 28.054% if total population of the US were counted as "cast ballots, and of which 28.054%, 13-25% admit to voting illegally, comprising  4,771,734 to 9,335,434 illegal votes cast,

NOTING: that though the percentages from USCIC constitute the total documented population number regardless of age, that owing to lack of voter registration laws, there is nothing stopping them from casting a ballot for everyone in their household.

ALSO NOTING: that the above numbers only reference people that admit to the practice of voting illegally, based on percentages.

ALSO NOTING: That many "Dreamer" children ln liberally, are very politically active, and are the children of people not permitted. It bears mentioning, that the children of immigrants who are naturalized citizens, ALSO vote Democratically.


1.) There is no inherent right to immigrate to the US, and the idea that there is, perpetuated largely by the Left, needs to be rectified.

2.) Voter ID laws need to be in place.

3.) ALL electronic voting machines need to be removed immediately, and replaced with paper ballots.

4.) ALL polling sites need to be monitored by both CAMERA and multiple, non-serving, citizen representatives from each party represented on the ballot.

5.) STIFF voter and electoral fraud prison sentences of 10 years or more need to be in place.

6.) Voter and electoral fraud investigative units cannot be made up of any politicians, lawyers, nor any businessman and must have civilian oversight.

7.) ALL undocumented individuals need to be deported without judicial representation, to their point of entry into the States, including any children born to them on US soil, and the 14th amendment rectified, to avoid people from cheating existing immigration laws that other legal immigrants sacrifice much in order to obey.

Even though I posted it, I'm not finding the 13℅ figure accurate or reliable, it could be higher.  But for whoever did vote illegally, they risked that Trump would win and these crimes would be investigated and prosecuted. Illegal voting should come with a lifetime ban on future citizenship and legal voting.   Maybe that will slow it down.
153  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues on: November 09, 2016, 11:30:49 PM
A couple of election points:

1.  The media gave Trump 90% of the coverage in a 17-way race in the primaries.  Through wikilwaks we find out they were colluding with Hillary to get her the weakest opponent. Then in the general election the coverage switched to 90℅ negative on Trump including a 10 year old tape and 20 year old allegations all timed for October..  How did that work out?

2.  Fact Checkers, WashPost ran a Pinocchio summary at the end rating Trump worse than Clinton.  Reading through it I found that Trump was making valid points and the fact checker was just nitpicking his wording and with Hillary they completely ignored her most outrageous lies.  N
I'm not surprised, just making a note of it. 

3.  NY Times did a major editorial endorsing his opponent when Rubio was running about even.  He won by 8 points.

They get judged and paid on their clicks so I am mostly not putting links anymore in referrals to bad reporting and meaningless commentary.

The media is so biased yet people are sometimes seeing through that.
154  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / HRC never set foot in Wisconsin, the state where Trump clinched the election on: November 09, 2016, 11:13:16 PM

"Wisconsin is such a solidly blue state that Hillary Clinton didn't feel the need to campaign there in her general-election battle against Donald Trump."

OTOH, she made hundreds of trips to Iowa I suppose and lost there by even more.
155  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 13% of Illegal Aliens Admit They Vote on: November 09, 2016, 09:14:32 PM
13% of Illegal Aliens Admit They Vote

A poll by John McLaughlin confirms again we may have a significant problem with noncitizens participating illegally in our elections. Based on a sample survey of 800 Hispanics in 2013, McLaughlin found that of foreign-born respondents who were registered voters, 13 percent admitted they were not United States citizens.

The Daily Signal logo
Must Reads
INTERNATIONALCOMMENTARYIranian women pass next to an anti-U.S. mural on their way to the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran.(Photo: Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA/Newscom)
Iran Is Wrong: Trump Can Absolutely Overturn the Nuclear Deal

HEALTH CARE NEWSWith Donald Trump's election to the presidency, it's become more likely that Republicans will be able to successfully repeal Obamacare. (Photo: Nate Chute/Reuters/Newscom)
How Republicans Can Start to Dismantle Obamacare With a Trump Presidency

SOCIETYCOMMENTARYDonald Trump should commit to protecting the free exercise of religion for all Americans of all faiths. (Photo: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom)
Make Religious Freedom Great Again

Poll Shows Noncitizens Can Shape Elections
Hans von Spakovsky   / @HvonSpakovsky / June 02, 2015 / comments



Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky
Hans von Spakovsky
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.
A poll by John McLaughlin confirms again we may have a significant problem with noncitizens participating illegally in our elections. Based on a sample survey of 800 Hispanics in 2013, McLaughlin found that of foreign-born respondents who were registered voters, 13 percent admitted they were not United States citizens.

In our 2012 book on voter fraud, John Fund and I noted numerous cases of noncitizen registration and voting all over the country. Only a month ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals of the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the Justice Department held that a Peruvian citizen who illegally registered and voted in the 2006 congressional election could be deported for violating federal law. The only reason she was caught is because she applied for naturalization in 2007 and admitted in the INS interview that she had voted in an American election.

In 2014, a study released by three professors at Old Dominion University and George Mason University, based on survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, estimated 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election and 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm congressional elections.

Since 80 percent of noncitizens vote Democratic, according to the study, noncitizen participation could have “been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes [in North Carolina in 2008], and Congressional elections” such as the 2008 race in Minnesota in which Al Franken was elected to the U.S. Senate, giving “Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote” to pass Obamacare. The Old Dominion/George Mason study was sharply attacked by progressive critics, but the mounting evidence makes clear this is a real problem.

In 2013, McLaughlin, a Republican pollster, conducted an extensive “National Hispanic Survey” to determine the attitudes of Hispanic Americans on immigration issues. McLaughlin went to a great deal of trouble to try to make this survey as accurate as possible, including conducting 60 percent of the interviews in Spanish. In results that run counter to what the mainstream media seems to think about the attitudes of Hispanics, the results showed strong support for everything from increased border security and tougher enforcement of immigration laws to “stopping undocumented immigrants who are already here from getting food stamps, welfare, Medicaid and Obamacare benefits.”

But buried in the back of the survey on page 68 is a “Voter Profile” that reveals that 13 percent of noncitizen respondents admitted they were registered to vote (a violation of state and federal law), which matches closely the Old Dominion/George Mason study finding that 14.8 percent of noncitizens admitted they were registered to vote in 2008 and 15.6 percent of noncitizens admitted they were registered in 2010.

When these numbers were adjusted to take into account various factors, such as noncitizens “who said they were not [registered but] were actually registered,” the Old Dominion/George Mason study’s authors concluded that the true percentage was probably closer to 25 percent.

There is no doubt the registration rate of noncitizens varies depending on the jurisdiction, and the percentage of those voting is likely smaller. But whether the registration rate is 13 percent as McLaughlin found or 25 percent as the Old Dominion/George Mason study estimated, there seems little doubt that there are enough noncitizens registering and voting to potentially make the difference in close elections.
156  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 09, 2016, 08:35:26 PM
After alleged panic overnight, the Dow closed at a record high today on the news of the Trump election.  Or was there some other news...

The world didn't end as predicted.
157  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump Administration Agenda - Trade deals, NAFTA, Canada steps up, Britain on: November 09, 2016, 08:29:36 PM
Our best trade partner is ready to talk.

Canada open to renegotiating free trade with Trump
Theresa May has led UK political congratulations for Donald Trump after his US election victory.
The PM said Britain and the US had an "enduring and special relationship" and would remain close partners on trade, security and defence.

Britain post-Brexit needs trade deals.  Pres. O told them to go to the back of the line.
158  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump Administration agenda - The Penny Plan on: November 09, 2016, 08:18:52 PM

Cut one cent out of each dollar each year in all programs other than Defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
159  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races on: November 09, 2016, 08:12:38 PM
I cannot tell.  Do Repubs have 51 or 52 Senate seats?  Every time I look it up it says 51 to 48.

Does anyone know what is going on?

I believe it's 51.  Kelly Ayotte conceded today in NH.  The 48 probably excludes an 'independent' Dem.
160  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, Maine District goes to Trump on: November 09, 2016, 11:54:47 AM

Maine splits its electoral votes for the first time. 

Michigan also called for Trump, thin margin.  Hillary conceded.  Updating electoral count: 308-231. (?)   

Hillary still leads the popular vote by 0.2% with many votes left to count.  Let's hope that doesn't become a footnote to this historic event.
161  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 09, 2016, 09:13:39 AM
   I TOLD YOU SO!!!   

Yes you did!   )

And Rubio won in Trump's most important swing state -  with 8 times the margin.  This didn't have to be so hard!
162  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump Presidency, Trump Administration on: November 09, 2016, 09:06:10 AM
New thread?

Today the Trump administration begins, getting ready to start work.  The Trump analogy to Reagan begins too.  Trump starts with a huge advantage over Reagan by having the House and Senate in his own party.  He also starts with a 5th vote Supreme Court vacancy to be filled.  It is almost too good to be true.  (Don't screw it up!) He does not have and never will have 60 votes in the Senate.  The broken filibuster and reconciliation vote issues are the hurdles to enacting change; He also has to work well with congress - after he ran largely against them. 

Hugh Hewitt says Trump should appoint and get confirmed 100 judges in 100 days, including a Supreme Court justice from his list.

He promised to cancel executive orders, get over-regulation repealed, overhaul the tax code, re-open TPP and other agreements.  He needs great cabinet members.  He needs to sweep the corruption and ethical issues out the door.  He can't have scandal or make serious unforced errors.  He needs to move first and strongest in the areas that have the widest agreement with the people and with congress.  He needs to work quickly and boldly on healthcare.  What an opportunity.
163  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential - DDF was Right! ) on: November 09, 2016, 08:40:39 AM

276 Electoral Votes with perhaps 30 more coming from Alaska and close races in Michigan and Arizona making it 307-232.

Final tallies aside, Trump won a close election.  Also Republicans won huge Senate races, held the Senate and the House, which all effects at least the start of the Trump administration. 

The consensus of the polls was wrong.  This election was a tie in the popular vote, Clinton up by a hair, but Trump won Iowa by 10, Ohio by 8 and Wisconsin by 1, where the polls had him down by 6.

Clinton won Virginia roughly by the number of felons and illegals voting and she won Minnesota roughly by the number of peaceful, unvetted Somalis that have settled here.  She won Colorado and New Mexico with margins that come from population influxes there too. 

The Obama-Clinton (and Bush) years are coming to an end.  A new chapter is beginning.  God Bless America.

164  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: November 08, 2016, 07:04:43 PM
These latest stories seem small and partly out of context.  I listen some and he hasn't changed much IMHO.  He and some others have to answer for not making a simple choice in this binary election.
165  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential predictions, Nate Silver, 538, Drudge on: November 08, 2016, 03:32:17 PM
Nate Silver's predicts 70% chance of Clinton victory, spends his final blog post writing about unprecedented uncertainty.

Clinton up by 3.  Error of 3% is "common".  If it moves 3 points, that easily could change the outcome.  Trump polls better in swing states than nationally.  Swing states contain more swing voters.  (Go figure.)  Error of 6-10% also possible - either way.  More undecideds than ever, could break one way (or the other) rather than down the middle.  More third party supporters than usual; some will tend to move to their binary choice.  12% of the vote unknown by poll takers even if they are right on the rest.

Polling errors are correlated across states, not random.

Polls understated 2015 UK conservative victory by 6 points.
Republicans beat the polls in 2014 by 3-4 points.
Polls missed Brexit 2016 by 4%.
Polls missed Reagan's win in 1980 by 8 points.
Drudge at this hour:



Did YOU vote?
166  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential - Election Day on: November 08, 2016, 11:10:30 AM
I voted.  Please vote and do everything else you can to make a difference today.   At least 15 states are close (list below) and will decide this election and the future (or end) of this nation.   Hillary polls above 50% in none of these states, nor in any national poll.

RCP final with no tossups has Trump at 266, 4 electoral votes short with the 4 tossup votes in NH scored for Clinton.  Some of those in the Trump column are vulnerable and some states where Clinton's lead is thin are winnable.  Trump must hold where he leads, FL and NC especially.   Then a win in NH, PA, CO, NM, MI or VA could put him over the top.

Somehow I have the feeling this is all going to turn against us today, toward Hillary and the people who want to rule us rather than let us live mostly in freedom.  (Please don't let that happen!)

Hillary and the Dems have the lists of all Americans likely to vote liberal sorted by demographic group and government benefit programs.  They have been out contacting door to door in person with paid workers to get out their vote.  (Our side has virtually none of that, relying on individuals to read through the distorted news and make the right choice.)  Their best groups include felons, illegals, people dependent on government programs and people most susceptible to the race and class warfare promise.  

All we can do at this point is reach out one by one and try to make the smallest of differences.

This is the moment. Don't wish later that you had done more now.  If you agree this election is crucial, then think of everyone like minded you know and check in with them today, now.  Who do you know in one of the following places that might appreciate having someone they know contact them about how important their vote is?

North Carolina
New Hampshire
New Mexico

All of these states matter!

A short time ago I watched Al Franken become the 60th liberal vote in the Senate enabling a historic takeover by big government.  They did that with a margin (312 questionable votes) that could have been overcome with just a little more effort from all the people opposed to that agenda and philosophy.
167  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential predictions PP, RCP on: November 07, 2016, 05:45:55 PM
Our Pat (surprisingly) thinks the polls are wrong and it will be Trump in a landslide.

RCP Average is currently Clinton +2.9%   Assuming a 2-3 point under-count, this is going to be close and the Republican is the underdog.  Prove them wrong! 

There are a number of ways they can be wrong. 

1. People vote differently in the privacy of the polling booth than they tell pollsters.  Each percent of that has a 2 point swing.  A few Hispanics who already have jobs, citizenship and good lives might fall into into this group, not wanting to say they support Trump.
2. Turnout models turn out false.  Blacks aren't excited about Hillary.  Women aren't excited.  The young aren't excited. 
3. Polling methods have worsened since people abandoned home phones.
4. Polling firms tweak their results to fall in line with other polls.

Republicans have been winning non-Presidential year elections and state races.  Perhaps this election year will have more in common with those years.

168  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Janet Reno on: November 07, 2016, 03:39:13 PM

Janet Reno came into the Clinton administration with a reasonably good reputation.  She was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.  She never fully became a Clinton insider but perhaps someone who should have stood up to them a little more.  I remember her noting that as the Attorney General of the United States she was communicating with the President through Web Hubbell and assistant attorney General during the Waco crisis.  Hubbell was a former Hillary Rose Law firm partner and a Clinton insider.

Web Hubbell, later a convicted and jailed felon, could not have been confirmed as Attorney General but was the Clinton de facto overseer of the Dept. 

Reno the outsider appointed special prosecutors to investigate Clinton scandals.  She was a notch above Obama's Attorneys General.
169  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2016 Election Predictions on: November 07, 2016, 09:57:44 AM
DDF made the most bold prediction calling it Trump in a landslide long before he was closing the gap.  I will post Wed that 'DDF was Right' if Trump wins the popular vote by anything that rounds to 3 points or more and he wins the electoral count.

My predictions, subject to update with so much time left between now and tomorrow...

1.  Clinton by 1% popular vote and by at least a state or two electorally.   (

2. Republicans hold the Senate 51-49.  If I am wrong by one here, the tie goes to the winner of the White House.

3.  Republicans hold the House, lose 10 seats but keep a solid majority.

In the early returns, if Virginia is near even instead of Clinton up by 6 as the polls suggest, this race turns on its ear.  If Trump wins Pennsylvania, start the math over.  If Trump wins Indiana by way more than 11, this race is different than predicted.  But if Clinton wins Florida, it's over.
170  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Where's the $20M? on: November 07, 2016, 09:40:00 AM

Remember the Dem Congressman caught with $100,000 in cash in his freezer?  This amount would pay off 200 people at that level. (Instead of feeding an island full of hungry children...)  Yet I doubt anyone leaning Hillary or defending Obama cares about $20 million lost.  It wasn't lost.  They are paying off people, including themselves, all over the world.  By the time we get the facts on this they will say it's an old story that no one cares about.

It seems futile but I'm glad we are logging Clinton misdeeds here.
171  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: November 07, 2016, 09:30:12 AM
For all our foresight about the Clintons, and our anger at her supporters and the pravdas who deceive them, we must also remember too what a profoundly flawed messenger Trump has been for the American Creed.

Watching Hillary and Dem closing commercials, Trump is quite the flawed messenger based on these clips of un-Presidential utterances.  We warned Pat and others about that.  Commercials show children watching a TV with Trump saying nasty, bleeped things.  Clinton is worse but not on the surface level.

On policy, he is partly right and partly wrong.  A muddled message for me but he is connecting with other people on other levels, anger about globalization etc.

We still don't have a candidate who can explain why capitalism is better than socialism and freedom better than tyranny.

Wrong direction polls 2:1 over right course and we have a toss up election running against more of the same - at best.

It's an easy call for me to vote for him versus a crook who has her policies all wrong.  But it's a hard time to our use influence with others, moderate and liberal, to persuade them this is the time to jump to our side.
172  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: DDF's post #579 Part Two on: November 05, 2016, 02:30:53 PM

Hard to follow the details but they are saying that in a day when everything is getting hacked, from Home Depot and Target to the Secretary of State and President, our electronic voting system can be hacked.

We learned in the Chavez recall that you can observe all the local polling places and still completely miss centralized tampering.  It wasn't long ago that it was Democrats suspecting Republicans of owning voting machine companies and controlling their mis-use.  As far as I know, all the large scale cheating is on the Dem side, the MN/Al Franken/60th Senator race is a case in point.  Illegal votes were greater than the margin of victory, allowing for Obamacare's passage and other havoc.

People on our side (both sides) need to volunteer to be poll watchers, election judges and observers.  Conservatives watching conservative districts is not enough.  The larger cheating IMHO happens in the larger Dem polling places.  The most obvious infractions include allowing votes from those not eligible, people who are illegals, felons, dead or already voted perhaps somewhere else.

Less visible is the centralized hack.  Preventing that requires central scrutiny by well-placed and well-trained observers and investigators with the right access.  I doubt that is happening.  Instead our chief of federal law enforcement denies there is any problem and calls anyone who believes otherwise "dangerous".

We need enforcement and penalties that are scary.  To me, undermining our electoral system in any way is akin to treason.  If not the death penalty, we need punishment that is truly not worth risking and enforcement mechanism that makes each potential cheater believe they will be caught.
173  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Obama Admin illegally diverting $5B to insurance companies on: November 05, 2016, 01:21:01 PM

The laws that regulate me all seem to have an enforcement mechanism and penalty attached to them.

'Obama administration broke the law' is how almost every sentence about them could begin.  Yet no one pays a price for it.
174  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 02, 2016, 12:09:36 PM
Trump at 265 on 'No Toss up' map.  (Needs 270 to win and 269 to put it in the House of Representatives.)

He needs to win all of his plus steal ONE of hers, New Mexico or Colorado or Virginia or Pennsylvania or NH/Maine2, or Michigan or Wisconsin.  None of these are low hurdles to clear, and several of his are well within the margin of error.

America, this is not over until the fat (corrupt, socialist) lady sings.

I must admit, Trump sounds Presidential in the final stretch and Hillary sounds like an angry defendant.

Trump objectifies women but this (below) passes for acceptable, family entertainment from Hillary's invited guest (J-Lo)performing at her rally:

Too explicit to post in our Presidential thread.
175  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, Holman Jenkins article on: November 02, 2016, 11:05:55 AM
There are so many truths in that Holman Jenkins piece:

"Mrs. Clinton is a screw-up. And when a trait takes such trouble to announce itself, note must be taken."

"The emails that Mrs. Clinton and her aides deleted would seem the ones most likely to contain evidence of improper activity."

"The federal machinery trying so hard to give her a pass is the same federal machinery that writes millions of rules for the rest of us. It doesn’t give us a pass."

Yes, yes and yes.  The whole apparatus of Obamacare restructures America with a system of rules and punishment that applies to all the rest of us just as we watch them clearly operate outside the rules and without punishment.  Does the government ever give us a pass?

Does one have to be a political opponent to recognize and be offended by all this?
176  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 election, what if Trump and the Republicans win? on: November 02, 2016, 09:01:21 AM
I have been silent on DDF's prediction of a Trump landslide only because of the failure of my own predictions, that Hillary won't run, won't win the nomination if she does run and won't win if nominated.  That bet seemed well hedged yet I already lost on 2 counts, owing significant meal tabs (canned food from my bunker?) to my friend ccp.

The analysis of this election outside of DDF has focused on what will come of the Republicans Party if they lose it all this year.  20 million new Democrat voters will change things forever.  So will the Court.  The pendulum won't swing back and forth again when we keep adding large weights to one side.

Not mentioned it seems is that the Republicans could win it all next week.

Yes Trump could win.  RCP says Trump already has more than 260 electoral votes if the average of recent polls equal the result.  He has the momentum.  She has disaster, has lost momentum and offense, but has not fully imploded.

Black Vote:  Democrat weakness is reaching critical mass.  When 98% of everyone you know or identify with thinks and votes one way, you don't consider it necessary to think through your own position.  When a number of people whose opinions you respect start to turn the other way, it frees people to consider alternatives and make a different choice.  It may start in the privacy of the polling booth, not in what people tell family, friends and pollsters.  

A 20 point collapse on Hillary's side and a 20 point surge on Trump side of a significant group is a big deal.
Bigger than that is that it frees other to make a free choice.  Democrat policies have brought failure after failure.  What have you got to lose is a weak argument, but hey, what have you got to lose by re-shuffling the deck and dealing again?  (Meanwhile he polls worse with Hispanics and needs to soften that.)

Women Vote:  Nearly all women I know were disgusted by Trump's words on the secret recording.  Maybe Hillary and the Times or Post came out with that too early.  Now people have had time to consider that it was mostly talk.  Putting someone in the White House who is not disgusting is not the alternative to Trump.  A criminal married to a rapist or a guy who talked dirty years ago in private?  Call it a draw and go back to policy, failed policies versus real change and drain the swamp.  Wong direction outpolls right course by more than 2 to 1.

Never Trumpers:  Conservatives who can't make this choice are crazy and wrong.  I expected most of them to come around.  I still do.  Kasich did a write in.  George W Bush will abstain.  That is two votes lost.  Losing the vote of Republican establishment power has been a net-positive for Trump.  He didn't choose a conventional path.

House and Senate:  The distance between the Republican House and the Republican presidential nominee is also turning into a good thing.  They can work together on policy yet would feel quite free to buck him or even impeach him if warranted.  The removes the need to split the ballot which centrist voters often do to hedge their bet.

Senate race polling has been very close to 50-50 all along.  At 50-50, the Presidential win controls the Senate.  More likely the Presidential win will comes with a surge that also carries one or two Senators the same way, hopefully to the right from my point of view.

Hillary Clinton wins this election in a tie with the big blue wall of electoral votes.  (Gore was the last exception.)  I have believed all along that the Republican needs nearly a 3 point win in the national popular vote to decisively win the electoral college.  That is still possible.  Trump needs to run the table on ALL the swing states and take one or two more that were not believed to be in play about a minute ago.  But that is what happens in a late, national surge.  It is still possible but I make no prediction.

IF IF IF Republicans win the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, which is possible...  Where does that leave
the Democratic Party?  Their last two DNC chairs lost in scandal, wrongly steered the nomination to a crook, liar and a loser.  Both Clintons done.  Obama leaving, and leaving on a loss and with repeal of his agenda coming and also possible investigations into his governance.  Pelosi likely out.  Reid out.  Biden out.  No outside of Washington Dem governors elevated.  Control of state legislatures lost.  Border security in.  Citizenship for illegals out.  Tax reform in.  Economic growth returning.  TPP style sovereignty losses out.  New security agreements with allies coming.  Peace through strength, back.  Respect for law enforcement returns.  Individual responsibility back.  This is a disaster if you are a Democrat who makes a living telling people they are nothing without big government.
177  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 02, 2016, 08:19:23 AM
Colin Powell's Presidential choices of Obama, Obama and Hillary just tell us where he sits politically.  We thought he picked Obama because he is black but he picked him because he is liberal.  Powell never was a conservative or a Republican beyond name only.  He was a great military strategist and is a person quite successful in advancing his own power, influence and money.  As Elizabeth Warren would say, good for him.  But a constitutionalist he is not.  Nowhere in the constitution does it say we can right racial wrongs with reverse discriminatory schemes or that a woman has the right to slaughter her young.  These are merely liberal political views.
178  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Huma and Anthony's computer on: November 02, 2016, 08:08:43 AM
A friend writes:


There is another reason for concern about all these emails being found on the laptop jointly owned by Weiner and Abedin.  I have not yet seen this aspect discussed publicly.

If Weiner were sending and receiving porn (underage or otherwise) from that laptop, then he was most likely frequenting unsecured file sharing services.

This is how child porn and other illegal porn is distributed outside of the usual pay internet sites.  (Not to mention what gets attached to those
files)  I know this from , , , .  You get porn by allowing others to access your files directly from your computer storage via these file sharing sites for porn- especially underage porn.

Thus, if Huma's files from to her Yahoo account were all stored on the same laptop that Weiner was using to share porn, then all those emails were subject to easy discovery by any interested party who would troll those boards for ways to hack into other peoples' computers and take them over for various purposes.  The FBI trolls those boards in order to impersonate and catch child porn users and distributors.  So, her IP address was known.  Access to the file storage on the laptop was enabled.

Who knows what was attached to any of the files that Weiner would have accessed?  

Not to mention that Yahoo was hacked and was likely compromised.  

Just saying that there is a lot more potential security exposure here including a way for outside agencies to access everything on that laptop and cover their tracks inside Weiner's file sharing services.

Besides setting up a culture of corruption, Hillary's leadership at State comprised and careless and reckless culture of disregard for security of national security information, each incident a felony.

The key here is to note that the motive for lax security, operating outside the government security, was an integral part of the premeditated corruption syndicate.  They knew before the pay for play communications were sent and received what they intending to do with the Secretary of State's office.  And Huma worked concurrently for both operations, not some inadvertent overlap of duties.  All this the idea of Hillary unless she doesn't run her own operations.

This was an planned and organized crime operation, not a mistake.  They knew these communications would not hold up to public or law enforcement scrutiny.  Even when totally and completely busted they act like nothing is wrong.  With the evidence all over the internet, they say the FBI Director has nothing, just out to get her!

We need the voters to speak on this.
179  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: November 02, 2016, 07:53:59 AM
This could easily be a crock of excrement.

BTW, NE is run by Trump crony who planted a crap story for Donald against Cruz IIRC. 

National Enquirer is occasionally right.  This story about Hillary flings might be true and the Chelsea thing is possible, but as a practical and political matter it is better to stay on what we know for sure about her, especially between now and the election.

The seven felonies story should be front and center, electing a criminal just to pardon herself.  Even the story about Hillary's first felony is still relevant in that it matches her current and recent behavior and proves she has no regard for the law or her victims.  She chose personal enrichment over Arkansas pollution protection then; now she chooses personal enrichment over American control of American Uranium assets, hiding from oversight over national security, hiding facts over complying with and assisting an FBI criminal inquiry.

The way should went after Bill's victims is horrible.  It makes his transgressions, sexual assault and rape, hers.

There is also room to oppose her on policy!
180  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Whose fault is the FBI surprise? on: November 01, 2016, 10:05:43 AM
Democrats knowingly nominated someone under FBI investigation.
Democrats willfully looked the other way.
181  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: November 01, 2016, 09:34:46 AM
182  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 01, 2016, 09:30:48 AM
Interesting article with a peek into the world of the "elites".

I watch how CNN fired Donna Brazille but we all know her disease is short lived.  She will simply mover around the revolving door to another lucrative opportunity somewhere else among the elites and not miss a heartbeat. 

The Clinton Podesta machine will find some other way to reward her for being a "soldier" among them.

I hate it when all our conspiracy theories are proven right.

She still is the head of the DNC, serving in place of someone who was caught doing the same thing, using her power wrongly to advantage one side, the Clintons.

183  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Schlafly on voter fraud on: October 31, 2016, 11:56:14 PM

Nice to see Phyllis Schlafly's sons carrying on her good work.
184  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: blame the cause not the messenger on: October 31, 2016, 10:53:36 AM

I still have major doubts the world will finally be rid of these miscreants. 

Yes, the candidate and these miserable surrogates blaming Comey and the process.  THESE DCOUMENTS WERE UNDER SUBPAENA.  She is the one who tried to stretch this issue out to the election and beyond.

Someone other than National Review and Fox call her out on it!
185  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues on: October 31, 2016, 10:50:52 AM
"Bigdog unavailable for comment on the professional journalists, with credentials!"
Possible taunting violation here.  I have known Bigdog to update his view in the face of new information.  Let's be nice and get him back.  )

Were any of these pretend journalists fired, suspended or shamed or are we now to the point where being thought of as in bed with the campaign is worn as a badge of honor?

Is there one person on that leftist list that the other side, Trump or a Republican, would also believe they could plant a story or narrative?

91% of mainstream stories on Trump are negative.
Given the view of the general electorate, that proportion should be no worse that 70%. 

Do they ever go beyond the shiny object lead story and pick an issue like Obamacare failing, ISIS strategy failing, China policy failing, economic policy failing?  Do they on their own cover the fact we have the highest corporate business tax rates in the world and one candidate wants to raise them further, kill off businesess and jobs, and one candidate wants to fix that?  Or run a story that in a time of black lives matter awareness the abortion issue is killing black babies at 5 times the rate white babies,, one candidate wants that to continue that, no problem, and the other's policies would curb it, sent back to the states.  Is it partisan to report on life and death stories or real consequences of policies based on facts that no one else is talking about?

Instead, because of the above, we get these planted story, planted wordings, repeat chamber montages where 2 or 3 dozen outlets and analysts are saying the exact same thing as if it's true and it's their own original thought.  It's worse than real Soviet Pravda where they only had one outlet.

Remember 'gravitas', what Bush lacked and had to acquire:

Trump's rigged talk is dangerous, media montage:

Trump has a narrow path to victory, the planted media narrative one day,
Narrow path, narrow path, Trump has a narrow path, narrow path, narrow path... ... ...

Dozens of outlets, same biased BS.  Now we know exactly how it gets started and spreads.  ABC heard it from Podesta, not from CBS, CNN, Washington Post, etc. nor did they come up with it on their own.

It used to be called PLAGIARISM when you put something out there as your own without giving credit to the source.  Do they still teach THAT in journalism school or do they openly teach, advance the narrative, ends justify means?
186  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, often criminal history, Huma Weiner on: October 29, 2016, 02:44:24 PM
In deserving fashion, didn't Huma and Weiner meet through the Clintons?

What kind of people did they expect to meet there?

And it turns out she's the sleazier one??
187  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Let them eat cake on: October 27, 2016, 03:28:03 PM
At the very beginning one can hear her ask "why can't you get any closer" - because she is maybe 3 feet away from the steps!   Notice the slave reach for the umbrella at the top:

It didn't look like much of a stumble, looks she has high heels on, but still - very strange that she knew she would have trouble making it up the stairs with two handrails alone.

My mom was waterskiing at Hillary's age.

Probably not drunk this time, but that has been a problem:

Whatever it is that's wrong with her, she calculates it would be damaging to her election chances for us to know.  She is accusing the country of handicap-phobia?
188  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Gruber, designer of Obamacare, working as designed, need bigger penalties on: October 27, 2016, 03:07:41 PM

October 26, 2016

Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber: "Obamacare Is Not Imploding," "Working As Designed"
MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, a well-known architect of President Obama's Affordable Care Act, tells CNN that the law known as 'Obamacare' is working exactly as intended.

Full transcript, via CNN:

JONATHAN GRUBER: Obamacare's not imploding. The main goal of Obamacare was two-fold. One was to cover the uninsured, of which we’ve covered 20 million, the largest expansion in American history. The other was to fix broken insurance markets where insurers could deny people insurance just because they were sick or they had been sick. Those have been fixed, and for the vast majority of Americans, costs in those markets have come down, thanks to the subsidies made available under Obamacare...

The 22% increase [in health care premiums], let’s remember who that applies to. That applies to a very small fraction of people, who have to buy insurance without the subsidies that are available.

85% of people buying insurance on the exchanges get subsidies. And for those people, this premium increase doesn’t affect them.

Now, for those remaining people, that is a problem, and that’s something that we need to address, but it’s not a crisis. It doesn’t mean the system’s collapsing. And most importantly, it doesn’t affect the 150 million Americans who get employer insurance, who have actually seen their premiums fall dramatically, relative to what was expected before Obamacare.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN: OK. So let's talk about how exactly you can fix Obamacare. And I just need you to be specific, because I think people really want answers. So Hillary Clinton says she can fix Obamacare. So what would be one fix that would drive premiums down.

GRUBER: Look, once again, there's no sense of oh it just has to be fixed. The law is working as designed; however, it could work better, and I think probably the most important thing experts would agree on is that we need a larger mandate penalty. We have individuals who are essentially free riding on the system. They're essentially waiting until they get sick and then getting health insurance. The whole idea of this plan which was pioneered in Massachusetts was that the individual mandate penalty would bring those people into the system and have them participate. The penalty right now is probably too low and that's something ideally we would fix.

COSTELLO: So somebody who is president could go to congress and say, "You know what, lawmakers, this is a fix. Can you pass this?" Is that what would have to happen to put that fix into place?

GRUBER: Basically, it's hard to know what dramatic fix we could do without congress participating in the process. We could do things like a stronger mandate is one. We could do things like increasing the pressure on states to expand their Medicade programs, a horrible act of political malpractice where states have left millions of people of their lowest income citizens uncovered. We could do things like that, but a lot of that would involve congressional participation. It's hard to know what you can do just on your own as a new administration.

COSTELLO: What about the insurers who have fled the system? How do you convince them to come back or new companies to sign on? GRUBER: Once again, I think the press here has been misleading. Some insurers are leaving. Other insurers are thriving. I think what you have is a system where we've shaken up the status quo, exactly what we expect of new innovation, disruptive innovation if you will, to do. Insurers who were thriving in the old system are finding this new system sort of hard for them. Other insurers are doing really well and what's going to happen is the natural process as the market evolves. These premiums are going to increase. That's going to allow profitable opportunities for new insurers to enter they are(ph) and bring premiums back down. So we're just seeing the ups and downs of a new market. What you have to remember is that premiums in 2014 came in way below what we expected. In fact, where they are today is exactly where they thought they'd be today. It's just they came in lower than we thought and they rose faster than we thought. And that's just some of the unpredictability of a new market. That will settle down over time. And new insurers will enter.

COSTELLO: OK. So hindsight is 20/20, right?


COSTELLO: Looking back, is there one thing that you wish was done differently?

GRUBER: I think there's really probably two things I wish was done differently. One is I wish the mandate penalty was stronger. The other, I wish the federal government had done more to get states to expand their Medicaid programs. I think that this is a fundamental flaw in our system that states are leaving so many systems uncovered and citizens who are sick who are coming into this exchange pool and making it more expensive.

COSTELLO: So realistically, you know, after the next president is put into office, what do you think will happen with Obamacare?

GRUBER: I think nothing much is going to happen, to be honest. I think that basically a system that largely works , that the flaws your seeing now or the premium increase you're seeing now are just the natural dynamics of a market as it transitions to its new state, and I think that we're just going to let it go for a couple years and it's going to get better on its own. And basically I think it's a system which largely works.

COSTELLO: What if Donald Trump becomes president, he has a republican congress, and he does repeal it? What happens then?

GRUBER: Well, first of all he won't repeal it. Remember, the whole argument and public debate against this law is that people didn't get to keep insurance they liked. Well, you're going to have 20 million Americans or more who are now getting insurance that they like. You're not going to take that away from them. And let's be clear, there is no replace. There is only repeal. There is no Republican alternative to this law, and the reason is because this is fundamentally a bipartisan legislation that was originally drafted on Republican principles, to be honest. And so there is no Republican alternative. And so his repeal and replace is just repeal and leave people uninsured. That's not going to happen.
189  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Corruption, Skullduggery, and Treason on: October 27, 2016, 02:51:29 PM
Great list.  The Iran example alone should do it.

Fast and Furious has elements of treason in it.  Americans died as a direct result of it.  Not even arguable as an unintended result.  Isn't that what they hoped would happen?  Mexican border gangs are enemies of the US, right?  They violate our sovereignty, kill civilians and shoot border guards.

I'm not sure if general examples of weakening our country from the inside are enemy-specific enough to prosecute under the treason statute.  The extreme examples of this like IRS targeting. Improper use (and non-use) of the FBI and DOJ are also be impeachable offenses, IMHO.

I do not support criminalizing political differences.  From the true statement you make about Iran, I don't see how sending them massive planeloads of cash, as a hostage taking bonus, that the people had no idea we were doing, is a political difference.  He was aiding and abetting an enemy.  And now they are killing us (again).  He should be prosecuted and removed.  Instead they brag of "defeating" Iran without firing a single shot.  Their theft of our language is a crime.

It takes two sides agreeing to impeach and remove from office.  I wonder what a leader on their side could do, if not any or all of these, to rise to an impeachable offense for Democrats.

How is it we can't all agree what was done in these examples is wrong, is criminal, and justifies swift action to protect the country and keep future leaders from doing more of the same or worse?!  I am astonished at how otherwise informed, intelligent, liberal friends know nothing about almost all of these scandals.  The exposure is almost all in the right leaning media, not reaching the general public.
190  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Pathological Climate Science, How they stifle dissent, Wikileaks, Podesta,Steyer on: October 27, 2016, 12:30:11 PM
WikiLeaks Exposes Podesta-Steyer Climate McCarthyism

How the Center for American Progress campaigned to suppress speech

The latest WikiLeaks dump contains plenty of insider dirt on John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the tawdriest story to be exposed by Podesta’s pilfered e-mails is the bragging by an employee of ThinkProgress, an arm of the Center for American Progress, about how they got Roger Pielke Jr.’s scalp.

A July 2014 e-mail from Judd Legum, an editor at ThinkProgress, to billionaire Democratic climate activist (and former coal-mine investor) Tom Steyer exposes the climate-change McCarthyism that the Left — and its myriad allies in the liberal media — use to discredit or silence anyone who doesn’t adhere to the orthodoxy of the climate catastrophists.

In the e-mail, Legum boasted to Steyer about how ThinkProgress had silenced Pielke by preventing him from publishing at Nate Silver’s then-new website,, on the issue of climate change. Legum was also asking Steyer, indirectly, for more money. Steyer and Podesta both sit on the board of the Center for American Progress. Between 2008 and 2014, Steyer gave the Center for American Progress some $3.85 million. I’ll come back to the specifics of that e-mail shortly.

First, some background. Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado since 2001, holds degrees in mathematics, public policy, and political science. He has authored or co-authored seven books. He has won several awards for his academic work. For about two decades, he was a prolific writer and speaker on climate issues. In 2013, he testified before Congress and declared that there is “exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.” During that same testimony, he said that global weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP. He went on, saying that there were also no observable increases in floods, tornadoes, or droughts.

Pielke’s work was backed up by data and, in many cases, by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But that didn’t matter to Podesta’s attack dogs at ThinkProgress. Long before his congressional testimony, Pielke had been the subject of a years-long smear campaign led by ThinkProgress’s Joe Romm. In fact, Romm had what can only be described as an obsession with Pielke. In a recent Twitter posting, Pielke wrote: “Propaganda works: I count more than 160 articles at the Center for American Progress trashing me over the years.”

A review of those articles shows that the vast majority of them were written by Romm. In reply to Romm’s increasingly shrill attacks, Pielke was civil, even gentlemanly. In 2010, Pielke challenged Romm to a public debate — in Romm’s hometown, at a date and venue of his choosing — offering to contribute up to $10,000 to the winner’s favorite charity. Romm, to his eternal discredit, refused. Furthermore, on his blog, Romm routinely deleted comments he didn’t like, including those that called him out for ducking Pielke’s challenge to debate.

I have followed Pielke’s work for years. In 2007, while editing Energy Tribune, I published an interview with his father, Roger Pielke Sr., who is also a climate scientist. In 2009, I published an interview with the younger Pielke on the same subject. I find both of them to be careful observers and thoughtful writers. Last year, I reviewed one of Roger Jr.’s books for The Weekly Standard.

This week I spoke to Pielke by phone. Asked for his initial reaction to the ThinkProgress e-mail, he replied, “I was just a professor with a blog. I had no funding. Really? They are going to go brag to a billionaire to shut down a professor with a blog? If that’s the case, I guess I was doing some pretty good stuff.”

Pielke went on to say that Romm had waged a “campaign of personal destruction” against him. “Nothing less than removing my voice from the public space was acceptable.” That campaign was carried out by Romm and other members of the Green Slime Machine at liberal media outlets like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post. Among other things, those outlets labeled Pielke a “disinformer” and “climate confusionist.” They did so even though Pielke’s views on climate are decidedly mainstream: He favors a carbon tax, increased energy efficiency, and a global effort at “removing incentives for fossil fuels and creating incentives for carbon neutral sources, including both nuclear and renewable.”

ThinkProgress’s smear efforts reached an apogee in 2014, after Pielke published a single article on — the website Silver had launched with the goal of using data and statistics to inform a new style of journalism. Pielke’s article addressed the inflation-adjusted cost of hurricanes. “I made the fairly mundane but obvious observation that disaster costs are not increasing because of extreme weather events,” Pielke said. ‘I made the fairly mundane but obvious observation that disaster costs are not increasing because of extreme weather events,’​ Pielke said.

Nevertheless, Pielke’s article met a storm of protest, led by the bloggers at ThinkProgress, who published not one but two articles on the same day (March 19, 2014) that Pielke’s article was published on The first person quoted in both of ThinkProgress’s articles was none other than Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, one of the originators of the much-disputed “hockey stick” graph. It is worth noting that four years ago this month (October 22, 2012, to be precise), Mann sued National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Rand Simberg, and Mark Steyn for defamation. That litigation is still pending. (For Steyn’s paint-blistering take on Mann, the lawsuit, and climate McCarthyism, read his December 15, 2015, testimony before a U.S. Senate committee.)

And it wasn’t just ThinkProgress. Immediately after Pielke’s article appeared on, the Green Slime Machine went into overdrive. The Daily Kos expressed dismay that “Silver would hire as one of his science writers the egregious purveyor of disinformation on climate change, Roger Pielke, Jr.” Pielke was also trashed by writers at Slate, Earth Island Journal, and the Guardian. Rather than stand behind Pielke, Silver fired him. Silver didn’t even favor him with a phone call. Pielke told me that two and a half years later, Silver still hasn’t contacted him. “You can’t have a real journalistic enterprise if your only goal is to be popular,” Pielke told me.

Now, back to WikiLeaks. In Legum’s e-mail to Steyer, he wrote that “it’s fair to say” that without ThinkProgress’s continual trashing of Pielke and his work, “Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.” Legum continued, “He would be providing important cover for climate deniers backed by Silver’s very respected brand. But because of our work, he is not. I don’t think there is another site on the internet having this kind of impact on the climate debate.” Legum concluded his note by writing, “Thanks for your support of this work. Looking forward to doing even more in the coming months.”

So there you have it: One of Podesta’s highest-profile operatives is bragging to one of America’s richest climate activists that he and his team have silenced a prominent academic for the sin of disagreeing with Mann and other climatologists. ThinkProgress, Romm, and their fellow travelers denigrate anyone who might be getting money from the “wrong” funders. But when it comes to soliciting big bucks from Steyer — and then bragging about how effective you are at defaming people on the other side — well, that’s okay because, you know, climate change.

The WikiLeaks story about Pielke has, predictably, been ignored by the liberal media. No stories about it have appeared in the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, or Media Matters. It doesn’t fit their narrative. A few pieces about the Podesta-WikiLeaks story have appeared in conservative outlets, include a recent piece published on Breitbart by the British journalist James Delingpole, who got it exactly right. He wrote: “If the ‘science’ is as settled as it frequently claims, why is it necessary to orchestrate attacks on any scientist who speaks even slightly out of turn?”

Since the uproar, Pielke has quit publishing about climate change. He’s gone on to become a world-leading expert on sports and doping. He now heads the Sports Governance Center at the University of Colorado, which is housed within the university’s athletics department. He has more than 8,000 followers on Twitter and is an active, maybe rabid, tweeter. “I’m having a blast,” he told me. Working on climate change, he said, “you wake up, it’s the same people arguing about the same stuff. In sports, you have no idea what idea you will be writing about. . . . There’s so much going on. There’s so much upheaval.”

What lessons did he learn from his stint in the climate-change discussion? He replied that the debate is “almost religious in its intensity.” Instead of having a rational discussion about the best ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the debate has become solely “about power, about who gets to speak and whose voices are deemed legitimate.” The smear campaign against him by Romm and ThinkProgress was designed “to make public speech costly.”

In a concluding thought, he told me: “After all this, I’m a big supporter of academic tenure. I have no doubt that if I didn’t have tenure, I’d be doing landscaping now.” — Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Read more at:
191  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: For the Record... on: October 27, 2016, 11:33:35 AM
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason (Hillary Clinton... talking to you)

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

This is specific to aiding our enemies, applies to Hillary on the Uranium deal for example.  The Obama crimes like IRS targeting are more internal to subverting our constitution and imploding our country.  I would like to see the federal law applying to that.  It might come down to simply violating his oath of office.
192  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politically (In)correct on: October 27, 2016, 11:29:59 AM
"Trump is opening a new hotel in DC??..."

Yes.  It seems like quite an accomplishment, converting an old federal building into something modern and profitable, something Hillary and the government have no idea how to do.  What did she get done on her day job while running for President, sell access and state secrets?

Maybe Fox and Friends, National Review and others are just as intolerant of dissent as those on the other side.
193  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism, SJW: on: October 26, 2016, 09:39:30 AM
There can really only be ONE reason he feels the need to tell the world who he is going to vote for:

I say it is because of the fifth thing in this title of this thread.

Say it ain't so Colin.  [sell out]   I mean, as  a Bush alum he can vote for whomever he wants, but why he feels the need to announce it to the PUBLIC NOW to me says it all.

Isn't it strange how long they keep calling him a Republican even though he hasn't ever supported the party or recently voted for any of their candidates.  Did he support pro-life, tax cuts, deregulation, defend the constitution when the administration tromped all over it, what?  Nothing.  Romney was too conservative and Obama perfectly competent, but Powell has judgment we could all learn from.    (
194  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues, Wash Post fact check Russian Uranium deal on: October 26, 2016, 09:30:12 AM
Sorry, no link.  Instead of reporting on the true story told in 'Clinton Cash' about the Clintons accepting huge speech and Foundtion money in exchange for the go-ahead for Russia to buy American Uranium assets, the Washington Post writes it as a 4 Pinocchio story about how well or poorly Donald Trump worded the accusation.  At the end they suggested a wording that State was one of 9 agencies...  Anyone who has followed the story knows that and among those 9, the State Dept was the lead agency.  

The questioned whether Trump had proof that the Secretary of State had any involvement with a highest level, national security decision that was made by her department.  I would hope she did.  Good grief.

I wonder if they question whether she really ran her department because she is a woman, or because she took a pretty hard hit to the head.

Quid, Pro. And Quo, all proven in this story, so the Wash Post can't find what the meaning of the word is is and gives politicians their 4 Pinocchio rating to point to innoculating themselves from their party's and administration's corruption.

"Fact Check" has become a contrary indicator with these institutions.
195  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: No corruption here. Move along folks. FBI tried to cover Obama's tracks. on: October 26, 2016, 09:15:03 AM

Even though he lies and gets caught all the time, this one is a big deal.  It explains why they didn't prosecute her.

His personal and political mis-use of the agencies, Fast and Furious - ATF, Attorney General, IRS targeting - IRS Commissioner, and now this, FBI, Dept of Justice, comprises RICO level crimes and impeachable acts.

To the Lois Lerner's in the agencies who know, you can come forward and tell us what you were directed to do and by whom or you can be prosecuted as part of the corruption conspiracy.
196  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: October 25, 2016, 11:46:51 AM
"We have lost unless by some miracle Trump pulls this out."

Outlier polls that had Trump leading today have Hillary by one.  This is still soooo winnable based on all fundamentals - except the quality of our candidate.  The Obamacare crisis should be filling the news from now until election day.  The failures emerging from our foreign policy and economic woes too.  Trump is connecting on some points with some people.  Now it's a matter of numbers.  I wish this underfunded billionaire would use the last two weeks to put his positive message out in a creative way and reach people.
197  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver on: October 25, 2016, 11:20:20 AM
"The Fed doesn't follow its own rules."

Doug,  I am ignorant of such matters.  Why is this?  Is it politics?

Crafty and I have both warned here of the danger of the Fed's dual mission that came out of the Humphrey Hawkins Act signed into law in 1978.  What happens out of it is the attempt to solve things that are not monetary in nature with monetary policy.

In the late 1970s it was believed that unemployment and inflation are offsetting phenomenon and that the Fed shouldn't just fight inflation but also take into consideration the pursuit of full employment in the economy.  But in fact, the Fed contracted monetary policy curbing inflation and Reagan cut tax rates ending the stagnation and unemployment.

Having a second mission for the Fed means not paying full attention to their primary mission.  Yes there is a time and place for monetary policy to coordinate with other policies, such as in the crisis of 2008, but not coordinate with the politicians every day, every year and in every situation.  It makes Fed policies become political, the exact opposite of the intent of having an independent Fed.

As a consequence of this, we had expansionist monetary policies after the crisis and recession of 2001, perhaps wisely, but it continued all the way through to the financial crisis of 2008 and was most certainly one of the major causes of the bubble that became certain to burst.  Our monetary policy was also expansionary all the way through the Obama years even though we are told by the highest authority this already is full employment, a contradiction I have been pointing out.

Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act, 1978  (Thank you Hubert Humphrey...)
"Mandates the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to establish a monetary policy that maintains long
-run growth, minimizes inflation, and promotes price stability.  ...
Requires the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to connect the monetary policy with the Presidential economic policy

The Fed's Bipolar Mandate

Lawmakers seek to change Federal Reserve's
Bove Opposes QE2, Supports Cutting U.S. Deficit and Debt
Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Richard Bove, an analyst at Rochdale Securities, talks about his opposition to the Federal Reserve's policy of quantitative easing. Bove, in a group including former Republican government officials and economists, urged Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke in a letter to stop his expansion of monetary stimulus, saying it risks an inflation surge.

Washington Post  Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Two influential Republican lawmakers called Tuesday for a fundamental remaking of the Federal Reserve's mission, arguing that the central bank should stop trying to reduce unemployment and instead focus solely on keeping inflation low.
   The proposal by Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) would end the three-decade-old "dual mandate" of the Fed, its legal charge from Congress to simultaneously aim for maximum employment and price stability.

George Will: The Fed falls into a dual-mandate trap
198  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Our Productivity is Declining! on: October 25, 2016, 10:50:19 AM
If this election was about economics (and why isn't it?), wouldn't you want to be able to make the people and the country more prosperous?  One set of policies advances that and the other set of polices diminishes it.

Pointed out previously, wage growth was 8 times better under Clinton after tax rate cutting than in the early years when he was raising taxes and working on national healthcare.

Why don't results of policies matter over sounds good ideology?

It is Year 8 for the Obama Administration and productivity is declining.  This isn't about Bush; this is either a bug or a  feature of their economic design.  They put their distorted definition of fairness ahead of growth and got neither.  Income inequality widened.  Program dependency broadened.  Workforce participation continued to decline.  Entrepreneurism nearly vanished.  And wage growth, for the most part, ended.

You can't launch an attack on capital, essential to labor, without hurting labor.  These issues are as old as the hills, and we (at least half the electorate) keep learning nothing.  The economy is interconnected, and the rhetoric that some policy like tax hikes will only hurt the top 1 or 2% is always complete BS, whether out of ignorant or intentionally deception.

One article noting the decline in productivity - and the reasons for it:

In his Saturday Wall Street Journal essay “Why the Economy Doesn’t Roar Anymore”—illustrated with a big lion with its mouth shut—Marc Levinson offers the answer that the “U.S. economy isn’t behaving badly. It is just being ordinary.”  But there is nothing ordinary (or secular) about the current stagnation of  barely 2 percent growth. The economy is not roaring because it’s muzzled by government policy, and if we take off that muzzle—like Lucy and Susan did in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”—the economy will indeed roar.

It is of course true, as Levinson states, that “faster productivity growth” is “the key to faster economic growth.” But it’s false, as he also states,  that it has all been downhill since the “long boom after World War II” and “there is no going back.” The following chart of productivity growth drawn from my article in the American Economic Review shows why Levinson misinterprets recent history. Whether you look at 5 year averages, statistically filtered trends, or simple directional arrows, you can see huge swings in productivity growth in recent years.  These movements—the productivity slump of the 1970s, the rebound of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slump—are closely related to shifts in economic policy, and economic theory indicates that the relationship is causal, as I explain here and here and in blogs and opeds. You can also see that the recent terrible performance—negative productivity growth for the past year—is anything but ordinary.  Productivity Growth

Writing about the 1980’s and 1990s, Levinson claims that “deregulation, privatization, lower tax rates, balanced budgets and rigid rules for monetary policy—proved no more successful at boosting productivity than the statist policies…” The chart shows the contrary: productivity growth was generally picking up in the 1980s and 1990s.  It is the stagnation of the late 1960s, the 1970s, and the last decade that is state-sponsored.  To turn the economy around we need to take the muzzle off, and that means regulatory reform, tax reform, budget reform, and monetary reform.
199  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Money, the Fed, Monetary Policy, Rules versus Discretion, Prof John B Taylor on: October 25, 2016, 10:23:13 AM
In Venezuela they found the point where it is too late to prevent disaster and money buys nothing.  Unable to learn from their experience, we copy them.  Our economy is too great to be thrown into crisis?  Does anyone remember 2008?

Money matters and maybe we should be managing according to some set of rules.  Instead and because of the so-called dual mission of the Fed, our Fed is trying to fix flat tires by putting more gasoline in the carburetor, when they should be  minding our currency - with some fairly consistent set of rules.

For what little any of us know about money including the Fed Chair and governors, there are some models and rules out there with varying experiences with accuracy and reputation.  Best and state of the art today is the "Taylor rule". 

The Fed doesn't follow its own rules.  In the place of rules and rationality we see from the central banks, quantitative easing, zero interest rates, negative interest rates, and the next tool coming, "helicopter money".

  "Last month Janet Yellen presented a policy framework for the future centered around a Taylor rule, noting that the Fed has deviated from such a rule in recent years.  A week later, her FOMC colleague, Jeff Lacker, also showed that the Fed has deviated from a Taylor rule benchmark, adding that now is the time to get back."

One place to look at the Taylor Rule is in the writings of Prof John B Taylor of Stanford Univ.  There are formulas to use as guideposts to policy for setting the Fed Funds and the like.  In this paper, he talks about the balance between discretion and rules:
200  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: October 24, 2016, 12:15:17 PM
(Hillary's support) "but always at less than 50%. "

"Bill won both elections under 50% as well."

Yes he did!  If we take today's polls forward, she wins with under 50% of the vote and way under 50% of the country.  Consolidating the opposition to Hillary is the only alternative to being ruled by Hillary.  We don't avoid permanent leftism any other way.

It isn't going to be easier to get her out after 4 years than it is now, major understatement.  In 4-8 years we will have 11-30 million new voters leaning left and owing their citizenship to her.  There is no waiting or next time around strategy.  The opportunity to take the country back doesn't come around again in our lifetimes, if ever.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 170
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!