Hillary Clinton

The Real Fake Reason Trump Fired Comey: Lock her up

gregladen — Wed, 10 May 2017 06:13:53 +0000

The Real Fake Reason Trump Fired Comey: Lock her up

As you know, President Trump sacked FBI Director James Comey yesterday. The firing involved a letter written by Rod Rosenstein, deputy attorney general, complaining about Comey, to Jeff Sessons. (The three relevant letters by Rosenstein, Sessons, and Trump are here.)

Jeff Sessons had recused himself of matters related to the Russia-Trump Scandal, so it was necessary for the DOJ and White House to make up a reason Comey was being fired, apparently, and that letter from Rosenstein included the excuse.

In the letter, Rosenstein said, "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution..."

This is the announcement that ended the Clinton email investigation.

Let me rephrase this. Sessons agreed with Rosenstein's recommendation, and Trump with Sessons, to fire Comey because Comey had stopped the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email issues without prosecution.

The reason I mention this now is that to this moment, I've not seen a single news reporter, facebook commenter, or any one else get this right. At best the Clinton email connection is left vague, but at worse, people are noting how remarkable it is, and how unbelievable it is, that the Trump administration would use the OTHER THING Comey did about Clinton, the more recent momentary re-opening of the investigation thought by many to be a violation of the Hatch Act, as the excuse Trump is using. That is not the case.

Rather, it looks like this: Trump promised during his campaign to jail his opponent. Now, Trump has fired the FBI director for not taking steps to do so.

I am astonished that this has not been noticed, apparently, not yet, by the media.

I acknowledge that this is likely all a lame excuse, and that most people believe that Trump has fired Comey because the FBI was "getting close" to the White House, or to something, in its investigation of the Russia-Trump scandal. Fine. But the alt-Excuse, assuming it is fake excuse, is still important because top level federal officials including the President have now created policy. That policy is, the next FBI director will only be serving the administration's needs if they pursue or attempt to pursue a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton. And, again, I note, that "Lock her up!" was a campaign promise of Trump's.

So, this is not unimportant.

gregladen Wed, 05/10/2017 - 02:13

Tags

President Donald Trump

Comey firing

Emails

Hillary Clinton

Trump

Trump and his minions did this because they (falsely) believe this will buy them tremendous good will with Democrats and Clinton supporters.

They are wrong.

That Trump and Sessions believe this shows how delusional and out of touch they are. They actually believe the fake news they are pushing.

This is what is frightening about this.

Trump's only hope to stay in power now is a wag-the-dog-war.

You amuse me bigly so I will lay some of it out for you and your readers. If you tell anyone I'll deny it and say this isn't me.

Short story. First of all, PBS and NPR have touched on the prosecution angle, but they haven't been able to make sense of the whole situation which is actually quite simple.

It is this: the art of sowing confusion and then turning it into chaos step by careful step on all fronts. The product is a protective cocoon.

This is why my Golden Name is omnipresent in all its hugeness.

You're welcome.

The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution…

Personal caveat - ESL here

I first parsed this sentence as meaning "Comey spoke out of turn and should have let the Attorney General announce himself the conclusion of the investigation".
But, ah, yes.

I was implicitly - and wrongly - assuming the Attorney, at that point in time, would have said the same thing as Comey - investigation over, no prosecution.

This sentence actually just means that the Attorney was the one who should decide if the investigation is over, one way or another.
It doesn't really say that a prosecution should have been done; but it is certainly not Trump et al. acknowledging that Hillary Clinton was badly treated by Comey, as some of us may have read it.

So this sentence may well be have the meaning that the investigation was closed too soon.

David, re-read the letter! They are going to get very little good will by including a "lock her up" proviso!

@Helianthus: The then Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, had recused herself over the case. So some deputy AG would have had the final say on it. But I know of no reason why the FBI director would be out of line to recommend against prosecution.

The surprise to me is that the firing was over this, rather than Comey's misleading (to put it charitably) testimony to Congress re: Huma Abedin, which reasonable people actually would consider a legitimate reason to fire Comey.

But it's a transparent excuse either way. I am informed that a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia has issued subpoenas to associates of Michael Flynn. So firing Comey now reeks of the Saturday Night Massacre.

I would suggest changing: "...fire Comey because Comey had stopped the investigation...without prosecution." to "...fire Comey because Comey had stopped the investigation...without recommending prosecution."

Hello Greg! Might you credit the Trump WH with too much stability with their priorities, such as going after Clinton?

AFAICT, any scapegoat that currently has traction with the Great Leader at 4AM on the toilet is an acceptable target, especially to the degree that failures can be blamed on them. Long-term strategy does seem to be a long suit of this administration.

To me, simply the perceived disloyalty of Comey by offering any quarter to exculpatory facts. Those opposing X priority of the President seem to be dealt with harshly, and my impression is our POTUS is very unstable.

"But it’s a transparent excuse either way"

It's patently obvious. Trumpaline Tinyhands even admitted it with the lie of "three times you've said I'm clean". If it had nothing to do with the investigation, he'd not have to lie.

all this confusion reminds me of Adam Curtis thesis about "Oh Dearism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM (5min video)

Adam Curtis is a documentary film maker for the BBC, and maker of the stunning documentary Bitter Lake - about Afghanistan's recent post WW2 history

@ Eric Lund

Oh, better and better. So I was really going the wrong way with my first parsing.
And I forgot about Loretta Lynch recusing herself.

I'm tempted to pity Comey: we liberals wanted him fired for doing too much on HRC (among other things), and he likely ended fired for not doing enough.

Of course, fox news ran a notice that said Comey had "resigned" - so all of this "firing" stuff will be pushed to the side.

Buck:

"Hello Greg! Might you credit the Trump WH with too much stability with their priorities, such as going after Clinton?"

That is, indeed, always a risk. But, again, the president speaks, policy is made. It does not matter if there was an actual thought process leading to the words. The words are there.

US Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has other ideas about why, specially 'Why Now?'

Of course, fox news ran a notice that said Comey had “resigned”

Comey's resignation letter was delivered to his office by Trump's personal bodyguard, and Comey learned of it from TV news.

Even Soviet-era Pravda were better liars than Fox News.

"...Comey learned of it from TV news."

Yes, and thought it was a prank.

According to the New York Times's Michael S. Schmidt, Comey was giving a speech to his FBI team in Los Angeles when he saw the news about his firing break on televisions in the room. He hadn't been informed yet, and at first thought he it was a joke:
In response, Mr. Comey laughed, saying he thought it was a fairly funny prank.
Then his staff started scurrying around in the background and told Mr. Comey that he should step into a nearby office.
Mr. Comey stopped addressing the group. He proceeded to shake hands with the employees he had been speaking to. Then he stepped into a side office, where he confirmed that he had been fired. At that point, he had not heard from the White House.

You clearly haven't read the letter Greg. If Trump wanted Hillary locked up, there is little he can do about it at this point. If he wanted her to be prosecuted, he doesn't need to tell Comey anything. He would do what he said during the campaign. Direct Jeff Sessions to appoint a special prosecutor to look into her situation. The proper thing at that point would be for Jeff Sessions to refuse the order or resign.
As the letter said, it is the Attorney General that decides whether to prosecute, not the FBI director. Comey has done his investigation and reported to the Justice Department. It is up to them whether to prosecute.

The issue described in the letter(which I don't believe is the real reason for firing) isn't that Comey recommended no prosecution, but that he announced it publicly. The correct action was to send his investigation results to Justice, and be quiet. I'm not sure if it is even FBI's role to make a recommendation on prosecution.

Colbert's audience was in line and sitting in the audience for hours and didn't have time to get the new message from liberals. When Stephen announced that Comey was fired, they cheered.

You could also see this as a move to consolidate Trump's power: we had reports that Comey had just asked for more resources for the investigation into possible ties to Russia. Removing him, and having Sessions be in charge of finding a replacement, appears to head down the path to naming someone even less capable to replace him. Having #2, McCabe, in place in the interim, is a big plus to Trump.

Trump promised during his campaign to jail his opponent. Now, Trump has fired the FBI director for not taking steps to do so.

I think I'd say he fired Comey using the excuse that Comey wouldn't recommend the Attorney General begin investigating grounds for prosecution of Clinton -- not because there is any reason for the prosecution, but to shift public attention (and to fire up his mouth-breathing supporters) to that and away from the on-going investigation over Russia.

Dean, it's possible. There are any number of reasons that make more sense. More plausible than Greg Laden's reasoning is that Trump fired Comey because he got irritated by Hillary's saying that Comey's letter cost her the election, so he wanted to get Dems defending Comey.

It is even more plausible that the reason is exactly what they said in the letter. The FBI Director reports to the Deputy AG, Rosenstein, who was not confirmed until two weeks ago.

This should end up pleasing Dems, since they will likely get a special prosecutor out of it.

mikeN, is there any point you're trying to make with your asinine comments?

"...they cheered."

Since I'm being candid, I might as well point out what should be obvious; everybody has their reasons for being unhappy about Comey. So what? All the wrangling is really about deeper issues and Comey is just the tip of the iceberg.

Pro tip: Try not to be distracted by the shiny talking points.

Heh, heh! I can say that, because it costs me nothing. God bless my uneducated friends who can't do a deep dive or grasp cause and effect!

"and didn’t have time to get the new message "

Ah, 'fraid not, "mike", the left don't do it the same way as your lot.

"It is even more plausible that the reason is exactly what they said in the letter. "

No.

Sorry.

"Trump fired Comey because he got irritated by Hillary’s saying that Comey’s letter cost her the election,"

Yeah, it's entirely reasonable that Trump got mad because Hillary was complaining about Comey. Well, not reasonable in the real world, but for some...

"It is even more plausible that the reason is exactly what they said in the letter. "

That would require believing they told the truth, but based on the history of statements from this administration one would have to be a fool to believe they have suddenly begun telling the truth.

"This should end up pleasing Dems"

Yes, they will be thrilled that Comey (again, as weak as he was) was willing to let the investigation go on is now gone and will be replaced by another Trump bootlicker is wonderful /snark

"since they will likely get a special prosecutor out of it."

Doubtful. Queasy as the Republicans may be about this (we've seen a few who are openly disturbed about it) it is doubtful that there are enough who are so disturbed they will go with the Democratic side on this.

Considering that the present White House incumbent told so many lies and exposed so many glaring gaps in his knowledge during his campaign that I see no reason to believe anything that comes out of the government he heads anymore. Whatever the truth of the matter, I doubt if it is in the interests of America in general.

MikeN: You may be right about the FBI-AG formal relationship but I think that is a moot point. I see no reason to think that violating some rule or other would hinder DT & the GOP in the least if they wanted something done or stopped.

>mikeN, is there any point you’re trying to make with your asinine comments?

Just that Greg's logic makes no sense. The AG can prosecute if he wants to. Thus many other theories are more plausible than Greg's.

Yeah, just fire the director of the FBI when they are getting close to the truth. No one will care. I think Lionel A nails it at #13. Why now?

That's the thing about conspiracy theories that actually turn out to be correct. Once there are more than a handful of people involved in the conspiracy, watch it all slowly unravel. Not the first popcorn moment in this sad administration, but hopefully one of the last.

“since they will likely get a special prosecutor out of it.”

Doubtful.

Looking ahead, FBI Director has to be approved by the Senate. Dems might get some Republicans to agree to this condition.

MikeN said,
"The issue ...isn’t that Comey recommended no prosecution, but that he announced it publicly. The correct action was to send his investigation results to Justice, and be quiet. I’m not sure if it is even FBI’s role to make a recommendation on prosecution."

This isn't the way it works.
The public prosecutors don't go out looking for people to prosecute, the cases are brought to them.
It is entirely normal for the police to publicly announce that they will not be bringing a prosecution, which is shorthand for saying they will not be bringing the case to the public prosecutors.
On the other hand, regardless of what the police decide, there is nothing to stop prosecutors from initiating an ex oficio indictment.

Clinton should have had the book thrown at her for her breaches of national security, and the Attorney General was as remiss in his duty as the FBI were.

"The AG can prosecute if he wants to."

So how does that relate to Greg's theory? And how does it support or at least not scupper YOUR claim? If the AG can do it anyway, in what way was Comey's letting it go going to stop him? It can't, according to you, therefore it can't be a reason to fire him.

"Looking ahead, FBI Director has to be approved by the Senate. Dems might get some Republicans to agree to this condition."

And how does that change what Dean said so that you quoted him (incorrectly, I assume, else you were disagreeing with yourself)?

Queasy as the Republicans may be about this (we’ve seen a few who are openly disturbed about it) it is doubtful that there are enough who are so disturbed they will go with the Democratic side on this.

Is what you would have to show is likely wrong. Not just ignore it and spout bollocks yet again.

"Clinton should have had the book thrown at her for her breaches of national security"

Uh, only if they then threw most of the previous Sec of States in jail for it too.

And the executed Shrub and Cheney for their deletion of emails.

Or no, they should not jail Hillary for it, since it was accepted practice, and if you are pissed off about that, get the rules changed.

But remember ex post facto.

Greg - I believe you are mistaken and have to agree with Helianthus in comment #4. The emphasis is on process - not the content. In fact, when content is discussed in the succeeding paragraph Rosenstein goes in the opposite direction:

"Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. "

This has been one of the Dems main lines of attacks on Comey and here Rosenstein adapts the Dems position. Now, this is the real irony: Comey did Hillary wrong so I'm firing him. Yeah - we're all buying that as the true rationale. That weird smell is the Trump Administration suddenly all aghast that Comey had the nerve to "gratuitously" release derogatory information about HC.

It's my understanding that the investigation into Trump"s association with the Russians had reached the "follow the money" stage, and requests had been made for the records of Trump's business entanglements with the Russians. Trump tends to get particularly antsy when you reach for his wallet, so might that not be one more of "the real reasons" for Comey's firing?

Hillary Clinton belongs in a jail cell next to Edward Snowden and that Manning abomination.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/10/29/james-comeys-last-day-at-t…

@ Kevin Thomas O'Neill #33

Err, no. I think you are reading too much into my words, I'm mostly in agreement with Greg. More precisely, I disagree with you on this interpretation:

Comey did Hillary wrong so I’m firing him.

This is the reading of this firing that we liberals tend to go to, because our criticisms of Comey are along these lines.
But my current position, and I believe Greg's, is that the letter send by Rosenstein make it clear that Trump &co are - officially - criticizing Comey for taking upon himself to stop the investigation.

IOW, Comey was officially fired not because he did Hillary wrong, but because he did Hillary's case wrong.

The distinction is not without meaning. The first phrasing acknowledge HRC's innocence - or at least mistreatment; the second phrasing, not so much. Maybe quite the contrary, as Greg read it.

Given trumpo puts his policy in his tweets, his tweet that criticised Comey for not advocating prosecuting Hillary kinda proves the point that his refusal to support the orange bottler in finding ONE promise he made to keep was the reason to his supporters, at the very least.

They, after all, would be horrified at Comey being fired for being mean to Hillary. THEY WANT HIM TO BE MEAN TO HER. So at the very least, "you won't lock her up!" was a reason.

The timing is probably due to the stage the investigation was in, because this was definitely rushed on a whim's notice.

Remember, there doesn't need to be ONE reason for something.

"This has been one of the Dems main lines of attacks on Comey and here Rosenstein adapts the Dems position. "

Only as a sop. It's a fake reason. And not requested nor required. And about 100 days late.

and here Rosenstein adapts the Dems position.

And again, no, he doesn't.

@ Wow

Remember, there doesn’t need to be ONE reason for something.

Very true.
For all my bickering about "Comey was fired for closing the investigation on his own, not for re-opening it 8 days before the election" (i.e. Rep's main criticism vs Dem's main criticism), I will admit that your US governing team may have a list of motivations.
E.g. "Let's throw a bone at the Dems and fire Comey, maybe that would stop them yelling"
Or "Let's distract everybody by firing this annoying dude"

The old saying about malice vs stupidity also comes to mind.

I'm not a'merkan!

"The old saying about malice vs stupidity also comes to mind."

Mine is that there's no damn difference in what happened, only why. Like an accident or deliberate. Doesn't matter, you still fell off the ledge, whether you tripped or were pushed.

And it only makes malice a BETTER option, since if it were deliberate, it was the result of action and choice, which can be changed. If it was stupidity, it likely won't change.

So I really don't care about "malice or stupidity" when it comes to the act.

At work some years back, someone's data was deleted. Well, they couldn't find it and asked me what was wrong with the system. So I checked and they had issued a DCL job to delete the data, so I told them they'd deleted it from the IBM. They told me they'd never logged in. So I checked about, but the system at the time for the IBM had plaintext copies of the passwords for all accounts. So I checked up on one sysadmin who had access to that file and they were not available, they'd taken a sudden day off.

So I asked if his boss could phone him up and ask if he'd deleted it. "You can't blame them! You don't know!!!". But I pointed out if he'd deleted it (e.g. he got the account wrong or typed in the wrong ID for data to delete), then we had a one-off event that could be solved with a better process and thereby stop, whereas if he hadn't, then we had some rogue process deleting data and it would continue.

"Oh, you can't blame THEM! You have no EVIDENCE!!!".

I don't give a flying fuck. Phone up and find out. I don't want their head for the error, it won't bring the data back, but it WILL make the system safer because we can put in some checks. E.g. deletion has to be an email request, where the cryptic (therefore mistranslatable) job ID is written along with the owner ID, and if they don't match (in a two-factor style system), then a clarification of the IDs can be made.

But no, "You have no evidence, so we're not phoning them up to ask!".

Malice? Incompetence? CYA? Don't care. The result is the same, and it's not like they're going to fess up to what it was. And retribution isn't necessary.

What made it worse was we were supposedly operating under a "no blame" culture, and I wasn't blaming them, as in wanting their pound of flesh. But the wording was "blame" and ignorant buffoons didn't bother with the intent, which was spelled out in the reason for the paradigm as being so that you would not be blamed for fucking things up, therefore you can freely admit an error before it becomes worse. No, to them, it was "You can't say 'If they did delete it...' anything" because "that's blaming them for it!". No, blaming them for it is wanting them disciplined for their mistake. I wanted the mistake to be found or, if there was no mistake made, then we need to investigate how the system failed and deleted data, because a data storage bug is 100% catastrophe for a data storage archive.

Mike, that's a very good point. With all the word salad that comes out, any functionary is free to pick what they like comma and implemented without any intent intelligence. I had not thought of that: It's a policy Buffet!

Cracked has a take on this.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/what-hell-going-on/

Clinton should have had the book thrown at her for her breaches of national security, and the Attorney General was as remiss in his duty as the FBI were.

The Feds almost never prosecute a case that they do not expect to win. As people knowledgeable of the relevant statute have informed me, to get a conviction under that statute requires a showing of intent. Comey is of course familiar with that statute, and familiar with the evidence, and he concluded that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate intent in Clinton's case to the standard required for a criminal conviction.

The deputy AG probably reached the same conclusion, but you can imagine the howls of indignation from the Republicans if she, a Democratic appointee, announced that unilaterally. Since Comey is nominally Republican, his announcing that conclusion gave her cover to not prosecute the case.

The DOJ could still prosecute the case if they wished, provided the statute of limitations has not elapsed. But the career lawyers know it would be a waste of time.

Eric #44:

I agree with you.

I wonder how they got around the intent requirement for the poor sailor who took a photo (a selfie I believe) which showed some equipment in a room of a ship (a sub I believe). He never sent the photo off the phone - but he went to jail.

I am going off memory here - but I don't think he had any intent (like Clinton).

Interesting.

In the interests of justice - the sailor should be set free (if not already out) and they should use the same standard of intent for low level people as they do for high level people.

Valerie Plame.

Nuff said.

And never heard you complain about any other sec of state who did the precise same thing, never mind the deletion that happened under shrub.

So your wonderment is partisan and not genuine. You only want to get a democrat, and you're willing to use anyone to do that.

Adam @46 - "And never heard you complain about any other sec of state who did the precise same thing"

Give it up Adam, your comments are old and tired....just like they were on Deltoid, that is currently resting in peace at the bottom of the rising ocean.

Powell used a separate email account, whereas Clinton had a completely separate sever to house and store her emails. Powell's emails went into the State Department system with the state.gov domain.
And I don't remember Powell scrubbing 30.000 emails "with a brush" or claiming not to know "C" stood for classified...

Regardless, 2 wrongs don't make a right... except in Wow's Wind Over Westmill world...

Stick to your previously proven lies, hypocrisies, speculations and exaggerations....if you happen to find an inkling of fact in that imagination of yours, please feel free to share.

Eric, they never prosecute a case they don't think they can win, which is why it won't happen here with all the immunity thrown around. Demonstrating intent given Hillary's actions would not be too difficult. Comey declared no intent to leak classified info which is a different thing. Intent to conceal is evident in Hillary's actions, and her statements to the FBI, like pretending not to know what 'C' means on classified material. These sorts of statements are used by prosecutors to demonstrate intent, as well as having documents get deleted while they are being requested.
Also, intent is not required in this law, as other prosecutions have shown. Hillary's real benefit is the example set by Petraeus who got a free pass.

OK so you repeated Eric's post.

Well done. You typed.

Next, work on comprehension.

Only one retard thinks I'm adam.

freddieboriskaibattyshitbrains!

Cracked has it pretty much nailed, though the RWNJs here will blow right by this as usual and keep talking past the rest of the reality-grounded people:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/what-hell-going-on/

...and the bus you rode in on, MikeN.

Me me me me me 24/7.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/10-stories-about-donald-trump-you-wont-beli…

http://www.cracked.com/article_24393_8-insane-donald-trump-moments-worl…

---------
Pissing on your leg and calling it rain...

"Demonstrating intent given Hillary’s actions would not be too difficult. "

Another line of bullshit from the chief liar, mikeN.

Sorry -- rickA -- the foolishness of their posts is almost identical.

Adam - "Only one retard thinks I’m adam"

It's worse than I thought.

I'll just summarise Wow's numerous and voluminous posts thusly:

"But, whatabout...."

I'm not suggesting Clinton's offence was in the same ballpark as that evil gnome Libby Scooter.

The fact remains, Clinton *intentionally* moved material that had markings on it to a system where that material was not permitted to be moved.
Not only that, but the material was then accessed by her country's enemies.
She cannot be ignorant of the handling rules for classified material.

Craig, that is actually a separate issue from setting up her own server. She had some e-mails that were so highly classified, they shouldn't have even been on her State Department e-mail and only accessed in special systems.

#51
Bwahahahahaha. Thats a very funny bit of writing
in the link. And it gives very good perspective too.
Cheers.

Cant they have a Royal Commision type thing into it all?
It certainly seems called for.
Btw, how did North Korea drop from political dialog so
quick? Its noticable by its absence from just a few days ago.

#56, #57: If what either or both of you say is correct and obvious, then why are the Republicans in power holding back on actually bringing her to trial? Are these great GOP patriots so afraid of losing the case? Or could it possibly be that there are things with which prominent Republicans could be charged if such laws and rules were enforced too stringently?

I've heard Republicans make charges of great wrongdoing by Democrats before and they just disappeared after their publicity value wore off.

"I’ll just summarise Wow’s numerous and voluminous posts thusly:

“But, whatabout….”"

And I'll summarise craig's reasoned response:

"LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!!"

When the law hasn't had ANYONE doing the same thing being arrested, when the people responsible for upkeep of that law say there's nothing, but you STILL insist it's clearly illegal and you would be jailed for the same, MAYBE YOU'RE READING THE FUCKING LAW WRONG.

But, hey, if you feel that strongly about it, bring a private prosecution over it.

"The fact remains, Clinton *intentionally* moved material that had markings on it to a system where that material was not permitted to be moved."

That is not a fact, that is a blank assertion.

a) Most of the classified material was not classified at the time
b) SOME of it MAY have been classified at the time, but the counts were so low it may not have been any, and it's entirely possible it was a needle/haystack issue.
c) Some shit is "classified" as a cover-up of criminal work. See the WL releases on the Apache Helicopter war crimes, or the selling of boys to Afghan warlords as sex slaves. All classified. All illegal cover ups.

What is clear is that you want to insist on this narrative because you feel that you personally are held to a higher standard.

Fair enough, the anger is understandable.

But reality shows either that you're wrong or that you're misunderstanding reality.

If you want to change the law, then go and change the law. But at the moment, the law is not what you claim it to be.

Craig, here's an idea.

You deliberately copy just one classified email onto your home PC, wait a bit to see if you're caught, then anonymously dob yourself in.

(don't connect your PC to the internet at all during this time it has classified information on it if you feel that there is no innocuous information that is classified that you can do this test with)

See if you DO get fired.

If you don't, then you know absolutely your claim about it was wrong.

If you do, you can point to this thread and point out that Hillary didn't get done for it, so what is the difference?

You then either find out what that was or you have a defence in court, or you can press a private action against both the government and Hillary for their partisanship and breech of the equal protection under the law clause.

Craig, mikeN, and rickA, are getting quite tiresome with their fact free assertions about intent. No surprises in their behavior, but it is tedious.

I can agree with them that this sort of thing *should* be illegal.

However, the law doesn't appear to agree with them that it *IS* illegal.

Therefore the claims she should be locked up are not supported by the law.

Don't like it? Get the law changed. Simples.

"Craig, mikeN, and rickA, are getting quite tiresome with their fact free assertions about intent. No surprises in their behavior, but it is tedious."

I haven't been following this thread ... are they arguing that Colin Powell should be locked up?

No, apparently that's different.

Greg,
Excellent point. I think you hit the nail on the head.
Unfortunately, it won't be on this presidency's coffin.

"I haven’t been following this thread … are they arguing that Colin Powell should be locked up?"

No, he isn't a woman, and wasn't (in their minds) as "uppity and dangerous" as President Obama.

And they like making things up. That's a big part of it too.

Popped up on BBC News: Could Trump be guilty of obstruction of justice?.

In other news

The NHS has been hit as part of a global cyber-attack that threw hospitals and businesses in the UK and around the world into chaos.

NHS services in England and Scotland hit by global cyber-attack

There is a war on.

Tyvor, as I said above immunity has been given to many witnesses, so a prosecution is unlikely. There is not as much evidence available as a result. For example, they agreed to destroy laptops in exchange for handing them over for inspection.

Colin Powell didn't use private e-mail for classified info, but he did go around the record keeping requirements intentionally. E-mail wasn't quite as pervasive back then, but he was definitely breaking the law, and advising Hillary to do the same. But again, not with classified material.

Lionel Smith - "Popped up on BBC News: Could Trump be guilty of obstruction of justice?".

A question is posed and Lionel has a wet dream...

"There is a war on."

Actually, it;s just a scam going on. Not the NHS or government, some criminal knobhead is holding up businesses with computers to ransom for bitcoins.

It's just arson with ransom demands, not war.

Though many try to make it look as manly as war. NI for example loved to think of themselves as terrorists fighting against UK rule in NI, when they were just criminal thugs shaking people down for protection money.

There was no more politics or religon behind it than Mafia dons shaking down for protection.

"But again, not with classified material."

But it WAS with material from his government position that was under court order to offer up and instead deleted deliberately.

Which even if it was printouts of kitteh pics is a criminal offence.

So where is Powell? In jail? No.

Where's the complaints? Nowhere. Not from those wanting to lock her up for something that might be deliberate but might not, and was handed over for checking in any case.

And even you trying to be accurate here is ringing false because you're eliding the illegality of deleting documents that were under court protection and therefore MORE required by law to offer up and not delete than if they were merely classified.

Classified documents can, after all, be withheld from court view. Nonclassified documents cannot, for any reason.

#71: If that is so, why hand out immunities if because of them no prosecution can be made in court? The answer that occurs to me is that the trial will be held instead as a propaganda festival in the media in which the loudest mouths usually prevail. Faux News; America's most watched.

As I said before: "I’ve heard Republicans make charges of great wrongdoing by Democrats before and they just disappeared after their publicity value wore off."

“I’ve heard Republicans make charges of great wrongdoing by Democrats before and they just disappeared after their publicity value wore off.”

That's because, just as mikeN, rickA, and their ilk show here, they make these accusations not because there is any fire behind the generated smoke, but because gullible people believe there is something to them. Once the disinformation campaign has achieved its desired result, they don't care any more. Just like spending was a big issue when President Obama was "spending like a drunken sailor" (when he wasn't) but Trump's plans to do so result in the same "deficits don't matter when our guy, who is white, does it" crap from them.

Their guy, however, is a vibrant orange.

#77: Oh yes, I agree. I can still hear Lindsey Graham in my memory, bemoaning just about everything Pres. Obama did or said as the worst thing ever in all of history, or words to that effect.

Watch Blazing Saddles again. Slim Pickens was playing a part. The Republicans aren't, but they do the same thing.

Wow @#74

Actually, it;s just a scam going on.

Well yes that is what it looks like but its impact spreads further than the UK's NHS and its intent could be deeper.

Infections in more than 99 nations are being reported by security firms. It appears that the hardest hit are Russia and Spain.
What has happened?

The most widespread and public malware outbreak for years has managed to infect a huge number of large organisations.

…

WannaCry seems to be built to exploit a bug found by the US National Security Agency. When details of the bug were leaked, many security researchers predicted it would lead to the creation of self-starting ransomware worms.

Source

What comes of relying on Windows which is expensive to keep up to date and troublesome to do on legacy systems.

It's the fact that it affects so widely that to me says it's just a crooked shakedown.

If it were war, it would be targeted to those being warred on.

If that's "everyone", then it ain't war.

And it's a problem with closed source binaries and copyright theft taking public property (the intellectual value of the learning done in the source code) and making it not merely propriatory, but hidden completely.

If there were no copy rights for non-expressive object code, then businesses would have to release the code to get their copy rights. And if they did so, then others could modify their software to work, even if the "copyright owner" cannot be bothered.

Why Trump Won And How To Fix That For Future Elections

gregladen — Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:23:58 +0000

Why Trump Won And How To Fix That For Future Elections

Donald Trump is the president elect of the United States. Why?

Trump did not win because he is widely liked. He is NOT widely liked.

A very small number of Americans voted for Trump, and this number was magnified by the conservative-state-favoring electoral college, and most of those who did not vote for him not only don’t prefer him, but find him truly abhorrent. During the campaign, and over his 70 year long life, Donald trump has done or said myriad things each of which is fully disqualifying to be a candidate for president. These deplorable things are, of course, the reason he won this election. Those who voted for him felt that a deplorable man represented them better than established politicians, because they related to that deplorableness.

A word about the Deplorables

Men like me claim (and I believe us) that we do not encounter conversations like the famous Trump Bus conversation released to the public in the latter weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign. But, those conversations are out there. I attended a social event recently, and I had my kindergartener with me. It was a socially required event, or I probably would not have gone. It was attended by men and women ranging in age from their late 20s through their late 60s, along with a couple of younger kids. This was a small number of individuals in one family, their spouses, and on out for a few levels of marriage and consanguineal relation. A clan, if you will.

I did not know people talked like that. I felt like I was in a porn movie except everybody had their clothes on. I’ve seen conversations roughly like this, in terms of risqué-osoty, among younger folks on the convention circuit, but this was different from that in being fully misogynistic and disrespectful, and not jut risqué.

It was bad enough that I endeavored to distract the kindergartener, remove the kindergartener from the environment, sending him out, and getting myself out of there as soon as it was socially acceptable. Well, sooner, actually.

These are the folks, men and women, who find no fault with Donald Trump’s salacio-sexist banter. It is not that they want a profligate leader in the White House, a man who treats women and subcontractors with deep disdain. It is, rather that they don’t mind it, because they are it, and at the same time, they know that electing a Trump is a slap in the face for the elitist, over educated, judgmental, liberal scum over there by the door holding his hands over his son’s ears and trying to get away from the real people. And, they are right. Indeed, it was more than a slap in the face, it was a punch in the gut.

Did deplorable sexists keep Clinton out of the White House?

You might think so, but no.

There is a long list of reasons one might consider to explain why Hillary Clinton lost or that Donald Trump won. It is possible to point to some of these reasons, on their own, and legitimately claim that if this one reason was not in play, Trump would have lost or Clinton would have won. I want to briefly point them out, and then move on to the actual reason.

In reading through this list, note that “Sexism/Hillary is a woman” is actually part of each and every item. Sexism is so pervasive in this election that sometimes you don’t even see it.

1) If only nobody voted for this or that third party.

This may be worth about 1% of the vote overall, possibly 2%, so if there were no third party candidates in the race at all, perhaps Trump would have lost. Or not. Third party voters may have simply written in The Lizard People. Libertarian third party voters could have split among Trump and Clinton, or been mainly for Trump. I don’t think enough people voted for Jill Stein to matter.

( I quickly add that those who voted for Jill Stein demonstrated with their decision something else that is not especially admirable. I wouldn’t be bragging about it. But I digress.)

Note, by the way, that the third party candidate that got most often picked by those casting protest votes was Gary, not Jill. The boy, not the girl. Significant? You decide.

2) If only the Bernie Bots, the former Sanders supporters, had not …

[voted third party/stayed home/constantly whined about Clinton/made the political process so painful that many simply walked away and never came back/whatever whatever]

This was probably worth a couple percent of the vote, and I think it really mattered. One part of this that mattered the most was the sexist attacks on Hillary, because this gave a lot of people permission to more openly hate the idea of a female president.

Bernie bots ruined politics for a lot of people this year. But, at the same time, Bernie excitement brought new people in to politics,and that is good. Also, I strongly suspect that had Hillary been behind the whole time like Bernie was, and had lost the nomination, there would be a reverse effect. There would be Hillar Bots. There were Hillary Bots in 2008.

I can make a strong argument that the Hillary Bot effect is NOT parallel to the Bernie Bot effect, and would not have been as bad. But if we see the Bernie Bot effect as moving 3% of the vote, enough to have easily elected Clinton, we also need to recognize that the Hillary Bot effect, had it happened, would have been worth about 1.5% of the vote, diluting the imagined no-Bernie-Bot effect enough that it may not matter.

3) The Silent Majority elected Trump.

The number of deplorable, unprincipled, vile, racist, and sexist people in the United States who are of voting age is huge.

Among these, many don’t vote. Most are white, male, older, and less educated. This has led to a proliferation of comments on social media like, “So, I’m an uneducated white guy, sue me” which makes me think, “can I do that?”

A subset of these dudes don’t vote, and proudly don’t vote. I’ve known guys in this category who will stuff the “I don’t vote, their all crooks” line (and yes, that is how they spell it) down anyone’s throat who will listen, and even won’t listen, as part of almost every conversation they have. It is pretty disgusting. But, sometimes those dudes do vote, and when they do, they are called the Silent Majority.

They are worth 1%–3% of the population, depending on how many get riled up. Oh, and by the way, these dudes don’t talk to pollsters, so in years when they don’t vote, they don’t matter. In years when they do vote, their effect is a surprise. I think they mattered this year, but there isn’t much one can do about them but to wait until they get old and die, and to try to work against the replacement demographic being like them as they grow up by increasing education and awareness.

4) The Bradley Effect.

In 1982, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley ran for governor of California. Bradley showed a significant lead in the polls, and the exit polls backed this up. Then, he lost. One theory is that many white voters claimed to support Bradley in order to not appear racist, but once in the voting booth, voted for the white guy. This then became known as the Bradley Effect.

Further consideration of that race, and subsequent analyses, seem to show that the Bradley Effect as described did not happen then, and does not really happen in general. But it is certainly possible for such a thing, either with respect to race or sex, to occur, so it should always be considered.

Personally, I think the Bradley Effect (a gendered version of it) does not explain anything here, but see #3 above for a related (but different) effect. There was lots of sexism here, but it was not altering the polling results. So, I include Bradley here to be more comprehensive, but I think it counts for 0% of the effect.

5) The Democrats put up the wrong candidate.

I think this mattered, but not for the reasons you may think, and it is not the main thing we need to fix. For that, you’ll have to keep reading.

I love Hillary, and I am certain that the long list of reasons some other people hate her are made up by the vast right wing conspiracy led for many years by Newt Gingrich (look for Gingrich to take his power-place in the Trump administration), Karl Rove, and others. Ironically, the anti-Hillary rhetoric, which killed this election, was created by a corrupt political establishment (the Republican Party) and in so doing convinced may anti-corruption anti political establishment voters to vote for Trump.

I am not suggesting that Sanders would have been a better candidate. He would have lacked the negative baggage, but he would have brought to the table some other problems that may have hurt him. Yes, I know head to head polls put Sanders higher than Clinton against Trump, but those early polls, while interesting, should not be the main basis for a decision as to what to do.

Bernie is a boy, and Hillary is a girl. Putting up a female candidate is roughly like putting up a black candidate. You are asking for trouble, asking for racists/sexist votes to come out in huge numbers against you, etc. You could never win with that strategy, could you?

Well, of course you can, and that is what Obama did. But, realistically, a candidate that has inherent negatives with much of the population is potentially at a disadvantage, so one must carefully consider these things. In thinking about this, about the basic question of whether or not the Democrats screwed themselves (and by themselves I mean ourselves because I’m a Democrat) by putting up a woman before the country was ready, several important and often conflicting truths come to the fore.

The people who would vote against a black man because he is black are not going to vote for very many Democrats. So, Obama did not lose very many votes because of the color of his skin. Meanwhile, the prospect of the first African-American president was so exciting to so many people, that Barack Obama brought people out to the polls in such large numbers that fire marshals around the country freaked out about the crowds.

Is it true that the people who wold vote against a woman because she is a woman are also not going to vote for very many Democrats? In other words, is racism very compartmentalized across party lines, while sexism is not as compartmentalized? I think that might be true, but I’m not sure by how much or if it matters. I would have thought that the excitement of having a woman president would have brought more people to the polls to vote for Hillary, but that is not what happened.

I think that the Democrats needed to run a woman this year, and we need to elect a woman to the presidency, and that there is really nothing stopping us from doing that. Sexism played a role this year, but sexism can be dealt with if we fix the actual problem we have in getting people elected. You’ll have to read down tot he bottom to find out what that is.

But first, look at these numbers and consider what conclusions we might draw from them.

There are 219 million eligible voters in the US, of which about 146 million are registered to vote. About 27% of the adult eligible population, or about 18% of the total population, voted for Trump.

Democrats are more popular than Republicans.
Obama is wildly popular.
Trump is the least popular.
Clinton is very unpopular for a Democrat.
Voting turnout was biggest in the Election of the Century (2008) and smallest in the “Most Important Election Of Our Time.”
The “This is the most important election of our time” memo did not get out, apparently.

Those who show up make the decisions. But if only a few people show up, they’ll make the wrong decision.

This brings us to the real reason that we elected Trump as well as a clear indication of what to do about this.

Trump was elected president because of the failure of the Democratic Party to get Clinton elected. “He’s begging the question,” you are saying to yourself right now. Or, “that’s a tautology.” Well, yes, I’m begging the question by stating a tautology. But tautologies are not logical fallacies. They are logical realities that sometimes lead to explanations. Trump could have won this race by being the winner, but instead, he lost it because the other candidate was the loser. There should have been ten million more people voting than their were, a large proportion of which would have voted for Hillary (or against Trump) but they did not show up. If they did show up, we would not be looking at a Trump presidency.

So we can blame the voters for voting like they did, and especially, a subset of the voters for not voting at all.

The actual number of people in this country who can vote if they wanted to is roughly double the number that showed up. So, about 100,000,000 million people failed Democracy this time around, slightly more than usual. Most importantly, 5% o 10% of those non-voters should have been energized to appear at the voting booth based on prior years’ data. I’d reckon that nearly ALL of voters who would actually prefer Trump showed up, and about 5% of usual voters who would prefer Clinton did NOT show up, giving us Trump.

Minnesota Congressional races as object lessons

Now, I’d like to expand on this from the point of view of what happened in some of the congressional races in Minnesota.

I want to compare three races in Minnesota, CD2, CD5, and CD8.

I am using CD5 to calibrate. Here we re in the upper midwest, the beginning of the plains. East of us is increasingly red Can’t-Even-Get-Rid-Of-Scott-Walker Wisconsin. West of us are North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, western Washington, etc, all very red. South of us (next to Nebraska) is reddish Iowa. Minnesota is farms and factories, white, pretty conservative overall.

And right there in the middle of it all is MN CD5, wherefrom the most densely populated part of Minnesota is represented by the only Muslim in Congress. Who is black. And who is politically radically left.

All, or at least most, of the DFLers (thats what we Democrats call ourselves round these parts) in Minnesota look at Congressman Keith Ellison with awe, and see him, as a parson, his policies, and his representation of a Congressional District, as about the best thing we’ve got going in the state. Few Minnesota DFLers may be to the left of Ellison, and few are very far right of him either. We’d be happy to have someone with Kieth Ellison’s politics and policy positions representing all of the districts of the state, and it would be especially helpful to our overall social and cultural mission if most of those representatives were in one or more ways not christian-white-male-normative. Not that Christian white male democrats are bad, but we want a good amount of diversity so we can truly represent a diverse, and increasingly diverse, nation.

So that’s the calibration.

Now lets look at the 8th district. This is the Iron Range. Have you seen the movie, “North country”? Maybe we don’t want to use popular culture depictions to represent congressional districts, but if you don’t mind, you could watch this:

White, conservative, industrial, miners, sexist, hockey. This should be a Republican district. But it is also worker, working class, union. And, DFL means “Democrat, Farmer, Labor,” This, the 8th district, is one of those places that actually gave birth to the modern American labor movement. (And played a big role in the environmental movement, by the way.) Democrats are pro union. Republicans are anti union. The workers of the Iron Range know which side of their toast has the butter on it.

So, now, calibrate and contrast. The modal DFL activist is pro environment, and does not want to see copper mining, now being proposed in the Iron Range/8th district. Ask Congressman Ellison, who represents Minneapolis and environs, if he thinks there should be widespread copper mining in the Iron Range, and I’ll bet he’d say no. Ask Congressman Ellison’s constituents in Minneapolis. They’d say no.

MN CD8 Choice (that's Paul Wellstone's picture in the background).

But Democratic Congressman Nolan, who represents the district and just won a tough race with a Frat Boy Libertarian (but Republican) Beer Guzzling Party Boy Yahoo who also happens to be very wealthy, i.e., Donald Trump with a different haircut, and he will tell you different. He’ll tell you that we need to have mining in the 8th district because we need jobs there. When push comes to shove, I’d bet Congressman Nolan will also want to protect the environment, and he’ll be the perfect person in there to insist on working out future mining in a way that makes sense. But he supports it, and his support of it allows him to be a Congressman.

Putting a finer point on this, in case you’ve not already grokked it, the ideal modal democrat can’t be the candidate you run in every district. Republicans CAN do that. They run on ideological issues that play perfectly well everywhere. Every Republican is interchangeable with every other Republican. Not true with Democrats. Think about that for a minute.

This is the reason this country is more likely to elect a Republican president over a Democratic president all else being equal. It is the reason that when Democrats hold a slim majority, they actually don’t hold a majority with respect to most issues, because they fight, they are diverse, they represent a varied landscape of constituency and preference. The Democratic Party is the very definition of a big tent. We have the bigliest tent. Fabulous, yuge tent.

This is also the reason that, in order for Democrats to win at the Congressional level and above, and often at State Senate or lower levels, they have to start out with 60% or more of the population more or less on their side, so that when 5% break off and become radically inflamed or disenfranchised-depressed, the candidates still hold at least a slim majority.

Hillary Clinton had certain characteristics that made her the ideal Democratic candidate, but among those characteristics, she also had serious negatives. I do not think that Clinton lost because she is a woman, though sexism supercharged most of the smaller effects working against her campaign, as enumerated above. Sexism that happened because she was a woman candidate for president, combined with the false but effective “crooked Hillary” trope, may have brought out the “silent majority,” and sharpened the misogynist Bernie-bot effect.

Now lets’ look briefly at CD2 in Minnesota. This was an open seat this year, and I think it should be looked at very closely. The district may be thought of as roughly equivalent to the 8th district in levels of conservatism, but with two important differences. First, the union-labor part is not very strong there, so that natural avenue of support for Democrats is gone. This is mostly farmers, rural conservatives. By rights, CD2 should always be Republican, were it not for the general like of the DFL even by conservative individuals across the state.

Angie Craig

The second difference is the presence of academic, medical science-linked, relatively liberal Rochester in the district. That allows for a clump of progressive that liberal ice can freeze to and build up over time.

Now, lets look at the candidates. Think Rush Limbaugh vs. Ellen. Sort of. Republican Jason Lewis is a right wing radio shock jock who makes Trump look like an alter boy, and I’m only exaggerating a little. He, like Trump, is temperamentally disqualified to hold major public office. Angie Craig is a first time candidate who hails from the medical insurance industry, so she has experience in an important issue area, is an “outsider,” and all that. She is also a lesbian and is married to a woman, making her one of the handful of same-sex-married candidates that stepped into the political limelight this year.

So, unlike Nolan, one might argue that Angie Craig is more of an ideal modal DFLer, more akin to Congressman Ellison than to an old timey out state labor-loving democrat like Congressman Nolan. And, I can tell you right now, if I want, that it might have been a bad idea to run her in that district, because she is female, gay, and flaunts her female gayosity by going out and marrying a girl. And, yes, she lost the race. The Democrats should have run a straight white farmer in the 2nd district, right?

In retrospect, running Angie Craig in that district was not a bad idea. The fact is, she almost won. This was a nail biter. She was a far superior candidate, and everyone could see that. She should have won and almost did.

So, why didn’t she win? The Democrats would have taken this district had they run, as I noted, an old white farmer or something. A Lutheran Batchelor Farmer preferably. But Democrats strive to do something different. The Minnesota DFL runs plenty of Lutheran Batchelor Farmers all across the state. The calculation that Angie Craig could win this district was made before Trump was recognized as a factor. The right wing radio shock jock won on Trump’s feces covered coattails. And, only barely.

At this point, I can make an argument that we need to do a better job at picking candidates based on their match with the voters, sometimes taking the chance and running individuals who are non-white, non-straight, etc. but otherwise sticking with the candidate that “most resembles” the district at hand, in terms of gender, age, color of skin, and policy. And, yes, that is actually correct, one must consider these things all the time. However, we are the Big Tent people, the Democrats, so naturally we are not going to do that all the time. We will, should, and do, accept the occasional loss because in this or that race we could not fit our giant tent into the local voting booth. In fact, it is only by overreaching and losing that we know where that line is, so we can cross it frequently and therefor move it in the right direction. Losing a race in a place like Minnesota’s Second Congressional District is what we need to do now and then. In two years, we’ll take it back.

But we also need to win races, and that means making good choices. But, although I can make an argument that we need to do a better job at that, that is not the argument I want to make.

The real reason Angie and Hillary lost

The reason that Angie Craig lost in MN CD2 is not because she was female, lesbian, or married to a woman. The reason that Angie Craig lost in MN CD2 is because the National Democratic Party screwed up and a number of people, just a few thousand, that would have voted for Angie, stayed home or didn’t volunteer or otherwise get involved.

We did have high voter turnout in MN, apparently, as we usually do. But in CD2, about 20,000 people didn’t show up. During the last presidential election, 357 thousand voters voted in that district, in contrast to about 337 thousand this year. This perfectly mirrors the national numbers. In the national election, about 6% fewer people voted this year than in 2012. In Minnesota CD2, about 6% fewer people voted this year than last year.

Lack of voter turnout caused both Hillary Clinton and Angie Craig and countless other Democrats to lose to Republicans in 2016.

There is plenty of room in that six percent to work with, to have elected Hillary Clinton as President and Angie Craig to Congress.

(“Hey, but what about the 8th district, was there a similar drop there? Cuz your DFL guy won there. If you’re right, there wasn’t a drop there. Cough up the numbers, Greg.” Answer: There was virtually no difference in that district between 2012 and 2016. Hypothesis survives.)

It is all about voter turnout. The second and third reasons why Democrats lose are: Not enough voter turnout, and voter turnout is too low. Also … voter turnout.

But, why was voter turnout low? Here, we could go back to the other reasons a candidate might win or lose. Hillary was a woman. The Great Right Wing Conspiracy against Hillary. Trump was a TV star. Whatever. And we would still be missing the point.

Since half of the population are women, about 60% of them, apparently, care that a woman is elected president enough go get really excited (the remainder are repressed Republicans or hopelessly sexist), and that should readily offset anti-woman voting from sexist men. Hillary did not lose because she is a woman, but it mattered that a relatively high percentage of sexist people (mostly men, some women) voted in lower population states. In fact, that probably would have killed Hillary’s chances in even more states were she not rescued by the Black and Hispanic communities. Hillary’s negatives mattered a lot, I suspect. If anything, Trump’s very existence, and the entire GOP circus, turned voters off to the entire process, and not just Republican voters. The Bernie Bot’s themselves, with their special snowflake votes, probably didn’t matter much in their voting habits, but their unceasing yammering probably turned some people away. Doesn’t matter. Only one thing matters, because all these things feed into that one thing: Depressed turnout.

How To Win The Elections

In Minnesota, we expected to turn one of our houses Democratic and keep the other Democratic, and to maintain or increase our Democratic delegation to Congress. This did not happen, and our state got redder because the national election sent people away from the polls. There were a lot of things we were going to do over the next two years in this state, and that is over now.

The way to fix this is not to fix the candidates, or to deal with this or that particular problem that emerges in this or that national level election. It is not to forego women candidates, or to avoid men and women in same sex marriages, or to compromise in any other way. It is to make national elections matter less, and local elections matter more, so that every year, on election day, a large part of the population bothers to show up at the voting booth. Twice (primary and main election day).

Instead of the outcome of, and interest in, local elections being determined by the ebb and flow of national elections, so some years we all take it in the neck because the national party is outdone by the other party, or some other effect, killing us all with deadly coattails, by down ticket effects, by all that, the opposite should be true. Local political activity should be broad, wide, and intense, and that activity should determine up ticket effects.

Instead of coattails jerking around state house races, state house races should be the solid foundation for national races. As it stands now, the public face of people we will never really meet, even if we may once shake their hand on a rope line, determines the nature and character of the electoral process every four years, and leaves hanging and ignored, that process in all other years. What should happen is this. The public servants that live next door and who’s houses we can, I don’t know, cover with toilet paper if we want to, and who’s kids go to school with our kids, and all that, should collectively and en masse shape the nature and character of all elections, all the time, every single year, and then of course determine the outcome of that singular and occasional election for President.

I am not the first person to say this. This approach underlies all grassroots activism. Tip O’Neil said it. Marx said it. Everybody said it. But we don’t do it.

We need to do it.

The Democratic Party Party

Consider the amount of money that the Democratic Party or a major Superpac spends on an hour of presidential election season ads in a major market. Take some of that money. Or, maybe just take the total cost of a presidential campaign, about a billion dollars, and put aside a chunk of it.

A Macon County Democratic candidate wining the hearts and minds of the people.

Those funds, widely distributed, can pay for clambakes and brat bbqs in state house or senate districts. A Democratic Party Party for all the neighbors, two or three times a year prior to the primaries and again prior to the election. Every year.

Imagine if it was normal for the Democratic Party to have a gathering, a feast, a night-out-thing, a few times a year, EVERY year, regardless of the election cycle, with all invited, not by what party you are in or by what politics you hold, but simply because you are in the neighborhood.

Perhaps the Republicans would start doing it to. If they do, then we really win, because there would be twice as many public, welcoming events without us paying for it, but this technique mainly benefits Democrats. Why? Because a party has tents! Actual tents for our big tent thinking, making the political process a local, regular, normal, social process, embedded in our culture, with clam rolls or brats or crab cakes or whatever your local thing is. And the chicken dance, if you must. And a bounce house.

Choices and chance at the national level turn the turnout dial up or down, unpredictably, every four years, and otherwise not much happens. When turnout is high, Democrats win. This is why Democrats lose in the house race every midterm. The dial is turned down because there is no national election. This is a situation we will never, ever get out of if we leave it be. It is a situation caused by the top to bottom flow of energy, money, and decision making. It is, if you will, a situation caused by the very nature of the Democratic Party establishment of which we hear so many complaints these days.

I propose that we turn a good chunk of that national level money flow to the local level. Put up that tent, have the block party, rent the VFW, the Union Hall, now and then the local church.

A voter registration table, some local candidates, a couple of VERY SHORT speeches. In Minnesota, Al Franken gets up on a chair and draws a map of all 50 states from memory because he can do that. Maybe there is some raising of funds, a money jar, to off set the cost, but this is not a fundraiser but rather, a fun raiser. Did I mention that there will be a bounce house?

After election day, we feast. No particular reason it is done in this order, but every year, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November comes just a few days before the fourth Thursday in November. I propose that we reverse that. Leave Thanksgiving where it is, of course, but add a feast before election day, and another one before that, and two before primary day, or caucus day, or in Minnesota, both. Not political events, but social events that emphasize civic engagement and voting, run by our party, because we have to get the ball rolling. If the other party wants to do it to, fine. They can borrow our Weber.

Obviously, spending the money and resources on a big party is not the actual suggestion I’m making here. It is just one way to do it. Civic engagement at the local level to encourage and expand voting, to raise the turnout rate by double digits. That’s the ticket to turnout.

Minnesota is surrounded by red, and it probably should be red, by comparison. But we are not. Why? Look at this map of the 2012 general election (selected to show a presidential race but not a great outlier i.e. 2008):

Look at the higher turnout zones. Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin are rural farm states that should be pure red, but they are either blue, or trend blue many years, and they have high voter turnout. New Hampshire and Maine should be very conservative, given the demographics, but they trend blue, and have high voter turnout. Virginia is a blue southern state. There is a long list of reasons Virginia is blue and not red,but on that list must be voter turnout. Texas has piles of urban, lost of immigrants from blue states, and a relatively diverse population. Why is it red and not blue? Oh look, Texas has low voter turnout. Colorado, outside of certain areas, is very conservative but tents to vote blue among a sea of red. Look at the voter turnout.

The causal arrow is probably a bit more complex than a simple Turnout—> Blue relationship. But the relationship is known to be real. Hell, if the supports of Democratic Candidates just spent a pile of time and money on voter turnout in general, they would win more. But if the person handing you the free brat and plastic cup of beer happens to be wearing a blue shirt with the name of a Democratic candidate on it …

gregladen Thu, 11/10/2016 - 06:23

Tags

Election 2016

Democratic Party Reform

Donald Trump

Election 2016

Hillary Clinton

How to win an election

Categories

Policy

"A very small number of Americans voted for Trump" Sorry, I must have misread that statement.
Hillary 59,944,032 votes (47.7%)
Trump 59,705,116 votes (47.5%)
What am I, a Hillary supporter, missing?

I think he's right. And all of us who are very unhappy about the current state of affairs, but have been too busy/lazy to get involved in local politics, should start looking into what we could do.

Dan Owen,

Out of the total eligible voter population. I believe his point (a little fuzzy, Greg) would be that the actual voting is not a representative sample of the whole.

An interesting question, actually. I forget what countries have compulsory voting, and I wonder what would happen here if we did. I suspect the popular vote numbers at least would strongly favor the Dems.

Okay, I give up: *WHY* should anyone work to "fix the problem," Mr Laden. Please explain to us, logically and with a compelling argument, *WHY* we should care about human civilization surviving; *WHY* should be we care about the suffering of the weak, the disenfranchised, the poor, the persecuted, the oppressed, and the hungry.

I am 56 years old. I have been fighting people like Trump and Pence for over 40 years, in the streets with my body (to keep reproductive health care access available for girls and women) and in the political arena (dozens and dozens of venues including voter drives and local campaigns). I have spent thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting for and defending the disenfranchised and the unwanted.

WHY THE BLOODY ANAL FUCK SHOULD I KEEP FIGHTING?! Give me a valid reason.

I spent my childhood under the thumb of people like Trump and Pence when I lived and worked in Central America. The USA military, and the CIA, used to bomb and / or assassinate people like Trump and Pence. Now we see the FBI and the KKK on the same side.

*DECADES* of weary toil and labor trying to improve the country, and I see almost no actual improvement.

Well, fuck all that shit. Fuck the USA. Fuck the planet. Fuck poor people. Fuck girls and women who will now be forced to reproduce against their wishes. I am FUCKING DONE fighting for no reason.

Wesley Dodson,

Oh please. Still with "the revolution" that doesn't exist.

I wish one of the fantasists who think "if only Bernie" would explain a couple of things (out of many).

The first order of business that I've heard from interviews with Trump supporters is that "Obamacare must be destroyed".

So, those people would defect to Bernie, who is suggesting an even more "Socialist" approach? It's not racism against President Obama and racism against the people who have benefited most from Obamacare, it's that they want a system like the Frenchie Surrender Monkeys have, right?

Well, actually, I'll wait to hear the answer to that one before going on. Any takers?

LOL

Wesley Dodson, Naomi Klein, et al:

This is a science blog. There is a great deal of solid, serious science that tells us about human behavior. And it is articulated in a very simple folksy way by someone who was an expert, LBJ:

"I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

And yes, decades of social and psychological research supports this, in more formal and even mathematical ways. Status (and identity) is perceived in relation to those closest to the subject.

Take away half the wealth of Davos-wealthy, and they will be just as happy, as long as their near-peers are equally diminished. And for the poor rural whites who benefit greatly from Obamacare, they would rather do without than to no longer able to think that their African-American neighbors are worse off.

It's the science. Denying it in favor of moralizing and slogans and "righteousness" is exactly the same as what the right-wingers do.

Desertphile,

Well, for one thing there are a lot of innocent plants and critters who just want to go about their business without having a bunch of stupid apes destroy their planet....

Zebra - I heard hat one differently

“The salient fact of American politics is that there are fifty to seventy million voters each of who will volunteer to live, with his family, in a cardboard box under an overpass, and cook sparrows on an old curtain rod, if someone would only guarantee that the black, gay, Hispanic, liberal, whatever, in the next box over doesn’t even have a curtain rod, or a sparrow to put on it.” (https://www.balloon-juice.com/2009/10/07/open-thread-lagging-lexicon-in…)

Wes, I don't watch much TV.

I did not see or hear a single Trump supporter say " rein in capitalist exploitation, and don’t start wars overseas"

In my essay, I don't rule out Hillary's flaws, and I say that Trump won instead of the more popular Democrats because the put up the wrong candidate.

Dan Owen, don't look only at the table and bullet points, but also the words and stuff. And also, know things. There are over 324,000,000 Americans.

Dersertphile, give it a bit of time you'll feel better.

Meanwhile, my first grade son and 21 year old daughter are not 56 yet!

Greg:

I see you credited every vote for Obama in 2008 (69,448,516) to the Democratic party.

I know that is wrong.

I am a republican (usually) and I voted for Obama in 2008.

I am sure that millions of those votes for Obama in 2008 were Republicans (or Independents) who wanted to vote for the first black president (among other reasons).

I think that may impact your analysis, at least a little.

Greg - so hopefully your daughter will run when she's 35 (isn't that the min age?) if there is still something to manage.

RickA, if I did that, I was generalizing, rounding off, approximating, and also, presuming that if you voted for Obama, then you are a Democrat.

Which means you are a Democrat. Welcome to the big tent!

It does not impact my analysis. Remember, I'm used to working in a state where no one is registered in any party. You are a Democrat the moment you sign the form that says you uphold the principles of the Democratic party, at a particular event (which you only have to do if you are going to do something official) and the moment you walk out the door you are just a regular Minnesotan.

Doug, I hope she runs for something sooner! But to be a successful politician you have to be somewhat soulless, I think. Also, constantly nice.

She's run campaigns. I expect her to be a state or national level senior official on a winning presidential campaign within the next 12 years.

And if not, I'll be terribly disappointed, unless she revives her singing career and makes big bucks.

Greg - I hope she does. The world needs some intelligent, caring people in power positions in your country. Gotta tell you though Trump's choices for things like the EPA etc. scare the bejesus out of me for the future of climate change and for that of people like your son. Like it or not the less developed world will follow the lead of the US on mitigating the disaster - Trump is going to push for more carbon intensive power sources and make the Kochs and other billionaires happy.

Zebra, you report: The first order of business that I’ve heard from interviews with Trump supporters is that “Obamacare must be destroyed”.

Weirdly, that reminds me of the cry made several times in the late Roger Zelazny's Amber Chronicles that "Amber must be destroyed!". The people raising that cry were from (wait for it...) The Courts of Chaos.

As I say, it's a weird association. But I think it makes some sense.

I think Greg missed a lot of points. All the words Greg uses cannot hide that he miscalculated the outcome of the US elections in 2016. What he didn't mention is the fact that both Obama as well as Trump are both authentic. They speak out loud and without reserves what they think in their election campaigns. The heart of the matter that they both understand very well is that there is nothing so hurting as being neglected and disrespected that brings people to anger and through that to consciousness and (re)action. There is a difference though between Obama and Trump. Obama fights for dignity, respect, togetherness and safety for all people with all people and by all people, (this is mutual respect and mutual safety for everybody by everybody), and Trump wants this only for certain groups. That's why Obama is real statesman for everybody, and Trump is a fascist leader for his favorites. There might be a chance though that Trump turns out to be a better President than he has promised to be in his election campaign. Trump likes to be liked and he also knows that the American people will not take it if he starts to play the fascist drum. Unwanted behavior as fascism doesn’t help America and doesn’t help the word.
Mrs. Hillary Clinton has a better track record than Trump, she is not fascist, she works hard, she knows domestic and foreign policies, but she has a characteristic people don't like. In the opinion of many people she is high hearted and she gives people the feeling that they are minor. In the way that a queen speaks to, not with, her subordinates.
She is also contradictory. She says she is for the people, but she prove to backs banks and institutions that collectively had corrupted the whole economic system.
Mrs. Rodham Clinton in the eyes of many people made herself to be the perfect scapegoat to blame for everything hurting since the bankruptcy of Lehman brothers.
People have a point. America brought it self and the world to the brink of a financial disaster, people seldom experienced.
As far as I can see it, America lost control after having cut Bretton Woods and several other laws that kept the financial system in place. See further more the later trick of the State that created the housing bubble and the fall of it, and the for closures.
Watch today´s worldwide casino of derivates, a bigger bubble than before, under the guidance and protection of States and their banks, c.a.
People experience that they are being screwed by the negative aspects of international trade treaties.
Hillary Clinton was not the right candidate to make an end to this. Neither is Trump, and we will find that out in the near future.
Why did Trump win? By his ability to speak to the hearts and minds of people who have been neglected by the government and may not be neglected anymore. Trump made that a promise. Whether I believe Trump or not is not important. Fact the matter is that his voters did. It also explains why he got so many votes of people who haven´t realized that they voted for the wolf in sheepskin. Afro Americans, Latin-Americans, Mexicans, women, people voted for Trump the least expected, but in depth very comprehensible. They felt betrayed and left by generations of successive politicians, administration, judiciary, business men, economists, banks, scientists and so forth.
I can understand them.
This blog of Greg misses lots of crucial important elements. Till so far Greg has not expressed the truth that he missed several essential incentives that trigger people socially.
It is not true that people want to believe that they are better of than their neighbor, and that that is the reason why they voted for Trump.
No, the real thing that trigger people to despair and anger is that they are neglected, not respected, not treated with dignity and not protected.
America is in fact very uncivilized. There is no solid social contract. Everybody for himself is no contract. It’s loveless. That is what hurts till the bone. It’s a basis for social borders, for apartheid (discrimination and segregation) instead of geborgenheid (mutual respect, safety and togetherness). Note.
I'm very curious what Mr. Trump will make of his government.
His promises that he puts America number one, his goal to double production and economic growth, his denial of climate change and the negative effects of his goals for global climate, planet earth and life, his narcisme and a few other essentials more, make him the least suited President for this era.
I fear that Mr Trump as President will only make things worse.
I wished Mrs. Clinton had won, but she hasn't for all the known reasons, of which Greg mentioned none. Nothing of the above was expressed by her, at least insufficiently. What about social and economic structures keeping up poverty, racism, promoting climate change, read planet change?
Would she have exposed herself as a feeling person with empathy, she would have won the hearts and minds of far more people than voted for her.
Unfortunately (but not made by chance but by choice of topics Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her staff have made) that didn't happen.
Now we all run a bigger risk of accelerating processes, of which I name: war and terrorism, more refugees, a financial and world economic system collapsing, a more rapid climate change read earth change. We are before the flood, and Mr. Trump runs a big risk of contributing to that.
To answer the question `What next?’ I would make the call for a worldwide movement of people willing to promote politics based upon the principles of mutual respect, safety and togetherness for all, with all and by all, without discrimination in the sense of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UNO, December 10th 1948., and of protecting planet earth, life and of social justice
I'm a lawyer in Private and Administrative law. I studied strikes and labor protest and the causes of this as off the eighteen century, the history and psychology of labor relations and trade unions, and social action. I made an in depth study of running developments of the things I wrote above.
Note:
Both words are Dutch. The language of people with the same name that founded New York.
The world knows the meaning of apartheid of South Africa. It is time that we all learn the meaning of the words ‘mutual respect and geborgenheid’, without discrimination in the sense of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UNO, December 10th. 1948.

Laren NH, Friday 11 November 2016, 2.10 AM Dutch time

As Orac might say, the one thing that all the pollsters missed was the anti-vaccine vote; the anti-vaccine vote sunk Hillary Clinton.

(However, although some of the polls had a fairly lengthy list of questions for the poll-ees, I don’t recall seeing any questions about vaccines.)

So our prez elect is assembling a cunning array of villains, enough to keep us in batman movies for a century..... for his cabinet! There they are! Our next administration.. If it were a movie, you wouldn't believe it. You would have a difficult time suspending disbelief. But my oh my, here we are! We have somehow found our way to a very grim but almost Hillarious [see what I did there?] alternate reality and there is apparently no way out. Nightmare city!

I can see how it happened. I can now see how the planners and pollsters and pundits totally missed the suffering middle America that Trump nurtured. Wesley, you are an offensive ass of doubtful alignment, but you do seem at least to realize what so many privileged elites don't. The wonderful little academic bubble of knowledge and success that we protect ourselves in is not the same as empathy. The mid-landers who chose the authoritarian father figure had little real choice given the toxic mix of religio-political-media swill they have been imbibing all their lives, coupled with the sorry reality they are living in. Welcome to the world of your fellow Murkans. Its about time you got to know them!.

So here we are. About to embark on the next four years of our national voyage with another science-free authoritarian at the helm. And he is in a position to chose some real science-free thugs;simpletons, and sociopaths to be in his cabinet. This is like the Adams Family come to life! I don't know how this can end well. I don't know how those of us with science and art in our veins are going to live through a Trump presidency. His cabinet choices will say a lot. Maybe he will grow up really quickly in the next three months. But maybe not. Maybe the Washington glob will envelope him and dissolve everything that is not presidential and spit out another Reagan or something less repellent. Either way, life goes on, within you and without you.

Look, how about some real talk regarding why he lost?

I will absolutely guarantee you the dems will lose again in 2020 unless they take off the PC glasses and start facing reality as it is, and not how they wish it was.

We are stuck with trump which will probably be CATASTROPHIC in terms of climate change.

"Progressives" and the dems are very much to blame. Michael Moore at least warned you in terms of working class whites and the economy, but he didn't go nearly far enough..

I'll just pick a few things. They are EXAMPLES. Before you have a politically correct kneejerk reaction, ask yourself if being PC is more important than saving the planet.

Do you think focusing on bathrooms was a smart idea? Yes, it was in response to a law by the repubs, but still. Was it smart in an election year? Do you know how the reagan dems in wisconsin reacted to that?

Do you think it was smart for Hillary to make a big deal about Machado being insulted? And bringing her for one of her final rallies?

Do you think it was brilliant for Hillary to defend trade deals in the debates?

Do you think calling trump supporters racists racists racists was smart? Of course, a good number of them are. BUT here's a little secret- even some semi-racist whites voted for Obama.

Some whites who might have voted for dems were very turned off by Black Lives Matter. Does that mean police violence isnt a problem and shouldnt be addressed? No, of course not. But the tactics of BLM helped elect trump. Deny it at your own peril, but I know for a fact it was a factor that turned some people, from conversations with them.

Do you think Jay Z being onstage with Hillary won her votes in white working class neighborhoods in PA WI and MI?

Do you think hillary spending so much time away from the campaign trail helped? Do you think maybe her and her team were complete morons not even going to Wisconsin once?

Hillary was an awful candidate (everything from her personality, to trade, to iraq, to yes, her server). You might brag about her winning the pop vote, but she spent a pretty penny to do so.
Against a buffoon like trump she should have won 400 electoral votes. I don't know if bernie would have won, but he would have won Michigan and Wisconsin.

Dean or another idiot will be made head of the DNC, and the republicans will win again in 2020.

The dems and progressive chose identity politics (which solidified the support of white identity politics on the right) over saving the planet.

This might be too real for you so feel free not to post it.

First: I am convinced the Cubs did indeed open the Seventh Seal of the Apocalypse ....
Second: The Dems may have decided that with Obama's approvals at an historic high they needed only run a Barack Clone campaign. Defensible enough. But there were real differences between he and HRC....My feeling- non metric based [and do we dare trust the polling algorithms in the future?] — is that Obama’s success had something to do with A] his non wealth, B] his obvious racial “outsider-ness", C] his Iraq bona fides and D ]his speech making skills that ignited real visions of passion and change. I would submit that HRC had non of these assets. We can debate all we want to as to the fairness of that perception filtered through a male dominated media. I’m only reporting my sense of my feelings.
A recent Stoller article in the Atlantic chronicled the post Viet Nam history as the Dems moved away from the working class To throw up their hands and to announce that “those factory jobs are never coming back” or to say college is the only way to success [and then legislate predatory loans to those students] is to dismiss all the carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, farmers, truck drivers, etc who currently feel that American political cultural respect has passed them by.
Long ago, I implored my friends at the Sierra Club and at Trout Unlimited to somehow understand that their overall interests had more in common than they could admit. It was decades before they began [barely!] to get it. It still pains me when a clog wearing xurbanite gets out of his Prius to talk to a 3rd generation rancher about creating a conservation easement …. the “high road” Michelle talked about might just include the notion of empathy.

Christopher Winter #21,

I was channeling "Carthage must be destroyed", which I suspect was the reference Zelazny intended. I had quite forgotten those books, which I read more years ago than I like to think about.

You know, I just can't see whatever rationality or humanity that might be left in the Republican party being strong enough to be able to contain this monster. He tore through their primary process like a hot knife through butter. Red Murka has compromised their KKristianity by forgiving this psychopath all his past indiscretions and now look what we have. Geez this looks bad. Perhaps the military will be able to stop Donzilla, but right now they are on his side, so probably not.

So here we are conducting an in-process national experiment in Murkan fascism. We've squandered our freedom to be able to build and create on a demented consumer paradise, free of cares, free of reflection, free of thought, and now, its ideal leader has taken root! A silver spoon fed monster who is OK with torture, misogyny, and bullying. So how do we prevent him from starting up an internment camp industry to employ his white male supporters? We were asleep at the switch and we are waking up to a very grim morning.

Note to future Democratic campaigns: Please try to not end up with another candidate whose public persona swings between insane manic bug eyed finger pointing and scolding. It is not an appealing mix for those of us who have already endured grammar school thank you.

I'm trying to believe that America, the land of the free, is not over. Is this a two year fight or the two millennium fight? I'm thinking that we have to focus on the 2018 election, and be ready to sacrifice all that we have left in us to make sure that he does not have a compliant Congress. I think that we are going to have to do everything in our power to contain what has not yet been contained. The media that he has excoriated should mostly be on our side, at least in the beginning of the fight.

@ Gerit Bogaers

thank you for saving me have to write that - 100% agree

unfortunaly America received the wrong answer (Trump) to a valid question

A question over the direction the US has taken over the last 40 years

In the UK we asked the same question and got an equally wrong answer (Brexit) imo

The number of deplorable, unprincipled, vile, racist, and sexist people in the United States who are of voting age is huge.

I'm going to leave the comfort zone of my normal posting hangout, Respectful Insolence, to take you to task on this. I'm a physician (pediatrician) and I'm also a scientist (neuroscience). FWIW, I didn't (and still don't) think either Clinton or Trump were anywhere near the best candidates either party could have run--but in politics it's not about anything other than vote counts and (for the office of the President) how many electors cast their ballot for you. And yes, I voted. And no, I'm not happy with how this election resulted.

My beef is that you talk about this "yuge tent" of the Democratic party, but then you turn around and call people you don't like (who may be offensive but aren't breaking any laws (if they were they wouldn't be able to vote)) "deplorables". I am guessing you are not expecting, hoping or wanting these "deplorables" entering your tent anytime soon. That's fine--it's what you believe and you clearly do not want them near you. But I will note that when those on the Democrat side are calling Mr. Trump things like "F*ckface Von Clownstick" all over TV and the internet--well you are only angering your opponents to levels you have never seen before and those "deplorables" then really didn't care a whit what else was revealed about Trump, including his behavior regarding women. They stopped listening to whatever valid points you had to say.

Those "deplorables" are human beings. I worry you don't see them as such. I was left with the feeling most of the pro-Clinton media didn't see them as such either. I also feel most of the "deplorables" don't see you or the pro-Clinton media as human beings either. This lack of appreciation for our fellow citizen's humanity in what is arguably the greatest but most polarized nation on planet Earth worries me greatly for the next few years to come.

Sorrybutitstrue #25,

I am not offended by your observations, and right or wrong, you are at least trying to think about winning rather than being righteous.

But, I would argue that Joe Biden would have defeated any Republican, and Trump by an insane blowout, following pretty much the same approach. Because he is a White Male, and because he hasn't been witch-hunt demonized for all these years. He never said "I could have stayed home and baked cookies".

But following along something Greg has said, I am conflicted. Would I vote against HRC (against Biden), as I did in the 2008 primary with Obama, because I thought she was the candidate less likely to win? If this isn't the time for a woman, who is very well qualified, who did in fact win the popular vote, then when?

As Greg said, sometimes you have to push the limits even if you lose. I predict that in the next Presidential election, there will be at least one female VP, and her name will not be Palin. That would probably be palatable to many because it is the usual subservient role for women.

zebra:

I think Joe Biden would have beat Trump.

I think Michelle Obama would have beat Trump.

I think anybody except Hillary Clinton would have beat Trump.

I don't think it was sexism which cost Hillary the election, because she did worse among women than Obama did.

Hillary had to much baggage - and it turns out she was the wrong candidate.

Chris. It is a big tent. Not an indiscriminate tent. Racism and misogyny are not welcome in the tent. Are you suggesting that they should be?

You might need to sully youself a bit and gang out with some American deplorable for a while. It would put an edge on your thinking.

Pretty sure the data says that Trumps support came from as varied groups as whites making over $50K[+2%], white women [53% ]latino [29%] - 54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, as did 45% of female college graduates. IMHO there is something much deeper- and I believe it may well begin with a consumptive culture that teaches us that we are not enough as we are.... the first exposure any american child has to any mass media, they see an ad . And that ad tells then they can only be ok if they obtain whatever product is being pitched. ergo "you are deficient as you are" ....maybe we get lucky and have a family or mentor that overcomes that ....but maybe we don't and we succumb to materialism or chemical substances or food or denigrating-the-other.... but rest assured that void will be filled somehow. After watching decades of education and policies go by the board, methinks there is some , dare I say it, Spiritual element that must be summoned here.

To SorryButItsTrue #25:

Pretty good points.

Except maybe for the stuff about climate change.

I completely understand Chris Hickie. Greg misses Hickie's point. Insults and calling another names don't pave the way to mutual understanding. A very simple test for Greg and everybody: What would your reaction be in answer on curses directed to you? The same question if you are constantly being belittled, denied, cursed, called bad names, et cetera? What would be the effect of a constant stream of rotten words directed to you? What is the effect of more of the same? Read Chris Hickie again and again and again. Use your empathic skills. Place yourself in the other person's shoes, who is the receiver of such nasty names? I understand the characterization of Greg who calls people as ´deplorables´, but why not go deeper and practice what Baruch Spinoza advised: human actions, don't laugh, don't cry, don't detest but understand. That would be, I think, the best ground for an anthropologist, a judge, a doctor of medicine, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a lawyer, a policeman and all other people to research and practice. Don't be judgmental. Don´t follow your personal emotional preferences, you will be entangled in them. Analyze. Greg might answer that he practices this, but why call the persons in question ´deplorables´ in the same article? That is a flaw. Emotion and preference take over from the scientific approach and spoil the analysis. That is a pity. Lesson stop calling each other names. It´s not fruitful but works counterproductive. It confirms and endorses hate. What good does that do? Don’t mix and confuse emotions with science. Emotions can have a place in columns. Laren NH, Friday 11 November 2016, 20.17 PM Dutch time.

Gerrit #36:

Wise words - and I totally agree.

I don't name call - as I believe it is not helpful in persuading.

I don't like being called names - and I have been called many by posters on this blog (monster, greedy, liar, and many more I cannot remember now).

None of the name-calling persuades me.

Why? Because I don't accept the characterization. In most instances, it is must some persons opinion - often made with zero facts.

People say things on blogs that they would never say face to face - and I get that.

But it would be nice to elevate the conversation.

Nobody can force another to change their mind or opinion on any subject - especially by calling them names and demanding they change their mind or opinion.

Sometimes we have to just agree to disagree.

Chris. It is a big tent. Not an indiscriminate tent. Racism and misogyny are not welcome in the tent. Are you suggesting that they should be?

You might need to sully youself a bit and gang out with some American deplorable for a while. It would put an edge on your thinking.

I'm a physician. I care for patients. I try my best not to let their beliefs affect my care for them (no one is perfect) and it's not "sullying" myself when I'm with them. Again, the extremes of both sides are dehumanizing the other side. Your side does so out of a sense of intellectual superiority, while they do so out of being looked down upon by your side as "deplorables".

FYI, I don't need the type of "edge" you show in *your* thinking.

So Chris, people who are rampantly racist, homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted, etc., aren't "deplorables"? By your standard the trump supporters who have, since the election, told my son that he need to go back "where he came from" so "real Americans" can have his job, aren't terrible people? We adopted him from Korea - he's been here since he was 3 months old. Sorry - the people who behave like that are scum, and should not be associated with by choice by decent people.

If you don't see the difference between treating them as part of your job (which you should be applauded for) and associating with them and ignoring their terrible behavior because you want them on your side, you have a problem.

@Dean. I'm from a very international family, and we continue the tradition. My Dutch Antillean wife and I don't like hatemongers, nor our two kids (28 and 26). Still we have to keep contact with them to convince them that they are wrong. How the other one reacts, always will be his or hers responsibility. We stay. By the way we already passed the color line several times. It feels good and it is great. We didn't let us be chased away. Be happy with all patient people who don't shut the fences, when they are being offended, but who have a sharp and wise reply against discrimination and racism. My friends and I founded the first anti racism and anti discrimination group in the Netherlands, back in 1976. Werkgroep Quarter. It worked. why, because we went for the scientific and human approach, analyzing, visiting, talking, organizing social action. It helped. Some discriminators ended their discrimination and opened their bars for colored people. Two night clubs were cut in their opening times. The history repeated itself when my son's Dutch friend from Egypt was denied entrance on New Years eve although he had bought a ticket of entrée, December 2005. That same night youngsters from Maroccan decent were being access denied, because they had a conflict with the bar owners. Guess what happened, that club has been closed by the Mayor ever since because of racism incidents. So, be defensible. Don't exclude people who fight discrimination in another way than you choose. I dare to say in essence all people have a hidden place where they are more or less discriminators themselves. It is a very old imprint of protection of ones own tribe. Fear for foreigners, et cetera. We all have to overcome that. Realize your own prejudices of race and start working for a better society, to begin with yourself. That’s what you have proven yourself. Congratz. We are brothers. It is a continuous story. Laren NH, Saturday, 12 November 2016, 9.21 AM Dutch time.

Chris Hickie,

Being the rational pragmatist anti-moralizing person everyone doesn't want to hear from, I thought about responding to dean earlier. However, I think you are being disingenuous and judgemental yourself in his case.

Dean is expressing a parent's anger, in response to a specific event involving specific individuals. He doesn't think all White Males are irrational bigots because they are White Males-- I'm pretty sure he knows that (most) commenters here would not object to his hard-working, educated son marrying their daughters because of his "Asian" appearance. I would cut him some slack.

(Just to be clear: "Irrational bigots* is not a moral judgement, just an observation.)

I do have a question for you. I know that neuroscientists are sometimes at odds with old-fashioned psychology and sociology, but do you accept the validity of the concept of Authoritarian Personality? Do you acknowledge the research that tells us that status is mostly defined by near-peer relations of various kinds?

So, the question I'm hearing is: where is the line crossed that you determine that simply trying to win people over is a useless exercise?

OA #43,

You win people over by winning.

This is why I get frustrated with the moralizers and those who would rather be righteous than get things done.

For example, if HRC had won (more than the popular vote), she would have pushed forward on renewables. We have already seen lots of acceptance, by Republicans as well, of rooftop solar and wind farms. After a while, enough people would have seen the benefits and lack of negatives and then it becomes "normal" and not something to argue about. There would be lobbying from that industry to counteract the FF boys, and so on.

What's not to like?

Zebra @ 44

Ok, but that wasn't the question I was trying to ask. It's not necessarily about winning, but rather it's based on the back and forth above which I'm interpreting as being about civility. When does it become a useless exercise?

But to try and tie it to what you are saying, I suppose I could ask it as: At what point can you justify winning at all costs and how do you determine that point?

BTW, Trump won the election, but I'm not won over. Nor am I ever likely to be based on what he does. We'll see how it goes.

"He doesn’t think all White Males are irrational bigots because they are White Males– I’m pretty sure he knows that (most) commenters here would not object to his hard-working, educated son marrying their daughters because of his “Asian” appearance."

Of course I don't. My anger is directed at the subset of people who think, act, and speak, the way the people I referenced do. I fully accept that there are a good number of Trump supporters who would be appalled at the statements made to my son. The problem is that that subset who make statements like that made up a significant portion of the nation-wide support for Trump and, rather than disavowing them, he accepted it and urged more of it.

There is not

OA #45,

Got it. My answer is that for those in the Authoritarian Personality Spectrum, civility in itself isn't going to do much to change what they do in the voting booth. They don't care what you think; they care what their identity group thinks. Maybe, there are things you might say to influence some overt behavior for those not too far gone.

But I am thinking in terms of pragmatism and acceptance, as in my example at 44 . Or, for example, there are almost certainly lots of these people who condemn interracial coupling, after all these years, but I don't think they would think it was worth trying to change through the law. But, again, civil discourse might convince them not to overtly express their bigotry in polite company.

(Note again-- "bigotry" is not a moral judgement.)

As to if Trump winning could convince you of something-- we'll see if there is anything that gets done beyond typical Republican take-from-the-poor-give-to-the-rich. But face it, some of the policies starting with Reagan have become "mainstream" for large segments of the population. Consider all the times I've tried to educate you guys about the difference between actual free market economics and laissez-faire capitalism-- the doublespeak has become the norm.

@47 So, if I catch your drift, the line is crossed at intransigence. Where/how is that line determined for individuals? For groups? Subgroups?

I have certain triggers, but I have to admit that sometimes my response is more ad hoc than not.

#48

"the line is crossed at intransigence"

No, it is crossed at the point where you diagnose strong AP.

There is plenty of literature on Authoritarian Personality out there. Read some and get back to me.

When is authoritarian personality "strong"?
Who is qualified to diagnose it?
Are there cures for it?
Do people who are susceptible to it always act in harmful ways?
Are they persuadable in some cases?
Is someone who is just always belligerent suffering from AP?
Do some "Hillbots" have AP?

Perhaps most important:
When is one inadvertently contributing to a climate that fosters that kind of thinking (like perhaps by being threatening)? And when does that matter and when does it not matter?

I appreciate your responding to my questions. Let me just say that I'm drilling down on this because I occasionally take stock of how I approach and think about this issue. As you may know, I am no stranger to speaking aggressively.

For myself, and FWIW, I don't think that AP, as you put it, is either a necessary condition or by itself always a sufficient condition to issue forth a flyting.

OA,

I don't disagree with the last sentence. I don't have insults as a default position though; I just stop trying.

So: Sufficient to stop trying. I obviously enjoy a serious argument when there is some indication of flexibility on the other side. But inflexibility does not define AP.

I think you should read some more and form your own answers to your questions at 50, and perhaps we can debate those (politely).

Oh, I form my own opinions, and for now I'm not interested in debating so much as fishing around and taking temperatures.

This was triggered partly by the title of the post which reflects widespread concerns (and reactions) and partly by reactions to the election in broadcast media.

Why Trump won and how to fix... deserves serious, objective attention...

OA,

"I form my own opinions" "deserves serious, objective attention".

The science I am talking about is serious and objective, just like climate science. But of course you and everyone else are free to ignore it.

Let's be clear, I was trying to illicit responses on tactics/strategy and maybe do a little soul searching. I was NOT questioning the wisdom of what got included in DSM 5.

OA,

That wisdom tells us that winning is the best tactic/strategy.

In the US, there are structural impediments to thus shifting the paradigm, because we don't have a true democratic system of governance.

Give people a reason to turn out. The UK had the problem that voting Labour was pretty much identical to voting Conservative, doubly so in the Blair years.

And, oddly enough, a very low turnout since then.

Here at Sb a suggestion. Follow the money:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2016/11/10/so-youve-elected-a-conspir…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_…

A great many of progressives could not stomach voting for the person who turned Syria and Lybia into kill-zones. The action in Lybia doubled down by assassinating an elected head of state. So many thousands of people killed.

Particularly galling is the way that the USA played patty-cake with ISIS in Syria for a year, causing god-knows-how-much collateral suffering, and Putin put them down in a couple of days.

The Washington elite simply want to rule the world, because they just do, and they see the way to accomplish that as being military force. Clinton was even talking about low-yield nukes, for Christ's sake.

Trump couldn't be much worse than Clinton, and there's a distinct possibility that he might be quite a bit better. Perhaps he'll leave Israel alone for long enough that they can march their muslims into the gas chambers, which you know is what they really want to do.

"The Washington elite simply want to rule the world, because they just do"

WRONG.

They think that what they're doing IS THE RIGHT THING.

Why? Because they are surrounded by people who think the same thing. Because it's good for the wealthy, with whom they work with, socialise with, are themselves, and have telling them they're doing well.

So sociopaths and the narcissistic spout random phrases to get adulation and attention by saying what "ordinary people" think, which makes it look as though that sociopath agree with them, and that is how the sociopath or narcissist gets the power and attention they crave. This doesn't mean that the sociopath agrees with them, mind.

Clinton and Trump on Western Water Policy

pgleick — Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:20:04 +0000

Clinton and Trump on Western Water Policy

Donald Trump speaking in Fresno, California, May 2016

Clinton on Western Water	Trump on Western Water
“Recognizes that the current long-term drought across much of the West poses a dire risk to the health and prosperity of Western communities and believes the federal government can and should be a better partner in supporting state and locally-led efforts to improve water security.”	“There is no drought. They turn the water out into the ocean.”
Explicit policy proposals: Increase federal investment in water conservation through a coordinated, multi-agency Western Water Partnership.	“We’re going to solve your water problem. You have a water problem that is so insane. It is so ridiculous. Where they’re taking the water and shoving it out to sea.”
Unlock new resources for local water infrastructure as part of her $275 billion infrastructure plan.	“You know my environmental standard is very simple and I’ve said it to everybody: I want clean air and I want clean water. That’s what I want. Clean air, clean water.”
Expand water reuse. Increase investments in water reuse through additional grants and loans, with a goal of doubling public-private partnership investments in water reuse and reclamation in the first term.	“And you know I should say this, I’ve received many, many environmental rewards. You know, really. Rewards and awards. I have done really well environmentally and I’m all for it.”
Establish a new Water Innovation Lab to develop cutting edge efficiency, treatment and reuse solutions that can be deployed by local water utilities, agricultural and industrial water users, and environmental restoration projects across the country.	“If I win, believe me, we’re going to start opening up the water so that you can have your farmers survive.”

Source: Clinton Campaign/Policy Factsheets https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/01/hillary-clintons-plan-for-conservation-and-collaborative-stewardship-of-americas-great-outdoors/

Source: Transcript from Trump speech in Fresno, California, May 28, 2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/donald-trump-there-is-no_b_10176882.html?

[As of 9/19/2016 there were no water or environment policy papers or statements on the official Donald Trump campaign website.]

[Update 10am (Pacific), 9/20/2016: All four Presidential candidates have now responded to a set of science questions, including one on water (Question #10 at ScienceDebate.org). Here are their answers: http://sciencedebate.org/20answers#10]

pgleick Mon, 09/19/2016 - 11:20

Tags

When Donald Trump met Dr. Oz: A huckster bromance

oracknows — Fri, 16 Sep 2016 03:31:37 +0000

When Donald Trump met Dr. Oz: A huckster bromance

When I first heard that Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President, was scheduled to appear on The Dr. Oz Show, my first thought was, basically, “Of course he is. What took him so long?” After all, it’s a crank pairing made in heaven. Given that, I considered it my skeptical blogging duty at least to watch the show, even if I never actually blogged about it. So I dutifully set my DVR to record it, and, after I got home from work, did my evening bike ride and ate dinner, I settled down in front of the television to see if this appearance would be as bad as I predicted in my mind.

I’m not sure if it was as bad as I had feared, but it certainly was bizarre. Surprisingly (to me), it was also actually mostly boring. Worse, although at the beginning of the first segment Oz cautioned Trump not to attack Hillary Clinton because he wanted the show to be about Trump, Oz also basically gave Trump a segment in which his daughter Ivanka appeared to shamelessly pimp Trump's recently announced childcare initiative. The selling was so blatant that Ivanka Trump's segment might as well have been a Donald Trump campaign infomercial. It was so bad that it left me with the question: Why is it that, while everyone seems to detest Trumps sons almost as much as him, they give Ivanka Trump a pass? In any case, I can’t help but wonder if the segment with Ivanka Trump promoting his latest campaign promise was the price that Trump demanded in return for agreeing to appear on Oz's show. I bet it was. The segment was just that blatant.

Be that as it may, I do agree with Julia Belluz. Trump’s appearance on Dr. Oz’s show was very odd and very surreal. Surprisingly, it was also rather dull. Of course, perhaps I should explain why I think Trump and Oz were basically made for each other. Trump, as you know, was always flamboyant and good at attracting media attention, a skill he honed to its current level of sharpness in reality TV as the star of The Apprentice. It’s as show that I admit to having watched and actually liked, at least the first two or three seasons. After that, I rapidly lost interest, and have never watched its spinoff Celebrity Apprentice. Trump also never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. The one that I’ve criticized him the most for is, of course, his belief that vaccines cause autism, a belief he’s been very consistent about at least since 2007.

Enter Dr. Oz.

Dr. Oz is a near-perfect match. Back in the 1990s, Dr. Oz was a rising star in the world of academic surgery, a young cardiothoracic surgeon who published a lot and in good journals. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Oz discovered reiki. Soon, he was becoming famous as the surgeon who let reiki masters into the operating room to ply their woo on the patients as he operated on their hearts. Eventually, he caught Oprah Winfrey’s attention, and it wasn’t long before he was doing segments on her show, becoming “America’s Doctor” (a name that he trademarked). Back then, he hadn’t dived ad deepling into pure woo, mostly giving sensible if somewhat trendy advice on diet and exercise. Then he got his own show, and from there it was all downhill, as I’ve documented many times, to the point of labeling him America’s Quack, which he is. Examples to support my characterization abound, featuring Mike Adams on his show, having antivaccine icon Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on his show to promote his last book, running an unethical and bogus “clinical trial” of the weight loss supplement green coffee bean extract, and promoting homeopathy. That’s not even counting the times he had “Long Island Medium” Teresa Caputo on his show (plus John Edward, too!), and promoted a faith healer. Along the way, he also credulously featured anti-GMO fear mongering and basically every form of bogus weight loss supplements you can think of. He was even hauled before a Senate committee on the marketing of ineffective weight loss supplements and ended up being on the receiving end of a tongue lashing by Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

None of this seems to matter. Like Trump, Oz is all about the money. Like Trump, he’s also become very skillful at sliming his enemies, as he did in 2014 when a group of doctors, some of whom were associated with the American Council on Science And Health (ACSH) wrote a letter to Oz’s dean at Columbia University basically demanding that he be fired because of his activities on his TV show. It was an astonishingly clueless and incompetent play, and Oz struck back, effectively turning the tables and labeling his critics as being in the thrall of big pharma.

Yes, Oz is a lot like Trump, and I haven’t even discussed everything I’ve written about him. Before last season, Oz, sensing that the pressure was on, promised to clean up his act and stop promoting pseudoscience. He must have done so, at least to some degree, because I haven’t done a post about him in exactly one year. Or maybe I lost interest. Then came Trump.

The video for Trump’s appearance is not yet up on Dr. Oz’s website. I’ll add links when it is. In the meantime, you can refer to a transcript of the interview. The first segment is pretty dull, with Oz conducting a “review of systems” on Trump (which in Oz’s hands was really a combination of a review of systems, a family history, and a medical history). We learn that Trump has hay fever, that his PSA is good, and that he’s on a statin. We also learn that both his parents lived long lives (into their 90s). Also, apparently Trump considers his gesticulations while speaking to crowds to be a form of exercise.

It was the second segment where the real stunt occurs. As Belluz describes it:

The key moment came when "America’s doctor" asked Trump: "If your health is as strong as it seems ... why not share your medical records?"

The 70-year-old Republican presidential candidate looked at the audience and said, "Well, I have really no problem doing it. I have it right here. Should I do it? I don’t care. Should I do it?"

Trump then pulled two papers out of his breast pocket and handed them to Oz. At this point, we, the audience, are meant to believe that these are real medical documents, and that Oz is shocked the presidential frontrunner is revealing the state of his personal health.

It was a moment every bit as staged as anything on “reality” television and allowed Trump to play to the crowd. Oz, professional TV personality that he now is, played along, acting surprised and looking serious as he examined the two pieces of paper:

Oz calls the two papers "comprehensive" — we’re meant to see this gesture as one of transparency, and to think the TV doctor is the trustworthy filter through which medical information can be relayed to the public. But, of course, The Dr. Oz Show has a history of deviating from reality and medical science.

What follows is even more surreal: Oz conducts a made-for-TV physical of Trump. No actual exams, no hands laid on the patient, no verification of the patient’s data.

One of these papers was a letter, and one was a report. We learn that Donald Trump is a bit overweight, being 6’3” and weighing 236 lbs.; that his routine lab values are normal; that his cholesterol levels are fine; and other assorted bits of medical history. In response, Oz dutifully asked him softball questions, like asking him, if his health is so good, why not release the records?

Basically, Dr. Oz became Donald Trump’s health spin doctor that day, laying it on pretty thick, even by Dr. Oz’s standards, proclaiming:

Blood sugar, 99. And C-reactive protein also low. Your liver function, your thyroid functional is all normal. You had a colonoscopy performed July 10, 2013, which was normal with no polyps. (Oddly enough, a look at Trump's Twitter feed shows that he was Tweeting all day that day.) Calcium score and your heart, 2013, also was low at 98. Oh my goodness. EKG chest x-ray on April 14 was normal. A normal echocardiogram was done two years ago. And your testosterone’s 441, which is actually -- it's good. It’s good.

You're only on the statin drug you mentioned. If a patient of mine had these records, I’d be really happy. And I’d send them on their way.

Trump returned the love, saying:

I would tell you – You know, my wife is a big fan of your show, and I would absolutely say because I view this as in a way going to see my doctor. Just a little bit public. That's all.

Gag me with a spoon. (Sorry. I felt as though I went through a time warp to 30 years ago.)

Throughout the rest of the interview, Oz basically gave Trump every opportunity to brag about his health, the longevity of his parents and, by extension and implication, how he expects to live a long time too. Trump informed Oz that he feels as good now as he did when he was 30. And, despite Oz’s request that Trump refrain from attacks on Hillary Clinton, Oz said nothing when Trump said, “I think when you're running for president of the United States, or maybe any other country, in all fairness, but when you're running for president, I think you have an obligation to be healthy. I just don't think you can do the work if you're not healthy. I don't think you can represent the country properly if you're not a healthy person.” Elsewhere, in response to a question on health issues, Trump brought up immigration, basically blaming them for the opioid addiction crisis.

That’s not to say that there wasn’t some inadvertent hilarity during the interview. (We are talking about Donald Trump, after all.) For example:

OZ: So what type of temperament is required for the person who becomes president of the United States?

TRUMP: Unbelievable strong and smart temperament, and I think it's my grandest asset. I think temperament is my single greatest asset.

OZ: Why do so many people question your temperament?

TRUMP: They don't question – it’s Madison Avenue. Madison Avenue went to Hillary Clinton and they said -- and when I say Madison Avenue, I’m talking about the advertising people, the people that make up the ads. And they said, let's see, and they put 15 things on a board. ‘Oh, temperament. Let's go after temperament.’ The people that know me -- I win. I know how to win. You can't win unless you have a great temperament. I know people that can't win. I know people that are very talented at sports, and they never win.

Yes, you read that right. Trump has the greatest temperament ever, and it’s all Hillary’s fault that there have been “questions” about his health. Never mind that Trump allies have been sowing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health for several months now. Just yesterday, I saw the most hilarious one yet over on TruthKings by a guy claiming to be a medical school professor—yeah, right, I bet she’s an adjunct instructor or something—entitled “Hillary Clinton has 1 Year to Live,” says Medical School Professor. The claim? That Clinton has severe subcortical vascular dementia and is likely to die in a year. I showed the article to a neurologist friend of mine, and the response was that it was “brain dead stupid.” Let’s just put it this way. Just like the case with Parkinson’s disease, if Clinton truly had advanced subcortical vascular dementia, she couldn’t hide it.

Basically, Dr. Oz is every bit as much of a carnival barker as Donald Trump is, and in this instance he helped Trump not only brag about his own health but to insinuate that Clinton is not healthy enough to be President while also allowing Ivanka Trump to air what was basically a campaign commercial for Trump’s childcare proposal. The two were clearly made for each other. It was placebo transparancy, making a mockery of transparency norms. No wonder they have such a beautiful bromance brewing.

Oz said that Clinton was also invited to be on his show and that the Clinton campaign is “considering” the offer. Call me skeptical, but somehow I don’t think it would be a good idea on her part to appear. If she does, though, she should demand the same deal Trump got, complete with a full segment in which she can sell whatever proposal she wants to using whomever she wants to bring in to do it. Fair's fair, after all.

oracknows Thu, 09/15/2016 - 23:31

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

complementary and alternative medicine

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

complementary and alternative medicine

Categories

Trump ran two casinos at a loss. How do casinos run at a loss. It is ovious these two events lifted him out of the prospects of bankrupcy, the tax department missed out badly. When Trump runs the country to bankrupcy there is no place to cheat to save the USA. I think the emphasis on his disarsters and his string of dishonesties are not being addressed. God help the world if Americans vote for Trump. He will become the richest man in the world through selling out his country for his own buisiness interest. He learned the deception from his forefathers who lied to the Americans to get business they posed as swiss origens rather than honesty they were German. Trump has grown up with lies manipulation pitting his and his family interests first

Saved me the trouble of watching this love fest, just as well since my mop is at the cleaners and I would have barfed on the floor. Oh the torture Orac endures so we don't have to.

Nothing in that transcript on vaccines, immunizations or autism.

I guess Dr. Oz could work up enough spine to ask Trump about his positions on those. Then again, since Senator McCaskill flogged Oz severely in 2014 (as you reported), Oz seems like the cowardly lion.

Trump is 6'3"!? I thought he was more like 5'5"

And yet, audience members (“average” people) had rather glowing things to say. Trump’s comment that he “feels 30” seems to suffice for medial records to these people. The fact that noone but Oz has seen these two pages or that they were issued by the same doctor who wrote the first goofy testimonial-substituted-for-medical-report doesn’t trouble them. The dumbing down of a significant portion of the population is now complete.

Note: My grandson is at college and tells me he’s not making a lot of friends as he is having trouble finding anyone to engage in substantive conversation--giggling and sports talk seem to prevail. A video was shown at orientation that showed about 1% of students even knowing how much debt they have or the interest rate on that debt. The University (top rated in my state) wasn’t even embarrassed about this, but rather presented it as somewhat charming. We were shown endless video of the various food courts, but not a single lab or classroom was shown, although the library was pointed to on a tour of said food courts. On a brighter note, grandson is impressed with class content.

Trump once again confirms my opinion that the man is so vain, he probably thinks the old Carly Simon song is about him.

The fact that noone but Oz has seen these two pages or that they were issued by the same doctor who wrote the first goofy testimonial-substituted-for-medical-report doesn’t trouble them.

For that matter, we only have Oz's and Trump's word for it that those pieces of paper were medical records, let alone genuine Trump medical records. I wouldn't trust either of them to tell the truth.

Finally, I have to comment on Orac's caption to the photo on top:

I got a great real estate deal for ya, doc. Just check out that inspection report and sign on the dotted line.

I suspect the real estate deal in question involves a bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Onnie
Tokyo
September 16, 2016

Trump is 6’3″!? I thought he was more like 5’5″

He's 6'2"....had to get that extra inch too.

I wonder if there was any political screening of the audience. I don't see self selection since people on both sides may have an interest.

You expect people to believe that "Dr." Oz is a real physician? If he cannot hit the wardrobe department for some scrubs or a white lab coat, then he's obviously a fake.

How do casinos run at a loss.

Maybe because they are attached to hotels?

How do casinos run at a loss.

Load them up with debt, such that the revenue isn't enough to service said debt. Then, when you declare bankruptcy (at least under US law), you wipe out that debt. It's standard business practice in American real estate development.

Trump takes that to extremes by also routinely stiffing his contractors. There is a reason so few people will do business with Donald Trump anymore.

Was there any discussion of Trump's views re: Muslims?

You'd think these might be of at least passing interest for Oz.

Although as Orac mentioned, it's all about the money for Mehmet.

Perhaps he and the Donald are working on a new dietary supplement scam "MLM opportunity".

Do be so hard on Ivanka! She's got a rare mutation that gave her an extra vertebra in her neck.

What's an EKG chest X Ray?

Some new combo advancement in diagnostics that I'm not aware of?

One of these papers was a letter, and one was a report.

The labs from my last routine checkup were a hell of a lot longer than a single page.

The labs from my last routine checkup were a hell of a lot longer than a single page.

Maybe Trump's physician included only "positive" results.

I wonder if there was any political screening of the audience.

Unlikely. The self-selection for this kind of show favors folks who have little interest in politics, or 'reality' as we might understand the word, instead devoting attention to the theatrics of celebrity. Furthermore, as Oz fans, they'll be likely to follow his lead. The applause for something he features is really applause for him.

Except for the boring factor Orac mentioned, Oz and Trump appear to have staged this perfectly: Trump says he won't reveal anything; then when Oz gives him a friendly 'why not?' he's taken by the trustworthiness of America's Doctor and hands over the goods; at which point Oz reads and then exclaims, "Oh my goodness... It's good. It's good."; America's Doctor has ended the speculation and quieted the controversy; all is well in the land of Oz; the audience applauds.

Also, apparently Trump considers his gesticulations while speaking to crowds to be a form of exercise.

They are, as Trump would say, yuuge gesticulations. Not to mention classy. The absolute best gesticulations in the world.

Maybe Trump’s physician included only “positive” results.

Positive for what? Because if Trump (let alone Dr. Oz or the physician who allegedly performed Trump's physical) really thinks he's the picture of perfect health, I'd like some of whatever he's been smoking.

Much ado about not much. He's been under the care of his same doc for decades.

Why is it that, while everyone seems to detest Trumps sons almost as much as him, they give Ivanka Trump a pass?

Given some of the things he's said about her, pity.

Positive for what? Because if Trump (let alone Dr. Oz or the physician who allegedly performed Trump’s physical) really thinks he’s the picture of perfect health, I’d like some of whatever he’s been smoking.

It's a joke. I'm just riffing on the silly letter Trump's physician wrote which proclaimed that Trump's chems were "only positive".

Clearly those pages were the scripts telling Oz exactly what to say and do

Given some of the things he’s said about her, pity.

Not just the things he's said, which are bad enough. Specifically, Donald is on record as admitting that if Ivanka weren't his daughter, he'd date her.

But there is more to it than that. I have seen a photo, claimed to have been taken in the 1990s, of Donald in an inappropriately sexual pose with the then-teenaged Ivanka. And I am told (I didn't watch it myself) that she recoiled at the RNC when he tried to pat her on the bottom.

Nevertheless, she is getting off easier than she should. She's not dumb; so far this campaign she has displayed more intelligence than Donald Jr. and Eric (or as some wags call them, Uday and Qusay) combined. She should know better.

SM@22: So was I. When it comes to medical examinations, "positive test results" has another meaning, one that IME is more common than the one Trump and his physician intended.

she recoiled at the RNC when he tried to pat her on the bottom.

Lurid.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/dr-oz-show-edited-out-trumps-creepy-rem…

http://media.thecelebrityauction.co/picture/c/76/TFgAGRNLBRYLDRcXGQYTAB…

The Oz missed a golden opportunity to ask the Rump for a genetic sample to determine if the Rump is an ALF.

And what is up with mentioning his testosterone level? They even pointed out on NPR that there is rarely ever a reason to actually do that.

Trump trying to show he is not a girly-man?

What a pathetically contrived health revelation politically designed to win votes from Hilary through fitness one-upmanship.

Also, apparently Trump considers his gesticulations while speaking to crowds to be a form of exercise.

So did Nixon. I hear rumors that Trump does ten "I am not a crook" double-V deltoid salutes a day.

You can’t win unless you have a great temperament. I know people that can’t win. I know people that are very talented at sports, and they never win.

Wow! Now, sports figures don't even have to play. They merely need to show temperament. That'll go over well at the Super Bowl!
The World Series is about temperament, not about who can throw how fast or who can hit a ball!
The Olympics are all about temperament too, why, there's an Olympic Gold Medal in Temperament.

It's also interesting that he can tweet while undergoing a colonoscopy...

And of course, illegal aliens are now prescribing narcotics at record levels, causing people to turn to heroin or something.
Does that mean it'd be cheaper for the lawn guy down the street to write me an RX for hydrocodone than for me to pay my primary's copay?*

*Considering how many flaming hoops I and doctor have to jump through just to get an MRI to prove a diagnosis of a herniated disc, that lawn guy would be more cost effective. Pity that isn't how things work here on the planet Earth. Maybe on Bizarro World, but not here.

Still, if gesticulating is an exercise, I've always been in supreme physical form. Being of Sicilian-American heritage, I "talk with my hands" a lot. Beware when I start talking and am butchering a piece of meat for dinner - unless one wishes to get in some unintentional fencing practice. ;)

If he's 6' 3" and 236 pounds, his BMI is 29.5 which is about as close to obese as you can get and still be overweight. To be fair, his normal numbers for cholesterol and blood sugar probably reduce his risk of health problems but.

With the number of pages he had on his physical report, tests must have been on only a few of of his best stats. Dr Oz only perpetuates Trumps lies. I never really watched Dr. Oz and definitely never the apprentice Okay, maybe 15 minutes of one episode, but not ever again.

Also, apparently Trump considers his gesticulations while speaking to crowds to be a form of exercise.

He no doubt does several trapezius-strengthening Heil Hitlers per day, possibly with a 7 oz Rolex for added weight.

#30 Wzrd1

OT
Being of Sicilian-American heritage, I “talk with my hands” a lot. Beware when I start talking and am butchering a piece of meat for dinner – unless one wishes to get in some unintentional fencing practice

Now that you mention it, I don't think I have ever known a professional chef who “talks with their hands”. I had never thought about this before.

Gil: I thought you were cool with incest, since you incessantly cheer for Trump, and then lie, just like your hero.

Eric Lund: Nevertheless, she is getting off easier than she should. She’s not dumb; so far this campaign she has displayed more intelligence than Donald Jr. and Eric (or as some wags call them, Uday and Qusay) combined. She should know better.

I'd disagree about the dumb; she's more intelligent than her brothers, but so are octopi. I do agree that she should know better. If she had any sense or self-respect, she'd cut molester-daddy loose and never, ever talk to him or let him near the grandkids.

jkrideau: Professional chefs know that's a good way to lose their hands, though a few may be inclined to talk with knives.

Rachel Maddow asked NBC medical correspondent Dr. Natalie Azar about the testosterone:

MADDOW: And it`s gratuitous or not gratuitous to throw in your testosterone level in a public document like this?
AZAR: It`s interesting. And for him, I will say that`s a good number to have, because it`s cardio-protective. It`s a check mark in his favor. And it`s almost time to move on, you know?
MADDOW: It definitely is.

since you incessantly cheer for Trump

Oh Trump, you're so fine
You're so fine, you blow my mind,
Hey Trump, hey Trump
Ra, ra, ra!

What is your damage, little girl?

A few things I've heard**..

- The Orange One's cholesterol numbers could be low because he takes meds!!!
- saying 6'3" rather than 6'2" ( another quoted height for him) puts him in 'overweight" BMI vs 'obese'
- some controversy about weight 230+ vs 260+
- he got the testosterone number because he WANTED it
- some news dude said there is so much crap about him to report on, they just go form one thing to the next- it's endless ( hint: FOCUS!)

** heh

@ PGP:

Right. Se should know better. If she dreamt up the childcare plan - and she has a business degree from an elite school- shouldn't she know it only benefits higher income people?

-btw-

I am contemplating whether we are actually watching the final decline of civilisation up close and personal as revealed via the 24hr news cycle.

Perhaps Ragnarok?

Can voters really be so f@cking stupid?
And have no long term memory ( about birtherism)

He has a frigging dyed blonde combover.

Reporters are looking into the shady operations of his businesses, foundation, campaign and NOTHING sticks

He does the reverse of what he says ( e.g. has his clothing line made in China, / hires illegal people)

Do some believe his reign would be FREE entertainment?

DW: If she dreamt up the childcare plan – and she has a business degree from an elite school- shouldn’t she know it only benefits higher income people?
I think she's so sheltered she doesn't know that lower and middle-class people exist. Her servants and employees are just moving shadows to her.

Jerkface: MY DAMAGE? I have a functioning brain, unlike yourself, you, lying, drug-addled, incest-supporting sexist, hippy-dippy pig. I've run out of patience with you and your lies, and supporting your parents (for you are certainly a product of incest) is the last straw.
You are a prime example of a generation that is a waste of space. You're a Republican, who for some reason, choses to act like a walking DARE advertisement. For the last time, get off this board and go back to Reddit, or whatever MRA or libertarian hellhole you came from.

You are a prime example of a generation that is a waste of space.

Oh, my; What generation are you imagining I belong to? You forgot that I think age of consent laws are stupid.

And have no long term memory ( about birtherism)

Ahh, yes. It's all coming back to me now:

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667

Jerkface: You're a boomer, obviously or did you forget your age? Also, that whole Clinton thing was fact-checked, seven ways to Sunday, and guess what? It wasn't her. It was your dumbass friends who started that birther thing, with Trumpie's full and active support. So get your child-diddling fried-egg lying rear out of here already.

You’re a boomer

Really? I've never worked with artillary. How old are they?

a good number to have, because it`s cardio-protective.

I guess the cardioprotective quality of testosterone explains why the male life span is so much longer.

You forgot that I think age of consent laws are stupid.

Well that's a Gilbert keeper. My apologies to Narad of course.

That was a past 'supposition' of PgP when commenting on my support of Ron Paul.

Well that’s a Gilbert keeper. My apologies to Narad of course.

For allowing him to ooze out of the killfile? I'll get over it.

Well, you can say a lot of things about Donald Trump; but at least he know that vaccines are toxic as sh¡t.

For that, he gets my vote.

It's even funnier when you consider that Oz is a Turkish Muslim.

More well known is that Trump is a (former?) Democrat and contributed multiple times to .... Bill and Hillary Clinton. He also said she'd be a good president. Notably, Mrs Clinton has not returned the favor. P'haps DT should ask for his money back.

Sadly, Nun of the Above (an actual candidate one year in San Francisco) is not an the ballot. But you can write him/her in ;-).

@Denice #40

I see your Ragnarok and raise u one SMOD

.....it'll be the best, the classiest meteor, the most metaphorical meteor ...

But you can write him/her in

Well, in 41 states, only seven of which don't immediately shіtcan them unless the putative candidate has made some effort in advance.

I remember last year, there was a joke. Amy Poehler and Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live "campaigned" under the slogan "[Strong Women] get [things] done". I can't put the actual slogan otherwise it'll get moderated.
Looking at Trump and Clinton, I'm beginning to wish they were serious.

Also, that whole Clinton thing was fact-checked, seven ways to Sunday, and guess what? It wasn’t her.

Ahh. I see, PgP #44:

Clinton’s short-term 2008 campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, admitted that a campaign staffer circulated what became known as the “Birther” theory that Obama wasn’t born in the USA...

Doyle said it was a “rogue staffer” who sent out an e-mail and “was fired pretty damn quick.”... There was a volunteer coordinator, I believe, in late 2007, I believe, in December, one of our volunteer coordinators in one of the counties in Iowa — I don’t recall whether they were an actual paid staffer, but they did forward an email that promoted the conspiracy.”...

President Obama also bears some responsibility by allowing his literary agent back in 1991 to claim Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia” which was printed inside a promotional booklet about the young author and future president that circulated for years.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillary-insider-admits-starting-birther…

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-camp…

Trump had long fanned the flames of this conspiracy theory, known as ‘birtherism’, and spent much of spring 2011 garnering media attention

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/sep/16/donald-trump-bara…

James Asher, the former Washington bureau chief for the news agency McClatchy, tweeted that longtime Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal was spreading the conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya while he was a senior Clinton campaign advisor in 2008, long before Trump ever parroted the claim...

But Blumenthal also dabbled spreading much less reliable reports, such as conjecture about Obama's "communist mentor" Frank Marshall Davis. Further, Blumenthal's reputation for dishonesty and underhanded tactics is well-established. It is generally accepted that he lied to the media and publicly smeared Monica Lewinsky and other Bill Clinton accusers when he worked in the White House.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/report-clinton-confidant-sidney-blumentha…

Blumenthal denied that he'd spread the rumor in an email to the Boston Globe. But later in the day, McClatchy itself made it clear that the charge has merit. In fact the chain sent a reporter to Kenya at Blumenthal's urging, to look into what he had to say "and that reporter determined that the allegation was false."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/does-clinton-have-a-blumenthal-birthe…

that whole Clinton thing was fact-checked, seven ways to Sunday

Apparently through Clinton's smooth-blue anti-seizure glasses darkly.

Clinton: "I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota..."

Reporter: "Secretary, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately took the stage tonight, calling the explosion a 'bomb'?"

https://news.grabien.com/story.php?id=518

She looks and sounds tired/zonked out; I wonder how badly she's been 'floxxed' from the levofloxacin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8TR61QFpoA

@ Spectator:

Hahaha!

On second thought- perhaps the Donald IS the SMOD?

But seriously, folks;
I have been watching liberal/ moderate television politicos wring their hands and (try to) knit their Botoxed brows whilst this general situation continues and listened to the rapturous stylings of his ( Alas!) female campaign leader, lately visiting Orac's fave, Bill Maher...

I can only say:
Oh Jesus/ Lord G-d of Israel!
( which are rather telling expressions of exasperation for an atheist)

the fact that the pressure cooker bomb found at the second location did not go off suggests it failed to explode.

http://circa.com/world/security-threats/new-york-law-enforcement-was-al…

It might also suggest that it was mearly full of Quinoa.

Jerkface: Shut up. Why don't you check this place out : http://www.politifact.com/subjects/obama-birth-certificate/

and then go away forever. You can't even do libertarianism right, though you;ve got the hatred of women down pat; you're supposed to have a pile of guns and sleep on them every night. Also, Breitbart isn't a reputable site. It's allied with infowars, and most of the staffers are paid by the Trump campaign.

Gilbert @42 "You forgot that I think age of consent laws are stupid."

Go. Now.
You are the worst of the worse and lower by far than Trump.
That is a monstrous thing to say. Begone.

My sleep caliber is .303.

Breitbart isn’t a reputable site. It’s allied with infowars, and most of the staffers are paid by the Trump campaign.

Ohh. I see you got that email

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has sent out a fundraising email arguing the website Breitbart News has no “right to exist,” and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hillary-campaign-vows-to-destroy-oppo…

I fail to see how they are 'allied' with Infowars -- Though he did siphon off the Breitbart chairman:

Mr. Trump’s decision to make Stephen K. Bannon, chairman of the Breitbart News website, his campaign’s chief executive was a defiant rejection of efforts by longtime Republican hands to wean him from the bombast and racially charged speech that helped propel him to the nomination

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/us/politics/donald-trump-stephen-bann…

The only alliance between them and Infowars is a common threat to being shut down; Which the dems have been sweaty palm-balming for quite some time.

It's a vast alt-right conspiracy. By the way, it was her confidant, Sidney Blumenthal, who first coined the phrase 'vast right-wing conspiracy' of Clinton critics in the mid '90s.

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/768897046124302336/photo/1

Infowars addresses the fundraising email:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8W7kRopvO8

Once again, JustaTech #62; That was how PgP painted me for embrasing Ron Paul -- I was needling her for it; I wish I could remember where that comment was.

Gilbert @65: Given the other things you've said here you can understand why I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. PGP says outrageous things, but in this thread *you* said it. And there are some subject you really shouldn't joke around about, and child rape is one of them.

And what the f*%& all do consent laws have to do with libertarians?

And what the f*%& all do consent laws have to do with libertarians?

I know, right? Ask PgP.

in fact, I think the laws, as they stand, are rather stupid, much as you think age-of-consent laws are stupid and oppressive- though unlike you, stoners hurt no one but themselves.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/22/no-ddt-wont-save-us-from-t…

She just threw that out there with her multi-chroma smear-brush.

I seem to remember a previous reference concerning libertarians, but I can't find it.

In general, making comments on the Internet should be treated like talking with airport security: Always assume your sarcastic comments will be taken at face value.

And here is the first 'needling':

That Gilbert is a scoundrel, Politicalguineapig.

It was 1996 when my father, a cop, cited him for driving on a section of interstate they had closed to practice “unconventional ticketing tactics”. Well he blurted out in court that he was going to “pimp out your son to pay for this!”

He did just that; He pimped out my douchebag brother and he pimped me out as well. I learned…stuff…about myself that I had not ever even dreamed of before; The least of which, age of consent laws are stupid. It’s been a love/hate relationship between us ever since.

After Joey manned up and quit peeing on people, they sort of bonded as they’re both weed feinds. Daddy didn’t look at me ‘that way’ anymore, like it was my fault or something that I got pimped. My father accidentally blew off his pecker in the mens courthouse restroom and subsequently O.D.’d on Tylenol as he was adamant against any kinds of mind altering drugs; especially if it would cause one to be in a state of relaxation or relieve pain — He spent his whole career depriving others of such; He was no hypocrite.

Love him and hate him, he gives me stuff, ya know?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/04/07/all-drugs-are-poisons-and-…

Justatech: And what the f*%& all do consent laws have to do with libertarians?

They don't like them and find them oppressive, like manners, basic hygiene, and not being dickheads.

Jerkass: Another lie. You were pretending to be at least two people on that thread, including smearing yourself, or writing out a personal fantasy, I'm not sure, as you apparently forgot your brain that day. I was just trying to make you leave.
And once again, learn what facts are, and try to get yours from somewhere that doesn't think David Icke is a credible source.

Why would anyone shut down infowars? It does a fantastic job at being a black hole of stupid.

As far as high/ low testosterone goes, testosterone is a brain poison, so wouldn't a low number be better?

though you;ve got the hatred of women down pat

If you were the last woman on earth, I'd be as queer as a football bat.

Gilbert, homophobic put-downs are not really helping your position here.
In case we haven't covered it recently: The first rule of holes - when you're in a hole, stop digging.

homophobic put-downs are not really helping your position here

How is that a 'put-down'? She's led me to embrasing the idea.

They don’t like them and find them oppressive, like manners, basic hygiene, and not being dickheads.

The fact remains that she said it first and defends it with her reply to you; I elaborated on the long litany of 'put-downs' in #41 by pointing out she forgot the most outrageous one.

I get it, JustaTech; Your story is you were touched where you retroactivly did not want to be touched -- remembering the 8'th boyfriend who tapped your phone and caught you being lascivious with #9 or daddy?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Jerkface: So far, you are providing ample proof that libertarians are generally awful people. And you're continuing to support pedophilia. Why don't you go join your fellows on reddit already?

Dear G-d, do yall not remember when Gilbertimmeh was seeking attention because his father had put a hit out on him and something something black helicopters?

Narad: I do, and I regret giving him sort of a pass because I thought he was mentally ill, if also a stupid and deeply unpleasant person. Now I know better, he is a stupid and unpleasant person, and any brain damage he has is his own d*mn fault.

"That Gilbert is a scoundrel, Politicalguineapig."

He made that look like pgp originated that whole spiel. That's incredibly dishonest, nay evil, other forums I'm on would perma ban any idiot pulling something like that...

Jay: That’s incredibly dishonest, nay evil,

Well, that's the default of both libertarians and Trumpeteers. You forgot to mention stupid, as he included the link..to something he wrote himself.

He made that look like pgp originated that whole spiel.
Once again, she did -- or did you just miss the link #68 or forgot that february 24 comes before April 8?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/22/no-ddt-wont-save-us-from-t…

It's also news to me that, according to PgP, I'm now *continuing* to support pedophilia.
==========================

Yes, I included that link, PgP. But not before including your previous (and initial) slurr.

in fact, I think the laws, as they stand, are rather stupid, much as you think age-of-consent laws are stupid and oppressive- though unlike you, stoners hurt no one but themselves.

-- Politicalguineapig, Feb 24, 2016

"Jerkass: Another lie." -- Well, a 'twisting' on your part. I'm not sure you know what a 'lie' is as much as you hurl it at me without just cause.

re various comments over the past few days on this thread by PGP regarding Gilbert

I hope that Orac's minions can now understand why I love her so much despite her comments that I do not love

Ancient Walter Family Motto
'Something is better than nothing'

Gilbert @#63

Ohh. I see you got that email

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has sent out a fundraising email arguing the website Breitbart News has no “right to exist,” and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

That's a lie. Here's what the E-mail said.

I don't always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and right to exist.

Breitbart is something different. They make Fox News look like a Democratic Party pamphlet. They're a different breed altogether -- not just conservative but radical, bigoted, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy paddlers...

I mean, I post something most unflattering to Trump and PgP slaps an 'incest' label on me.

""Gil: I thought you were cool with incest, since you incessantly cheer for Trump, and then lie, just like your hero.

"" you, lying, drug-addled, incest-supporting sexist, hippy-dippy pig. I’ve run out of patience with you and your lies, and supporting your parents [I assume she means 'boomers'] (for you are certainly a product of incest)

Meh. Incest; It's a family affair. Some people are just immutably acerbic, I guess.

It is implied, SteveJ.

I don’t always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and right to exist.

Breitbart is something different.

since you incessantly cheer for Trump

I challenge you to cite one instance where I have 'cheered for trump' (not counting the sarcastic snipe at #37)

In fact, I think he is a loathsome creature who blames it all on the drugs:

“drugs are a very, very big factor in what you’re watching on television at night”, referring to riots against police abuses in Charlotte, North Carolina, the night before.

He denied having said this to a reporter who asked him about it in Philadelphia. He added, as if in support of his original statement: “Drugs are a big problem all over the country. They’re flowing in like never before. Drugs are a big, big problem.”

“I think stop and frisk, in New York City, it was so incredible, the way it worked. Now, we had a very good mayor. But New York City was incredible the way it worked.”

As already shown, I disagree with the article on this point:

There is no evidence that Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with the false rumors that Barack Obama was not born in the United States

(see #57)

Did you see the dermatologist about your raging leprosy yet?

I do, and I regret giving him sort of a pass because I thought he was mentally ill

I was never afraid of black helicopters, but I do vaguely recall being freaked out this past winter by my webcam, because it was a version of the One Eye that I was being observed by, so I covered it with duct tape. (The FBI has followed suit, I see.)

This wasn't an Illuminati thing, but rather had something to do with squid and octopi being p!ssed at us because we lock them up and observe them. It all led back to the One Eyed Kraken or something; too many tales told to a young lass by drunken Norwegian uncles, maybe.

At least my terrifying, mania-and-sleep-deprivation psychosis was kind of interesting. The "satanic mind-control group from Thailand" was kind of a low point, and one of the things that led to me being involuntarily admitted to St. Joe's. (They were very nice there, though at the time I resented greatly being locked in the seclusion room and injected with Ativan several times because I was throwing fits about, well, being observed.)

@Gilbert (87),

I see you got around to mentioning it on the 14th on the Hillarz thrwad.

But since comment 11 at least offered an excuse for Trump and your one word "lurid" in 26 could be taken as either direct or ironic, please forgive us if we misunderstood.

I dont know if it matters since Citizens United, but under the old rules, a PAC could spend wharever on attack ads and didn't count for the other candidate's spending limit.

So if you mainly post anti-Clinton comments, it's a fair assunption that you support her opponent.

I ratger would have guessed you would support the candidate who runs a medical marijuana business. His mountain climbing skills certainly win him the fitness award.

@Gilbert (87),

I see you got around to mentioning it on the 14th on the Hillarz thrwad.

But since comment 11 at least offered an excuse for Trump and your one word "lurid" in 26 could be taken as either direct or ironic, please forgive us if we misunderstood.

I dont know if it matters since Citizens United, but under the old rules, a PAC could spend wharever on attack ads and didn't count for the other candidate's spending limit.

So if you mainly post anti-Clinton comments, it's a fair assunption that you support her opponent.

I ratger would have guessed you would support the candidate who runs a medical marijuana business. His mountain climbing skills certainly win him the fitness award..

Fartface: Well, in 76, you certainly act like you think pedophilia is no big deal and in that comment from 2015, you seemed to think it was a POSITIVE experience that everyone should go through,so, I'm going to continue to think you're a skeezy person who hangs with skeezy people and whoever you vote for is scum or at the least, dumber than a dozen sheds of bricks. By the way, for your information, I'd never write anything like that comment from Timmeh (you), aside from its content, I wrote more coherent sentences as a first grader, while you didn't seem to grasp grammar, commas,or basic verb usage. And you still aren't very coherent and seem to be stuck at twelve, where making fart noises is considered conversation.
Also, I've never, ever, ever used a different nym than the one I do now, whereas you seemed to change names every day for a while. So please, for the love of god, go fart somewhere else, or go get high. At least then you'd be someone else's problem, teenage skeezeball.

JP: Just out of curiosity, why Thailand? Russia or China I could understand, but Thailand seems random.

JP: Just out of curiosity, why Thailand? Russia or China I could understand, but Thailand seems random.

I don't know why Thailand, and it is pretty random; crazy works that way, I guess. I do have a friend who spends a lot of time there and whom I guess I suspected of being in on the whole thing (long story, also my friends are saints) so there's that.

drunken Norwegian uncles

One of these words is redundant.

Gilbert @#86
"Breitbart is something different." starts a new paragraph. It's different because it's openly bigoted, unlike other mainstream conservative media.

I rather would have guessed you would support the candidate who runs a medical marijuana business.

I'm not too fired up about Johnson, squirrelelite. His running mate, Bill Weld, is sort of a 'neocon' who is friends with HRC at that. There is even some talk that he should drop out and endorse Hillary.

thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/297074-bill-weld-should-leave-libertarian-ticket-and

With Johnson supporting mandatory vaccinations, a carbon tax, and TPP, I'm not sure he wouldn't siphon equal votes away from Hillary as he will from Trump.

Maybe I'm naive, but migrants and immigrants (even undocumented) are not a big issue for me -- I more worry about having to have permission to leave a country. Johnson's veiws on migrants and immigrants don't disturbe me.

I'll probably not be voting but Hillary is the 'devil you know' and I definately do not want. I can only hope that, If it is a Trump, his rhetoric on stop-and-frisk and certain fascistic tendancies can be tamed by his finding a respect for the rights of States. And I wonder if he counts cannabis as a component of the 'drugs' he says it's all about. He's seriously backward with his 'drug talk'. Maybe it's good for big Pharma but it's a serious issue with the new kid, kratom and its pain relieving without depressing respiration as well as staving off opiate withdrawal.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/09/06/right-to-try-goes-federal-…

I'm uncomfortable with Infowars' continuous fawning over Trump; So it's with chunks of salt on how I regard this piece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW5gQo43ay4

My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Immigration.htm

I think I agree wholeheartedly; The boarder agents at permenant checkpoints 100 miles from the boarder are an oppressive travisty.

I wrote more coherent sentences as a first grader, while you didn’t seem to grasp grammar, commas,or basic verb usage.

Really, PgP? While I don't usually countenance 'grammar nazis' who can't see the meaning for the words, I now welcome your cogent critique when I mess up -- Help me to do better.

p.s. ""you certainly act like you think pedophilia is no big deal and in that comment from 2015, you seemed to think it was a POSITIVE experience that everyone should go through,so, I’m going to continue...**

I am at a loss to know what you are talking about. Can you point me towards the comment or give a PgP-filtered synopsis of it? I would be most appreciative.

** I *thought* that a phrase bounded in comments like that was only valid when the sentence is whole with the commented part removed. Did I fail somewhere?

commented == coma, oops.

Well, Narad thinks species of consent laws are stupid.

Gil: I thought you were cool with incest, since you incessantly cheer for Trump, and then lie, just like your hero.

It's kludgy, PgP. You sprinkle commas out as if from a pepper shaker. Allow me to adjust it for you:

Gil: I thought you were cool with incest since you incessantly cheer for Trump and then lie, just like your hero.

^^That reads much more fluently; See how that works?

Well, Narad thinks species of consent laws are stupid.

Way ahead of you, Fucklesworth.

I see the sock puppet is back again.

""Well, Narad thinks species of consent laws are stupid.

Imagine the toung on that think twice as long as the snout -- It would certainly toss Narad's salad out the back door with those claws so he couldn't get away.

{Don't worry, Narad won't see this or if he accidentally does he'll just brag about his 'killfile' some more}

I don't think Thailand is random at all. Different foreign countries have different collections of cultural connotations here in the US, in addition to whatever we may associate with them from personal experience, like someone we know who's from there. A paranoid delusion isn't going to imagine a satanic mind control group running super secret crytptic panoptic surveillance out of an orgainzed/oligarchic/authoritarian country like Russia or China, where the state actually keeps tight watch on its citizens, and/or has cyber-spys. It would have to be someplace more anarchic and mysterious. Thailand has that, and it's exotic, and ancient (satanic cults always have ancient roots, yes?) and a reputation for immoral skeeviness and danger, with sex tourism and what-not.

Only God Forgives is set in Thailand. Check it out, if you think you'd like a movie where David Lynch meets Park Chan-wook, the villain is The Worst Mom In The History of Cinema, and Ryan Gosling is on camera without saying much of anything for most of the film. Extremely weird... JP, I'd actually be curious to know which vision of Thailand is weirder, yours or Nick Refn's.

@Gilbert,

I finally looked at a little of your latest video post and found it a bit ironic.

So whoever is spouting off there doesn't like Gary Johnson because he looked at the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and decided they weren't as bad as he had thoughtb4 years ago.

Sounds like an intelligent, reasoning individual.

Since I don't think even the EU has borders like you describe, it's highly unlikely to happen between the US and either Canada or Mexico.

Yea, baby, yea! Johnson gets my vote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhR41lsEJY

In other (non) news...

Dear old Mikey boy goes full tilt wackaloon in his endorsement of the Orange One. ( Natural News)

Elect him or the World Ends

In other (non) news…

John Stone's difficult-to-follow tale of being censored (again) by PubMed Commons is also of passing note. I suspect that he simply posted the same thing three times in the space of 10 minutes and had them auto-nuked, but he asserts that it was due to some undefined complaint.

The icing on the cake is that he also pretends that mentioning Brugha at AoA could somehow summon his presence.

Are you the same Narad that has been trolling the pet forums looking for an aardvark?

I've figured out the answer to the age old mystery of where your socks go in the dryer.

They come through a wormhole to here and become sock puppets.

Did 99 resurface as 109 ?

So. Trump was caught talking nasty towards women.

Barak: " Gotta have them ribs and p*ssy too!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKYmiWiNqOw

The Real Story Behind The Basket of Deplorables

gregladen — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:40:57 +0000

The Real Story Behind The Basket of Deplorables

I have to say, first, that when I hear the term "Basket of Deplorables" I think right away of Edward Gorey, for some reason. Do you?

Anyway, I've seen and hear a lot of whining and bellyaching about this term, and Secretary Clinton's statement.

But most people have only heard the statement, and not the discussion that led up to it. That, folks, is the real story. So spend two minutes and edumicate yourself:

Personally, I can't see how one would support Trump unless one was fully deplorable, or a basket case, or both. Secretary Clinton underestimated with that 50% thumbsuck guess.

gregladen Mon, 09/12/2016 - 15:40

Tags

Election 2016

Basket of Deplorables

Now you are doing it, Greg. Real progressives understand that people can disagree without being "fully deplorable, or a basket case, or both."

She later said "half" was wrong, but never said what the ratio might be... (Not zero!)

She also smacked Trump down something fierce when he Tweeted: While Hillary said horrible things about my supporters, and while many of her supporters will never vote for me, I still respect them all!

Her response: Except for African Americans, Muslims, Latinos, immigrants, women, veterans -- and any so-called "losers" or "dummies."

Tom Harris - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Clinton's only error was making it 50% when she should have said 100%. It is not possible to support Trump and still be a decent human being, unless one is too stupid to understand Trump.

Equally important is to listen to what Clinton said about the other 'basket':
"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

One could never get away with making the Gashlycrumb Tinies with any children other than white children as the target for the so-called humor. But it gets 4.8 on amazon and all the lefty Goodwhites twitter about how wonderful and edgy it is.

There is an anti-white bias in the media, Hollywood, education and the government. Everything most non-white countries take for granted about sanctity of borders and the right to run your country for the benefit of citizens is something that whites in Europe, America and Australia have to fight for.

Frankly, Trump is not a white supremacist or even a white nationalist, he is only a citizenist. But even that is still better than the alternative as far as white Americans are concerned.

Deplorable: It's called "punching up."

Trump has demonstrated his racism in many ways over decades. He's not a white supremacist, because white supremacists have a philosophy. They think about things. They think terrible evil things, but they think. Trump isn't at their level. He can't be any kind of "-ist" because he doesn't get the gist.

"There is an anti-white bias in the media, Hollywood, education and the government. "

I'm constantly amazed at the inventive ways trump supports display their mind-numbing stupidity.

Tom, I'm sure you are equally outraged at Trump's mocking of the physically and mentally disabled, his racist comments, repeated lies, etc.

Oh, you're not? Considering the history of your fake science class at Carleton I'm not surprised.

I don't know that there can be a single description of everyone who supports trump. While there is no doubt a good percentage of his followers are racists and white supremacists, but I'd guess there is a significant percentage who really believe (wrongly) that crime is spiraling out of control, that there is a non-zero chance President Obama will pull some way to remain in power as a dictator, or other asinine conspiracy.

Probably, as demonstrated by "deplorable" above, the most general description that can be made of his supporters is that they are amazingly stupid and gullible.

He’s not a white supremacist, because white supremacists have a philosophy. They think about things. They think terrible evil things, but they think. Trump isn’t at their level.

Or as it was put in The Big Lebowski: "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos."

The Gashlycrumb Tinies is half a century old....

So, if you want people to immigrate legally, you're deplorable? If you care about the law regarding immigration, you're deplorable?

If you'd rather have jobs stay here instead of be NAFTAed out of the states, you're deplorable?

You mean, if you're not Politically Correct and say nice words to the dozens of minority victim groups, you're deplorable?

If you reject someone who habitually mishandles classified and top secret information, who excuses her woman destroying husband, who is corrupt to no end, a "strong woman" who can't stand on her own two feet (what with the Parkinson's Disease)...you're deplorable?

I'll be the first in line to suggest that a different candidate in each slot would be preferred...but this is the downside of the two stall cattle system we seem to "enjoy"...there isn't a third or fourth option. People have been taught and believed that they must cast a vote FOR one of these two...

Half of Trump supporters are racists. If you don't think being a racist is deplorable, of course you aren't going to agree with the original statement.

But really how can you argue with the math? Say strong support is 40% for Trump-- that would mean only 20% of the registered voters in the US would have to be racists. Does anyone doubt that this is the case? Does anyone think there are lots of racists in the Hillary column? Maybe some when she was running against President Obama, but certainly not now.

Ron: You forgot "Benghazi." You need to review your list of right-wing talking points.

Also, when you referred to saying "nice words to the dozens of minority victim groups," did you mean words like: "They're bringing crime; they're bringing drugs; they're rapists..."?

The only thing preventing Trump from continuing to offend those groups is the teleprompter — which he earlier deplored but has been forced to use to keep even a semblance of credibility for his campaign.

"So, if you want people to immigrate legally, you’re deplorable? If you care about the law regarding immigration, you’re deplorable?"

You know (or should) these are not the statements made by Trump and his goons that get qualified (rightly) as deplorable.

"If you’d rather have jobs stay here instead of be NAFTAed out of the states, you’re deplorable?"

If you think those jobs would be here if NAFTA didn't exist there is no hope for you.

"what with the Parkinson’s Disease"
Now you're just being an ass repeating falsehoods. No surprise there.

Greg: re. Edward Gorey: that was just brilliant.

Nope, I hadn't thought of Gorey, nor has anyone on Daily Kos as far as I can see. So, credit to you for making the connection.

Now all we need is an illustrator or someone who can manipulate some existing Gorey images (satire is fair use). Any suggestions?;-)

Good idea!