819 thoughts on “Angech suggests a new thread.”

  2. Alright you turkeys. There you have it. You gotta allow five (5) days for Joshua and his Turdish ally (me) to withdraw.

    .
    Slash silly.

  3. Another point Kim Strassel makes is that the star chamber impeachment trials and Turkey flap are probably the result of panic about Barr, Durham and the IG report. They are in a panic to discredit all three because they know it's going to be bad. Media also is panicked that their collaboration may be exposed. Notice how the CNN whistleblower has gotten zero coverage? It angers me to think that we have such a biased media.

  4. Tom Scharf (Comment #177106): "We had a divorced woman at my church … she had to remain seated by herself in an empty row while the rest got communion, an obvious public shaming."

    Ron Graf (Comment #177121): "The left is now too crazy for Heraldo and Alan Dershowitz to join in the Trump smearing but not for George Will and Mitt Romney."
    —–
    I think these are the same thing. People want to belong, not just somewhere but very often somewhere very specific. Belonging always requires compromise, but some iconoclasts will not sacrifice their principles in exchange for belonging, because they are either insufficiently attached to belonging or too attached to their principles.

    The coastal elites are like an exclusive club. Admittance requires a certain degree of success as well as the right background and contacts (intimately connected). Family, education, and profession are all keys aspects of the right background. Education does not just mean a college degree, it usually means a degree from one of perhaps three dozen universities (also vital to having the right contacts). That is why the parents in the college admissions scandal were so desperate to get their kids into the right college.

    Continued membership depends on obeying the rules. That means adopting the basic worldview and values of the club. Conservatives, like George Will and Mitt Romney, are tolerated as long as they limit their dissent to certain topics. Even so, they are like the nouveau riche in an old money club; tolerated but only if they are willing to conform. If it means enduring ritual humiliation. as inflicted on Romney in 2012, so be it.

    A key characteristic of the elites is a fascination with power: Pursuing, wielding it, being near to it. So they are found in positions of power in the government and industry and, failing that, in positions of influence such as the media and higher education. Power is nearly impossible to achieve without being a member of the club; that gives the club unprecedented power (for the U.S.) over both the country and its members.

    So people like Will and Romney endure a great deal for the elites, just like the divorced and (presumably) remarried woman in Tom's church.

    Thank goodness there are at least a few iconoclasts like Trump and Dershowitz.

  5. Mike, when I was in elementary school in '72 all the cool kids (the spoiled ones with the latest clothing fashions) wanted McGovern for president. I'm curious was there a brief time in the mid-1980s when the cool kids were conservative? Or, was that just a TV show with Michael J. Fox?

  6. Ron Graf,

    I can’t speak for Mike M, but for most of my formative years (say, mid 1950’s through late 1960’s) there was relatively little connection between ‘coolness’ and politics, although near the end of that period, alignment between being ‘in’ and endorsing liberal/left policies seemed to me evident. Certainly by 1971 or 1972, that alignment was very clear, and has only grown since. I blame it on awarding too many ‘everybody-wins-ribons’ instead of recognizing excellence.

  7. Mi dispiace, Joshua.
    "A few more comments and then this little foray over to the Blackboard is over with. I'm finding it increasingly boring to engage with people who make such sloppy arguments. You won't have to put up with the pain of trying to weed your way through my self-contractions."
    Sono molto contento that you put in an appearance, The site is positively jumping with your little digs.
    Chow, with a slight oo sound for that double U at the end.
    Might be time for a new thread ??> 1000

  8. Joshua.
    A horoscope for you.
    A horror show is coming.
    Called the Horowitz report.
    In the next week.
    or not.

  9. Ron Graf (Comment #177130): "I'm curious was there a brief time in the mid-1980s when the cool kids were conservative?"

    I have no idea. Where and when I grew up (well before the 80's), there were no "cool kids", unless you count football players and cheerleaders. Nor were there liberals and conservatives, just Democrats and Republicans. I think the only kids who paid any attention to politics were us nerdy types who read the newspaper, a small group indeed.

  11. Welcome back Joshua.
    .
    Yes, its quite logical that Trump pulled out the troops due to threats outweighing the rewards. The Trump-hater spin would see that this "might" have given Erdogan the idea of using that logic to his advantage by threatening Trump, as Mitt Romney theorizes.
    .
    OTOH, Erdogan may have simply reminded Trump of his own pronouncements and commitments. Erdogan may even have announced that he had to do something to secure his own border from a hostile group, another argument Trump could would have trouble countering. One thing I am sure of is that in the Trump-hating imagination the most attractive thought is of (bully) Trump being hit in the nose Erdogan and backing down.
    .
    One can almost predict the theory that Trump-haters will believe with the breaking of the news event. When the Horowitz report comes out they are already primed not to believe a word of it. They will say Obama-appointed Horowitz has been "pressured" by Bar or Trump lackeys.

  12. I feel like my life just isn't complete if every couple of years I don't reference wacky nuclear fusion research in some naively optimistic way shape or form here at the Blackboard[].
    Here,
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a29427713/navy-compact-fusion-reactor/
    I read this:
    ————————————
    The success of the device, developed by researcher Salvatore Cezar Pais of the Naval Air Warfare Center – Aircraft Division, relies on a part called a dynamic fusor. According to the patent, Pais’ plasma chamber contains several pairs of these dynamic fusors, which rapidly spin and vibrate within the chamber in order to create a “concentrated magnetic energy flux” that can squish the gases together.

    Coated with an electrical charge, the cone-shaped fusors pump fuel gases like Deuterium or Deuterium-Xenon into the chamber, which are then put under intense heat and pressure to create the nuclei-fusing reaction. Current technology at reactors around the world use superconductors to create a magnetic field.

    The War Zone reports that the device could potentially produce more than a terawatt of energy while only taking in power in the kilowatt to megawatt range. We don’t currently have an energy source that can produce more power than is needed to create it.
    ————————————————-
    Rapid spinning and vibrating to create a concentrated magnetic energy flux? Sounds like horse hockey to me, but I'm not even an electrical engineer so what the heck do I know. Anybody want to confirm or deny my suspicion that this is BS, or more generally remark on this?

  13. Yes, almost certainly B.S. The patent author has come up with other absurdities.
    "I don't know why Sheehy defended Pais's patents. I am certain it's not because they really make some kind of sense. I suspect the story is just one professional charlatan who has embedded himself in the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, plus one or a few supervisors he's managed to fool. It's possible, of course, that it is a bigger story which involves some actual 'experiments' and expenditure of funds, which is now being protected from scrutiny."
    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29232/navys-advanced-aerospace-tech-boss-claims-key-ufo-patent-is-operable
    Meh.

  14. Yeah, it's nonesense. The patent author is a crank with other bogus patents. Just caught my attention because the Navy was involved.

  16. REALLY?? Dag gumit, I just poured my life savings into a Salvatore Cezar Pais startup…
    🙂
    [Edit, SARC SILLY tag.]
    .
    [Edit again: Actually I wonder if it isn't all part of a deliberate Navy disinformation campaign. That wouldn't particularly surprise me.]

  17. Mark, I read about this last week. One astute writer in the comments pointed out it was just a design patent, not a utility patent.
    .
    Lucia, did Rossi ever settle his law suit?
    .
    General Mattis's name came up in the WH meeting between Trump and congressional leader, you know the one where Pelosi stormed out. It was spread around that Trump had called Mattis an "over-rated general." So, of course, they flocked to him for a comment. He responded, "I earned my spurs on the battlefield; Donald Trump earned his spurs from the doctor." https://www.yahoo.com/news/jim-mattis-responds-criticism-president-075944068.html
    .
    A supposedly sober generals giving catnip to agitators? A general that elevates the lowest Twitter meme's to a national story is doing more harm then he likely ever did good. He just proved Trump's point, how can a good general be a poor soldier? You can't, as McArthur learned. Mattis SHOULD have responded with a clever tongue-in-cheek: "Old overrated generals never die, they just fade away."

  18. It seems that Hillary "I am the rightful President" Clinton has gone completely off the deep end.

    Clinton: “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,”
    "They" being the Russians and "her" being Tulsi Gabbard.

    Clinton: “That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which, she might not ’cause she’s also a Russian asset.”

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-engages-in-insane-conspiracy-theory-attacking-tulsi-gabbard/
    .
    She is bonkers or something much worse. Either way, we are lucky Trump beat her.

  19. Ron,

    Yeah. I read though that Sheehy (somebody of some importance or authority, I forget) claimed 'operable' on some of the other wacky patents. That's actually what made me think disinformation.
    That and the fact that the patent descriptions are patently absurd.
    (comedy drum thing — boom boom BOOM!)
    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    Mike,
    I know, isn't that wacky? (rhetorical, I think it's wacky). What does that even mean, grooming her to be their candidate. (I don't know what that means)

  20. The whole notion is absurd. The military doesn't patent secret tech, they keep it secret. Not like adversaries are going to be dissuaded by a U.S. patent!

  22. "Ron, Mattis said this at the Al Smith dinner, which tends to be humorous."
    .
    The Al Smith benefit is ANOTHER thing the Dems ruined. It's supposed to be humorous roast. Nowhere in the article is there mention of humor. Only political junkies like us know what the Al Smith dinner is. The article went on:
    He [Mattis] went on to describe Trump’s comments as an honour.
    “I’m honoured to be considered that by Donald Trump, because he also called Meryl Streep an overrated actress,” he said. “So I guess I’m the Meryl Streep of generals. And frankly, that sounds pretty good to me.

    “You do have to admit that between me and Meryl, at least we’ve had some victories.”

    Donald Trump had previously lashed out at the actor after she criticised him during a Golden Globes speech."
    .
    The headline of the article is: "Jim Mattis responds to criticism from president." And since when do you roast someone who you are in a heated policy disagreement with and is not in attendance. The only reason Mattis was invited was to speak out against Trump.
    .
    MikeN, they should have roasted themselves and each other.

  24. MikeN (Comment #177147): "Mattis said this at the Al Smith dinner, which tends to be humorous."

    Ron Graf (Comment #177148): "The Al Smith benefit is ANOTHER thing the Dems ruined. It's supposed to be humorous roast. Nowhere in the article is there mention of humor."

    It is quite possible that Mattis's remarks were meant to be funny (as implied by comparing himself with Meryl Streep) and that some biased reporter, with the collusion of a biased editor, seized on them as another opportunity to snap at Trump's heels. They knew that the Al Smith dinner is meant to be humorous and also knew that most readers would not know that.

  25. Pretty strong evidence that Schiff has no intention of convincing any Republicans to support impeachment.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/18/adam-schiff-flip-flopped-on-whistleblower-testimony-after-reports-of-coordination/

    Kevin McCarthy has condemned the whole thing in the strongest terms. This I think proves that it is a partisan opposition research effort cloaked in secrecy but with apparently unlimited subpoena power. Can Congress use its subpoena and witness testimony powers in any way it wants? Law enforcement has rather broad powers but there are quite significant limitations too. Can it exclude the target and his representatives and the opposition political party from the proceedings? What do you think JD?

  26. https://www.hudson.org/research/15378-trump-s-decision-in-syria

    Not all experts disagree with Trump's decision on Syria.
    According to this, it was Obama who aligned with the PKK Kurds in the first place, apparently as the only player in Syria who would not anger Iran so that this Iran deal would not be endangered. The PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. They are an armed separatist organization inside Turkey.

  27. Corporations like the NBA constantly make the mistake that they can selectively engage in politics and always be the good guy. They can't always avoid getting thrown into a tar pit beyond their control, but when they "celebrate" certain politics that don't cause financial blow back and then cave to those which do, it's easy to be cynical about their smug priorities.
    .
    Nike Kaepernick Ad (which the liberal media celebrated): “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. Just Do It.”
    https://www.vox.com/2018/9/24/17895704/nike-colin-kaepernick-boycott-6-billion
    .
    Nike then recently removed all Houston Rockets merchandise from their stores in China, obviously at Winnie The Pooh's request.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nike-pulls-houston-rockets-merchandise-from-chinese-stores/
    .
    ROFL. True Profiles In Courage with Nike.
    .
    Nike can do what it wants, but please spare me the condescending moral sermons.

  28. MikeM

    **She is bonkers or something much worse. Either way, we are lucky Trump beat her**
    Could be sliding into dementia….. She may have always been prone to blaming others for anything and everything, but been able to shut-TF-up in the past. Dementia can interfere with a persons filters. They spill out everything they think.

    The probability is not negligible for older politicians.

    Of course Trump could be too. The thing is, with Trump: he seems to have always said … whatever…. So I don't think we could tell if "covfefe" like emissions are due to dementia induced filter loss or just…. never had any filter in the first place.

    I do think Hillary is showing us that she would not have been a good president. Whether one thinks we are 'lucky' she lost depends on whether you think Trump is worse or she is worse. My view: neither was going to be good. There are some Trump outcomes I prefer to what would have been Hillary outcomes. But … oy… both are bad.

  29. Lucia, My hypothesis is that Trump learned early in his business career that emotion could be an effective negotiating tool. Also, a certain level of deliberate uncertainty and bluster is sometimes helpful. However, you don't have to go back too far to find someone like Teddy Roosevelt whose verbosity was both transparent and sometimes offensive. The country loved Roosevelt because of his amazingly gregarious personality and this very frankness. I also think Trump learned early on that the press was viscous and dishonest.

    In Trump's case, I tend to ignore his more flamboyant statements and look at his actions. There is a certain class of conservatives who value civility and reserve and politeness more than any of their supposedly "core" principles. This class of losers are the never Trumpers and their feckless leadership is the reason Trump successfully took over the Republican party. A Trump who governs conservatively is vastly preferable to a polite "conservative" who is constantly compromising and failing to implement any of their supposed principles. I was a Ted Cruz supporter but in retrospect, Cruz would have been destroyed by the Clinton/media machine.

    One thing that really angered me about Bush was his statements that "Islam is a religion of peace" that we should respect and his slavish treatment of the Saudis who were behind a lot of the terrorism in the 1990's and 2000's. They were funding organizations throughout the West that were supporting terrorism and inciting it. That is not principle, that is artificial and underserved "respect for human dignity." This is why Bush was totally naive about how Iraqis would greet us as liberators and that "all people yearn for freedom and democracy" and similar insular nonsense. This in fact has no basis even in Christian doctrine, only in Bush's patrician version.

    I found McRaven's recent interviews to be a perfect example of the never Trumper mindset. Standing on "principle" is meaningless if you keep on losing every battle. Being "transactional" is the key in virtually all real world endeavors. And of course, "principles" can also be wrong and self-contradictory. Exactly what "principle" says we needed to remain in Syria? Supporting allies is not applicable since Turkey is also an ally of ours for at least 60 years.

  31. David Young (Comment #177156): "There is a certain class of conservatives who value civility and reserve and politeness more than any of their supposedly "core" principles. This class of losers are the never Trumpers and their feckless leadership is the reason Trump successfully took over the Republican party. A Trump who governs conservatively is vastly preferable to a polite "conservative" who is constantly compromising and failing to implement any of their supposed principles."

    Very well said. That goes right to the essence of the matter.
    .
    David Young: "I was a Ted Cruz supporter but in retrospect, Cruz would have been destroyed by the Clinton/media machine."

    Heck, I was a Rubio supporter, then Kasich. In retrospect, I don't think either of them would have stood up long enough to be obliterated.

  32. What would happen if Kaepernick were to retweet what Daryl Morey said, and called out the NBA and LeBron for not supporting democracy?

  33. Mike N,
    Who knows? But Kapernick is never going to support democracy over communism; his actions and behavior both show he is a deranged leftist through and through.

  34. What would any influential person think about China breaking their promise to Hong Kong to remain free? If we are waiting for CNN, NBC, ABC or CBS to ask them it will just be another one of those things we will never know.

  35. **What would any influential person think about China breaking their promise to Hong Kong to remain free? I*

    Inevitable they would at least try?

  36. Lucia, I think this is our wake up to the fact that Red China has enormous influence throughout our country. I see Hong Kong crowds waiving the stars and stripes will Americans look on silently. The Taiwanese must be horrified, knowing they are likely next.
    .
    I think as long as the Kurds withdraw from the border within a few days there will be no more Turkish offensives. Of course, there might be more footage of ordnance discharges on Kentucky gun ranges being propped up as war zone footage. ABC is sorry but they are not so sorry as to provide an explanation as to how it happened.
    .
    Botton line: we all know the Kurds will land on their feet and Hong Kong will be subdued.

  37. Hong Kong and China are an interesting nexus. They both need each other in their current forms. One a high performing billionaire factory and the other a high performing billion products conveyance chain.
    If China takes over militarily it will lose its business finesse and the ability of the billionaires to enjoy their money.
    Smart money would be on continuance of the status quo with a readjustment of the parliament to give the locals some say without giving them any real power.
    –

  38. Angech, you are right that China can't crack down too hard at once without sending financial shock waves. But China has been slowly cutting out the Hong Kong middleman over the past 10 years. There are plenty of rich business people in Beijing and Shanghai.

  39. China using their economic power to influence other's behavior is not unlike a certain western country I know about, ha ha. There are differences in that the government basically orders the commercial sector what to do, we have sanctions and trade barriers that can accomplish the same thing from the high level. I don't necessarily fault China for trying, but it is up to others to how they react to them. It seems to be working for China so far.
    .
    It's going to become increasingly worse as China continues to grow and they press the barriers of behavior. They have laid down the law that doing business in China requires submission on a global scale. I imagine there are many corporate training seminars getting their PowerPoints updated as we speak to instruct management to never reference China politics.
    .
    Business and politics don't mix, every generation needs to relearn this over and over.

  40. Another seeing an outsider, such as Hillary, having increasing chances of gaining the Dem primary win through Super Delegates.
    .
    “.. so the most likely outcome is more debates with fewer candidates but a convention that will be decided by super-delegates and political deals. And the flip side of this weakness is that the likes of Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, John Kerry and perhaps even Michele Obama have got to be thinking of getting in and trying to transcend the moderate and liberal wings of the party. They all are watching Biden, gauging whether he is strong enough to pull off a comeback or so weak that the nomination will likely fall into the hands of Warren. After this debate, they still are on the fence and the party is just as divided as ever…”
    .
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/466055-mark-penn-democrats-divisions-open-race-for-a-new-or-old-face

  41. Ed Forbes,

    There is zero chance of Hillary being the nominee. IIRC, the last time the Dems nominated someone who had already lost a presidential election was Adlai Stevenson in 1956. You could make an argument that Stevenson was a sacrificial lamb to a known lost cause. And you can add Hillary's recent statements about Russian assets as candidates as another reason. One would almost think that she is sliding into dementia of one sort or another.

  42. DeWitt,
    Hillary is a little young for dementia. I think it more likely she had several too many glasses of her favorite Chardonnay before she started the crazy talk about Russian assets.

  44. After the just coming through the biggest political hoax, (some would say information op), directed and financed by her, it is fascinating to hear her transferring Gabbard's name into the hoax script. Although she has notoriously bad instincts ("basket of deplorables," "do you mean wipe it with a cloth?"), crying Russia on Tulsi is beyond that. This is Shakespearian. It's a deeply buried conscience forcing her to drink and spill a confession to ease the trouble within.

  45. Whacy as Hillary is, she may have done Tulsi Gabbard a favor. There are numerous congress-critters, most of whom most of us haven't heard of. There are many throwing their hat in the ring running for president. The rant may have raised awareness of this particular young Congress-critter. She won't win this year– but more people have heard of her now.
    .
    I'm sure any aid to Tulsi was unintentional on Hillary's part.

  46. I read an article earlier this year that running for President and failing has almost no negative consequences for a political career.

  47. Tom,
    Sure. I can think of lots (err, some) of people who have run for President and say gone back to Congress successfully. But (still having a political carreer != being nominated [a second time] by one of the two parties to run for President) I think.

  48. Tom Scharf,
    I'm not sure how you can tell if it has negative consequences. I doubt there are any negative consequences to congress-house-critters or senators running for president. If anything, it will raise their profile.
    .
    There may be negative consequences of running for president for people who give up a non-political day job. Not sure how you'd measure it though. But if you actually give up your day job to run, and fail…. could have troubles. This rarely happens though.

  50. I do not see where this contemplation about an outside candidate becoming the Democrat candidate for President is coming from. The Democrat party could very readily chose any of the candidates now running and an extreme left candidate like Elizabeth Warren is a very real possibility. After all Trump was selected by the Republicans in 2016.

    I have been observing the ever and never Trumpers and something not discussed here but people I would call the ever whatever candidate the Democrats chose for President and Congress. The Trump and Democrat everers appear to have similar attachments and reverence for their high priests in that they can rationalize all their priests' policies and comments to near the point of infallibility.

    That some never Trumpers would vote for a candidate that is not Trump and whose political philosophy is very different than their own must think of Trump uniquely as Lucifer personified and not merely the fallen angels that most politicians represent.

    The ever Democrats have 2 major advantages in getting far left candidates for President and Congress elected in 2020: (1)The major media is very much in line with the ever Democrats and very good at rationalizations and (2) having Trump for an opponent.
    Trump to me is very flawed as a negotiator and a person of character which makes making changes in government very difficult to accomplish. Most major accomplishment occurred despite Trump. While he did do something about regulations through rescinding previous executive actions (that took no negotiations) it was congress that passed reduced taxes (which is always good as Milton Friedman used to say and because it makes it somewhat more difficult to find moneys for expanded government). His trade policies are flawed because he was taking advice from people who incorrectly thought imposing tariffs had no negative consequences for the US. His immigration policies failed to get traction because he tended to grandstand the issues to what he saw as his public supporters with outlandish over the top generalizations about immigrants. Again the Supreme Court Justice getting seated was more an issue of the Senate involvement and successful due to the lack of Trump getting involved.

    Maybe one could credit Trump with not doing what many of the potential Democrat contenders now want to do by way of increasing the reach and size of government. Or maybe his flawed character and negotiating skills merely prevented his even considering pushing his leftist instincts.

    Trump's reign would indeed be considered disastrous even for his supporters if his actions created an atmosphere whereby a leftwing President and majority Congress were elected in 2020 and allowed to enactment a series of major government programs – which everyone knows are difficult to remove even when the programs fail.

    Finally I present here an example of the growing ever Democrat presence out there that could well have a critical influence in the 2020 elections. I posted at a neighborhood log in a locale that once was solidly Republican a comment asking if others had not had replies from our newly elected Democrat US representative, Sean Casten, to comments/questions at his website. My comments/questions concerned some issues about the FDA and the failures of that agency in dealing with some drug related problems. The responses in not only defending Casten but in literally putting him on a political pedestal were not only immediate but numerous. There were also posters who in an obvious effort to help Casten's reputation offered to call his office for me and even being a third party delivering my message. Even those efforts did not obtain a reply to my queries and I ended up writing him a letter and sending it by way of the US Post Office. My point here is that while the ever Trumpers may feel secure in election results for 2020 by way of their committed numbers there is very much another side of this coin with the ever Democrats.

  51. Ken, if you want to understand Trumpers, Andrew Klavan latest podcast at Daily Wire is a very intelligent voice explaining that Trump is like jack Nicholson in one flew over the kukus nest. If you believe that the establishment is a nurse Ratchet strangling truth and justice, trump looks like a flawed but perfect instrument for change. Klavan is an author and a very smart guy but also very conservative.

  52. David Young (Comment #177182)

    Obviously there is large range of ever Trumper's political philosophies and motivations. My main interest is in those ever Trumpers who stand ready to justify and rational all that Trump does. That goes for the ever Democrats and their rationalizations. Cheerleading for politicians I think lets politicians off the hook by allowing the politician to consider his critics as demonized adversaries and believing the rationalizations of his cheerleaders.

    Interesting analogy to the main character of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but I do not think it fits unless one is good at rationalizing. If we carry the analogy to its conclusion it would appear that the reaction to a lobotomy (impeachment) would be required to drain the swamp. That's an interesting thought.

  53. Kenneth

    It’s a binary choice. You choose the side that best represents your views and interests and ignore the BS that is generated all around.
    .
    I was a “yellow dog” dem until Obama. By this time the dems had completely bypassed my views and interests. It was no longer the party of Bill Clinton, who I supported. By the time Trump came along I was a solid “No Clinton” and “No Bush”, becoming a “yellow dog” Trump republican due to the extreme differance in policy between the two parties.
    .
    The only Trump policy I know about that I do not support is his support for putting corn based alcohol in my gas tank that rasies gas prices with no gain to me. But again, it is a binary choice, and the other choice for me is pure poison.
    .

    .

  54. Ken, Listen to the podcast to gather facts on data on why people support Trump. Your thinking is generally wrong. Most people who support Trump do so despite his faults. They do not deny them. Nicholson in the film is a definitely flawed guy with low morals. Still it took someone like him to break the glass. You didn't really respond to what I said.

  55. Ken, The other thing that needs to be taken into account is just how out of touch the administrative state and its academic elites are with average Americans. Lets not forget how intensely unpopular Obama was. His abuse of Federal power were pretty bad. There is a lot of evidence that Obama's IRS used audits as a political weapon. The media are also more corrupt and nastily partisan than at any time since the Civil War. We needed a Trump to fight these trends. Also Trump has finally gotten some really good people around him such as Pompeo, Pence, and Barr. They are classical conservatives and I think have really helped steer him in the right direction (no pun intended).

  56. David Young (Comment #177185): "Most people who support Trump do so despite his faults."

    David Young (Comment #177186): "The other thing that needs to be taken into account is just how out of touch the administrative state and its academic elites are with average Americans. … We needed a Trump to fight these trends."
    .
    Right on the money. If you think business-as-usual in Washington is fine and dandy, then Trump is a puzzlement. Trump is the only politician willing, let alone able, to take on the elites and the administrative state. As long as he does that, his supporters (like me) will stick with him not because they think he is perfect (he is not even close) but because there is no alternative.

  57. Mike M.: "If you think business-as-usual in Washington is fine and dandy, then Trump is a puzzlement."
    .
    Mike M, I think that many WERE willing to accept the administrative state, mainly those working in it. This includes conservatives. The other component of never Trumper is the media adulation and liberals control of DC high society, the social elite.
    .
    Ken, please consider that the administrative state had almost no visible affect on bringing down the Soviet block and Russian control of eastern Europe. Their business as usual China brought from being the largest third world country to being a new totalitarian super-power.
    .
    Ken: "His trade policies are flawed because he was taking advice from people who incorrectly thought imposing tariffs had no negative consequences for the US."
    .
    Just because we have a chorus when we turn on the TV news don't be tempted to sing along. I don't know anyone who thought that taking on China would be a walk in the park.
    .
    The most upsetting thing is liberals have no qualms about pillorying a conservative president, regardless of their foreign policy. With Reagan the chorus was for "unilateral disarmament" up until the communists began to crumble. Bush: no "blood for oil," forgetting Saddam had chem sprayed whole Kurdish villages. And now with Trump: "He abandoned the Kurdish fighters." And "He's a Putin agent!" Not a word against Turkey.
    .
    It would be nice if we can simmer down the partisanship. But I honestly don't know what the liberals want besides power.

  58. David
    **Most people who support Trump do so despite his faults. They do not deny them. **
    .
    Perhaps. Or not.
    .
    One problem with these arguments about what people who "support" Trump think or why they support him is that the word "support" is rather elastic. Does merely voting for Trump rather than Hilary mean someone "supports" him? Or does "support" mean one supports nearly all of Trump's policies– many of which are NOT shared by many other Republicans? Does "support" mean approving of his tweets? Approving him as a person?
    .
    All of these questions need to be answered before we can talk about what those who "support" him think because otherwise, the question about why someone "supports" Trump is undefined. People who approve (or at least don't disapprove) of Trump as a person and are enthusiastic about his choices have different motivations for voting for him relative to those who picked him as the lesser of two evils.
    .
    If the latter group is considered "supporters", then yes, most who "support" Trump do so despite his faults. But if only the former group is considered supporters, then supporters DO deny his faults in the sense that they deny those things ARE faults.
    .
    I suspect many people who *voted* for Trump intended to NOT push through or assist with many Trump policies (stated or otherwise). They relied on the structure of government to make it impossible for him to do many things single handedly, We've seen this– Trump did NOT get the GOP to eagerly propose all his policy preferences.
    .
    Many Trump "victories" spring from merely undoing executive orders that Obama resorted to to get his way when Congress would vote legislation to enact Obama's policy goals. Those "victories" that required Congress were on things the GOP wanted anyway.
    .
    Heck, there are some "victories" Trump *might* have had if his over-the-top rhetoric (e.g. build a wall) didn't positively INTERFERE with getting some semblance of bi-partisan agreement on what to do about Dreamers, immigration and so on. (In contrast, Obama might have had a legislative victory on immigration if he has NOT protected Dreamers through executive action– which was easily reversed. Instead, we are now in the mess we are in.)

  59. Trump was truly driven the left insane: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/clinton-gabbard-russian-asset-jill-stein-901593/
    .
    It is like a Saturday Night Live skit, but they are actually serious. In addition to absolutely bonkers policies (open borders, ‘free’ health care for all… even illegal residents… 80% marginal tax rates, automatic annual wealth confiscation, and all the many wacko ‘green’ rules and regulations), they have now completely lost touch with reality. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

  60. SteveF,
    .
    I like these from your link:
    "Hillary Clinton has been through a lot over the course of a career, and even detractors would say she’s earned latitude to go loonybiscuits every now and then."
    .
    "Sarandon is regularly denounced now by Democrats instead of Republicans, this time for having supported Stein in 2016, an act seen as equivalent to having tongue-kissed Putin on live TV."
    .
    I'm adding "loonybiscuits" and "toungue-kissed Putin on live TV" to my
    rhetorical bag of tricks.

  61. I still postulate that this is an ongoing realignment of politics to class based, the meritocracy combined with the distortions of globalism has become too successful and too efficient at what they are doing, the proverbial victims of their own success.
    .
    It isn't about Trump, it is about a backlash against the cognitive elite, their success hoarding, and their unbearable cultural smugness. If you are in this class then who are you going to vote for? There was only one choice in 2016. If the cognitive elite aren't going to share the spoils equitably, then send in the Trump bomb and watch the fun. Trump is wrecking "their" world, and "they" have reacted like entitled spoiled brats.
    .
    The export of low skill jobs to China and elimination of such by automation are undeniable, which is why nobody is defending globalism lately. China cheerleaders are nonexistent, but silently the political class still wants their low cost housekeepers and cheap consumer goods. The rubes aren't smart or sophisticated enough to know or articulate their own needs, and who has the time to worry about that when the masters of the universe believe Trump is a Russian plant?
    .
    People will stop voting for Trump when the establishment stops staring into the mirror and asking "Mirror, mirror on the wall …".
    .

  62. The Gabbard-Clinton rift is getting interesting. Gabbard is being defended by Sanders, Yang, Williamson, and Trump. Clinton's side is being taken, at least tacitly, by Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, Castro, and a number of Never Trump Republicans. It is nicely defining the line between the establishment elites and their critics.

  63. I think that those of you who have replied to my post do not understand my thinking about the Trump administration and the man himself.

    I believe that you know if you post here that I am a libertarian and very much have problems with increasing government power, indebtedness and its administrative state. Outside of the rescinding of previous executive orders concerning (over)regulation I do not see where Trump has had much success in these areas by my standards and I would suspect by some conservative standards either. In my view his lack of success stems very much from a character flaw whereby all his programs are centered on a narcissistic me. A reasonable conservative with libertarian leanings would understand that it is not politicians that make a country great but rather a politician getting the government out of people's lives so that they can make it great. Applying that type of a philosophy has no room for a deeply narcissistic politician.

    Even in an area where I would agree with Trump's general tendency to want to reduce the US military presence in the world, Trump appears to have screwed that up by his lack of articulating his policy and selecting opportune timing in carrying it out. He even has Democrats and their defenders on the other side of an issue that they normally would not be. In fact after losing the House by a large majority in 2018 he has so polarized the political scene that he will get absolutely nothing done simply because anything he proposes the Democrats and their supporters in MSM will oppose because, well because Trump proposed it.

    Because Trump's person is so easy to dislike and even hate he has that negative going forward into the next election. I think the Democrats realize this and that is why all their candidates are willing to make very radical lef wing proposals. There is a segment of voters out there that is more or less independent of party and will vote not on political philosophy but on personality and that will be critical in the next election. In my mind I see Trump's flaws being instrumental in his losing his election and the Democrats winning Congress and some of these left wing proposals coming to fruition. That would be a major disappointment for this libertarian who has never voted for a Democrat in his life and never will.

  64. Tom Scharf,
    What part of the population do you think is ‘the cognitive elite’? (not rhetorical). Perhaps the top 10%, top 5%, top 2%, top 1%? I would wager that many people who regularly comment on this blog would fall in most of those categories. I personally have benefited enormously from international business, and even today, more than half my business comes from outside the States. Yet I voted for Trump (as a better alternative).
    .
    I think the entire ‘people who voted for Trump are rubes’ meme is both false and defamatory. The real divide is between those who want public control of most all personal actions (or if you prefer, strongly encourage the ‘right’ personal actions and severely punish the ‘wrong’ actions), and those who think public control of private actions should be sharply limited in scope. At bottom, the disagreement is, and has always been, a disagreement about the proper role and scope of government. The divergence of policy preferences which has paralyzed Congress for decades flows directly from this fundamental disagreement. I do not think it has much to do with cognitive capabilities, but very much to do with personal values, goals, and priorities. Those who support 80%+ marginal tax rates and wealth confiscation (and near 100% confiscation at death!), really believe those are the morally correct policies, in spite of the demonstrably negative effects those policies have on the economic wellbeing of the country.
    .
    Yes, those running most of higher education, government bureaucracy, and politicians on the left, really do think they are the ‘cognitive elite’. They are just mistaken. They are leftists, nothing more.

  65. The Rolling Stone link above gives some glimmer of hope that there might be chance that the Democrats will not dominant the 2020 national elections by way of their out-crazying Trump and the MSM not being able to rationalize it. Unfortunately if Trump thinks he is being out-crazyed he would probably not be hesitant to use some of his own heavier crazy arsenal.

  66. SteveF, I would agree that Tom Scharf's elites by the numbers will not decide elections unless one were to call the intellectual class the elites. The current intelligentsia is left wing and does have considerable sway beyond their numbers in advancing and defending political ideas (think NYT and WP).

    I think both the bumpkin and elite arguments are too general. It is however true that the better educated and higher income classes have been gravitating to the Democrats and their left wing philosophy. I also suspect those classes are more susceptible to the current intelligentsia thinking.

    I personally have my doubts about how well informed voters are about the issues or the ramifications of differing political philosophies, but such is life in a democracy. A major reason I have for wanting much less government is that the voting public is much more aware and less emotional about what it purchases in a free market economy than they are generally about political issues on which they vote for politicians who can weld much power over their lives.

    Below is a link about Obama voters who voted for Trump in 2016.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters

  67. https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/21/why-washington-d-c-compulsively-lies-about-donald-trump/

    Here's another nuanced analysis of Trump's appeal. This piece hits on something very important, namely, that from 1996 to 2016 there has been a gradual growing distrust of establishment narratives by people in this country that made lots of people vote for a flawed instrument to bring about change. He goes through a list of examples.

    I've gone a long ways down this path of distrust of out elites because of a growing realization of how dishonest a lot of current science is. Particularly in my field, strong positive biases and a culture of soft money are killing research and could actually be dangerous if we go very far down the certification by analysis road. We all know how dishonest a lot of climate science is. Nic Lewis has done an excellent job of auditing some of the worst mistakes but he's an outsider. We can and should do vastly better in shaping a scientific culture based on honesty and disagreement and somehow being better at evaluating the best work.

  68. Ken, You may be right that Trump's character flaws will cause him to lose in 2020 and that would be suboptimal. I would not underestimate him though. No-one thought he had a chance in 2016 either. The far left platforms of most of the Dems will make a lot of people nervous. I do wish he could be a little more scripted and predictable. That would help his popularity. Trump can actually do a lot even without Congress. The Mexico tariff threat looked bad but ultimately did at least partially work. Since then the "crisis at the border" seems to have subsided.

    I would also bear in mind that parts of the country were headed far left long before Trump. California and Washington state have become virtually one party states and there is no check on really crazy ideas. Homelessness is one gauge of just how totally ineffective governments are in these two states at even simple public health and safety. And this is one reason Trump is attractive. There is a certain frustration and fear among some conservatives who think the entire basis of our constitutional republic may be slipping away.

  69. David Young (Comment #177198): "This piece hits on something very important, namely, that from 1996 to 2016 there has been a gradual growing distrust of establishment narratives by people in this country that made lots of people vote for a flawed instrument to bring about change."
    .
    Yep. I think that was a significant factor in Obama's victory in 2008 (both primaries and general election). Then when he turned out to be more of the same, we got the Tea Party and Occupy. When they sputtered, I said that if the people continue to be ignored, we are going to end up electing someone really dangerous. Luckily, we got Trump. I know that sounds strange, but it could be so much worse.
    ———
    David Young: "I've gone a long ways down this path of distrust of out elites because of a growing realization of how dishonest a lot of current science is."

    I'd have never given science as the reason I have gone down that path, but maybe it made a contribution. My realization of the problems with climate science (I used to teach that stuff!) did roughly coincide with my change from left-center to right.
    .
    What sent me down the path of distrust was Iraq, then the crash, then the disappointment of Obama, then realizing that Trump was actually right about many things. Another factor is that, for a science prof, I had a lot of contact with the other side of the campus and realized (a) some of these people are really crazy and (b) they'd be really dangerous except for the fact that no one in power will ever listen to them. Then came Obama's second term and my realization that my assessment contained a major error.

  70. David Young (Comment #177199)

    I agree that there has been a leftward march and in more states than the two you mentioned. I see this happening very clearly in IL and in my locale area there. More higher income and better educated people are favoring the Democrat agenda.

    I saw a graph in a recent Wall Street Journal showing that in the past several years the percentage of those responding to polls had named the government as a major concern and in the plus 30% range. Now as a libertarian and without really considering why people answered this way I might think that it meant people would like less of something they thought was a problem or concern. That, however, on further thought could well mean that many of that percentage of people thought the problem is too little government.

    Another potential misunderstanding of this thought that people are reacting to some unnamed elite in their voting could well be that the more leftist voters out there are reacting to what they might consider the capitalist elite and would gladly climb in bed with those the opposite side considers the elite. I think elite in the political sense means political ideas that are espoused by those that a particular side of the political spectrum disagrees. In my mind it is way too vague a concept, as I frequently hear it used, to have much value in these discussions.

  71. David Young (Comment #177199)
    "There is a certain frustration and fear among some conservatives who think the entire basis of our constitutional republic may be slipping away."
    .
    Almost the entire educational establishment from K-college are leftist propagandists, pumping out liberals, whether from conservative families or not. The left has all of Hollywood and TV programming, the news media, except for a handful of opinion hosts on Fox, a couple of people from the Federalist or WSJ, conservative talk radio and this blog. If Trump does not succeed this will be seen as the last stand for a limited government constitutional republic within the scope of vision of its founders.
    .
    But I'm not supporting Trump because I think he's a narcissist.

  72. I think almost everyone one this board is the "cognitive elite". This is a term that can almost be a slur so it needs to be interpreted a bit carefully in context. I picked it up from Charles Murray's Coming Apart. I would generalize it as the top 25% measured by high IQ / high education level. They effectively control the economy and the government.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_elite
    .
    One might ask "So what, that is exactly what we want, right?". The answer is probably so, but being smart and educated is not an inoculation from greed, graft, and all the other plagues of past groups who want to keep themselves in power. SSDD circa 2020.
    .
    Being in the cognitive elite, higher intelligence, higher educated, does not mean you don't vote for Trump or necessarily support what I see as self serving long term policy that has not served the cognitive un-elite very well. I supported this policy myself for decades until driving through rural areas showed long term decay that seemed to be getting worse and worse. It's not like we are at the Hunger Games yet, but I think societal stress is starting to show.
    .
    I think Elizabeth Warren recognizes this but her answer is always government tax and redistribution. She has one big hammer.
    .
    It is important to be able to recognize that the lower skilled people are not advancing as quickly but to also ask whether this automatically means something is really broken. Perhaps this is the optimum path and those are the unfortunate outcomes. What angers the masses though is the distinct feeling that the cognitive elite simply don't care.

  73. Ken, By the elites I mean thought leaders such as top University faculty, national media and their reporters, the foreign policy establishment in DC (which includes not just government employees but hordes of consultants), corporate leaders, and finally the entertainment industry which has been quite successful in transforming attitudes on cultural issues. These elites have grown more insular and disconnected from ordinary people in the last 20 years. They have failed quite dramatically on many important issues. The Iraq war is a prime example for Bush. For Obama the Iran deal.

    In a new low, the New York Times is now admitting that yes there is a deep state, but that its denizens are actually heroes for thwarting Trump and his policies. I really do think the media have become exceptionally dishonest. They are also brazenly partisan and arrogant.

    BTW, you still haven't told us what you find disqualifying about Trump. I know you are from the older generation that valued civility and politeness pretty highly. At least in public forums people were when I was growing up much more restrained in their language and more careful in their choice of words.

  74. The important distinction that needs to be made concerning elites, if defined as people with influence, is whether that influence comes through the power of government or through voluntary exchange and persuasion. I have no problem whatsoever with the latter and no matter what is being sold or said. Elites that need the government to make their cases probably do not have very good cases.

    It is only in a truly free society that ideas can compete. Ideas are logically going to come mostly from the educated classes (and educated could well mean self-educated and knowledgeable in a very narrow field) but it is all classes that can decide whether those ideas will work in a practical sense for them. Also in a truly free society there is going to a large disparity in incomes because people with the better ideas for making things, implementing better ways for making things and selling things or inventing or providing better services are going to be rewarded and society as whole is going to be better off because of it. Those elites that favor government control of things are going to attempt to exploit that natural disparity in order to gain more power. In a mixed economy such as we have in the US it is important for those attempting to support a free society to show where government involvement is often the cause of a disparity of incomes, such as the case of crony capitalism or restrictions on entry into certain types of work, and then advocating for less government and not more.

  75. "BTW, you still haven't told us what you find disqualifying about Trump."

    By his behavior and character flaws he is preventing a discussion of ideas and even at the low level that we have for politics and politicians. By representing the opposition (mild as it is) to the Democrat agenda for more government he is making it all about himself and in doing so in my view is losing the battle.

    I do not know anybody that talks in the hyperbole that Trump uses or feels the need to incessantly Tweet in such personal ways. If I had to deal with him I could never take him seriously and I would consider him a joke. His routines remind me of professional wrestling and we all know how real that is.

  76. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #177206): "The important distinction that needs to be made concerning elites, if defined as people with influence, is whether that influence comes through the power of government or through voluntary exchange and persuasion."
    .
    That is a common libertarian blind spot. Power is not the exclusive preserve of the government. The media has power; if they present only one point of view, or just a narrow range, the result is not "voluntary exchange and persuasion". The same is true for universities and the arts. Business (and not just tech) also has an enormous amount of power that they wield to control politicians and the government.

    The elites also use social control to wield power. They establish what is acceptable and enforce that. That gives them enormous control over the many people who are not really of the elites, but are wannabes.

    Of course, there have always been elites and they have always wielded power. But they used to have values and interests that overlapped with those of the broader populace. That is no ;onger so. Now they live and work in an intellectual monoculture that is disconnected from the people and they no longer cre about the nation as a whole.

  77. Almost everyone wants a saner version of Trump, and I cannot believe there are no primary challengers. Everyone who held their nose voting for Trump and those with Trump fatigue would be open to another option.
    .
    Can someone run for office again after they have been successfully impeached by the Senate? I think so, what a drama that would be, ha ha.

  79. "It is only in a truly free society that ideas can compete."
    .
    And competing ideas preserve that freedom by enfranchising everyone to have a participating stake theirs and society's aspirations. It's an engine — needing continual maintenance with truth against fouling with corruption from abuse of power.

  80. I read that five (5) states have canceled republican primaries (Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Nevada, and South Carolina). I don't remember exactly how this works honestly. I guess the rest of the states hold primaries?

  81. Hollywood and the media have a lot of cultural power and whether this power was earned is up for debate. I suppose in the strictest sense it was earned, but these institutions are becoming non-representative of the nation's culture they are marketing to. One cannot easily counter Hollywood culture where the career death penalty is handing out to people like Roxanne and others who invariably fall on only one side of the culture war.
    .
    However over time these institutions start to decay under their own authoritarian weight. The media's reputation as an honest gatekeeper is in tatters, and Hollywood's most successful movies have little correlation to those they celebrate at award shows. The cultural overstepping in these institutions is out in the open and for the most part obvious to everyone.
    .
    The arts is a mess. I have seen a distinct change in how the media covers book reviews, it is more about the author's politics and the politics of the book than it is about the story. So I ignore them completely now. They make themselves irrelevant. This is the free market working against consolidated cultural power.

  82. Mike M. (Comment #177208)

    MikeM, I think the blind spot is yours in not understanding the very important distinction I wrote about. I can ignore, agree or not agree with what someone or a group who proposes it voluntarily and I do not have to submit or deal with anyone or group under those conditions. On the other hand with government the relationships changes to involuntary and I have to submit or face some immediate and severe consequences.

    Some people hold that the government needs to be some kind of patron of the naive people out there who might be too easily influenced by others which of course is contradictory in a democratic process where these easily influenced people are voters.

  83. Ken wrote: "I can ignore, agree or not agree with what someone or a group who proposes it voluntarily and I do not have to submit or deal with anyone or group under those conditions."
    .
    Yes, maybe you can, but will your place of employment ignore them? How about your wife's employment and social circle? Your kid's school and friend's parents? Companies have even had transactions denied from payment processors because they invited too many people with "wrong think". There are ways and means of applying force outside of government which many people find just as hard to ignore.

  84. Another form of non-governmental coercion is that of personal destruction through "latenight comedy" parody. Here Lithgow does a 7-minute skit to destroy Giuliani.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcAVs7S4hAY

    Then CNN and MSNBC and other news outlets pick up the story to share the laugh with their viewers. It must be very effective. It was originally perfected by Joseph Goebbels in the early 1930s against the Jewish mayor of Berlin, Isidor Weiss.

  85. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #177215): "I think the blind spot is yours in not understanding the very important distinction I wrote about."
    .
    Nope. I fully understand and appreciate the distinction between voluntary and coerced. My point is that the government is not the only source of coercion.
    ———
    Kenneth Fritsch: "I can ignore, agree or not agree with what someone or a group who proposes it voluntarily and I do not have to submit or deal with anyone or group under those conditions."
    .
    That might well be true for you and is largely true for me. But most people are not like us. Normal people go along with the mob.
    ———
    Kenneth Fritsch: "On the other hand with government the relationships changes to involuntary and I have to submit or face some immediate and severe consequences."
    .
    The government is not the only source of immediate and severe consequences. Ever hear of cancel culture? For most people being fired or losing their business or being ostracized are severe consequences.

  87. Anyone can kill you, Mark! They might even be hailed as heroes acting in self defense if they did it for the “right” reasons!

  89. Dave,
    .
    I'm sorry if my point was unclear.
    .
    First off, no, not *anybody* can kill me. I'm a gun owner and have been trained to basic competence with it. I'm an advanced martial arts student. So on – I've made it my business to be able to defend myself within reason.
    .
    It's true of course that in this wide world, there is always going to be somebody else out there more competent at violence than oneself, sure. There's a large set of *somebodies' out there who could kill me.
    .
    All of this is besides the point. None of those set of *somebodies* compares to U.S. law enforcement and the U.S. legal system. Not by orders of magnitude. The numbers, resources, equipment, training, etc. make the categories not comparable.
    .
    Further, in my opinion, overwhelmingly people in the U.S. *accept and support the authority* of the U.S. government to at least imprison if not kill violators. Also in my opinion people overwhelmingly *do not accept and support* illegal murderers.
    .
    Even though some people get away with imprisoning and murdering other people, the government does it on a scale and with ease [and public support] that far outclasses the ability of private parties to do the same. It's not the same thing, as far as I can tell.

  90. Kenneth,
    I'm sorry to intrude on your conversation, I just wondered that people seemed to be having difficulty grasping the difference between the powers the government has to compel an individual vs the powers other individuals have to compel someone. It's conceivable that you have different views on the subject than I do, but I thought anyway that the classic libertarian position was that the government is supposed to hold the monopoly on socially sanctioned / socially approved violence. The power to enforce the law is the power to kill or imprison.

  91. People and groups of people can fire other people , not hire them , not associate with them, make fun of them because in a voluntary association where there cannot be coercion by definition those people and groups of people cannot be coerced to not fire, hire, associate and not make fun of other people.

    In some of your examples I would have to question what you would do about those situations where you incorrectly use the definition of coercion. Would you actually consider coercing or having the government coerce someone to not make fun of Giuliani?

  92. mark bofill (Comment #177223)

    Libertarians do not all agree on the legitimate functions of government and the extent. Murray Rothbard is, for example, an anarcho-capitalist.

    My point in this discussion is to get the use and definition of coercion straight and how it is used by government and not in voluntary associations. Coercion can be used outside of government by way of physical coercion and fraud – but that is not a voluntary association between parties and the aggrieved party has the right to self defense and in whatever form that might take.

  94. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #177224) "Would you actually consider coercing or having the government coerce someone to not make fun of Giuliani?"
    .
    I think what political comedy has become is nothing short of form of legal coercion to those that oppose the liberal progressive platform. What Lithgow did is disgusting. And if it must be made illegal that would be one more blow the progresses delivered to liberty due to personal irresponsibility.
    .
    Rep (R) Matt Goetz led congressional Republicans to march into Schiff's star chamber today. The media is clutching their pearls. Does everyone here agree there are appropriate times for lack of decorum? Maybe a rule-less proceeding to remove the President is one of those.

  95. Tom Scharf (Comment #177204)
    October 22nd, 2019 at 6:21 pm
    I think almost everyone one this board is the "cognitive elite". This is a term that can almost be a slur so it needs to be interpreted a bit carefully in context. I picked it up from Charles Murray's Coming Apart. I would generalize it as the top 25% measured by high IQ / high education level. They effectively control the economy and the government.
    _________________

    I scored a relatively high 54 on Murray’s Bubble Quiz, which is supposed to mean I likely am or was working class. In my case, it’s the latter. A low score on the Bubble quiz means you likely are an elite and out of touch with the working class . A high score could mean you are out of touch with the elite, unless you score is high only because you formerly were working class.

    I fail to see what’s new here. I think throughout history there’s been this lack of empathy or understanding between different socio/economic classes.

    .

  96. OK_Max,
    Interesting quiz. My score was 47, which puts me in the middle of the range. I think it would have been higher except I don’t watch any TV at all beyond news and sports…. so no points for for watching TV. I know evangelical Christians, hunters, and uber liberals who support Warren, so I don’t think I live in any kind of bubble at all. But I am for sure part of the “cognitive elite” based on Murray's IQ and education criteria, as well as personal history (45+ years of science and engineering, technology company founder, etc.). There may be some merit to Murray’s test, but I think people adopt most all their personal (and political) values by their late 20’s, so I am not sure questions about current ‘bubble’ status are very meaningful.

  97. OK_Max,
    What is a bit different is that the working classes are not politically aligned at the moment. They are fragmented by race and other things. If the working class aligns itself against perceived elite mistreatment then the political establishment will have a major problem on its hands. This is what I believe the Danger to Democracy is to them, ironically democracy working exactly as intended.
    .
    The battle to be fought is to convince the working class that the political establishment is their friend, not their enemy. The elites may possibly be more isolated and insular than in the past and the trust in this establishment has fallen dramatically over the past 50 years. The deplorables, bitter clingers, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, sexists, and under educated are listening a lot less than they used to for some strange reason, ha ha.
    .
    Where does the political establishment put all their emotional energy? Inward. Read their media outlets such as the the NYT and The Atlantic. Total self occupation. What's wrong with Kansas? Nobody cares because Russia!!! Ukraine!!! Syria!!! Immigrant Babies!!! and perhaps I'm missing one other thing, I think it starts with a T.
    .
    The point is taken that this is as it always was to some extent, but Trump has scared the crap out of them. This time it is different, or maybe not. We will see.

  98. I think that this reference to elites and attempting to group elites as a class and by doing so implying what they as class control is an exercise in keeping things so vague that that class can be become some kind of bogeyman for what is wrong with the nation and world.

    First of all the implication is that the so-called elite make up a small group of people who have control beyond their numbers which on the face of it would appear to contradict the power of people to change things in a once limited republican government becoming less limited and more driven by the majority. Politicians and thus government more and more pander to the classes that would have to be excluded from the elite class even by these vague and implied definitions. The non government elite in the business world, in a more or less free economy, have to satisfy the wants and needs of their customers or face going out of business (unlike governments) and that power over businesses again by definition has to go to the non elite classes.

    The "control" that a small group or class of people can have over a majority of people would in a free and semi-free society have to come from promoting ideas and persuading the majority to accept those ideas voluntarily. In that case control is no longer an explanatory term. In my view the better term for this class of people would be intellectuals or intelligentsia. Over time this group of people can exert a great deal of influence over society at large. When this influence occurs by means of voluntary persuasion in a free society competing ideas can be tested but when it occurs by way of government coercion it becomes more like my way or the highway.

  99. OK_Max (Comment #177230): "I fail to see what’s new here. I think throughout history there’s been this lack of empathy or understanding between different socio/economic classes."
    .
    Several things are new.

    Historically, at least in the U.S., there has been a significant degree of common interest between the elites and the people. Both had a high degree of patriotism. There was a recognition that their economic well being was linked because both depended on the domestic economy. There has also been a certain common set of values, both religious and civic. Those common interests are now virtually gone.

    A big part of the reason people accept the privileges of the elites is that the elites display competence in managing the economy and the national defense. But incompetence from the elites has become the norm.

    One thing that has kept the elites in line is that there has typically been a degree of tension between various segments of the elites. For instance, we expect a degree of tension between the government and business leaders and between the two major parties. We expect the press to keep an eye on both government and business and we expect public intellectuals to criticize everyone, including each other. Such tension provides for a degree of supervision of the elites and thus increases trust in the elites.

    But we have increasingly seen the major groups of elites all acting in concert. The press gave Obama a free ride and attacks Trump no matter what Trump does. Almost everybody in or near power seems to support an interventionist foreign policy, "free" trade, excessive low skill immigration, etc. Some of those uniform opinions have involved shifts of breathtaking suddenness; from gay marriage (which at least had a long build up) to banning any criticism of gay marriage or of transexuals being allowed to do whatever they like. That makes it clear that the various power groups are no longer acting as checks on each other and are instead acting in collusion.

    They are acting in collusion against the people. So the people no longer trust them.

  100. I would define the "coastal elites" by their adherence to a set of values that are largely in conflict with the values of the people at large. These include:
    (1) multiculturalism rather than assimilation of immigrants
    (2) support for identity politics
    (3) internationalist outlook
    (4) skepticism of national sovereignty
    (5) support of expanded trade as a good in itself
    (6) preference for open borders
    (7) support for foreign intervention
    (8) pseudo-religious environmentalism
    (9) libertine social mores
    (10) dismissive of religion

  101. Re SteveF (Comment #177232)

    We were fairly close on Bubble Quiz scores and I hope I would do as well as you on Murray's test for cognitive elite, but haven't taken it. I'll look it up.

    You mentioned Warren. I would expect her to score high on the Bubble Quiz. Like me she was born into a working class Oklahoma protestant family and started working at age 13. Warren's father was a retail sales worker (Montgomery Ward ?) and later an apartment maintenance man. My father was a farmer, peddler, and mechanic. Her father had health problems, resulting in a loss of income, and the bank repossessing the family car. My father was more fortunate.
    I'm not sure she would meet the strict definition of "costal elite" but she is elite, whereas I'm still just a wannabe.

    Obviously Warren is the opposite of Trump in many ways. I wonder if they are alike in any ways.

  102. Mike M,
    You left out:
    (11) Utter refusal to even consider the possibility they could be mistaken about any of the preceding 10 (e.g. Elizabeth Warren).

  103. OK_Max,
    "Obviously Warren is the opposite of Trump in many ways. I wonder if they are alike in any ways."
    .
    Sure. Both are dishonest, and twist/distort the truth to gain personal advantage (an unfortunate characteristic which is common among those who run for public office). Both have obnoxious, disagreeable personalities, even while they are obnoxious and disagreeable for very different reasons. I would not want to spend any time with either of them unless I could not avoid it. I suspect both are also more than a little nuts, if 'nuts' is defined as refusing to accept reality.

  104. SteveF,
    I agree with you Warren and Trump share personality traits shared by many politicians. I have to say… Trump really stands out in the truth distorting though. But clearly E "Pocohantas" does too. There is now the story of her getting fired from teaching which seems… well… embellished (in fact, likely not at all true.)

    FWIW: if you don't count babysitting, I started work at 13. (I babysat before that. Oh… what was considered old enough back them!)
    I worked for the company selling concessions at my junior high. I manned the snack table when I was 13. It was lunchtime– so probably

  105. Re Mike M. (Comment #177237)
    I would define the "coastal elites" by their adherence to a set of values that are largely in conflict with the values of the people at large. These include …
    _________

    MikeM, I will see how your list of "coastal elite' values compares with my values.

    "(1) multiculturalism rather than assimilation of immigrants"
    Either way is ok with me.

    "(2) support for identity politics"
    Mostly me, but not something just costal elites do.

    "(3) internationalist outlook"
    That's me.

    "(4) skepticism of national sovereignty"
    That one is too vague for me to answer.

    "(5) support of expanded trade as a good in itself"
    Yes, I believe it's good for the most.

    "(6) preference for open borders"
    Not yet

    "(7) support for foreign intervention"
    Believe some is necessary, and some is not.

    "(8) pseudo-religious environmentalism"
    Need to know what you mean by "pseudo-religious" ?

    (9) libertine social mores
    Am for all those I can think of.

    (10) dismissive of religion
    Organized religion is not for me.

    MikeM, looks like my values are very close to what you believe are "coastal elite" values. Does this mean I am a member of the costal elite or does my okie background exclude me?

  106. Luica,
    Ya, I started delivering newspapers at about 12. Before that, I made candle holders from white birch logs and Christmas wreaths from small evergreen plants that grew in the forest behind my house (and sold them door-to-door). At 15 (the legal minimum) I moved 'up' to working at a chicken farm during the school year, and harvested peaches (with a crew of all-black migrant farm workers, 10 hours a day, 7 days a week) during the summer. I became a part time (night-time) janitor at 16, and worked in a commercial laundry in the following summer (and hell is likely cool by comparison!), with evenings spent braiding 5 and 7 strand leather belts for a local leather shop. Then I worked afternoons and Saturdays in the mail room at the home office of Cumberland Farms stores. It really wasn't until college that I didn't have a part-time job for a couple of years, but then tutored 'disadvantaged' students in math for the college, plus a couple of guys from outside the school in organic chemistry (who were preparing for the MCAT). I was pretty poor, and I had to work if I wanted money in my pocket.

  107. OK_Max,
    "Does this mean I am a member of the costal elite or does my okie background exclude me?"
    .
    I think the whole "coastal elite" meme is non-sense. You sound like a 'liberal' and share many policy preferences with other liberals, no matter where they happen to come from or currently live. Jimmy Carter is a liberal (rural Georgia) as is Bill Clinton (rural Arkansas). Physical location has nothing to do with it. There are more liberals on the east and west coast states than elsewhere, but there are plenty of conservatives in Massachusetts and California (I even know a few of them), and plenty of liberals like you in fly-over country. FWIW, I suspect you can tell from a single question if someone is liberal or conservative: Is government more a source of good things, or more a necessary evil?

  108. Lucia: "Trump really stands out in the truth distorting though."

    I don't think that Trump has ever told a lie as bad as the one that Warren and Kamala Harris told about the Ferguson police officer, claiming that he murdered Michael Brown. Brown's DNA was on the officer's hand, gun and and thigh, clearly showing that Brown assaulted the police officer. (Quite possibly, had Brown lived he could have been convicted of attempted murder) Minority witnesses corroborated the officer's account that he had been charged and attacked. It is 100% clear that the police officer was not guilty of murder. For summary, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown Don't know how you can go much lower than false accusations of murder — barely a blip on legacy media. It is particularly despicable that both Warren and Harris are lawyers.

    Maybe the volume of Trump's (often petty lies) is more than others, but in terms of who is making calculated malicious lies, I don't think that Trump is worse than Dems.

    JD

  109. OK_Max (Comment #177244)
    "MikeM, looks like my values are very close to what you believe are "coastal elite" values. Does this mean I am a member of the coastal elite or does my okie background exclude me?"
    .
    Max, as I find Mike M articulates my own views to about a 90% overlap, I will invite myself to also answer your sincere query. Kenneth's last comment is I think a very good refining of his earlier kernels of enlightenment. The elites are the influencers whereas, as you state "I'm still just a wannabe." Thus in Kenneth's model you would have been voluntarily controlled, however unflattering that sounds.
    .
    The reality is that Madison Avenue is not just about selling "new and improved" Tide anymore. There's high tech involved now. Facebook and Google can practically finish our sentences for us. Media Matters has the ability to have all the MSM reading off the same talking points in a 24-7 news cycle. There's enough coordinated marketing power to change cultural perspectives on a dime. The only sticks in the mud are those that have either deeply etched religious based values or those who have invested themselves in thousands of hours of intellectual investigation into the issues. Although it's a generalization, I think the prevailing view in this string is that pop culture is controlled by the coastal elites and most "normal people" just want to be accepted as normal and follow pop culture.
    .
    I suspect most here on this blog read a typical article of any type with deep skepticism and a large background of education on which to practice critical thinking — far beyond the average. And, this even goes for "conservative" articles.
    .
    The next question is what drives the coastal elites more, values or motivations. Are those Leo Dicaprio's truly religious environmentalists or are they globalists or just virtue signalers? Are they sincere?

  110. JD,

    “Maybe the volume of Trump's (often petty lies) is more than others, but in terms of who is making calculated malicious lies, I don't think that Trump is worse than Dems.”
    .
    There is no doubt Trump is a petty liar, which is bizarre. A bit like Hillary’s false story about why her parents named her Hillary: blatantly false and petty to boot. Trump does seem unable to see how these petty lies hurt him, especially with the independents he needs to be re-elected. Maybe Trump imagines that Elizabeth Warren’s nutty policies will ensure he is re-elected, but as I noted above, that like Warren, I suspect it is more that he is more than a little nuts.

  111. SteveF (Comment #177246

    "I think the whole "coastal elite" meme is non-sense. You sound like a 'liberal' and share many policy preferences with other liberals, no matter where they happen to come from or currently live."

    "FWIW, I suspect you can tell from a single question if someone is liberal or conservative: Is government more a source of good things, or more a necessary evil?"
    _________

    SteveF, I agree that not all liberals live on the East and West Coasts.
    I also don't see elite as synonymous with liberal. I believe there are elite who are conservatives (e.g., the Koch brothers). I think elite conservatives have more in common with elite liberals than with the working class.

    If you could ask only one question, the answer to your question "Is government more a source of good things, or more a necessary evil ?" probably would be as good as any for determining whether a person is a liberal or a conservative. As a conservative, what you see as necessary evils, however, may be the same or most of the same things I see as good things.

    My wife believes when she washes the dishes she is doing a good thing. I agree, but when I'm doing the washing, it's a necessary evil.

  112. Max, what Steve means by necessary evil is not exactly analogous to doing undesired chores. I'm pretty sure he means that there is a necessary job with very limited private enterprise options. For example, Singapore is beating the world in costs and outcomes with a mostly private healthcare system. The US needs government to untangle its healthcare system and provide price transparency and skin in the game to consumers rather than taking over everything and endangering freedoms.

  113. OK_Max,
    “I think elite conservatives have more in common with elite liberals than with the working class.”
    .
    Maybe, and certainly true for the ‘neverTrump’ conservatives (who, AFAICT, are not conservatives at all!). As you and I apparently both grew up in less than elite circumstances, I think ‘class’, elite or otherwise, has little predictive power on political views.
    .
    WRT ‘necessary evils’: I think pretty much all the structure of the Federal government, as described by the Constitution, falls in that category, as does most local and state government structure. Yes, people need to be protected from bad-guys (domestic or international). Beyond that, I think most government is rubbish.

  114. SteveF,
    Yep. You had it much harder than I did. I was actually born with a silver spoon in my mouth. It was silver plate and not sterling… but…. still….
    .
    I think one of my points is that working at 13 is NOT a sign of "lower" socionomic index. Sure, if your family was REALLY rich it wasn't going to happen. But even kids whose families were *pretty* well off could spin a tale….

    .
    The thing is :(a) How MANY hours did you work and (b) did you *really have to*? For me: (a)

  115. Ohhh… fwiw: I remember my "favorite" candy bar at the time. Not the name…. but it's features. It was mostly chocolate with some sort of "krispie" thing in it. And sort of "fluffed up" with air, so there were little air holes. It was less dense than Netsles Crunch, but otherwise, kinda, sorta, similar.
    .
    I spent lots of my earnigns on those. And on Dairy Queens slurpies.
    .
    Just to be clear, I didn't "need" the money for things like shoes. (Although I did save some and buy shoes my mom disapproved of…)

  116. Ron Graf (Comment #177248)
    "The elites are the influencers whereas, as you state "I'm still just a wannabe." Thus in Kenneth's model you would have been voluntarily controlled, however unflattering that sounds"

    "The reality is that Madison Avenue is not just about selling "new and improved" Tide anymore. There's high tech involved now. Facebook and Google can practically finish our sentences for us."

    "Although it's a generalization, I think the prevailing view in this string is that pop culture is controlled by the coastal elites and most "normal people" just want to be accepted as normal and follow pop culture."
    _______

    Ron, thank you for your thought provoking comment. I have quoted parts of it above for response.

    I have always been influenced by people who were supposed to be in positions of knowledge and authority. As I child I was influenced by our Baptist minister until I realized he was full of sh*t. If I ever think elites are full of sh*t, I will no longer be influenced by them.

    I don't like Facebook, but do go to it when relatives and friends post photos. I like pictures, but rarely read comments. Boring !

    I don't keep up much with pop culture.

    Call me out of touch, old fashion, whatever.

  117. Ron Graf (Comment #177251)

    "Max, what Steve means by necessary evil is not exactly analogous to doing undesired chores. I'm pretty sure he means that there is a necessary job with very limited private enterprise options. For example, Singapore is beating the world in costs and outcomes with a mostly private healthcare system."
    _____

    Wiki's description of Singapore's universal health care system doesn't sound like it's mostly private.

    According to Wiki
    "Healthcare in Singapore is supervised by the Ministry of Health of the Singapore Government. It largely consists of a government-run universal healthcare system with a significant private healthcare sector. In addition, financing of healthcare costs is done through a mixture of direct government subsidies, compulsory savings, national healthcare insurance, and cost sharing."

    But regardless, if it's the world's best, let's do it. Public or private, I don't care if the results are the best.

  118. OK_Max
    **But regardless, if it's the world's best, let's do it. Public or private, I don't care if the results are the best.**
    I care if it's public or private because that affects whether *it will continue to be the best* especially here in the US.

  120. Steve F, I delivered newspapers starting from when I was too young to have my own route (about 9), until about 13. I sold greeting cards and seeds door to door a few summers. I was a money hoarder and used all of it my first year of college. The paper route was brutal in subzero winters, especially going door-door to collect 60 cents from each customer every week during the evenings. I look back and shake my head that many people would not answer their door if it was dinner time or they might say they had no cash; come back later. We were trained to leave the newspaper in each customer's uniquely selected spot, for example, back screen door or milk chute. The doctor noticed my spine was curving from the weight of the papers and suggested I alternate shoulders on M, W and F. (I'm not making this up.)
    .
    But I know my parents had it harder in the Depression. My mother did not always get enough to eat growing up in rural Illinois. Just as I'm sure hard work and adversity built the greatest generation the little taste of it spilling over to the boomers likely benefited the country and common work ethic.
    .
    Max, I, and I'm sure Kenneth, weren't talking about individuals but just sociological dynamics. I am not even sure who influenced me. Both my parents were liberal but crossed party to vote against McGovern, stayed conservative through to W Bush and then went liberal again. I grew up in a mostly liberal Jewish neighborhood. But the teachers were mostly protestant and likely conservative. Most of them likely got tenure before the unions really dominated. In college I took one political science elective and the professor at the end, when cornered by myself and other admiring students, refused to divulge his political party leanings. And it was impossible to tell by reading his book. That would be unheard of today.

  123. OK_Max,
    "If I ever think elites are full of sh*t, I will no longer be influenced by them."
    .
    They certainly are (e.g. Strzok's 'I can smell Trump supporters'), but that is a value judgement. YMMV.

  125. Ron Graf,
    "And it was impossible to tell by reading his book. That would be unheard of today."
    .
    That was before most college professors decided their job was to turn out dedicated socialists, not educate their students. I had a sixth grade teacher who I recognized in hindsight was a dedicated socialist. He carefully chose reading materials to indoctrinate leftist views; at the time I just thought the reading selections were weird and boring. He was also a really crappy teacher, who valued memorization over comprehension, and parroting answers over thinking.

  127. There is a shop nearby that sells all sorts of old candy.
    They also have lots of candy soda that I've never seen before.

    I thought it might not be Krackel, because you made it sound like it was something that disappeared. I've only ever seen it in the miniatures bag we get at Halloween.

  128. Mike N,
    I believe the candy bar in question is again available as a full size bar. My youngest daughter loves them, though she has only ever had the miniatures.

  129. MikeN,
    I never see Krackle at the grocery store any more. I'm not tempted in the checkout aisle. I am almost afraid to find a shop that sells them.

  131. Must be some kind of mystical connection between paper routes and libertarian / conservative views. I had a paper route starting at about 13 and kept it through high school. Thanksgiving day was the worst, talk about a heavy day. I still obsessively fold a newspaper for throwing if it's in front of me.
    .
    I worked every summer at various jobs, but not while going to school. I worked the "sewer crew" with the city one summer. It had its … ummmm … less desirable times but I got to use jack hammers and drive dump trucks which was kind of fun.

  132. In terms of child work experiences. I started caddying when I was 8 years old. Still remember being forced to pick up trash with several other low totem pole caddies every day and not getting paid for it. Very lucky to be able to work as a kid. One valuable lesson I learned was how to gamble. Caddies played blackjack and gambled on golf course. One time I lost 2 weeks of wages on golf course. Very much worth the lesson. I have noticed that many lawyers are not good instinctive gamblers as I became.

    When I became 15 I started working in golf shop in the summer and did so throughout high school. My routine was to practice golf from about 7-9 a.m. (I played junior tournament golf), work from 9-5 or so. Then I would go out and play about 9 or 12 holes. At that time, it was easy for me. As I look at it now, it would be unimaginably hard.

    During the school year, I practiced golf nearly every day. This is very hard because some days you just plain stink and you can't correct the problem. Ultimately, you have to work through the problems and frustrations.

  133. JD Ohio,
    That’s a lot of golf at a young age. What is your handicap? (Mine is ~12, but never touched a club until 32.)

  134. Steve,

    Haven't played much in the last 15 years. I have played about 6 nine-hole rounds this summer. Probably about a 10.

  135. Mark Bofill, what part of don't tempt her do you not understand?

    I prefer the Christmas M&Ms, the red and white that for a few years were exclusive to Target.

  136. ~grins~
    I know. But as a result of the topic I went out driving around looking for a Krackel, couldn't find one and instead ended up buying several chocolate bars I really didn't want and didn't even enjoy. I thought I'd spare Lucia and any others the anguish of my fate.
    Awful to give in to a temptation and not even get what you want. :/
    But alas! Cracker Barrel appears to have sold out Krackel for now. Maybe they'll get more in sometime.

  139. I haven't listened to President Trump speak much over the past few years. I'm listening this morning to him answering questions about Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi.
    .
    Ughhh.. The rambling digressions that wander on and on and on make my ears bleed.

  140. mark,
    Jim and I haven't heard any of that yet. But we knew about the event… and we joked about what Trump's account would sound like!
    .
    I"m sure it was YUGE. And showed Trump is GREAT! and his people are GREAT. And it was more than Obama ever did. (And the economy is great too!) And… well… Wonderful people were involved on our side. Their side is horrible. Monsters.
    .
    (He likes certain adjectives and nouns. I need to avoid variety there.)

  142. I think I should also give my rendition of climbing steep hills both ways to and from school in my youth.

    My working career started on the farm at age 7 or 8 (it was long ago) doing chores like feeding and watering livestock early in the morning and in the evening. During the summer I started driving tractors and cars around 10 and worked farm jobs including bailing hay, harvesting grain crops and helping in vaccinating livestock for family and neighbors.

    In college I had to pay my way and during a couple of summers I worked in a factory where they made office furniture. I worked in the factory for 10 hours a day for 6 days a week and then played baseball for the company team on Sundays. The work was called piece work where you were paid for your output and I made more money those 2 summers than my 3 kids did combined during their summer jobs from college. I was always able to get good paying summer jobs but times had changed for my kids. I remember watching the more experienced workers being observed by industrial engineers whose job it was to determine the base rates for piece work and how they would methodically do their particular task and never reveal their "secret" maneuvers that allowed them to do it faster.

    As an undergraduate in college I worked in the cafeteria where I did all the jobs and had a key that would allow me to go into the kitchen to make the food I really liked for eating. There was a group of about 15 of my class mates who got jobs as a team in a packing house where on Saturdays we would prepare cattle hides for shipment to places that made the hides into leather. We got paid by how many hides we loaded onto large trucks. Our first time on the job we had a major learning experience and it took us all day to make our allotment of hides. A number of the team members wanted to quit on the spot. By our 3rd Saturday we had the process time down to 3 hours and thus our wages per hour we very good. We got paid in cash so we were flush for a Saturday night of fun. The only problem was that the stench from handling cattle hides would get into your hands such that even several washing would not remove nor would scented lotions completely cover it up.

    In graduate school I worked as a professor's assistant for several different professors and I remember one who taught a beginning chemistry course and who insisted that since he graded on the curve no test taker could receive a 100 percent grade. In other words even if they got all the answers correct he wanted me to go through all their written work that lead to the answer and make a judgment call on it. I also worked in factory that put enamel coatings on various metal parts that they sold. I thought that would be an interesting job where they would have a chemical lab that developed recipes for their coatings, but that was not to be. They had a very old man who formulated and ball milled the enamel mixes without any written procedures and would make adjustments on the fly. I was amazed at the quality of his output and he certainly had great job security – at least until someone might come along and document what he was doing.

    While in school I also worked in an ice cream plant where I was totally amazed at the work ethic of all the managers and workers and how well the place was run and the work coordinated. On Saturdays I was assigned to make a run with a truckload of ice cream Dixie cups to a Fox River Grove, IL park that was supposedly run by members of organized crime. The guy I delivered to was a bit of jerk and I think was overplaying the role of a mafioso underlord.

  143. The NYT's article on this Baghdadi take down mentioned Trump about 30 times. Everything is seen through this lens, not exactly a healthy obsession. It's good to see the intelligence community get a sourly needed win here.
    .
    The IS was already in a dire state, and since all the junior terrorists were pledging loyalty to Baghdadi personally this will be more impactful than usual I imagine. The remnants of Al Queda, the IS, et. al. will no doubt continue the ideology but what comes in the future will not likely look like what we have seen in the past. The west is not a paper tiger. Angering the "far enemy" has not proved fruitful.

  144. Thomas Fuller,
    >>Sadly?
    .
    Obviously I don't like it when my ears bleed. It's not really important, I just need to remember not to tune in to listen to him and instead read about it. Trump occupies a functional rather than decorative position in my view.

  146. Mike M –

    > Trump is the only politician willing, let alone able, to take on the elites and the administrative state.

    By what measures do you see Trump as anti-elite? I see someone who was born into an "elite" class, has long had a career highly integrated into mass media, who in fact has had powerful elements of the mass media systematically working to increase and protect his power (consider "catch and kill" and the National Enquirer, the efforts at Fox News to promote and maintain his power, his links to Murdoch, etc.), and who has long been closely linked with the administrative state.

    What is the definition of "the elites" that you're working with to extricate Trump? When we look at what happened with NBC and Weinstein, that looks like an "elite" nexus to me. I fail to see how Trump's connections to powerful media and the administrative state as different. Consider this story:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/business/michael-milken-trump-opportunity-zones.html

    Now I know that you probably don't consider the NYTimes as a reliable source, but do you think that there is no significant administrative state/elite/Trump nexus as outlined in that article?

    How about this article?:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-riddle-in-new-england-a-casino-321-acres-of-indian-tribal-land-and-a-presidential-tweet/2019/05/13/dfcc6dd8-7354-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html

    Isn't it really just a matter of which specific cohort within the "elite" which is favored by Trump that distinguishes him (and often, with people like Milken, not even there)?

    BTW, I was a paperboy throughout my early teens – and certainly that's why I'm the libertarian/conservative that I am today!

  147. Joshua,

    I agree that Trump was born into the "elite". Perhaps there is some sort of elite that is "super doooper exclusive more elite" which he is not part of…. dunno.
    .
    But clearly: His papa was very wealthy. He went to rich boy schools. He went to a rich boy college. Didn't have to wait tables or sell sandwiches at the school cafeteria at 13 to get money to feed his addiction to Krackle bars. He got access to the media easily– by virtue of family connections.
    .
    Heck, pre-politician days, he hob-knobbed with Clintons and got Clintons to say nice things. (They were probably sucking up to him and vice-versa– but that only shows he already was elite back then.)
    .
    Pre-political times, he was elite enough to have very bad manners and STILL get to hob-knob with politicians and other important office holders. He got TV gigs because he was elite.
    .
    By any normal definition of elite, he is and was born elite.
    .
    **I was a paperboy throughout my early teens **
    .
    But did you buy Krackle bars with your earnings? That's the question we all need the answer to . . .

  148. I don't know that anybody much disputes that Trump is a member of the elite. I know he was characterized by some as a 'populist' and some of his rhetoric is populist. A definition of Populist : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people.
    Would Trump's tariff war with China suit as evidence of populist policy? I don't know how I'd answer this question for certain, but my first inclination is to say yes.

  149. mark bofill,
    Yep.
    .
    Being a populist is not inconsistent with being a member of the elite. A populist is popular with "the common people". Sometimes they like a member of the elite. Happens.
    .
    Of course, "taking on the elites" doesn't mean one isn't "elite". But it does mean "taking on elites (other than the ones he likes". This might be the bulk of the elites… dunno.
    .
    Trump does, to a large extent, take on the "administrative state".

  150. By my definition of an elite as I perceive it being used here, which is an intellectual, Trump would not meet the qualifications. He is in fact barely intelligible.

    Although I do not like the direction our nation has been taking over the past many years, I do have to credit our system for not suffering inoperable damage from having a fool like Trump for a president. I do have to laugh when the more-is-better government crowd laments a president like Trump doing great damage to the system. I would reply that maybe we should have not have given government so much power over our lives that a single president can do great damage.

    Trump's trade policy and that of many of his Democrat challengers is in the Populist tradition.

  151. Mark –

    Consider that both Trump and Sanders are referred to as populists, even though many of their preferred policies are pretty much diametrically opposed. Trump supporters mostly think that Sanders' preferred policies are elitist and not supportive of the common people, the opposite dynamic is in play for opponents to Trump.

    Cui bono?

  153. Joshua,
    I can't speak with confidence about what Trump supporters mostly think. I think they (Trump supporters) would be making an error, if in fact they thought Bernie's preferred policies were elitist. My impression is that Trump supporter opposition to Bernie is [due to the fact] that Bernie's policies are socialist, rather than because they are populist.
    I think it's possible to have right and left wing populists who purport to represent 'the common man' but who support widely different policies.

  154. > Trump would not meet the qualifications. He is in fact barely intelligible.

    Yes some think he's a genius, and point to his attendance at an Ivy League school.

    > I do have to laugh when the more-is-better government crowd laments a president like Trump doing great damage to the system

    I find it funny that the "drown the government in the bathtub" crowd defends Trump's systematic focus on amassing and consolidating power in alliance with the economic elite and large corporations.

    > Trump's trade policy and that of many of his Democrat challengers is in the Populist tradition.

    Trump has been largely aligned against organized labor – which I would say is in direct contradiction to populist traditions w/r/t trade policy.

  155. Bernie started out as populist.
    .
    He opposed unlimited immigration and unrestricted free trade due to its dire effect on the citizen working class until he sold out to the woke activists in the primary and changed his positions.

  156. Mark –

    > I think it's possible to have right and left wing populists who purport to represent 'the common man' but who support widely different policies.

    Sure, purport.

    Fair enough for calling me out on generalizing, but I don't think it's particularly unusual to find criticism of Sanders, from the right, for being a part of the costal elites who seek to consolidate their own power at the expense of the common man (for example, by leveraging the vote of undocumented migrants and offering reparations, free healthcare etc.).

    Stuff along the lines of this:

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-truth-about-socialism-it-doesnt-care-about-the-middle-class-its-about-keeping-the-ruling-class-power

  158. “..Trump has been largely aligned against organized labor – which I would say is in direct contradiction to populist traditions w/r/t trade policy..”
    .
    LOL…..organized labor management supports the woke democratic party that mainly supports the coastal elites against the best interests of the rank and file union members.
    Such as
    Unrestricted free trade that sends manufacturers off shore
    Restricted energy policy
    Restricted policy against construction of pipelines
    Unrestricted immigration that holds down wages
    .
    There is a reason Trump has major support from union members. He supports them more than thier own union bosses.

  159. Mark –

    Basically that labels like populist and elitist should be subject to due diligence, that looks beyond partisan rhetoric.

  161. Ed –

    There is plenty of opposition to Trump from "union members. I'd say that to a large degree, support or lack of support for Trump among union members is not based as much on his trade policies, and whether they're traditionally populist, so much as ideological associations.

    It's another reflection of the dynamic where we see him advocate for policies that run counter to long-standing republican and conservative preferences with little pushback from Republicans and conservatives on those policies.

  162. A couple of relatively minor items:
    .
    >>for being a part of the costal elites who seek to consolidate their own power at the expense of the common man
    ———-
    I still think you're scrambling two different things together. Not clear to me that there is a necessary contradiction between championing a populist cause and being a member of an elite group who seek to consolidate their own power at the expense of the common man.
    >>It's another reflection of the dynamic where we see him advocate for policies that run counter to long-standing republican and conservative preferences with little pushback from Republicans and conservatives on those policies.
    ——
    I'm not sure that's so. There are Republicans who dislike Trump. Even if it is so, again — it's a two party system; essentially voters have to encapsulate all of the complexity into a binary choice.
    Shrug.

  163. Would you guys say Trump got pushback on withdrawing from Syria? I thought so, but maybe I'm off in the weeds.

  164. Joshua
    **Trump supporters mostly think that Sanders' preferred policies are elitist and not supportive of the common people, the opposite dynamic is in play for opponents to Trump.

    Cui bono?**
    Well… I think that was rhetorical and your intention is for us all to recognize the answer obvious answer. Nevertheless, I'll provide it.
    .
    * Trump's policies tend to benefit people who work outside the goverment sector for a living, small business owners and so on.
    * Sander's policies benefit people who work inside the government and those who exist off government programs.

    Thanks for bringing the question up. Now we can all see that we ALL agree with the clearly correct and obvious answer.

  165. “…It's another reflection of the dynamic where we see him advocate for policies that run counter to long-standing republican and conservative preferences with little pushback from Republicans and conservatives on those policies…”
    .
    And this is exactly why I now support the current republican party after being a dem voter since McGovern. The democratic party has moved away from my interests and the republican party has moved toward my interests.
    .
    No Clinton and No Bush
    .

  166. Mark –

    > … championing a populist cause and being a member of an elite group who seek to consolidate their own power at the expense of the common man.

    I completely agree that Trump does both – depending on the issue. Which is why I say that due diligence should be applied to his rhetoric, or labeling him as anti-elite or populist or for the common man. Such diligence should be applied to him as with any politician, and claims that he's different than a typical politician should be interrogated.

    > I'm not sure that's so. There are Republicans who dislike Trump.

    An increasingly small number (reflected in his high support in the republican party) – to some extent because some who see Trump as antithetical to their long-held beliefs have left the party because of him.

    > Even if it is so, again — it's a two party system; essentially voters have to encapsulate all of the complexity into a binary choice.

    Sure. But that in itself doesn't explain why he has gotten so little pushback during his time in office on longstanding policies among pubz and conz on issues such as deficit and debt reduction.

    > Would you guys say Trump got pushback on withdrawing from Syria?

    No doubt. It's an interesting situation which seems to lie outside the more typical pattern. It is interesting to speculate as to why, imo.

  167. Joshua,
    >> But that in itself doesn't explain why he has gotten so little pushback during his time in office on longstanding policies among pubz and conz on issues such as deficit and debt reduction.
    ——————-
    It explains *my* case. I can't speak for others. Who am I going to vote for, who can plausibly get elected, that is going to actually do something to reduce government spending? In my view the answer is *nobody*. It's not an option. Since it's not an option, it's not a relevant part of the decision making process.
    I don't know that all that many conservatives give a hoot about the debt and deficit. Some do. They make noise about it during the administrations of Dem Presidents and don't much during the administrations of Repub Presidents, sure. It seems to be mostly noise.

  168. Lucia –

    > Well… I think that was rhetorical and your intention is for us all to recognize the answer obvious answer. Nevertheless, I'll provide it.
    .
    It wasn't actually meant as a question but a way of stating something like…."What I think is important is to consider who is benefiting from Trump's policies when a term like populist or anti-elitist is used to describe Trump."

    Iow, something on the order of "Cui bono applies when determining whether Trump is a populist. '

  169. Lucia: "Being a populist is not inconsistent with being a member of the elite. A populist is popular with "the common people". Sometimes they like a member of the elite. Happens."
    .
    Teddy Roosevelt was a member of the elite, as was his fifth cousin by blood and nephew by marriage, Franklin. They were "traitors to their class."
    .
    Kenneth: "I do have to laugh when the more-is-better government crowd laments a president like Trump doing great damage to the system. I would reply that maybe we should have not have given government so much power over our lives that a single president can do great damage."
    .
    The hallmark of the left is blindness to the consequences of surrendering power for promises.

  170. I think the term elite when used in the context of politics has little meaning with regard to power over others. Politicians are rarely original thinkers or intellectuals and it is from the intelligentsia that politicians get their ideas. Those ideas have to be sold to voting masses and in order to do that politicians normally dumb down the thinking behind those ideas and attempt to create a crisis atmosphere in order to get those policies into practice.

    Progressives and populists have historically depended on getting policies into practice by creating crisis atmospheres for selling policies to the masses and by patronizingly doing it for the good of the "common man".

    On the other hand we have the conservatives, and particularly the neo-conservatives, who use the crisis mentality to get the US militarily involved around the world with the mantra: we have never seen an international crisis that did not call for the US to intervene.

    That politicians not only lack original ideas but ideals is seen by the party line and their supporters being against some action or policy simply because it is favored by the other side. An example of this hypocritical nature of politicians and those who heed the party line is government debt and deficit spending where the party out of power would lament the debt and ignore it when in power. Unfortunately almost all politicians are so irresponsible these days with regards to debt that neither party laments anymore.

  171. Joshua
    **It wasn't actually meant as a question but a way of stating something like…."What I think is important is to consider who is benefiting from Trump's policies when a term like populist or anti-elitist is used to describe Trump."**
    .
    So, I was correct. It was a rhetorical question– which is something that looks like a question but is an attempt to state something without actually stating it and leaving it entirely up to the reader to make a wild guess what you intend to communicate.
    .
    **Iow, something on the order of "Cui bono applies when determining whether Trump is a populist. '**
    Which you could have actually written out instead of leaving a rhetorical question whose message was– apparently– not easily interpreted.

  172. If you use the definition of who do the establishment / elites hate the most, then Trump is certainly anti-elite and taking them on. Trump probably always wanted to be part of the elites and their spurning of him at every turn is part of why he so enjoys sticking a finger in their eye.

  173. As I recall the media narrative was Obama made a brave and heroic choice to go after Bin Laden, as if that wasn't the easiest decision in the history of the universe. There was risk, but are you seriously going to not do that? The same for Trump, but of course nobody is saying Trump made a brave decision, ha ha.
    .
    Prepare for the media to drop this story like a rock ASAP.

  174. I realized today as I picked up groceries that Halloween is imminent, and even though we don't get many Trick-or-Treaters we do get some. I therefore bought a bag of candy.
    …
    You can see where this is leading, can't you.
    …
    It's a small bag of candy. I dare not open it, because my wife and kids (but not me (cough cough)) will devour it. But the Krackel! There's Krackel in there!
    It's going to be a loooong week, waiting for Halloween…

  175. "But the Krackel! There's Krackel in there!
    It's going to be a loooong week, waiting for Halloween…"

    I used to have a Snickers addiction and at Halloween I was always hoping it might rain to deter the trick or treaters. Now that I have beaten that addiction when it gets late on Halloween I start giving out 2 or 3 bars at a time. One year a little boy who got 3 bars got real excited and was jumping up and down yelling to his mother that he got 3 treats. Made my evening.

  176. Lucia
    .
    > an attempt to state something without actually stating it and leaving it entirely up to the reader to make a wild guess what you intend to communicate.
    .

    I thought it was obvious what I was intending to communicate: That the question (cui bono?) should be asked as to who benefits when a label like "populist" or "elitist" is applied do someone like Trump. I didn't think that interpreting that what I meant would require a wild guess.
    .

    I thought the context provided from what I had just said just previously… "Consider that both Trump and Sanders are referred to as populists, even though many of their preferred policies are pretty much diametrically opposed. Trump supporters mostly think that Sanders' preferred policies are elitist and not supportive of the common people, the opposite dynamic is in play for opponents to Trump."…would make that clear… but I guess it didn't. Sorry for the confusion.

  177. I am going to repeat myself since at least one person here missed (or ignored the first time). But I will add a bit of elaboration this time.
    .
    Any label for just about anything is inadequate. At best it is a convenient shorthand. So a term like "coastal elites" or "establishment" should not be interpreted too literally. It is entirely possible for a billionaire from New York City to not be one of the coastal elite and for a high school teacher from Topeka to identify with the coastal elite, even if not really being very elite.
    .
    Classifying people by how much money they have, where they come from, or what job they hold makes no more sense than classifying them by race or religion.

    What matters is what people believe and how they act on those beliefs.
    .
    With that in mind, I would define the "coastal elites" (or whatever a better label might be) by their adherence to a set of values that are largely in conflict with the values of the people at large. These include:
    (1) multiculturalism rather than assimilation of immigrants
    (2) support for identity politics
    (3) internationalist outlook
    (4) skepticism of national sovereignty
    (5) support of expanded trade as a good in itself
    (6) preference for open borders
    (7) support for foreign intervention
    (8) pseudo-religious environmentalism
    (9) libertine social mores
    (10) dismissive of religion
    .
    Trump adheres to none of those, at least not in his public positions. Warren seems to support all of them. Sanders seems to be in between, but has taken to downplaying the ones he disagrees with.

  178. MikeM
    **So a term like "coastal elites" or "establishment" should not be interpreted too literally. **
    .
    Ok… but then it kinda sorta is meaningless.
    .
    "identify with the coastal elite"
    .
    "identinying with" is not "being a member of" I could "identify with" citizens of PRC. That wouldn't make me BE a citizen of PRC.
    .
    *Classifying people by how much money they have, where they come from, or what job they hold makes no more sense than classifying them by race or religion*
    .
    Perhaps. But being a person with money and access to power DOES make the "elite". that's what "elite" means. Either that, or it means nothing, in which case, you can't call anyone elite.
    .
    I would define the "coastal elites"
    .
    Which sounds like you are using "elites" as a euphemism for "people whose belief differ from mine". I guess that's fine. But it's not what "elite" means.
    .
    **9) libertine social mores**
    Uhmmm… well, at least with respect to his own sexuality and marriage, infidelity, remarriage, Donald would seem to fit right in there. I'm under the impression he's not religious either.
    .
    But regardless: that's not a list of what makes someone "elite"– or at least not unless you torture the word and speak in some sort of code. ,

  179. Kenneth,
    The funny thing is, I never really cared all that much about Krackel specifically until this thread. I've become moderately obsessed since reading mention of it here and realizing that there's no sufficiently convenient way I can have one just now. No doubt when Halloween comes I'll have one and forget all about it.

  180. Mike M –
    .
    I did miss that. Apologies. Now I see what criteria you use to exclude Trump from the classification of elite, despite his upbringing in opulence and access to resources available to very few people, his extensive network of connections to the rich and powerful in any variety of ways, his huge amount of access to powerful government figures, his enormous access to mass media, his huge level of support from mass media, etc.
    .
    I guess I don't see that really as exclusion from the "elite" as I would necessarily connect "elite" to power, access to power, influence on government, access to exclusive resources, media influence, media support, in *in addition to yes, extraordinary amounts of money. *
    .
    Seems more to me like you're taking a particular segment of the elite (in this case selected by Trump's politically expedient and self-serving rhetoric) and just calling them not elite – presumably because you tend to agree with their views on some issues and don't consider yourself an elitist .
    .

  182. Mike M –

    Regarding:
    .
    (1) multiculturalism rather than assimilation of immigrants.
    .
    I'd suggest that many of those you'd consider coastal elites don't support multiculturalism "rather" than assimilation, but support both and feel that the one isn't mutually exclusive with the other.
    .
    (2) support for identity politics
    .
    I would suggest that Trump very much supports a brand of identity politics
    .
    (3) internationalist outlook
    .
    Like outsourcing business interests to China?
    .
    (4) skepticism of national sovereignty
    .
    A distinction I'd say that holds up
    .
    (5) support of expanded trade as a good in itself
    .
    I think that support for expanded trade is largely conditional among (many, if not all of) your coastal elite. For example, many might say that trade should be conditioned on issues like civil rights, environmental considerations, work conditions, etc.
    .
    (6) preference for open borders
    .
    I'd say that many (but not all) don't support "open borders" so much as a different set of border policies (such as decriminalization)
    .
    (7) support for foreign intervention
    .
    I'd say you're quite wrong about that. There is a segment that supports foreign intervention in some cases (not as a general policy) but most are largely against foreign intervention relative to the "non coastal elites." Consider the war in Iraq as an example.
    .
    (8) pseudo-religious environmentalism
    .
    I guess that would depend on how you designate "psudeo-religious."
    .
    (9) libertine social mores
    .
    I guess that's legit – except Trump seems to fit into that category and has been issued an exemption.
    .
    (10) dismissive of religion
    .
    Many are religious, but as a group your coastal elites are less religious than your excluded group (and dismissal of religion is clearly more prevalent)
    .
    Mostly, it seems to me you are working with cartoonish caricatures to make your distinctions.

  183. lucia (Comment #177327): "But regardless: that's not a list of what makes someone "elite"– or at least not unless you torture the word and speak in some sort of code."

    But it is a list of characteristics of most of the people who dominate the government, corporate boardrooms, the press, media, universities.

    I'd love to have a better label.

  184. Trump is elite, but there are many stories of him having a chip on his shoulder because other elites in New York looked down on him, possibly as an outer boroughs guy.

  185. That candy shop I referred to above has Sugar Daddy, which is the best, as they take about an hour to consume.

  186. Mike M,
    “I'd love to have a better label.”
    .
    ‘Socialist’, ‘progressive’, ‘leftist’ are all more accurate. There is nothing in Occasional Cortex’s background which you could call elite, but she supports every one of your list of 10 policy positions, except maybe trade, where she would use control of trade with the USA to punish countries who are not sufficiently compliant with her desired type of global government. The common threads are always ‘raise your taxes’, ‘control exactly what you can and can’t do’ in almost every part of your life, and institute similar policies everywhere. It is totalitarianism.

  187. Tootsie Pops. Specifically cherry and orange. Not chocolate. They now make mini Tootsie Pops in 18 flavors! I also like Tootsie roll fruit chews and Dots.

  188. SteveF/MikeM
    **
    ‘Socialist’, ‘progressive’, ‘leftist’ are all more accurate.**
    Yep. SteveF's label better describes your list. Much better than "elite" that means something else.
    .
    One could also add "adjective elite" to indicate the "top x%" in some category– so administrative elite, political elite, intellectual elite…, or flipping 'elite influencers'….. But it the word "elite" still needs to mean "top bracket".
    .
    NOTHING on your list is related to being the "top" or any category. It's a list of political *views*. That has nothing to do with being "elite" or "not".
    .
    The views being ones you don't like doesn't turn the people who hold those views into the "elite".

  189. "Socialist’, ‘progressive’, ‘leftist’ are all more accurate"
    .
    Perhaps the idea that the "coastal elite," because they have money and power, are defining the platform for the left is a fallacy, an ego-centric paranoia. Perhaps AOC is not just a brainless indoctrinated sales person the coastal elite. Maybe there is no higher intellect at work AT ALL.
    .
    Perhaps calling out the elite is just a non-racist modern scapegoat for whatever ideas you oppose. The left has always used it as part of their dogma and now that they control the media, government, wall street and campuses the right sees an opening to turn around and use the same populist tactic.
    .
    This makes a lot of sense. After all, the ideas are flawed. The only thing holding them together is the echo-chamber caused by the mutual pursuit of power, and for the common person, acceptance.

  190. I would consider betting my own money that AOC considered herself elite even before she was elected to Congress. IMO a narcissistic personality is a normal characteristic of politicians.

  191. Sometimes comment threads generate unexpected humor, in this case from Joshua:
    .
    “I'd say that many (but not all) don't support "open borders" so much as a different set of border policies (such as decriminalization)”
    .
    Which I find funny because making unlawful residency in the USA similar to a j-walking citation is just open borders by a different name… a silly distinction without a difference. When people do not believe the nation-state is a morally legitimate organizing principle, they support policies which will ultimately eliminate the nation-state, or render it non-existent except in name. I’m waiting for the Japanese, the Saudi’s, and a host of others to adopt effectively ‘open borders’ policies, but not holding my breath.

  192. DeWitt,
    I expect AOC does see herself as ‘elite’ in her political opinions, even though her level of understanding of the world is arguably comparable to that of a box of rocks. That bizarre lack of awareness of personal limitations, along with a strong totalitarian tendency, appear remarkably common among socialists.

  193. "Perhaps calling out the elite is just a non-racist modern scapegoat for whatever ideas you oppose. The left has always used it as part of their dogma and now that they control the media, government, wall street and campuses the right sees an opening to turn around and use the same populist tactic."

    Bingo!

    It does have some elements of racism in being much too general and attempting to demonize a group of people. We would do better engaging in ideas and ignoring identity politics and labels like elite.

  194. Steve –
    .
    Many Demz openly supported significant funding for various components of border security – if not for building a wall or separating families. It's a matter of congressional records.
    .
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/us/politics/democrats-border-security-wall.amp.html
    .
    If one supports border security, it's different than supporting open borders.
    .
    Yes, there are those who support "open borders," but that doesn't justify broad generalizations that don't allow for meaningful distinctions between what different people support.
    .
    As for your characterizations of totalitarianism….you have one view, here's another
    .
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/campaign-stops/purity-disgust-and-donald-trump.amp.html
    .
    Now I don't really agree with some of what's in that article either, to the extent that it can be interpreted to characterize Trump supporters too broadly. IMO, it is more accurate to say that there are those who lean towards authoritarianism or totalitarianism on both sides of the political spectrum, and if there is a difference in "average" across the ideological divide, it is relatively insignificant in the context of diversity on each side of the divide respectively.
    .
    But, IMO, the evidence referenced in the article, from people like Haidt, should be addressed with due diligence by people who make broad characterizations such as that which you made.

  195. I don't think it's difficult to understand what people mean by the pejorative "elite". Attempting to obfuscate it or say it is a meaningless term is just avoiding the debate entirely. It does mean slightly different things to different people and you have to read the context of the sentence but I think most people here are capable of reading comprehension and moving on with the discussion, some apparently use excessive semantic equivocation for their own entertainment. There are financial elite, educational elite, etc. Trump is not railing against the financial elite like Warren and Sanders.
    .
    It's not wrong to ask for clarification, but when it is asked and answered then it's time to move past semantic Jeopardy. Mike M's list is a pretty good purity test for the "progressive cultural elite". These are shibboleths as commonly expressed by the NYC and DC media that are rarely challenged in that cultural bubble but are challenged outside that bubble.
    .
    A small group of people control a very large platform to market their social views that are not representative of the nation as a whole. They are not reporting on these views, they are attempting to change the views of others they don't like. They misuse the previously earned respect of their institutions to further their own political objectives. They sacrifice long term institutional respect for short term political gain.

  196. Tom –
    .
    > A small group of people control a very large platform to market their social views that are not representative of the nation as a whole.
    .
    Do you mean the Murdochs or the Trumps?

  197. It might be that nobody uses the internet better than Donald Trump as he claimed yesterday, but what very large platform does Trump control?

  198. It’s all the fault of Plato and his idiotic philosopher king idea. Btw, all the recent emphasis on economic inequality, particularly by Marxists like Piketty, misses the fact that possibly the most unequal society on the planet is the nominally communist People’s Republic of China with lots of billionaires while hundreds of millions continue to live in abject poverty.

  199. Immigration, climate change, sexual harassment, and racial crime are some leading examples of subjects that are highly distorted by the media. If you only read the NYT and WP then you aren't likely to have a full view of what is happening. Selection bias and framing bias are rampant. It used to be that the media could go to highly respected educational institutions as an unbiased authority on subjects such as these, but those days are over.

  200. Mark –

    I was being hypedbolic.
    .
    But while Trump doesn't singularly have complete control over any particular platform, he has significant influence on extremely powerful platforms. Consider his constant pimping for particular shows on Fox News, in tweets that go out to millions. It is hard for me to imagine that there is any other single individual who has more power and control over powerful platforms to market views that are not representative of the nation as a whole.
    .
    If we enlarge the group of Trump's cohort to something like the Murdochs, even more so.
    .
    This notion of some clear distinction for who is or isn't "elite" deserves some due diligence, IMO.

  201. Joshua
    **If one supports border security, it's different than supporting open borders.**
    Ok, now define "border security" so we can figure out if it's different.
    .
    I think if we allow everyone to stay merely because they got past the border and wish to, that policy is "open borders". It's open borders even if we have check points at borders and even if we patrol borders.
    .
    But perhaps you have a definition of "border security" that somehow means people who get past the border illegally are sent back. I'll wait until you tell me what you man by "border security" before making up my mind whether merely having "border security" means the policy isn't "open borders".

  202. Tom
    ** Mike M's list is a pretty good purity test for the "progressive cultural elite".**
    .
    His list might be a "purity test", but "a purity test" isn't "the definition of elite". I realize one might not want to argue semantics. But we can't communicate without words, and the word "elite" already means something. Progressive already means something.
    .
    If MikeM wants to rail against the "progressive cultural elite", that's fine. If he wants to point out that Trump is not in THAT group: correct. Because he is not progressive.
    .
    But he is in the "financial elite" and he was raised in, and hobnobbed with the "social elite" his whole life, and he was educated in "academically elite" schools from cradle through whatever ultimate degree he got.

  203. Obviously we don't want idiots running the country, but we also have to protect institutions from the smart AND corrupted people. My view is that the smart/educated class are just as prone to corruption as the others, these character traits are very loosely correlated, if at all. The smart/educated class are also inherently better at hiding or legalizing the corruption, see the college entrance scandal, the Clinton Foundation, or super high speed stock trading.
    .
    The design of the system is what is important here, versus attempting to only install not corrupted and trusted people. The best tool is transparency. Fortunately the US is actually pretty good at this when compared to the rest of the world.

  204. Joshua,
    >>It is hard for me to imagine that there is any other single individual who has more power and control over powerful platforms to market views that are not representative of the nation as a whole.
    —————-
    Maybe so. If so, I think reports like this are odd:
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/
    It seems … incongruous? that an individual with such power and control over platforms to market views ends up with such overwhelmingly negative coverage as the article I linked suggests. But maybe that's a function of no one individual having dominance of platform control (dominance as opposed to significant influence). I don't know.

  205. Maybe I didn't express that as clearly as I would have liked to. What I was trying to say is, maybe Trump is the biggest fish, but relative to the mass of [all of the] other big media/influence fish who hate him he's small.

  206. Joshua,

    Nah, I think the ideological divide is more accurately characterized as a fundamental disagreement between those who want to enforce existing laws and the provisions of the Constitution, and those who want to ignore them when they are unable to change them. Although I think Haidt often has useful insights, in this case I think he is blinded by his own ideas. 'Disgust' and 'revulsion' with foreigners rarely have anything to do with the ideological divide. My objection to the Obama administration was primarily its willingness to subvert or simply ignore laws Obama did not like. My objection to judges Obama appointed (both Supreme and lower courts) is their willingness to ignore the clear meaning and intent of both law and the Constitution to achieve a legal outcome they want. My disgust and revulsion is directed toward the bizarre and destructive ideas that the US Constitution is a "living document" with meaning that changes according to the political whims of Federal judges, and that laws should be simply ignored when those who administer the laws disagree with them.

  207. **If one supports border security, it's different than supporting open borders.**
    .
    Contestant: "Alex, I'll take immigration semantics for $1000, please."
    .
    Alex: "The answer is the free flow of people into national borders with little to no action taken by the government".
    .
    beep, beep.
    .
    Contestant: "What is border security according to progressives?".
    .
    Alex: "Oops, sorry, we were looking for open borders".

  208. Lucia –
    .
    > I think if we allow everyone to stay merely because they got past the border and wish to, that policy is "open borders". It's open borders even if we have check points at borders and even if we patrol borders.
    .
    I think that "allowing everyone to stay" deserves some due diligence. Obama was the "deporter in chief." The center of gravity has moved somewhat on the left w/r/t immigration since he was in office, but such vague characterizations don't serve an open exchange of views well, IMO. For example, I think there is a meaningful difference between not thinking it makes practical sense to deport huge numbers of people, such as people who have crossed the border without documents but who haven't violated laws other than those classified as a misdemeanor, and instead targeting deportation at violent criminals who get across the border. I don't see the targeted deportations as "allowing everyone to stay" or that the term applies equally well in both situations. Again there are some, I suppose, who wouldn't agree with deporting violent criminals, but I'd suggest it isn't a caterogorization that applies very widely. Simply deporting everyone who doesn't have documents would be quite problematic, which is why Trump hasn't attempted to do that despite his many promises to do so. Dividing people with such a simplistic concept is sub-optimal, imo.
    .
    > But perhaps you have a definition of "border security" that somehow means people who get past the border illegally are sent back.
    .
    I'm a bit confused by the question (which wasn't rhetorical, of course) – but I think that funding for new border detection technologies, hiring more customs officers, increased support for border enforcement agencies, counts as focus on border security.
    .

  209. SteveF,
    The US Constitution is effectively the base design of the system. When people ask me why I voted for Trump my first answer is always the SC, and very specifically the 1st amendment. The SC has struck down a long line of busy bodies attempting to impose speech limits for their political agenda.

  210. Marc Bofill,
    "Maybe I didn't express that as clearly as I would have liked to. What I was trying to say is, maybe Trump is the biggest fish, but relative to the mass of [all of the] other big media/influence fish who hate him he's small."
    .
    Of course. If you read most newspapers or watch most TV news, everything Trump does is portrayed in the worst possible light. He is attacked pretty much continuously. A "news report" I read this morning on US special forces killing the head of ISIS focused mostly on how horribly Trump behaved in announcing the operation, not on the actual news of a very bad guy (terrorist, mass murderer, serial rapist, etc.) being eliminated. The coverage is explicitly anti-Trump almost 100% of the time. The MSM is very much like Prvada was in the era of the USSR; everything is controlled by politics.

  211. Steve –

    > Nah, I think the ideological divide is more accurately characterized as a fundamental disagreement between those who want to enforce existing laws and the provisions of the Constitution, and those who want to ignore them when they are unable to change them.
    .
    I think that concern about the rule of law should be subjected to a cui bono frame of due diligence. I think that concern about the rule of law tends to vary on both sides of the political aisle in association with ideological implications on various issues. I don't think it serves well as a marker to identify people across the ideological aisle in the basis of concern about the rule of law.

  212. Joshua,
    >>I think that concern about the rule of law tends to vary on both sides of the political aisle in association with ideological implications on various issues. I don't think it serves well as a marker to identify people across the ideological aisle in the basis of concern about the rule of law.
    ——-
    I agree with you here.

  213. Mark –

    > Maybe I didn't express that as clearly as I would have liked to. What I was trying to say is, maybe Trump is the biggest fish, but relative to the mass of [all of the] other big media/influence fish who hate him he's small.
    .
    I will agree that obviously, he is very unpopular in some large and powerful platforms, and has little control over them. I'm not sure exactly how to weight the various platforms and measure of control, but it seems to me that on any realistic scale, his control and influence over powerful media outlets is at an "elite" level.

  214. Joshua,
    " I think that funding for new border detection technologies, hiring more customs officers, increased support for border enforcement agencies, counts as focus on border security."
    .
    I wonder if you are aware that more than half of "undocumented residents" are people who entered the USA lawfully and then didn't leave when they were supposed to: (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings).
    .
    No amount of border spending is going to control those entries. If we do spend more money on border security, then more people will try to enter with a temporary visa. How do you suggest we reduce the number of undocumented residents who arrived with visa in hand? There are, of course, simple, inexpensive, and effective ways to eliminate unlawful residency in the USA, but nobody seems interested in those, especially not 'progressives' in Congress.

  216. Joshua,
    "I don't think it serves well as a marker to identify people across the ideological aisle in the basis of concern about the rule of law."
    .
    And I think that, as usual, you are simply wrong about that.

  217. Steve –
    .
    I am aware of that – it's one of the main reasons why people are critical of Trump's fear-mongering and divisive rhetoric that lack of support for a border wall = lack of concern about the rule of law or lack concern about problems associated with immigration.

  218. Tom Scharf (Comment #177345): "I don't think it's difficult to understand what people mean by the pejorative "elite". Attempting to obfuscate it or say it is a meaningless term is just avoiding the debate entirely."
    .
    Thank you. The same can be done with all labels. I used "coastal elites" rather than "elites" as a signal that I was using a specific definition. I'd love to have a better label, but I don't.
    ———–

    Tom Scharf: "Mike M's list is a pretty good purity test for the "progressive cultural elite". These are shibboleths as commonly expressed by the NYC and DC media that are rarely challenged in that cultural bubble but are challenged outside that bubble."
    .
    Thanks again. "Purity test" is a good description since that is a key aspect of that culture. But "progressive cultural elite" has the same problem as other labels. Such people don't just dominate cultural institutions (press, entertainment, universities), they also dominate big business and government bureaucracy. And even conservatives in such places have to get a passing score on the purity test, hence the Never Trumpers.
    ———–
    .
    Tom Scharf: "A small group of people control a very large platform to market their social views that are not representative of the nation as a whole. They are not reporting on these views, they are attempting to change the views of others they don't like. They misuse the previously earned respect of their institutions to further their own political objectives. They sacrifice long term institutional respect for short term political gain."
    .
    Exactly. But they do not just control the platforms; they also control most of the levers of power.

    And it is not just the elites, it is all the aspiring elites and hangers on and wannabes who espouse those views.
    ——–
    Hmm. Perhaps "cosmopolitan insiders"? Still leaves a lot unsaid, but at least it obviously requires a definition.

  219. If you want an example of framing bias, check out the coverage of the news that the Barr/Durham probe has turned into a criminal investigation. This one really made my eyes roll. My local newspaper covered it (an AP story) in the first paragraph as an attempt by Trump to get back at his political enemies based on nothing but unsourced speculation. Zero facts, no inference that there might actually be a real crime here.
    https://www.apnews.com/1ed5abe3d0de4d3cb183ba9c29626396
    .
    "a move that is likely to raise concerns that President Donald Trump and his allies may be using the powers of the government to go after their opponents".
    .
    Is that what the "news" is here? Really? It's so lazy and incompetent that they didn't even get a Democrat to say it for them first and then print that, the usual method of journalistic integrity to frame a view. Compare this to the years of breathless fact free "we already know the answer" coverage on Russian collusion. What are the odds that our 4th estate is devoting any significant resources to this "we don't want to know the answer" investigation?

  220. Tom Scharf,
    "When people ask me why I voted for Trump my first answer is always the SC…."
    .
    That is my second reason. The first is that I didn't want a career criminal in the White House.

  221. Steve –
    .
    I would argue that what democratic presidential candidates advocate for is one not entirely unreasonable way to gauge the attitudes towards immigration associated rule of law among people who are politically opposed to Trump.
    .
    Most, but not all, support requiring the use of e-verify, particularly if it is improved.

  222. Joshua,
    Thanks for answering my question about how to control visa overstays…. oh wait, you didn't answer it.
    .
    I'm not surprised. Nor am I surprised that you took a direct question that shows the silliness of 'progressive' immigration policy and turned it into (yet another) attack on Trump. There are lot of things Congress could do to eliminate illegal residency, unrelated to controlling undocumented border crossings (which is just part of the problem), but those things would never be allowed by… shockingly enough… progressives in Congress.

  224. Joshua,
    "Most, but not all, support requiring the use of e-verify, particularly if it is improved."
    .
    That is a wildly inaccurate characterization: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/immigration/e-verify/
    .
    Leading candidates Biden and Warren won't even answer the question. Sanders says, "yes, if improved". I am not sure what "if improved" means, but I am guessing it means not actually enforced in a way that keeps people here illegally from working.
    .
    Most of the others would only support E-verify if all those already here are allowed to become citizens, who will (no doubt) vote for the Democrats who gave them citizenship in exchange for unlawful behavior. Some candidates would never support E-verify.

  225. Joshua
    **I think that "allowing everyone to stay" deserves some due diligence. Obama was the "deporter in chief." **
    WRT to the previouys discussion, I think you are going off on a tangent. *I* at least am just discussing what an open border IS. Not what Obama or Trump are *doing* at the border or inside the border. I don't need to know their actions to dicssuss what constitutes an Open Border.

    **For example, I think there is a meaningful difference between not thinking it makes practical sense to deport huge numbers of people, such as people who have crossed the border without documents but who haven't violated laws other than those classified as a misdemeanor, and instead targeting deportation at violent criminals who get across the border. **
    There IS a meaningful difference between these policies. BUT, not withstanding that difference, letting people who got in illegally stay merely because they got here is "open border". It may be merely "de facto" as opposed to "de jure". But it is still "open borders".
    .
    So both of those things are "open borders" even though they are not identical policies.
    .
    **Simply deporting everyone who doesn't have documents would be quite problematic,**
    .
    We can debate whether it is "problematic". However, a policy of NOT deporting them is an "open border" policy. I realize some people are FOR that. (My sister is.) But being FOR it doesn't magically transfor it into "not open borders".
    .
    It's all well and good to have a discussion of whether you LIKE or SUPPORT policies that constitute "open borders". It's fine for you to call those policies that are necessary to having "not open borders" "problematic." But denying that the policies you want ARE defactor and de jury open borders– sorry.. no.
    .
    **but I think that funding for new border detection technologies, hiring more customs officers, increased support for border enforcement agencies, counts as focus on border security.**

    Ok. Then I can confidently say that what you call border security is not sufficient to having a system that is "not open borders". Unless the security is PERFECT or at least near PERFECT it we can both have "increased security" and "open borders" at the same time. Not sending people who arrived illegally home is de facto open borders. A policy of not sending them home is de jure open borders.

  226. Only deporting violent criminals, while also taking in everyone who applies at the border for asylum, is pretty close to open borders.

    There were even complaints from Democrats over deportations of people with deportation orders whose asylum claims were denied but haven't left the country.

  227. Joshua,

    I am old enough to have known lots of people on the left; I base my views of the left on experience. I assure you I am not in the beginning stages of schizophrenia. Project much?

  229. My unsourced speculation is that the Durham investigation will simply document what we already know. The *** Trump as a target *** investigation was initiated by some partisan people with sketchy information that probably didn't warrant the attention it was given. There will be enough plausible deniability that nothing significant will happen except for some verbal reprimands for bad judgment. Both sides will declare victory as we all expect. Comey will give a Michael Mann "vindication" speech, ha ha.
    .
    Bottom line is that the FBI needs to stay away from political investigations during election years, or that the threshold for opening one needs to be rock solid.

  230. Tom Scharf,
    "Bottom line is that the FBI needs to stay away from political investigations during election years, or that the threshold for opening one needs to be rock solid."
    .
    Sure, but that would require a new law explicitly restricting that kind of investigation, or thoughtful, honest people leading the FBI. Neither seems likely to me.

  231. Open borders is a labeling paranoia issue more than anything. They want to allow effectively unlimited illegal immigration at the border but don't want to be known for supporting "effectively unlimited illegal immigration at the border". I hope I make myself clear here. It's like wanting a bunch of very expensive government programs without having to raise taxes.
    .
    These aren't the droids you're looking for. He can go about his business.

  232. Tom, the NYT has buried deep in one of its articles the suggestion that the FBI was duped by CIA into starting an investigation into Trump.

    First acknowledgement by them that the investigation might not be legitimate, with certain parts of the investigating team passing blame to other parts.

  233. Tom Scharf (Comment #177379): "My unsourced speculation is that the Durham investigation will simply document what we already know. … There will be enough plausible deniability …"

    That depends on whether Durham can flip somebody with inside knowledge. The fact that it is now a criminal investigation gives him a powerful tool to induce such flips. Once that starts, the whole conspiracy starts to unravel, possibly all the way to the top.

  234. Mike N,
    Of *course* the investigation was motivated by the desire to keep Trump from being elected, and removing him once elected. The bad actors like Brennan, Clapper, and Comey will of *course* claim their motivations were as pure as wind driven new snow, and will of *course* claim Obama and those around him had nothing to do with approving an investigation into Trump. They, of *course* will have no idea why so many people associated with Trump’s campaign were illegally unmasked after being recorded by NSA; and this will include those who actually did the unmasking! Nor will they have any idea why every innuendo and unsubstantiated allegation about Trump was widely distributed within the ‘intelligence community’ and department of Justice in the weeks before Trump took office.
    .
    I am sure they think they acted ‘properly’ and in the interest of the country, regardless of legality. I also think they should ponder their actions from prison cells. Sadly, I very much doubt they will.

  235. apophenia.
    How apt that you mention this now.
    I typed for fun "I can see things that no one else can see " into google and found nearly everyone does this.
    A condition called Pareidolia, subset of Apophenia.
    Why do weird words one would use once in a lifetime pop up in conversation, blogs or a book straight after you learn it?
    Pareidolia not working on this one.

  236. Which headline is real?

    (1) Tim McVeigh, lawn fertilizer enthusiast, dies at 33.

    (2) Jeffrey Dahmer, connoisseur of locally sourced meats, dies at 34.

    (3) Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar, dies at 48.

    (4) Adolph Hitler, proponent of German unity, dies at 56.

    Democracy dies in darkness. Indeed.

  237. Mike M,
    Some things are too weird to imagine they could ever happen…. until the bad orange man drove journalists and progressives crazy…. but I repeat myself.

  238. I asked a while back if the leftist elite were sincere in their positions. I know that both sides have trouble with this question and logic would say that most all are sincere but still I wonder:
    .
    1) Would I be for criminals voting (like Sanders) if they tended to be conservative?
    .
    2) Would I be for open borders if I thought that most random illegal aliens would be able to vote eventually and vote conservative?
    .
    3) Would I have sympathy for the founder of ISIS or elevate him to have scholarly standing if he was killed under a liberal president?
    .
    4) Would I have no problem with the outgoing conservative president using the CIA, NSA and FBI to run an information operation on the opposing liberal presidential candidate and then obstruct the presidency if they won?
    .
    I don't know because I could have a mental block that blinds me from knowing. And, according to Haidt it could be a genetic defect. So its hard to know.

  239. Ron,
    >>according to Haidt it could be a genetic defect that automatically blinds conservatives to being objective.
    ——————
    I thought I was at least passing familiar with what Haidt has to say, I don't recall running across anything that gave me the impression that this was his position. Could you point me towards where you got this idea?
    [Edit: Sorry. I see that you removed the specific 'conservative' reference. Nevermind I guess.]

  240. Ron Graf (Comment #177391): "I asked a while back if the leftist elite were sincere in their positions."
    .
    We know the answer to (3): Obama was praised for taking out bin Laden. So the criticism of Trump for taking out al Baghdadi is mostly insincere.

    I suspect a great deal of insincerity on (4). But coincidentally, I was about to post a link to a refreshing counterexample from The Nation. The author is in favor of the investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax and gives a balanced account of why there is reason to suspect wrongdoing. And he gives an excellent reason:

    "It would set a dangerous precedent for liberals to now reject an effort to get answers only because those answers would not be politically expedient. If left unchecked now, the same intelligence services that involved themselves in domestic politics in 2016 could do so again against progressive candidates on similarly spurious grounds. "
    https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-brennan/

  241. Mike,
    >>Obama was praised for taking out bin Laden. So the criticism of Trump for taking out al Baghdadi is mostly insincere.
    .
    Mitt Romney said any President would have done the same, and criticized Obama for 'politicizing' it. Trump didn't give Obama much credit either, saying it should have been done sooner. [If recollection serves]

  243. Ron
    ***
    1) Would I be for criminals voting (like Sanders) if they tended to be conservative?***
    .
    I am for allowing people who served their sentences to vote. I don't care if they vote conservative or liberal.
    .

    ***2) Would I be for open borders if I thought that most random illegal aliens would be able to vote eventually and vote conservative?
    ***
    .
    I think we need SOME control at the borders. (I'd like to see guest worker programs, other ways for people who can get jobs to be allowed entry. But I want them to arrive legally. I don't care how they might ultimately vote 8 years later when they might naturalize.
    .
    **3) Would I have sympathy for the founder of ISIS or elevate him to have scholarly standing if he was killed under a liberal president?**
    .
    Oy!
    .
    **4) Would I have no problem with the outgoing conservative president using the CIA, NSA and FBI to run an information operation on the opposing liberal presidential candidate and then obstruct the presidency if they won?
    ***
    I'd have a problem with a president doing that regardless of party afficilation of liberal/conservative stances.

  244. lucia,
    .
    >> I don't care how they might ultimately vote 8 years later when they might naturalize.
    ————–
    I don't exactly care what party they vote for. I care about preserving the culture and law of the U.S. to some extent. To use an extreme example for illustrative purposes, I don't want a theocracy no matter how many immigrants might want one. If immigrants wanted that then I wouldn't want them to become voting citizens.

  245. Ron Graf,
    "1) Would I be for criminals voting (like Sanders) if they tended to be conservative?
    **NO!**
    .
    2) Would I be for open borders if I thought that most random illegal aliens would be able to vote eventually and vote conservative?
    **NO!**
    .
    3) Would I have sympathy for the founder of ISIS or elevate him to have scholarly standing if he was killed under a liberal president?
    **NO!**
    .
    4) Would I have no problem with the outgoing conservative president using the CIA, NSA and FBI to run an information operation on the opposing liberal presidential candidate and then obstruct the presidency if they won?
    **NO!**"
    .
    I think the suggestion most people change their basic policy positions based on political expediency is nonsense. It is something common mainly to politicians and, sadly, some of run-of-the-mill 'progressives'. Plenty of politicians are like dandelion seeds in the public opinion wind; it's how they manage to keep their jobs. I have less sympathy for 'progressives' who's claimed
    principles are as solid as a morning ground fog.

  246. Ron Graf (Comment #177391)

    Ron, I think your questions can be summed into a single question: Can partisanship flavor, on an inconsistent philosophical basis, reactions to particular political actions from individuals and particularly those we might be considered intellectuals? Some of your questions probably go a step too far but your point is well taken. I would definitely answer, yes, to this question and further state that I judge those reactions are a major impediment to having a discussion about ideas instead of people and parties.
    My main gripe with these reactions is not necessarily the negative criticism of political actions, but rather, since I personally have little use and esteem for politicians from either party, that partisanship, and here I include the MSM, often inconsistently overlooks or rationalizes the actions of their favored party.

  247. Bias tends to creep in most often when the thing you are opining on doesn't affect you personally. There is so much uncertainty with climate change that both sides take the politically expedient position. Wealthy progressives (and many conservatives) tend to benefit from illegal immigration and free trade so they find a way to be for these things. I'm sure Joshua could give us an hours long lecture on his favorite subject of motivated reasoning. It's possible to have empathy for immigrants and yet have even more empathy for fellow Americans who are closer to you in your imagination.
    .
    This is basically a brain defect that prevents everyone from being completely rational and consistent. The useful part of the social sciences does good work here. Another one is the fantastic ability everyone has in seeing this problem in their opponents but not in themselves, ha ha. Knowing it is there sometimes helps such as is evident in Ron Graf's questions.
    .
    If you view your brain as a barely rational glob of biomass that is corrupted by a massive confounder of emotion and accept its biological limitations it helps, don't even get me started on memory fallibility.
    .
    I would suggest that bias in the brain has evolved for very good reasons that should be obvious. Skilled "communication experts" attempt to hijack this hard wiring for their agendas. Dishonest appeal to emotion, appeal to expertise, etc. strategies are all targeting brain defects.

  248. Clinton advisor Dick Morris:
    “She’s got to wait until Biden drops out because he’s obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there’s an opening for her,” Morris said.
    “Make no mistake. She wants it,” he added.”She’s planning on it. She’ll do everything she can to achieve it.”
    https://www.infowars.com/long-time-clinton-advisor-hillary-is-running-feels-she-was-put-on-earth-to-be-president/

  250. The felon voting issue is mostly a recent Florida thing, it was a voter referendum. The right down here is now trying to make their voting contingent on whether they completed things like restitution to their victims. I'm ambivalent because I don't think most felons are politically engaged and aren't likely voters so the impact will be inconsequential, unless another FL 2000 comes along…. I voted to allow them to vote, they did their time, that's the way the system works.

  251. Joshua
    .
    > There IS a meaningful difference between these policies. BUT, not withstanding that difference, letting people who got in illegally stay merely because they got here is "open border". It may be merely "de facto" as opposed to "de jure". But it is still "open borders".
    .
    I don't understand that. But maybe I don't need to, if I instead move to stating what I believe, as that might make what I'm saying clearer rather than trying to reference what others may or may not believe.
    .
    I'm fairly ambivalent about the direction of net effect of "illegal immigration" in the US. I'm not sure it's directly relevant to get into a discussion as to why I have that opinion (bottom line, I think that I just really don't know after looking a fair amount at analyses from different sources)…but at any rate, as such, I have mixed views about the net effect of controlling access to the country for people crossing over our borders, flying in from other countries, etc. Nonetheless, I do think that we should continue to control access into the country through inspecting documents and researching who it is that wants to come in and for what reasons they want to come in. As for people who attempt to get into the country through non-sanctioned places of access, I think that we should continue to make some degree of efforts to prevent them from doing so. Again, as someone who enjoys incredible benefits merely by the location of my birth relative to someone who has to endure hardships or violent threats merely by the location of theirs, and as a result someone who has mixed feelings about the moral issues, in light of not having a firm opinion one way or the other, I default to a basic risk avoidance perspective; not controlling access to any degree has a high measure of high damage risk in the sense of giving terrorists or dangerous criminals open access.
    .
    I see "open borders" as indicating that there would be no such measures of control. As such, I do not support, what seems to me to be implied by "open borders." As an aside, I think that there are some people on the left side of the aisle who do support that conceptualization of "open borders" – primarily because of the "moral" issues I referenced above. I don't don't think that most of them merely have that view on the basis of political expediency, or some other nefarious frame of reasoning typically offered as "motivation" by the motivation-diviners out there who think they they are capable of determining other people's motives. I imagine some may think that the dangers (say cultural threat or threat of terrorism) of an open border policy, of that sort, to be overblown – relative to other measures of risk (although I don't really know for sure, it is true that often reasoning about the actual risk from things like "terrorism" can be subject to a rather significant measure of bias).
    .
    > We can debate whether it is "problematic". However, a policy of NOT deporting them is an "open border" policy. I realize some people are FOR that. (My sister is.) But being FOR it doesn't magically transfor it into "not open borders".
    .
    Again, I'm confused. That logic seems to me to be saying everyone who doesn't think that we should across the board deport everyone who can't produce documents of citizenship (or some other form of authenticated status) should be deported (immediately?) is in favor of "open borders." Is that your perspective? That would seem to me to mean that Trump is for open borders since he hasn't initiated policies to deport everyone who doesn't have those documents – but I find it hard to believe that's what you're saying. So, again, I'm confused. Is it enough to simply think that everyone *should* be deported immediately, even while recognizing the logistical issues that make that impractical as an immediate policy, to be someone who doesn't support an "open border" policy? Would that mean that Trump's policies, which aren't actively deporting everyone who can't produce documents immediately, are still not "open border" policies because he said at his campaign speeches that he thinks that people who don't have documents should be deported and that he would start doing immediately after taking office (as I recall, sometimes he said he'd target some 11 million, and sometimes just millions and millions)?
    .
    > Ok. Then I can confidently say that what you call border security is not sufficient to having a system that is "not open borders". Unless the security is PERFECT or at least near PERFECT it we can both have "increased security" and "open borders" at the same time. Not sending people who arrived illegally home is de facto open borders. A policy of not sending them home is de jure open borders.
    .
    I don't think I understand what you said there either.

  252. I think some of the differences here in the discussion of what is open borders comes from whether a lack of political action results in, effectively, open borders or that there have been policies in place for avoiding open borders and the government is not sufficiently competent to follow through and/or there is a lack of resources for doing it. A further question is why have a law that cannot be or is not enforced to any significant effect. The situation also brings forth the issue of having laws that the government can arbitrarily decide to enforce or partially or completely ignore.

  253. "If you view your brain as a barely rational glob of biomass that is corrupted by a massive confounder of emotion and accept its biological limitations it helps, don't even get me started on memory fallibility."

    But how would a brain so limited be able to make a call on its functioning either way or even hope with the more difficult task of getting it correct.

  254. The brain and crowds are easily hijacked, just ask a progressive about Trump voters, ha ha. Did you hear how awful it was at Trump rallies with the "Lock her up chants"?
    Why Did It Feel So Good to See Trump Booed?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/opinion/trump-booed-world-series.html
    .
    Oops, wrong article. Maybe this has something to say about experts being subject to the same emotional weaknesses as everyone else, not that they would see it in themselves because they are trained to see it. Some studies say experts are even more prone to these problems because they believe themselves immune.
    .
    Obviously science was tuned specifically to work around these problems or else we would still be seeing the local witch doctor and throwing virgins into volcanoes. Dogma is still a problem even in the sciences.
    .
    I remember a story from Feynman where he said a respected scientist had initially measured a constant wrong and it took further scientists many formal iterations to get the correct measurement because they all assumed the first guy must have been just slightly wrong.

  255. Lucia –
    .
    BTW, I think it's interetesting to note that some of those who are the most ideologically and explicitly invested in "open bioder" policies are libertarians.
    .
    Seems to me that makes problematic the confident (yet, IMO vacuous) reasoning of those who (IMO likely limited by their antipathy towards Demz/libz/progz) argue that support for open borders is based only on political expediency and a lust for power that is disproportionately distributed on the left side of the aisle.
    .
    It also makes it interesting to me when people argue that their views on the importance of deporting migrants is rooted in concern over "the rule of law," and yet many libertarians view open borders as a key ideological tenet even as they consider "the rule of law" to be likewise.
    .
    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism
    .
    Even more interesting is that from what I've seen, many of those who argue that the importance of the rule of law demands deportation, and that "open borders" views undermine the rule of law, tend to lean libertarian.
    .
    Of course, there's no reason why all people who lean libertarian or outright identify as such must share views on all topics, but IMO, such complex configurations of ideology via a vis policy-specific views also implies that there is room for nuance between "open borders" and the views of many Demz on the issue of border security/immigrarion policy.

  257. Tom –
    .
    > Some studies say experts are even more prone to these problems because they believe themselves immune.
    .
    I've seen Kahan's stuff that makes a parallel argument – that more knowledgeable or "smarter" people are more polarized because they're "better" at motivated reasoning (an argument I think is problematic, BTW), and some evidence that "experts" are just as prone to bias as non-"experts", but not material that shows evidence for what you've described
    .
    Do you happen to have some links before I go a-Googling?

  258. Mark, As I understand Haidt's theory is that humans are motivated by values that stem from six or so basic evolved hard wired morals. One of them, for example, is cleanliness, stemming from the survival advantage of choosing safe habitats and healthy mates, as well as maintaining them. The rank in which these morals are valued, Haidt maintains, determines likelihood for political affiliation. Liberals love Haidt's analysis of deplorables being genetically born just as climate activists loved Lewandowsky's theory of conservatives predisposition for conspiracy thinking. I think he is correct that our thoughts are influenced by evolution but is 100% wrong in thinking that his analysis is immune to his own political bias when talking about liberals and conservatives. I think we all recognize the dangers of tribalism and home team. I even once had to audacity to voice that sexuality had a hard wired effect on occupational choices, albeit small. I got set straight by Lucia. 🙂
    .
    Joshua: "That would seem to me to mean that Trump is for open borders since he hasn't initiated policies to deport everyone who doesn't have those documents"
    .
    You assume that he wouldn't deport them all if he had that option. I think you agree that would be a perilous assumption.
    .
    Ken, I think there is such a thing as objectivity and principled reasoning. And, I think there was a time when the press had a lot more of it. The left is trying to convince us we are just delusional for the past.

  259. Mike M –
    .
    > But it is a list of characteristics of most of the people who dominate the government, corporate boardrooms, the press, media, universities.
    .
    What evidence do you use to conclude that "most" people who "dominate government" and "boardrooms" in particular are characterized by your list, and in particular skepticism of national sovereignty, preference for open borders, and dismissal of religion.
    .
    Anecdotally, I haven't worked directly with many American corporate board members, but I have worked a fair amount with non-American high level execs and board members to be, and I think there might be some ideological crossover between them and typical American board members but don't recall meeting many who would fit with your characterization.
    .
    Also, given that currently the presidency and the senate are in republican hands, your characterization of who "dominates" the government seems to me to be pretty far off, even if we were to say for the ske of argument there are no religious Demz or Demz who believe in national sovereignty, etc.
    .
    Again, I wonder what evidence you use to reach your conclusions.
    .

  260. Remember open borders is theoretically supposed to be a two way street in a pure libertarian view. There is an inherent problem with "free trade" with China and elsewhere if it also doesn't allow for free labor movement.

  261. Thanks Ron.
    >>Liberals love Haidt's analysis of deplorables being genetically born just as climate activists loved Lewandowsky's theory of conservatives predisposition for conspiracy thinking.
    ——————–
    The thing is (and maybe it's my oversight) I don't find any derogatory content in Haidt's ideas about the differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives are more sensitive to five or six moral foundations where liberals are more sensitive to just two, in Haidt's view, if I understand what he's saying properly. But I don't find him sneering, or making judgements about the inferiority or superiority of one or the other. Do you disagree with this? I'm genuinely curious now if I've got Haidt's attitude wrong.

  262. Ron –
    .
    > You assume that he wouldn't deport them all if he had that option. I think you agree that would be a perilous assumption.
    .
    I make no such assumption (despite his campaign assertions that he would absolutely do it, and that it would be easy for a stable genius such as himself).
    .
    I don't see much actual effort to do it, only to be deterred by insurmountable obstacles, despite his rhetoric that it's so important to get it done. Given that many of his supporters portray him as unconcerned with political appearance, and only about protecting Americans and making us great again, it would stand to reason that his efforts to so it would be abundantly obvious despite obstacles in his way. You know, like veto overrides or the such.
    .
    Keep in mind that he and many of his supporters claim that he has overwhelming support from the American pubkic on immigration. What evidence do you seen of his massive effort only to be turned back by insurmountable obstacles? Maybe I've just missed it?

  263. Just for the record (and briefly, because it's probably not of general interest), I don't really agree that our brains are 'defective' in the sense that we are not perfectly objective. We are not perfectly objective, but I don't view this as a defect per se.
    [Edit: Also, I think that we aren't 'objective' because it's just not the way our cognitive processes work. It's not just a matter of bias. We filter out a huge amount of information in order to function. We see what we look for probably because there's just too darn much to process otherwise. See the invisible gorilla experiment. This introduces [room for error?…problems? I don't know what I'm trying to say here] and can make objectivity a lot harder to achieve.]
    [invisible gorilla link:
    https://www.livescience.com/6727-invisible-gorilla-test-shows-notice.html
    ]

  264. "Remember open borders is theoretically supposed to be a two way street in a pure libertarian view. There is an inherent problem with "free trade" with China and elsewhere if it also doesn't allow for free labor movement."

    The benefits of free trade do not require free labor movement say, for example, between China and the US. If Chinese businesses can make products with cheaper labor and sell those products to the US consumer at a lesser cost the two way street says that is better for the US consumer. It also means that the US businesses should concentrate on areas where labor is not a large consideration for costs – and that is basically what already occurs over time. Do some workers lose their jobs under these circumstances? Yes, but that is part and parcel of a dynamic economy that can grow. Economies, where businesses and jobs are protected, become a stagnant economies.

    I believe a number of libertarians would consider open borders if it meant that incoming immigrants had to be sponsored by a US citizen or group of citizens whereby the sponsor was responsible for the immigrants welfare if the immigrants could at some point not provide for themselves. That is not exactly an open border where you walk across and no questions asked. I believe that JD Ohio did some posts awhile back where he pointed to existing immigration laws that require sponsors.

  265. mark bofill (Comment #177416)

    The gorilla experiment was not about objectivity but attention. The interesting result would be to determine what portion of those tested saw a person dressed as a gorilla and got the toss count correct.

  266. Kenneth,
    >>The gorilla experiment was not about objectivity but attention.
    ——————-
    Yes. But if observers reports won't agree half the time on whether or not a gorilla walked onto the basketball court, the set of self evident facts we [all] operate from is called into question. I think an important part of the concept of 'objectivity' is 'not being dependent on the observer'.

  267. What I'm trying to say is this. I think the invisible gorilla experiment shows that people tend to notice what they are paying attention to and tend not to notice things they are not paying attention to. I think our thought processes are structured this way in general. People talk about motivated reasoning; well, it's pretty much *all* motivated reasoning. It's even motivated observing. We don't look at the world in general and see what's there. We look at the world to find things relevant to what we are thinking about [/ focusing on]. I think this is fundamental to the way our minds work; it's not a *defect*. It's just the way our minds work. It doesn't lend itself to objectivity, if part of objectivity is that everybody observes the same thing / what's actually there.

  268. Sorry, motivated reasoning is quite different from what I'm talking about with motivated observing. I shouldn't have scrambled the two ideas together, they don't have much of anything to do with each other AFAICT.

  269. The brain evolved to be efficient and choose optimal paths based on 3 pounds of gunk and it works pretty good most of the time for its intended purpose. It doesn't necessarily keep up with modern times. People fearing terrorism as a top priority is a mass delusion by the numbers, but not necessarily as measured by the emotional fear of being hunted by a hostile tribe as the brain sees it.
    .
    Tribe building probably originated as a safety and survival mechanism but group thinking seems to be incredibly rigid once formed, this seems numerically impossible from a rational point of view. People are way over-influenced by their selected tribe memberships. There are lots of disparate issues in the left/right divide but yet the left and right groups are unified on the opposite sides at an incredible rate of correlation.
    .
    There is lots of bidirectional cause /effect. You may select your tribes based on your existing thinking and experiences, but you will invariably take positions compatible with a trusted tribe on a new subject. People fear being ostracized from their group for wrong think, and excommunication is a punishment dealt out frequently as it threatens the tribe's solidarity. This corrupts attempts at rational thinking.

  270. Joshua
    **I don't understand that. But maybe I don't need to, **
    You do need to understand what open borders means if you are participating in a conversation responding to a comments that discuss "open borders".

    **as that might make what I'm saying clearer**
    Theoretically it can. Although just saying something is "problematic" and not saying in what way isn't the sort of thing that makes what you are saying very clear.

    **Again, I'm confused. That logic seems to me to be saying everyone who doesn't think that we should across the board deport everyone who can't produce documents of citizenship (or some other form of authenticated status) should be deported (immediately?) is in favor of "open borders."**
    Uhmmm what I mean saying people who are here illegally should be allowed to stay is "open borders".
    .
    I'm not sure why you are trying to ramp that up to suggesting I think we have "open borders" if we don't instantly deport people who might temporarily have misplaced their passport, or who might need to send for their birth certificate or other papers. I've suggested no such thing and there is nothing about my "logic" that suggests such a thing. I can't even imagine how you came up with such an idea out of what I wrote. I guess I decree myself confused you would go on in such a way.
    .
    **So, again, I'm confused. Is it enough to simply think that everyone *should* be deported immediately**
    .
    Well… I don't know. Since you are now engaging a theory based on "logic" you dreamed up that someone somewhere might harbor in their head. I think if you want to find out what that (likely non-existent) person things, you should find them and ask them that question. They they can possibly answer you.
    .
    **I don't think I understand what you said there either.**
    .
    Well… perhaps not. But then again, you see to be confusing yourself a lot by coming up with "theories" about what logic might underlie something someone actually said and then debating about that theory in your own head rather than just reading what people literally wrote. So, I'm not to surprised you don't understand things!
    .

  271. Joshua
    **BTW, I think it's interetesting to note that some of those who are the most ideologically and explicitly invested in "open bioder" policies are libertarians.**
    .
    I'm not sure what you are on about. Lot of libertarians are for open borders.
    .

  272. Lucia –
    .
    > You do need to understand what open borders means if you are participating in a conversation responding to a comments that discuss "open borders".
    .
    What i don't understand is your explanation of what open borders means. I think I do understand what it means, but apparently I don't.
    .
    I attempted to explain why I didn't understand your explanation of what it means (basically, I don't see how favoring border restrictions enforcement = supporting open borders), but I guess I wasn't able to make that clear. Given that, perhaps there's nowhere else got me to go with this. I guess I'll just have to walk away from this one in a state of confusion. Won't be the first time.

  273. Ah, the wondrous Joshua has returned. Funny how he bugged out on a couple of less than favorable comments. Let me remind him:
    .
    My comment #177374:
    Joshua: "Most, but not all, support requiring the use of e-verify, particularly if it is improved."
    .
    Me: That is a wildly inaccurate characterization: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/immigration/e-verify/
    .
    Leading candidates Biden and Warren won't even answer the question. Sanders says, "yes, if improved". I am not sure what "if improved" means, but I am guessing it means not actually enforced in a way that keeps people here illegally from working.
    .
    Most of the others would only support E-verify if all those already here are allowed to become citizens, who will (no doubt) vote for the Democrats who gave them citizenship in exchange for unlawful behavior. Some candidates would never support E-Verify."

    .
    .
    So let me recount: the two leading candidates will not answer, Sanders says "if improved". The rest say "never" or only if 12 million new democrat voters are enrolled.
    .
    Will you respond to this substantive comment, or only slink away, yet again?

  274. >>or only slink away, yet again?
    Why do this? This is rhetorical; I don't think you ought to do this. It's rude and obnoxious.

  275. Lucia,
    It is pointless to discuss the problem of illegal immigration with Joshua…. he will *never* address the substantive issues.

  276. Mark Bofill,
    .
    Because Joshua has been rude and obnoxious from the beginning of his participation in this tread. I have asked him to address substantive issues. He has ducked them every time. Unlike you Mark, Joshua deals consistently in bad faith.

  277. Using expressions like 'due diligence' and 'cui bono' does not actually make an argument. Neither does accusing your opponents of being in the early stages of schizophrenia.

  278. Mark, BTW,
    The question I put to Joshua is not at all rhetorical… it is substantive, and I am asking for an answer.

  280. Steve –

    > Neither does accusing your opponents of being in the early stages of schizophrenia.
    .
    Sorry if it seemed that way. I had no intention of "accusing" let alone implying that you're in the beginning stages of schizophrenia.
    .
    I would say it is highly evident that is not the case. I was saying that I think you're seeing patterns that don't exist. It is a very normal phenonomon – that affects us all without even suggesting the beginning stages of schizophrenia.
    .

  281. Mark Bofill,
    You are not the only person who becomes frustrated. I wish there were a means to have substantive discussions of important policy issues. Alas, there seems to be no possibility of this.
    .
    After Joshua's claims about Democrats supporting E-verify, I took the time to actually check Joshua's claim, and Joshua was flat out wrong… the Democratic candidates either avoid E-verify completely or set conditions for approval which make E-verify pointless. Joshua was wrong. He did not address his factual error, even when I pointed it out. This is simply bad faith.

  282. Joshua–
    **What i don't understand is your explanation of what open borders means. I think I do understand what it means, but apparently I don't.**

    I think what I wrote was pretty clear: I think a policy that allows people illegally here to remain here is both de facto and dejure open borders.
    .
    The way I previously expressed this was
    " letting people who got in illegally stay merely because they got here is "open border". It may be merely "de facto" as opposed to "de jure". But it is still "open borders"."
    .
    It's hard to believe you don't "understand" what that sentence says. I've been assuming you understand terms like "stay", "policy", "people", "illegally", "de facto", "de jury". But perhaps you can tell me what part of the sentences was unclear to the extent that you actually could not understand it.
    .

  283. Joshua,

    **(basically, I don't see how favoring border restrictions enforcement = supporting open borders), **

    I didn't say it "equaled" open borders. In fact, I didn't say anything remotely like that! (Perhaps you don't understand the word "insufficient" and think if A is "insufficient" to result in B that means A=B. Dunno….)
    .
    I think it *can be irrelevant* to the diagnosis. If you favor letting people who arrived got through and are here illegally, THAT equals open borders. Unless border enforcement is 100% perfect (including getting people who outstayed visas out), if you favor letting people here illegally stay, then you are for de facto and de jure open borders EVEN IF you want more border enforcement than we have.

  284. The USA is a public good, all people of the world should have a right or privilege to go there and make the best of their lives, independent of whether they were born there or not which they had no control over.
    .
    The USA is a home which was built up to its current state by my family, our ancestors, and cultural norms which facilitated it's predominance and success on a global scale. We have a right and responsibility to invite or uninvite those who enter our home and set the cultural norms which newcomers will live under.
    .
    These are two profoundly different ways of thinking. I'm mostly of the second group but there are legitimate equality of global opportunity arguments for the second group, a global bill of rights. The issue with the second group is that only US citizens get to express their views by voting and you are effectively throwing the lower skill citizens under the bus here to promote a global view for the good of all humanity.

  285. Joshua,
    **I guess I'll just have to walk away from this one in a state of confusion. Won't be the first time.**
    Well… no. But if you think my saing

    **Then I can confidently say that what you call border security is not sufficient to having a system that is "not open borders".**
    .
    "favoring border restrictions enforcement = supporting open borders", isn't due to what I wrote, but due to your re-translating things in your head is some mysterious way which distorts their meaning. That you sometimes then try to explain what others "logic" is when they suggest something *they didn't remotely say*… well… Yes. You are confused.

  286. Joshua,

    Thanks, but I was already confident I was not in the early stages of schizophrenia. Here is what comes up when you do a quick Google search:
    .
    "Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. The term (German: Apophänie) was coined by psychiatrist Klaus Conrad in his 1958 publication on the beginning stages of schizophrenia."
    .
    Forgive me for actually reading the definition. I assure you I make no such connections between unrelated things. I do however have a predisposition to see the obvious.
    .
    I ask you, yet again, to address your earlier error about E-verify and Democrat candidates for President.

  287. As for your "substantive" comment:
    .
    I should have been more accurate. There was no intent to be misleading. That said, there's this:
    .
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/10/flashback-joe-biden-in-2006-border-fence-mandatory-e-verify-necessary-for-ending-illegal-immigration/amp/
    .
    So he may change his tune, but there's that. I said most, I shold have said something like "a number of" or "a significant share of."
    .
    I considered "yes, if improved" (which I noted) as supporting e-verify, as a concept (my use of "particularly" was with refence to my use of "most"). I also considered the qualification of "with a path for citizenship" as a form of support. Still do as it is distinctly different from "no, I don't support the use of e-verify,," which is the standard I was using as a measure Again, I should have been more specific.
    .
    There was nothing there substantive that I was avoiding – except that I was merely avoiding exchanging comments with you. If you think that's because you made devastating "substantive" comments, so be it. I would consider that seeing a pattern that doesn't exist.
    .

  288. Steve –
    .
    Since you actually read the definition, you undoubtedly saw the following:
    .
    > Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling.[4].
    .
    Or maybe this?:
    .
    > *Apophenia can be a normal phenomenon or an abnormal one,* as in paranoid schizophrenia when the patient sees ominous patterns where there are none.
    .
    I assumed no one would think I was suggesting you're in the beginning stages of schizophrenia, since there is no evidence to support such a conclusion that I've seen. To make such a suggestion would be an obviously bad argument. That's why I wouldn't make it.

  289. Tom Scharf,
    Of course.
    .
    There are lots of ways to look at it, but my South American friends understand the situation very clearly: go to the USA, and you have BOTH much greater opportunity (greater income!) and you immediately gain the advantage of an advanced (and costly) infrastructure, to which you have made zero contribution. There are clear and obvious reasons why poor people want to migrate to rich countries. The issue is if that migration is also beneficial to citizens of those rich countries. In many cases, I think it is not.

  290. I'm OK with 'austere religious scholar'.
    Baghdadi got a PhD in Islam from the Islamic University of Baghdad. What are the qualifications of those who said ISIS has nothing to do with Islam? At least they are no longer claiming it.
    Just as the Obama Administration emphasized that Bin Laden's body was treated with respect under Islamic law.

  291. Joshua,
    "There was nothing there substantive that I was avoiding – except that I was merely avoiding exchanging comments with you."
    .
    Maybe the most honest thing you have said on this thread. I expect that you find me (perhaps) as disagreeable as I find you. That's OK. Honestly. Vote for your preferred candidates. Cio.

  293. Tom –
    .
    I don't see those groups as being mutually exclusive. My interest would be to try to develop an immigration policy where members of both groups, and those who don't see them as mutually exclusive grouos or even who see themselves as a member of both, could reach some sort of consensus.
    .
    The problem. IMO, is that many people leverage immigration, via "you hate brown people" or "you want open borders/you only care about dem votes/you don't care about the rule of law/you don't care about our safety" type rhetoric as ideological/identity battering rams.
    .

  294. Steve –
    .
    > Maybe the most honest thing you have said on this thread.
    .
    So the other things I write were dishonest, or just less honest?
    .
    > I expect that you find me (perhaps) as disagreeable as I find you.
    .
    Not so much disagreeable, as just not someone I have much hope of having an interesting exchange with. Being disagreeable makes that harder, but I have had interesting exchanges with people at this very site who I thought were being disagreeable. It happens a lot. I dont care too terribly much about agreeability or lack thereof.

  295. Joshua,
    "So the other things I write were dishonest."
    .
    Yup, almost exclusively. And I do very much care about honestly. You don't have it.

  296. The practical result of Democratic Party leaders immigration proposals is that anyone who crosses the border illegally and claims asylum is not deported, not placed in custody for more than a few days, and released to the interior while their claim is being processed. Those whose claims are rejected will not be deported.

    It's also not necessary to cross illegally, they can just appear at a border checkpoint, and will still be let into the country, as long as they claim 'credible fear'.

    They voted for a Secure Fence Act to show they were against open borders, but when it came time to build the fence, they refused to fund it, preferring to allow tiny vehicle barriers to be the secure fence.

  297. Mike N,
    "The practical result of Democratic Party leaders immigration proposals is that anyone who crosses the border illegally and claims asylum is not deported, not placed in custody for more than a few days, and released to the interior while their claim is being processed. Those whose claims are rejected will not be deported."
    .
    Of course. That is the whole point. Actually restricting unlawful immigration is what they oppose.

  298. pointless footnote: I didn't understand until just a second ago:
    >>The question I put to Joshua is not at all rhetorical
    was a response to me saying
    >Why do this? This is rhetorical; I don't think you ought to do this.
    I phrased this badly. I meant to identify *my* question as rhetorical, then I tried to answer it / clarify what I meant by asking it. I didn't mean to suggest your question was rhetorical Steve. Looking back on it it sure reads the wrong way.

  299. Mark Bofill,
    No problem; you have a long record here of dealing honestly and in good faith with everyone. I understand the confusion about 'rhetorical'; I see now you were not suggesting I was using a rhetorical question. FWIW, I do my best to avoid such questions (as is Lucia's wont).

  300. Thanks Steve.
    .
    Tom,
    .
    The part I take exception to is this I think:
    >>all people of the world should have a right or privilege to go there and make the best of their lives
    .
    I don't agree with the structure here. I prefer to think that Americans, reaching for their ideal, being the best people they can be, hopefully will choose to welcome other people striving to tilt the world away from hell and towards heaven. But it's a choice on the part of U.S. citizenry, not an obligation owed anyone. Except themselves perhaps.

  301. Steve –
    .
    > And I do very much care about honestly
    .
    This was the very next paragraph after the one you quoted (from wikipedia?) to argue that I "accused" you of being in the beginning stages of schizophrenia.
    .
    > Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling
    .
    Did you just miss it? Did you get your definition from some other source that didn't have that next paragraph? You said that you bothered to read the definition, with an implication I used the word without having done so. Please explain.

  302. Joshua,
    Nope, I cut and pasted exactly what came up on my initial search @ #177439.
    .
    The arrogance of using very uncommon words to say very simple things is no doubt lost on you. It isn’t lost on others.

  303. Steve.
    .
    > The arrogance of using very uncommon words to say very simple things is no doubt lost on you. It isn’t lost on others.
    .
    So when you looked it up, and asked for forgiveness for reading the definition, you didn't bother with the second paragraph? Was that the Wikipedia definition you cut and pasted from?

  304. Here, next time try clicking through when you take the time to read the definition: it might help you to understand the usage of words you aren't familiar with.
    .
    > Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things.[1] The term (German: Apophänie) was coined by psychiatrist Klaus Conrad in his 1958 publication on the beginning stages of schizophrenia.[2] He defined it as "unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness".[3][4] He described the early stages of delusional thought as self-referential, over-interpretations of actual sensory perceptions, as opposed to hallucinations.[1][5]

    *Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling.*

  305. "Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. The term (German: Apophänie) was coined by psychiatrist Klaus Conrad in his 1958 publication on the beginning stages of schizophrenia.
    Apophenia – Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Apophenia"

    Yep. COINED to discuss the beginning states of schizophrenia. If you use it and do NOT mean that, you are mis-using a big word. That makes you look both pretensious and uninformed. It's not a good look.

  306. Joshua
    It's hard to believe you really want to accuse people of being in the "described the early stages of delusional thought as self-referential, over-interpretations of actual sensory perceptions". Or, failing that to insinuate it.
    .
    It does appear you are aware of the history of the term and know it's used this way.
    .

  307. I guess this is harder to interpret than I thought?
    .
    > *Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling.*
    .

  308. I wasn't implying that Steve is in the beginning stages of schizophrenia.
    .
    Once again, seeing patterns that don't exist. Pretty ironic.

  309. Lucia,
    I have a vocabulary in Portuguese of some 10,000 words. I could often use a Portuguese word when it perfectly fit a sentence, but since the readers of the blog are not generally conversant in Portuguese, such use would be counterproductive, as well as pretentious and arrogant. JD Ohio could no doubt use Chinese words in his comments, but doesn’t. I do not doubt there are many other people who could use vocabulary from other languages, or even from English in specific fields of study which are so uncommon as to be understood by very few (or none!). The use of little known words with simple meanings, for no reason other than to show how educated one is, is profoundly arrogant, obnoxious, and more importantly, only inhibits communication.
    .
    The fact that the word Joshua used was coined *specifically* to describe the early stages of schizophrenia is ignored in his denials of bad intent. I suspect that is just more of his consistent dishonesty. He is, IMO, not someone with whom a productive exchange of views is possible.

  310. Steve –
    .
    > The use of little known words with simple meanings, for no reason other than to show how educated one is,
    .
    Nope. Not why i used it.

  311. BTW – I think it's a sign of arrogance to be certain you know why I did something when in fact you don't, and in fact you can't.

  313. Joshua,
    Exchanges with you are indeed beyond stupid. They are pointless and destructive. Please go away.

  315. DeWitt,
    I was aware of the Feynman quote, but what is the reference to Tom Scharf? Was it a long ago comment?
    .
    Straw men are the droid army of the dishonest left.

  316. DeWitt,
    Yes, I picked that up from Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! A pretty good book.

  317. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #177417): "If Chinese businesses can make products with cheaper labor and sell those products to the US consumer at a lesser cost the two way street says that is better for the US consumer."
    .
    Not according to the last 200 years of economic theory. That is the old theory of absolute advantage. The modern understanding of trade is based on Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage.

  318. Joshua
    **I wasn't implying that Steve is in the beginning stages of schizophrenia.**
    If not, then you don't know the nuances of the word you decided to use. Now that you do, you should recognize the nuance and apologize for having chosen a word that appeared to suggest you did so.
    .
    Or not. Up to you.
    .
    I'm guessing you won't. But surprise me. Or not.

  319. BTW: If you (Joshua) want to use a word that means finding patterns where they don't exist that does NOT include the nuance of suggesting the onset of schizophrenia, use "patternicity". That will show you know what words mean *including their nuances*.
    .
    Or don't. And continue to use words that suggest you are accusing someone with whom you disagree is suffering from psychological disorders. Your choice. Not mine. People will interpret (a) what you mean and/or (b) your level of sophistication vis-a-vis choice of terms based on your choice of words. .
    .
    Right now, you appear to be claiming to NOT mean to suggest something the word you chose suggests. That DESPITE the fact that a word that communicates what you *claim* to wish to communicate actually exists. So either (a) your vocabulary is limited or (b) you elected to imply something.
    .
    You say (b) is not the case, and yes…. I do suspect (a) applies. But others may think otherwise.

  320. Mark, Here is Haidt's 18-min Ted talk on liberalism vs conservatism. Maybe its my apophenia but I hear Haidt saying that conservatives are less mature, less evolved, restrained from enlightenment due to their biological restraints. Liberals are more evolved, shedding their biological shackles and are fearlessly welcoming to the future and new ideas.
    https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en
    .
    Haidt omits mention of libertarianism or radicalism.
    .
    I absolutely support the insight that people seek out confirming information because validation of beliefs is interesting and important. When we run into others with beliefs opposing our own we have genuine difficulty understanding how they could have cemented validations of clearly flawed assumptions. This logically leads one to question the 1) intellect, 2) sincerity 3) wholesome motivations.
    .
    Questioning those three factors naturally leads to distrust, which in itself perks up radar for confirming signs of 1, 2 and 3. All the while both sides can gain such confirmations of distrust of each other because at some level every debate is a competition, which easily can imply aggression, setting off biological reactions supporting the brains perceptions.
    .
    As we learn from experience, building relationship and trust are critical before even attempting persuasion.

  321. Tom Scharf,
    “Maybe its my apophenia…”
    .
    LOL
    You hide your impending schizophrenia very well.
    .
    “As we learn from experience, building relationship and trust are critical before even attempting persuasion.”
    .
    Sure, and I would add that requires honesty and good will…. things often in short supply.

  322. Ron
    **Maybe its my apophenia but I hear Haidt saying that conservatives are less mature, less evolved, restrained from enlightenment due to their biological restraints.**
    .
    I don't think he's saying that. I actually thinks he says the things conservatives value that liberals don't value ARE important. They may not be primary (the ones EVERYONE agrees on are more primary.) But I think he recognizes there is a value between balancing thinking valuing "in groups" and not valuing "in groups" and so on.
    .
    I actually think that's true. It's good for groups to exist. They cooperate with each other build things and so on– because they cooperate and are "a group". That is "we" can agree to do something. BUT it's also important to recongize other groups do good things and to accept outsiders.
    .

    There are some funny things though… I find it a bit puzzling to think reactions to nudity in Michael Angelo's David tell us much about "openness to new experience". Penises exist "at home" and nearly everyone has seen now. So I tend to doubt someone who arrived in Florence and was a bit perturbed by the David's junk had a problem becuase seeing that tackle was a "new experience". I'm pretty sure I saw male junk when I was pretty young. The Vine kids next door skinny dipped! I suspect most people did. Certainly, I saw male junk before I went to Italy. (For reference, I went to Italy when I was about 11.)

  323. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #177417): "If Chinese businesses can make products with cheaper labor and sell those products to the US consumer at a lesser cost the two way street says that is better for the US consumer."
    .
    The problem is unfair trade. When the market of the totalitarian country is shielded from the democratic one the lower cost laborers of the former can be exploited while all the profits go to the corrupt regime. The private enterprises of the democratic country are also corrupted by concentrating benefit to the top while obviously harming local labor markets and small domestic competitors. While the democratic consumer gets cheaper goods, at least temporarily, the totalitarian regime gets to consolidate power over their proletariat and become militarily intimidating and expansionist. The dream of the early 1990s that they would become tamed by affluence seems to have been motivated reasoning.

  324. Lucia, I had watched the Haidt video years ago and in watching it again just now it was not quite as blatantly anti-conservative. He even went so far to be evenhanded as to consider them Yin and Yang, (which I had forgotten). I think he is way wrong on that. Politics is not a dichotomy and has little to do with Yin and Yang. His thesis that conservatives follow more of his five morals, valuing authority, loyalty and purity over liberals does not ring true to me. He did not forget about libertarians because he had them raise their hands. But his studies ignored them. I would say I am driven by truth and justice (fairness) and that all my other morals derive from them. Loyalty is from reciprocity, which is from fairness. Purity derives from desire for order, which derives from desire for comprehension, which derives from truth. Familiarity and security are innate drivers, but not morals. The drive for adventure, the tension force on drive for security and familiarity, often seen in oscillating dynamic — drive for expedition — drive to return home. Bravery is a moral that was not mentioned. It's neither conservative nor liberal.
    .
    IMO liberalism and conservatism and other political groups have evolved in their positions on issues and the issues themselves have changed. There is only purity in the present tense. For example, liberals in FDR's time were intervention "war hawks" while conservatives were isolationists peaceniks. That flipped as soon as the cold war resumed. We see liberals as confused interventionist now in reaction to Trump's isolationism. It definitely is tribal and there is no need for a more complex explanation. Occam's razor.

  325. Thanks Ron. My impression of at least some of Haidt's online presentations is that he assumes he is speaking to a predominantly liberal group. I cut him some slack for slanting his tone a little accordingly.
    I think tribalism accounts for lots, but not everything. Why do we choose the tribes we do for example.

  327. Mark Bofill,
    “Why do we choose the tribes we do for example.”
    That is a good question. Haidt’s description of differences between liberals and conservatives and their associated ‘tribes’ suffers a bit from the chicken or egg question. I really do not think it is a simple question; among my siblings (four of us) one is as liberal as the NY Times….. and reads it, two are relatively ‘conservative’ (though the other is married to a liberal and so is more cautious about what he says), and one is somewhere in between. We all grew up in the same household.
    .
    Where I think Haidt has it right is the relative importance assigned to different factors, especially ‘fairness’. It does appear that ‘fairness’ trumps all other factors among self-identified liberals. Hence, for example, the acceptance of ignoring existing laws and subverting the clear meaning of the Constitution to increase ‘fairness’ in outcome. It is inherently ‘unfair’ for someone to be born in a poor country, so opening the borders of your own rich country to those people increases ‘fairness’.
    .
    Of course, I would argue that the focus on fairness, to the exclusion of all else, is naive, destructive, and counterproductive if you really want to improve the quality of life for people everywhere. But then, I’m far from a liberal. As Carol Burnett (and many others!) said: “No on ever said life was fair.”

  329. "Why do we choose the tribes we do for example."
    .
    Recruitment is by far the number one reason. For example, conservatives in the late 20th century made a push to incorporate their political tribe into Christian doctrine. That backfired by alienating seculars and all other religious groups, and probably explains the large Jewish participation in the Dem party.
    .
    Likely we are all pitched a message based on fairness and justice. The group that gains our trust first is the tribe we join, trusting their message above the adversary's from that point forward.
    .
    There ARE major defections in political paradigm shifts. The 1960s civil rights movement, which was based on fairness and justice, won over the Massachusetts Democrat president but was codified into law by a southern Democrat successor. This flipped the allegiance of both African Americans and southerners. We saw a somewhat of a defection of the working class to the conservatives last election. Personally, I would be a JFK liberal as was Ronald Reagan. And as he famously said, "I didn't leave them. They left me."

  330. I would say the main reasons I now identify as a conservative or libertarian are the following:
    .
    1) Equal opportunity is more fair than equal outcomes. The fairness to allow people the control the majority of wealth that they create from their industry outweighs the state's obligation to redistribute that wealth.
    .
    2) Redistribution creates dependence that harms personal industry and thus is detrimental to the community. Cutting down enterprise and thus opportunity, causes more long-term harm than short-term good.
    .
    3) I consider promising people a share of other people's money or property in exchange for their vote as corruption. And, when the promise is broken vilification of the adversarial party is always at the forefront.
    .
    4) I see liberals using a lot of rationalizations for selective enforcement of the law in favor of political allies and to the detriment of adversaries.
    .
    5) I see liberals as a danger not only to others, but to themselves, by naively thinking that they will never be detrimentally affected by the weaponization of institutions, both inside and outside of government. It's hard to get freedom and justice back once it has been traded away for expediency.
    .
    That liberals can support Adam Schiff is just plain bone chilling.

  331. Ron,
    So you're not impressed by the work that correlates personality traits with political views? The r values aren't breathtaking; I see stuff like r=.11 or .12, but I also read that *no results* in personality related research get all that much better than that.

  332. Let me walk that back. Not all that many correlations are stronger? Maybe I have this wrong. I'll look in my copious spare time.

  333. Mark Bofill,
    Perhaps there is no causal link between politics and personality at all: https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/politics-and-personality-most-of-what-you-read-is-malarkey/amp
    .
    For me the most interesting thing in that article is that across age ranges, political inclinations appear to be quite stable. I suspect that either researchers are not be asking the right questions to understand what motivates political leanings, or that those leanings are at least in large part due to genetic differences. Identical twin studies (reared apart or together) might be informative.

  334. Steve,
    >>I suspect that either researchers are not be asking the right questions to understand what motivates political leanings, or that those leanings are at least in large part due to genetic differences. Identical twin studies (reared apart or together) might be informative.
    .
    I run across similar stuff. I think genetic differences probably do have a good bit to do with it. Of course, I also think that there's probably a genetic component to personality as well, so. I don't know where that leaves me exactly.

  336. My impression was that Haidt has been deeply committed to getting conservative views back into academia, or at least tolerated. I would suggest that he is attempting to convince liberals that conservative views are different or based on a different value system, not wrong and immoral which is the lazy interpretation that has become prevalent in some areas. I always thought he was an ally, not a problem.
    https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans
    .
    "Then he threw a curveball. He would, he told the gathering of about a thousand social-psychology professors, students, and post-docs, like some audience participation. By a show of hands, how would those present describe their political orientation? First came the liberals: a “sea of hands,” comprising about eighty per cent of the room, Haidt later recalled. Next, the centrists or moderates. Twenty hands. Next, the libertarians. Twelve hands. And last, the conservatives. Three hands.
    Social psychology, Haidt went on, had an obvious problem: a lack of political diversity that was every bit as dangerous as a lack of, say, racial or religious or gender diversity. "
    .
    I should note the irony that the vilification of conservative views in academia seems to be strongest in the social sciences, and they see no issues with their area being dominated by one identity group. This same group excoriates other professions who have unbalanced identity groups as racists, sexist, etc.

  337. My google-fu sucks today maybe, but I can't substantiate the r value (.11 or .12) I supplied above; can't find anything that supports that. I'm starting to question where I got that number. Oh well. I gotta go get some work done.

  339. Fairness can mean equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome depending on how you view things. Disparate outcomes is defacto evidence of unfairness which is not an unreasonable first take on an issue, but you do have to look deeper to determine what is causing the different outcomes. The first thing is to examine if there exists equal opportunity. The two groups diverge when there is no evidence of unequal opportunity. Liberals like to assume it is simply hidden and favor government intervention and forced equity. Conservatives like to assume it is individual preferences (or deficiencies) in action and nothing is wrong.

  340. Tom Scharf,
    That is right. Liberals will not accept that identifiable groups of people can possibly differ in interests, ability, or effort. So *only* equality of outcome (on average) for identifiable groups can possibly be 'fair'. Hence gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair over the relative lack of female computer programmers or male nurses. IMO, that all flies in the face of reality.

  341. Ron Graf (Comment #177483) ,

    "Recruitment is by far the number one reason. For example, conservatives in the late 20th century made a push to incorporate their political tribe into Christian doctrine. That backfired by alienating seculars and all other religious groups, and probably explains the large Jewish participation in the Dem party."

    I don't think that's correct about Jews, at least for the timing. I remember reading in Isaac Asimov's autobiography that he considered himself a man of the left with the primary reason that the right ignored the plight of the Jews in Germany pre-WWII and the left didn't.

  342. Equality of outcome is bogus fairness. We have fables going back to the ancient Greeks (the Procrustean bed) as well as modern fables like Animal Farm and Harrison Bergeron on the fundamental immorality of trying to force equality of outcome.

    From Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

    https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt

    Soviet Union black humorous translation of the Marxist slogan "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" becomes "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

  344. Mark
    **What do you think Haidt gets wrong?**
    Honestly, I don't know. I mean, he mostly reports some differences in how (supposedly) Liberals and conservatives rank different traits (fairness, purity and so on.) I'm not sure they align with my "lived experience". But that only makes me wonder how the terms were defined when interviewing people to assess how much they valued things like "purity".
    .
    I do think many people "binned" into "social conservative" care about something some might call "sexual purity" while many liberals don't. But there are an awful lot of more liberal groups who are hyper-vigilant about food (vegan, vegetarian, organic), pollution, genetic engineering, appropriate fibers for clothing and dies, and so on. Those at least seem to represent some obsession with "purity". They are just obsessed with purity about different things. (Haid does notice this "purity" issue vis-a-vis food.)
    .
    If questions were asked one way, you might find conservatives cared about "purity"; if asked another, you might get a different result.

  346. Ron Graf (Comment #177476)

    I do not agree with the outcomes you predict for doing business with entities in a more state controlled economy. Free trade means that it is the individual or intermediary who decides what to buy or sell. It is difficult to judge how relatively free your trading partners are and thus a so-called free trade nation could impose restrictions wherever they saw competition with their nations enterprises (which would then put them at a lower free trade rating). Cheaper labor in China has little to do with the current authoritarian regime and more to do with where China is in evolving as an economy. To the extent that a more authoritarian government subsidizes its businesses the better that is for their trading partner and in the long run the worst for the subsidizing nation. Government intervention in these cases throws the allocation of resources out of whack and allows businesses to operate less efficiently just like it did with automobile manufacturing in the US back in the 1960's and 70's.

    It should be remembered that the consumer who pays less for a given product or service as a result has more to pay for other products and services and thus a nation that has cheaper labor or subsidizes its products or services is in the long run, in effect, subsidizing those businesses in the buying nation that grow or are established due to that extra buying power.

  347. Lucia,
    .
    Yeah, I thought the same thing was strange (if conservatives have the purity foundations, why do liberals appear to care about purity in other areas like food).
    .
    Also, my personal experience doesn't really line up either. My personality is awfully indicative of liberalism for me to adhere to the conservative ideas I have. *shrug* I wish I had some solid links on the statistical strength of the effect of personality traits on political thinking. Like I mentioned above, I'm under the impression that the effect isn't all that strong / doesn't explain all that much of the variance, but that it does reliably and reproduceably explain at least some of it.

  348. Say Lucia, when you said this to Joshua,
    "I think if we allow everyone to stay merely because they got past the border and wish to, that policy is "open borders". It's open borders even if we have check points at borders and even if we patrol borders."
    .
    Why do you think this?
    .
    I was thinking about it, and I've come to agree, but I'm not sure if my reasons are the same as yours and I'm curious to find out. In my view, it's because border security doesn't actually keep people out. It's not like we shoot people at the border, or beat them with sticks or whip them with bullwhips until they get discouraged and leave; no, as I understand it all we really do is take them into custody.

  349. "I'm not sure they align with my "lived experience". But that only makes me wonder how the terms were defined when interviewing people to assess how much they valued things like "purity"."

    I agree with Lucia here based on my much longer "lived experience".

    I simply do not see these connections in the family members and friends I know best. How would one account for people who you see change their politics over time and not their personal life choices? My father was a very liberal FDR Democrat and much like Ronald Reagan became a conservative Republican. I believe Reagan's change came from his affiliation with GE and my father's with his Farm Bureau affiliation. My siblings tend to be libertarian but vote Democrat most of the time while I have never voted for a Democrat. My children tend to be libertarian but one voted mainly Democrat, one was independent and one is Republican.

    I have family members, closer friends and work acquaintances of whom you would have a difficult time guessing their political persuasions from their personal lives and moral persuasions and a number of whom you would be convinced of the opposite.

    I also think that these trait versus political self identification correlations change over time like the Evangelical Republicans and the more highly educated and wealthier Democrats. I also think that much of this results from a group's and individuals' negative opinions of the political opposition and less to do with agreement with the political group with which they identify. I know this to be true of the people I know best.

  350. Mark bofill,
    Thanks Mark.
    .
    This is how I see the meaning of the term:

    Open borders are one in which people can decide to come and stay here on their own without getting explicit permission from our government. If there are mechanisms for people to arrive illegally– and there certainly are– and they are allowed to stay simply because they chose to do so then the situation is:
    .
    They have decided– on their own and without requiring permission– to come stay and live here.
    .
    That's an open border.
    .
    Note in another comment I did mention the **imperfection** of border control. But as long as the control at borders is imperfect and allows people who do not have permission to stay in OR it allowed people in with permission, but won't eject them after they outstay there permission, then a policy of not ejecting people who are here illegally is "open borders". It means people can, on their own, decide to arrive here and stay.
    .

  352. mark,

    We don't have to locate, identify and deport every illegal immigrant to have some sort of border control. It's like other crimes or infractions. It's not a defense to say that some people get away with murder or theft. A better example might be speeding. Only a tiny fraction of speeders actually get tickets, but that wouldn't be a defense against paying the fine if you do get a ticket for speeding. But, as lucia says, if the policy is to never deport anyone who is here illegally whether they overstayed a visa or crossed the border illegally or never issue citations for speeding, that's open borders or no speed limits.

  354. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #177500): "Free trade means that it is the individual or intermediary who decides what to buy or sell."
    .
    If that were true, then tariffs do not interfere with free trade since individuals would still be deciding what to buy or sell.
    ———–
    Kenneth Fritsch: "To the extent that a more authoritarian government subsidizes its businesses the better that is for their trading partner and in the long run the worst for the subsidizing nation."
    .
    That is a common claim. But the benefit of trade does not come from gaining access to cheaper goods. The benefit comes from an economy being able to deploy its resources more efficiently; i.e. towards things for which the economy has a comparative advantage. As long as that happens, the claim may be true.

    Long term unemployment and underemployment is not an efficient deployment of resources. If that results from trade then the trade is detrimental.

  355. So per the previous thread, I just turned down another poll for president.

    Regarding free trade, we got hit really hard with the tariffs. Big big money – to me anyway. Moving a lot of production to the US from China. We already did a lot here but we cannot afford the costs.

    China has played their advantage with the thoroughness of a card shark. No mercy, no quarter. I think their hand is being forced.

  356. Mark, I wouldn't be surprised if Haidt's data correlation is strong. But his science might not have super controls. And it neither fits my life observations nor provides explanation for the growth and decline of political ideas and even cultural tabus. Personality and drives are certainly biologically influenced, but politics is sociology. Sometimes vicious fights occur over the precise location of the knife's edge on a particular societal judgement. One could have another by the throat on the difference of when a human embyo's rights begin or the building of a border wall. These stances do not stem from underlying personality. That would be absurd. Interested and educated people crunch all the nuances and values and choose a party preference, some strong, some slight, some flip for impressive individuals. And, yes, politics are more driven by revulsion than attraction, sadly. Propaganda is the primary driver for the masses, especially the bandwagon effect, the desire to join the group and belong.
    .
    Ken: "… thus a nation that has cheaper labor or subsidizes its products or services is in the long run, in effect, subsidizing those businesses in the buying nation that grow or are established due to that extra buying power."
    .
    One must be careful at looking at one chamber of a running engine to understand performance. Just as internal central planning can throw an monkey wrench into a market, external influences can do the same. China is a geopolitical competitor, not a benign partner. If China could be counted on to be a responsible, benevolent, altruistic power I would have less of a problem handing them our technology and markets to build their economy.

  358. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #177500): "Free trade means that it is the individual or intermediary who decides what to buy or sell."

    I should have added "without government interference and at a mutually agreeable price.

  359. How Jews became liberal is one the great mysteries to me. Pre-1945 there was just about as much Democrat anti-Semitism and GOP. FDR was no great ally. His state department certainly wasn't.
    .
    My guess is that geography, being concentrated in NYC and other cities, had more of an influence. It might be as simple as their settling in areas dominated by liberal northerners.

  360. One of the big benefits of trade, IMO bigger than the economics, is trust. You don't trade with people you don't trust and the more you trade the more you trust. Trade wars are a sign of a lack of trust. At the moment it looks like the USA doesn't trust China so there is a trade war. The only way to get out of a trade war is by … well trade because that will rebuild trust. Free trade says we are willing to try and trust so free trade needs to restored.

  362. Andrew Kennett (Comment #177514): "free trade needs to restored"

    You can not restore something that never existed. And you would be a fool to insist on trusting someone who has proven untrustworthy.

    Trade and trust have nothing to do with one another.

  363. Lucia,
    I've been thinking about what you said here (for no particularly good reason; no larger point to be had):
    ——————
    There are some funny things though… I find it a bit puzzling to think reactions to nudity in Michael Angelo's David tell us much about "openness to new experience". Penises exist "at home" and nearly everyone has seen now. So I tend to doubt someone who arrived in Florence and was a bit perturbed by the David's junk had a problem becuase seeing that tackle was a "new experience". I'm pretty sure I saw male junk when I was pretty young. The Vine kids next door skinny dipped! I suspect most people did. Certainly, I saw male junk before I went to Italy. (For reference, I went to Italy when I was about 11.)
    ——————————
    I think it's more complicated than that. Certainly the guy shown in Haidt's presentation with the look of disgust on his face knew perfectly well what male genitalia look like; he'd been carrying a set his whole life. I think the disgust reaction was more along the lines of publicly looking at and admiring a nude male figure. I think that could qualify as a new experience requiring trait openness for the guy that he might have been lacking.
    *shrug*

  364. As has been known to happen, the first approach to policy problems has been unhelpful with regards to our current immigration issues.

    Most (a substantial majority) illegal immigrants arrive legally and overstay their welcome. They (almost always) are careful to live lives that will not bring them to the attention of authorities, leading to many years of peaceful life in the U.S.

    We have for decades attempted to impose better security on the minority of immigrants who evade border controls to our South. Some times it has worked, some times it hasn't. The difference is best explained by American unemployment rates more than anything else.

    If you want a real solution to illegal immigration, start with registering Visa holders and instituting a check-up policy on their continued stays. This is not being proposed by any of the politicians who are railing against immigration infractions. The second would be to enforce E-Verify.

    I don't think we should dismantle or reduce protections at our southern border. However, I think instituting those two policies would solve most of the problem as it exists today.

  365. MikeN, I agree that religion and politics seem to overlap in many functions. That is an interesting topic.
    .
    Andrew Kennett, you are correct about trust and doing business one to one but much less I can see about trade. How do you feel about technology theft, corporate espionage and China's respect for patents? I would rank China as untrustworthy on those.
    .
    Thomas, the problem with E-verify that is rarely mentioned is the potential for selective use requires a huge bureaucratic and regulatory load on a company to avoid risk of liability for discrimination accusations. I don't know why we can't check up on visas, beef up the border, including a security wall, and once the flow is stopped decide a protocol for deportations versus granting de-facto permanent visas.

  366. Thomas Fuller,
    "If you want a real solution to illegal immigration, start with registering Visa holders and instituting a check-up policy on their continued stays. This is not being proposed by any of the politicians who are railing against immigration infractions. The second would be to enforce E-Verify."
    .
    Thanks for a constructive comment. I would go a bit further: just enforcing E-verify would *by itself* eliminate much of the problem. The biggest magnet drawing people to the USA is employment, and an income level from that employment far out of reach in their native country. Add to that the benefits from advanced infrastructure and better government, and it is easy to see why many people are drawn to the States: it is hugely beneficial to them and their families. If employers faced stiff penalties for employing undocumented workers, a large part of the problem goes away. Yes, there will always be some 'underground' employment on a cash basis, but that too is illegal (breaks multiple laws, including felonies like tax fraud), so it is always going to be limited by the criminal risks to employers.
    .
    Unfortunately, most politicians are not willing to address E-verify in any way which would actually lead to enforcement. Undocumented employment is simply impossible in most developed countries; I find it absurd that it is so widespread in the USA.

  367. Thomas William Fuller (Comment #177518): "Most (a substantial majority) illegal immigrants arrive legally and overstay their welcome."
    .
    That is not true. It is not even true if you use the low limit estimate of 11 million illegals, it is very far from true if you use the much better estimate of 22 million. I've seen 4-5 million as the number here on visa overstays.
    ———
    Thomas William Fuller: "If you want a real solution to illegal immigration, start with registering Visa holders and instituting a check-up policy on their continued stays. This is not being proposed by any of the politicians who are railing against immigration infractions. The second would be to enforce E-Verify."
    .
    Candidate Donald Trump:
    "We will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system."
    "We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country. "
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-immigration-address-transcript-227614

    Not much seems to have happened on those points, but they are still Trump's position. Some of the inaction is likely due to the "resistance" in both Congress and the bureaucracy. I don't know if Trump has done all he can on his own. I know he has made attempts:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/440105-trump-moves-to-crack-down-on-visa-overstays
    https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/trump-budget-lays-groundwork-national-e-verify
    https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/404625-will-trumps-biometric-entry-exit-system-be-as-controversial-as-his-travel

  368. MikeM, I haven't seen estimates I consider credible for your given number of illegal immigrants. My estimate comes from Visa overstays… and their kids, the Dreamers.

  371. Mark Bofill
    On David's nudity: I hadn't thought of the novelty of the public display aspect. So… yeah. Perhaps. I still lean toward thinking the reaction has less to do with openness to new ideas and more their opinion on physical modesty. We've Calvin Klein showing me in underwear, nudity in movies and so on. Sure, we don't have so many nude statues of men in public, but I think that has to do with ideas of modestly not "foreignness".
    .
    To really test whether it's openness to new ideas you look at reactions to things that are NOT related to sexuality or modesty. For example, when in Italy, my husband and I bumped into a couple where the man griped about ANYTHING different from in the US. Cover charges on restaurant bills? The horror! There were other similar things where he just didn't like anything that wasn't run the way he was used to.
    .
    I have no idea how he reacted to nudity in statues. But this guy wasn't very open to new ideas.
    .
    On our honey moon we met a similar couple while on a cruise. The man, in particular, wanted familiar things. (A cruise actually supplies a lot of this while letting the couple see local things in a controlled manner. But dinner, lunch, stateroom and all were done in "our" sort of way, not a "foreign" way.)

  372. Lucia,
    >>I still lean toward thinking the reaction has less to do with openness to new ideas and more their opinion on physical modesty.
    —————————
    There's something more than novelty there, sure. I avoid trying to nail it down exactly because I'm sure I'll get some of it wrong, but there's some other inhibition or resistance at play. I doubt (maybe I'm wrong) that the guy would have had an expression of disgust on gazing at a *female* nude statue, and presumably that's approximately as novel / new. Maybe I have this wrong. I'm not necessarily saying the guy wouldn't find there to be anything uncomfortable about it, just that it would be some different sort of response. Homosexuality taboo? I don't know exactly.
    *shrug*

  373. This long awaited day has finally arrived. I shall give out candy, and when the evening is done, I shall eat a Krackel.
    Happy Halloween all.

  375. lucia (Comment #177525): "I still lean toward thinking the reaction has less to do with openness to new ideas and more their opinion on physical modesty."

    I think that is how a conservative would describe it. But I think that a true-blue progressive would say the two are the same; i.e., that if you adhere to a traditional view on anything it is *because* you are not open to new ideas. After all, there can't be any value to tradition.
    ——–
    p.s. in case it is not clear: I am not saying that there is no value in tradition. I am saying that many progressives (at least the more extreme sort) say that.

  376. Thanks Mike M. I was trying to formulate something similar a little while ago, but I couldn't find a succinct and accurate way to put it like you did.

  377. MikeM,
    Well…. if they claimed the ONLY reason one would prefer the "traditional" ways is not being open to new ideas, I'd point out that's clearly nonesense.
    .
    Fabric stores that have fabric, pins, needles, sewing patterns and everything I need in one store are *convenient*. When I went to france and walked into a fabric store (because I needed a needle and thread) the woman working there looked at me like I'd sprouted another head when I asked where the pins and needles were. Because CLEARLY, this was a FABRIC store, and no FABRIC store would sell pins and needles. For that, I needed to go to the "mercerie" (notions store.)
    .
    If you wanted to sew something, you bought your fabric in the fabric store and then went to the notion store for your pins, needles, thread, and any other thing one might need for the project. (Zippers, interfacing blah, blah…)
    .
    Similary, YARN shops generally did not stock KNITTING NEEDLES– once again, those were at the mercery. So if you wanted to knit something, you would by yarn at the yarn shop, then leave, and go to the mercery for your needles.
    .
    This was dang inconvenient. I'm happy with new experience, but "convenience" is still something I appreciate relative to "inconvenience".
    .
    BTW, over time, the French have moved toward the American system of larger stores that carry lots of things generally, though I don't know if fabric and yarn shops have progressed to the American model. They have VERY successful grocery stores that stock many different types of foods which some French — though not all– considered practically sacriligeous in 1980. The fact is, even those who grumbled about the old ways involving visiting the cheese store, the cold-cut like store, the fruit vendor and so on broke down and would shop at the grocery… eventually. So, in fact, "our" system which was convenient "won". My preference our "tradition" was not solely due to not being "open to experience". Convenience is good– no matter what your previous background might have accustomed you to. )

  378. Ron Graf (Comment #177519)
    "Andrew Kennett, you are correct about trust and doing business one to one but much less I can see about trade. How do you feel about technology theft, corporate espionage and China's respect for patents? I would rank China as untrustworthy on those."

    I agree that China has (is) acted in an untrustworthy manner but it doesn't look like the trade war is doing anything to fix this behaviour. I think history shows (e.g. the relationship USA&Japan now v 1950) allowing Americans the freedom to trade will build the trust that will make China (as it did with Japan) realise that being trustworthy has more benefit than being untrustworthy.

  379. Andrew, I agree that China could follow in Japan's footsteps, but not with a totalitarian government, unabashedly sporting a dictator as head of state.

  380. Andrew Kennett,
    It is true that an ongoing trade relationship both requires and inspires trust between the parties. But the parties are not the governments of the people involved in trade. If individuals have substantial influence over governments (i.e. democracies), then yes, increases in trade will have a direct positive influence on government policies, but when the government is not a democracy the influence of trade, if any, is indirect, and more a question of how the government views the benefits (and costs!) of trade, not how the individuals involved view it. China’s government has very different priorities than it would if the government were elected rather than imposed; it values its own continuance in a very non-democratic form higher than anything else, including trade.

  381. Andrew, would you feel better about standing tough with China on trade if all the other western countries joined together in solidarity? Do you blame Trump for them not doing so? Do you also blame Trump for Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran misbehaviors? To me it sounds like Trump has become a scapegoat for some for daring to step out of the passive, lead-from-behind, reactive type leadership that is low on boldness but high on blame-shifting. BTW, do you think if Clinton won she might have engaged in blame-shifting?
    .
    One more: Do you think Trump is unreasonable or "threatening" to ask NATO countries to fulfill their commitments to the "alliance"? Or, do you think they already were?

  382. You can’t make this stuff up:
    Nancy Pelosi – Thursday of this week: “It’s a sad day because nobody comes to Congress to impeach a president of the United States, no one."
    .
    Rashida Tlaib- January 4, 2019, first day after being sworn in as a member of the House: “..we’re going to go in there and we’re going to impeach the motherf*cker”.
    .
    IMHO, Nancy Pelosi is little more than a lying sack of the human excrement that litters the streets of her home town, and as bonkers as the crazies who roam those same streets shouting at imaginary opponents.

  383. Record low turnout for Halloween at my house, probably 25% of last year. I dressed up as a slacker from the 1970's and can assure everyone that no cultural appropriation was involved.

  385. Tom Scharf,

    We had seven total (compared to 70+ some 15 years back). Part is changing demographics of the neighborhood, part is probably just a general loss of interest.
    .
    Mike M,

    Of *course* the guy is an extreme Democrat partisan, and has zero (absolutely no) first hand knowledge of the phone call Trump made to the president of the Ukraine. Probably more than 10 other people DID have first hand knowledge and wrote up the telephone summary.
    .
    My guess is that the Dems do not what him questioned under oath because 1) they want to hide his partisan background from the public, and 2) he may have person legal risk for leaking about other telephone calls Trump made in early 2017, while he was working in the White House. The White House staff appears to have re-assigned him to the CIA office when they suspected he was leaking confidential information to the press.

  386. Thanks for the link, Mike M. It's just scary what the press refuses to report due to their blue jersey and helmet.
    .
    Here's a story of a reporter that worked for the WSJ and NYT while investigating Warren's stump speech story of being fired from her teaching position when she showed pregnancy. He wrote to Warren's old school board. They researched and supplied him the records and minutes of their meeting which clearly put the lie to Warren's story. He kept his mouth shut and continued to write stories promoting Warren's claim. This only came to light after another reporter followed up on the research. This is unacceptable and they industry cannot allow this to go on. It's just like crooked cops or prosecutors. They need to be fired and labeled unfit for the industry.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-times-reporter-sat-public-225242061.html

  387. The DOJ reply to Michael Flynn's request for dismissal includes this nugget, which suggests they destroyed some inconvenient documents.

    "The Reply nonetheless suggests that there is a suppressed “original 302” that would exonerate the defendant. See Reply at 27-30. There is no evidence to support the defendant’s claim. First, the government has provided the defendant with every draft of the January 24 interview report in its possession. Second, the most “original” interview documents are the handwritten notes themselves, which the government provided to the defendant and detail the defendant’s multiple false statements. Third, even if an earlier draft of the interview report once existed, there is
    no reason to believe it would materially differ from the interviewing agents’ handwritten notes or the other drafts—all of which state that the defendant made the specific false statements to which the defendant admitted guilt. "

  388. First time ahead of the curve for a long time. Have wife’s birthday present 3 days early and a gift for the wedding anniversary next week. A world record.
    Still no Horowitz Steve F what the heck is going on over there?

  389. angech,
    I have not a clue why the IG’s report has not been released. It is especially puzzling because he ‘delivered’ his report to AG Barr about a month ago. I can only speculate that either Barr was unhappy with the report, or there has been a lot of ‘push-back’ from the intelligence agencies on disclosures in the report. Maybe it is some of both.
    .
    The questions I hope are answered are:
    1) Were there other FISA court orders to collect data on other individuals in the Trump campaign or administration?
    2) After the FISA order(s?) went into effect, did the NSA and/or the FBI use a ‘2-hop’ rule to spy on the entire Trump campaign/administration, and even Trump himself?
    .
    In my hopeful moments I imagine the answers to those two questions could both be ‘no’. In my less hopeful moments, I expect the answers are both ‘yes’. Unfortunately, I think it is unlikely either question will be publicly asked, never mind answered, at least not in my lifetime. And that is the biggest problem with the entire intelligence community; like an incompetent medical doctor, they can often bury their worst failures. 😉

  390. SteveF and Ron Gaf
    All countries need to encourage free trade in the long run but, of course, every country, at some time, finds an excuse of "national interest" to impose trade barriers.

  391. re Ron Graf (Comment #177535) "One more: Do you think Trump is unreasonable or "threatening" to ask NATO countries to fulfill their commitments to the "alliance"? Or, do you think they already were?"

    I expect all countries to fulfill their commitments to alliances this includes both Europe and NATO. I would hope that large powerful countries would consider the effects their decisions have on smaller less powerful countries, especially those that have been allies for a long time.

  392. SteveF, I heard Barr actually give FBI director Wray praise for his cooperation. My impression is that Wray is squarely with the deep state of what he sees as "non-partisan," which it looks like means anything that does not ask questions about corruption within the IC or Dem politicians. I'm worried there is a titanic battle going on behind the scenes to weaken the report in exchange for limiting redactions.
    .
    Considering we never found out Obama's role in the Benghazi cover story or his role in the IRS targeting or his role in the Clinton email whitewash, there is a strong chance any Obama role in FISA abuse will be covered up. I think Obama did an unprecedented job of converting career administrators into spies and saboteurs. They may have only 12 months more to hold out before they may be rid of Republicans.
    .
    Regardless of whoever wins the presidency in 2020 I predict a massive 2021 scraping out of high and mid level bureaucrats, civil service protections be damned.

  393. Andrew, thanks for your reply and I agree that free trade is great. I would even go further and add that zero tariffs should be common. But I am not for free trade with North Korea and Iran. Are you? If not, what is your principles involved in your position on China?

  394. SteveF
    If, if any charges are to come it would most likely be a mass charging of a number of medium level people at once and risk charges of obstruction of justice and a Democrat led impeachment. Given the latter will happen slowly or quickly it may be better to bring it on quickly.
    The best result would be if Charlie was also the whistleblower as that would certainly throw things into high relief.

  395. While I have had expectations of an imminent release in the past, I didn't believe that an IG report was going to be released last month.
    There is always an advance leaking to friendly media, trying to get ahead of the story. That didn't happen last month.

    Before an IG report is released, people named get an opportunity to review it and respond. Expect a release around Thanksgiving.

  396. Ron Graf,
    “I think Obama did an unprecedented job of converting career administrators into spies and saboteurs.”
    .
    Maybe, but I think the vast majority of ‘career bureaucrats’ are dedicated Democrats and quite willing to resist and even sabotage policies they disagree with, independent of any push from Obama. The most blatant of the bureaucratic malfeasance (like the IRS targeting non-profit applications by groups opposed to Obama) was surely approved up the chain of command; remember that Lois Lerner got generous ‘bonus pay’ for excellent performance while she was targeting Obama’s opponents! But there is, and will always be, a bureaucratic bias toward more power, money, and control for bureaucrats. They will actively resist anyone who wants to reduce the importance of the permanent bureaucracy. That won’t be Democrats.

  397. Mike N,
    “Expect a release around Thanksgiving.”
    .
    I will be happy if that happens. I am concerned the delays could go on indefinitely, leading to a release well after January 2020. Based on all available evidence, there was zero justification for a FISA application on Carter Page. If there was credible information to suggest he was a Russian spy, then I sure hope the IG report spells it out… I doubt it exists. But like Tom Scharf noted, it is more likely the report is going to obfuscate and arm wave the issue, with maybe a mild reprimand for all those who took ‘excessive action’ against Page.

  399. The IG report won't directly bring any charges. I think that at most, it could recommend a criminal investigation. But that criminal investigation is already underway. So I guess that at this point the main impact of the IG report would be to prepare the way for charges brought by Durham and to lend credibility to such charges.

  400. More evidence the national media is in its own impenetrable bubble.
    .
    Nobody Talks About Impeachment on the Campaign Trail
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/buttigieg-booker-yang-impeachment/601318/
    .
    "The impeachment fight is all-consuming. It’s the biggest story in politics. No one is talking about anything else—except pretty much everywhere outside of Washington."
    .
    Brooks: Impeach Trump. Then Move On.
    Stop distracting from the core issue, elite negligence and national decline.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/opinion/trump-impeachment.html
    .
    "That’s exactly what I’ve found, too. For most, impeachment is not a priority. It’s a dull background noise — people in Washington and the national media doing the nonsense they always do. A pollster can ask Americans if they support impeachment, and some yes or no answer will be given, but the fundamental reality is that many Americans are indifferent."

  401. DeWitt,
    .
    I think Bill Clinton's huge paydays (totaling millions of dollars) for brief speeches to organizations with business before the State Department, while Hillary was Secretary of State, show a level of corruption comparable to Teapot Dome. Not to mention that Hillary cashed in even more egregiously with brief speeches to several large financial organizations while she was considered the likely next POTUS, but before making a formal declaration of her candidacy. The difference with Teapot Dome is that the Clinton's were untouchable… except at the ballot box.
    .
    Surprisingly enough, neither Bill nor Hillary get those juicy speaking fees any more.

  402. Mike M,
    It is clear that Durham has opened a criminal investigation. But It may not have anything much to do with the IG's FISA investigation.
    .
    Andy McCabe dropped his lawsuits against the FBI and the DOJ, "with prejudice" (meaning they can't ever be re-started), over his firing just about the time Durham's criminal investigation was announced. Those things appear to be connected; McCabe probably wants to preserve his 5th amendment right to not testify.

  403. The FBI's is in a bad situation of their own making with McCabe. If lying to the FBI is a crime for others, it should be for their own employees. They need to throw him under the bus for their own integrity. This isn't going to go away with time. It is very distasteful already for these guys to profit from their own malfeasance.

  404. Tom Scharf,
    Yes, the FBI has tolerated leaks, lies, and political agendas altogether too much, and they have suffered in reputation as a result. McCabe is a likely sacrificial lamb, since he was already fired, but even if convicted, I doubt he will get more than a wrist slap (even a month in prison seems to me very unlikely). If Durham formally charges him, I think he would be wise to cop a plea for a minimal sentence, since it is obvious he is a leaker and lied to the IG about it.

  405. SteveF (Comment #177560): "If Durham formally charges him, I think he would be wise to cop a plea for a minimal sentence, since it is obvious he is a leaker and lied to the IG about it."
    .
    Yes, McCabe might get off easy *if* he takes his co-conspirators down with him. I'd like to see them all sent away for years. But as far as I am concerned, the sentences they get is less important than establishing the facts of what was done and the criminality of that behavior.

  406. Strange fact of the day. Apparently a man can declare he identifies as a woman and be sent to a women's prison instead. I guess the requirements are a bit different for different countries.

  408. As long as the left has absolute control over the media and convinces their followers that anything coming from Fox News is from Putin or Murdoch then there will continued to be two parallel universes of truth.

  409. McCabe wrote a book, and in it he strangely included that Mueller forgot his phone in the White House. Was it a signal that if he wasn't protected, he would reveal Mueller was recording Trump in the Oval Office?

  410. Tom Scharf,

    "Apparently a man can declare he identifies as a woman and be sent to a women's prison instead."

    And this is different from a boy who identifies as a girl being able to compete in sports with girls how?

    My daughter, btw, thinks this is unimportant because it's just middle and high school sports. But then she is asportal, i.e. she has no interest whatsoever in sports competitions. Martina Navratilova, for example, is far less sanguine about the issue.

  411. DeWitt,
    "Martina Navratilova, for example, is far less sanguine about the issue."
    .
    Of course. At all levels of sport (except maybe grade school) women would be at a giant disadvantage. I believe John MacEnroe (hall of fame) estimated that the current world #1 female tennis player would be very unlikely to win a match against the #1000 ranked male player. Same thing in golf; women pros average about 250-260 yards off the tee, male pros average just under 300 yards. Michelle Wie played in 13 men's tournaments. She made one cut (on the Asian tour…. a much weaker tour than the US or European tours). Track and field… same thing. Contact sports? Forgetaboutit. Navratilova was only being sensible…. yet had to apologize to the 'woke' community to stop being called anti-LGBTLMNOP. It's a complete farce.

  412. PGA tour golfers are way longer than LPGA tour golfers.
    LPGA tour golfers hit the ball only about as far as a common male golfer. LPGA players are more accurate than PGA professionals. One assumes men would be more accurate if they slowed down their swings 10%. LPGA members would wipe the floor score-wise with your common male golfer, so there is a lot of overlap in golf ability. At the extremes though gender makes a big difference. Golf is also male dominated, where I play women are a rare siting.
    https://www.golf.com/instruction/2019/04/23/pga-tour-lpga-players-trackman-stats
    .
    https://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/06/why-are-lpga-tour-players-so-much-more-accurate-than-pga-tour-players
    .
    Professional men are also ~1 putt per round better surprisingly enough. Not so clear why the advantage here.
    https://www.golfdigest.com/story/putting-matthew-rudy
    .
    I surmise that the newly transitioned Tigress Woods would be able to notch quite a few more majors on the LPGA tour before they is done, ha ha.

  413. Tom,
    "Professional men are also ~1 putt per round better surprisingly enough. Not so clear why the advantage here."
    .
    I think it is mainly because on par 5's the men hit it WAY closer (often reach in two for a tap-in bird). If women were playing the same tees as the men, they would rarely (if ever) reach in two; even playing their own tees they are pressed distance-wise on the par fives and don't hit it as close.

  414. Re: Golf

    I have seen estimates of the average male golfer hitting his drives anywhere from 200 to 220 yards. Women professional golfers average about 250 yards in substantial part due to hitting the ball more solidly and straighter. Thus they are signficantly longer than the average male.

    My guess for the reason that male pros are generally better putters is that there are at least 10 times more male golfers than women and probably an even higher percentage of serious male golfers compared to serious female golfers. When I lived in Columbus Ohio, I would estimate that there were about 500 serious male golfers who played whenever they could outside of their job duties and family duties. I would roughly guess there were 5 women golfers (excuding the OSU golf team) like this. (I briefly dated one) Thus, the level of competition and pool of male players is much greater. If the pool of female players was as large as that of the men, I would guess that female pros would be equally as good putters as male pros.

    SteveF: You are confused on putting and par fives. If you hit a par five in two and two putt, you have a birdie. The two putts would not reduce a pro's putting average, which on tour is something like 1.7 putts per hole.

    My father was a teaching golf pro and I played junior tournament golf, so I have observed much of what I am commenting on here.

  415. Re Ron Graf (Comment #177549)
    November 3rd, 2019 at 7:52 pm
    Andrew, thanks for your reply and I agree that free trade is great. I would even go further and add that zero tariffs should be common. But I am not for free trade with North Korea and Iran. Are you? If not, what is your principles involved in your position on China?

    Well economic sanctions are political tools to force certain behaviour and not really a trade issue so as a short term measure I can understand although we have an expression: it is better to have somebody inside the tent p!ssing out, than outside p!ssing in.

  416. RE: SteveF (Comment #177552)
    "I think the vast majority of ‘career bureaucrats’ are dedicated Democrats"

    I think most ‘career bureaucrats’ go into that career because they think government work is good work and they see being a called a bureaucrat as praise not an insult. Because of this, in general, they support whatever political party thinks that the government does good, important work, so whatever party claims to be aiming to increase the reach government. For some it might be self-interest but for most it is a common interest between them and the pro-bureaucracy party.

  417. JD Ohio,
    I understand how putting statistics are kept. I should have been more clear. My guess is that due to their length compared to the length of the holes they play, male tour pros are going to be hitting it closer to the hole on their approach shots than female tour pros, so their putting statistics will likely be a bit better. I haven’t found a good source for ‘distance to hole for greens in regulation’, which is where I would guess to see a difference.

  418. Andrew Kennett,
    “for most it is a common interest between them and the pro-bureaucracy party.”
    .
    AKA progressives/Democrats

  419. “I think most ‘career bureaucrats’ go into that career because they think government work is good work…”
    .
    Obviously. But something ends up corrupting them — what it takes to fit in or actually get things done. The idealism then simply becomes an underlying notion of self assurance that at least they came in with good intentions.
    .
    SteveF, many conservatives are drawn into the law enforcement and justice agencies. I believe the reason for Comey's announcement on the Weaner laptop was due to conservatives in the NYC field office. The amazing thing is there was not a single such threat on the 7th floor of the J E Hoover Building or apparently the equivalent in the CIA, NSA, DNI or even IRS. Peter Strzok made the point during his testimony that hundreds of people are coordinating with his work, trying to show the implausibility of a one party "hive mind." But maybe that implausibility existed only of the days before Obama.

  420. Here is a female, immigrant, ex-Democrat who voted for a 3rd party candidate who says "I like Donald Trump, and think he’s the perfect president for these times."

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/10-reasons-i-like-donald-trump-from-a-female-former-democrat-immigrant/

    It might be helpful to those who are still puzzled as to why some of us support Trump in spite of his flaws.
    .
    One reason in particular struck me as notable:
    "by loudly questioning everything in his unorthodox way he has made us re-examine many things: our bloated bureaucracy, some of our egoistic federal civil servants who believe they’re in charge of our republic, the much-vaunted liberal international order, our awful elites and the meritocracy that produced them."
    .
    Those are things that many of us were aware of. But Trump has brought them front and center and raised the possibility that we don't need to just accept that as the way things are. A notable accomplishment in itself.

    I had come to accept Trump's manner as an unattractive part of who he is, with a suspicion that it might be necessary to what he is trying to do. I am now more inclined toward the latter view. Trump is the boy rudely pointing out that the emperor is naked. There is no polite way to do that, especially when every member of the court has been effusively praising his new wardrobe.

    I never quite thought of Trump that way in spite of the fact that a big part of why I came around to Trump was that he forced me to reexamine trade orthodoxy, after which I realized that he was right.

  421. I saw one interesting report today: https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/
    .
    Looks like Hunter Biden and his business partner got multiple personal meetings with top officials at the State Department, including the Secretary, while they were being paid >$80K per month each by the gas company Burisma in the Ukraine, at the time Burisma was under investigation in the Ukraine. (I am guessing I couldn’t get a meeting with Mike Pompeo.) The optics are terrible for Joe Biden; I don’t think this is going away.

  422. SteveF
    **The optics are terrible for Joe Biden; I don’t think this is going away.**
    Yep.
    .
    It's going to be a big problem for Democrats working on impeachment while Biden is running, and for now, near the top of the pack, and perhaps later gets nominated.
    .
    No matter how one tries to make arguments that what Trump did is wrong, with Biden running, the question of "If it's *really* wrong, by do Dems still support Biden?" are going to be asked.
    .
    And someone might try to somehow say perhaps Joe didn't know (in a pigs eye) yada, yada….
    .
    But we still have the issue that vis-a-vis *running for a office* all one needs to consider is *suspicion* to decide not to nominate or vote for someone. With impeachment, we really should have a pretty concrete provable case and people need to agree that what was done was wrong– otherwise, just wait out the election cycle and don't vote the office holder back into office.
    .
    So it's all the Hunter Biden/Joe stuff is going to be discussed whether nor not "some" people think it ought not to be.

  423. The putting stats hold up over many measurements. Tournament locations that have held both PGA and LPGA events show the same improved stats for men. PGA courses also have faster green setups.
    .
    I guess I was looking at swing speeds for average male vs the LPGA, sorry about that.
    .
    https://www.golfdigest.com/story/new-data-shows-were-not-hitting-it-farther
    "Bowden says LPGA Tour players swing at roughly the same speed as average male golfers (93.9 mph), but because they are even more efficient at center strikes than PGA Tour players, they average 2.64 yards per mph for an average of 248 yards off the tee. That's more than 30 yards longer than everyday male golfers."
    .
    It also depends on age/handicap as us oldsters can attest. 239 yds for 25 years old, 212 for a 55 year old.
    https://www.quintessentialgolf.com/driver-distance/

  424. I can see it now, the left sabotages Biden in an effort to take out Trump and thus allows Warren to win the nomination. Trump beats Warren because she is nearly batsh** crazy in many areas.
    .
    I'm as cynical as anyone but firmly believe the left is every bit as capable at self sabotage as the right is. There are a few moderates talking about electability but for the most part the left establishment wants Biden out for reasons I can't quite understand if you believe their own stated motivations. Warren will become less and less likable as time goes on IMO, Wall Street will align against her, and she will be tarred with tax and spend. Trump will be his usual moron but this is built in at this point.

  425. lucia (Comment #177578): "And someone might try to somehow say perhaps Joe didn't know (in a pigs eye)"
    .
    The sad truth is that it is quite possible that Joe did not know. It might well be that Joe never pulled any strings to get Hunter appointments that no unconnected citizen could get. Hunter could have gotten those meetings by trading on his name without letting Joe know. And the State Department officials would have known better than to contact Joe about it. Swamp critters are passed masters at plausible deniability.

    The real issue is the institutional corruption endemic in Washington. And throughout elite society. The main damage to Biden probably won't be to his reputation, at least among the elites. But it will provide fuel to the populists in the Democrat party and will serve to remind people of why Trump got elected.

  426. Luica,
    "And someone might try to somehow say perhaps Joe didn't know (in a pigs eye) yada, yada…."
    .
    And with Joe's history of, shall we say, being somewhat 'flexible' with the truth, the claim that he didn't know what his son was up to with Bursima is just not very credible. Among those who want Trump gone, no matter the means (I think I remember that some hope for a bolt of lightning 😉 ), Biden may still seem the lesser of evils, but in swing states, I think this rather obvious 'appearance of corruption' will hurt Biden, much as that appearance hurt Hillary Clinton.
    .
    One other interesting thing is how this went down with Chris Heinz, son of Pennsylvania Senator John Heinz (who died in a plane crash) and the stepson of John Kerry (who married Heinz's widow). According to the Washington examiner:
    .
    **Hours after Biden’s board appointment went public on May 13, 2014, Heinz emailed Matt Summers and David Wade, two of his stepfather’s top aides at the State Department. "Apparently Devon and Hunter both joined the board of Burisma and a press release went out today,” wrote Heinz. “I cant speak why they decided to, but there was no investment by our firm in their company.” **
    .
    Sure sounds like Chris Heinz recognized the appearance of corruption and wanted to distance himself from it.

  427. Tom Scharf,
    "There are a few moderates talking about electability but for the most part the left establishment wants Biden out for reasons I can't quite understand if you believe their own stated motivations."
    .
    I think you gave the reason earlier in that same comment: those on the left who don't want Biden are even MORE batsh!t crazy than Warren is. Consider the policies they want:
    .
    1) Defacto open borders
    2) Giving citizenship to 10+ million illegal residents
    3) Marginal Federal tax rates >80% (>90% total in many states!)
    4) Wealth confiscation at anywhere from 2% to 7% per year (depending which crazy you happen to talk to)
    5) Packing the Supreme Court to subvert the Constitution
    6) Making private health insurance illegal
    7) Eliminating the Electoral College… without amending the Constitution
    8) Seizing all semi-automatic rifles from private citizens (ignoring the 2nd amendment)
    9) Eliminating the Senate filibuster
    10) Implementing the "Green New Deal", and eliminate all fossil fuel use by 2030

  428. Tom
    **"Bowden says LPGA Tour players swing at roughly the same speed as average male golfers (93.9 mph), but because they are even more efficient at center strikes than PGA Tour players, they average 2.64 yards per mph for an average of 248 yards off the tee. That's more than 30 yards longer than everyday male golfers."
    .
    **

    Ok… But "more efficient" means: They are more skillful.

    .
    So, the *professional LPGA* women manage to do better than the *average* male golfer by having GREATER SKILL (which can be developed by practice.)
    .
    Guys, who are taller and stronger should generally have an advantage at getting faster club head velocities because all other things being equal gravitational potential energy (mgh) is greater if you are taller, have longer arms and longer clubs (bigger h). Being able to use your muscles to accelerate the club helps get higher velocities and so on. So that's the "non-skill" aspect– and guys should have an advantage there.
    .
    But yes: skill matters. So what that info says is LPGA golfers can compete with average men as a result of the ladies greater skill.
    .
    That men's physical advantages still matter would still put *skillful* women at a disadvatage to equally *skillful* men. (I'm not going to discount JD's notions about there just being more men playing. That's almost certainly true and will make a difference. But the explanation doesn't need to be either/or. Also: to some extent, women might be less interested in Golf *because* it's harder for them to excel. There are feedbacks in "interest".)

  429. Luica,
    For a golf course to be equally difficult for average women players and average men players, the women's tees would need to be at about 80% of the men's tees, but more typically, they play tees that considerably longer than 80% of the men's tees. At the course I play most often, the tees most men play are at 6150 yards total, while the women's tees are at 5564 yards, or 90% of the Men's tees. I normally play a longer set of tees (about 6500 yards), but even then the women are at a length disadvantage: 86% of the distance I play, instead of 80%. So yes, the game is generally more difficult for women.
    .
    BTW, I have played a couple of times with women professionals (nothing like tour players, but still very good). Playing the same tees, they kick my butt (6 to 12 strokes in 18 holes!). Efficiency, consistency, and accuracy can make up for a lack of power, except at the highest skill levels.

  430. SteveF
    In many sports, skill makes a difference. That's why even in the sports that appear to be most affected by physique, fitness and so on, they have people studying bio-mechanics. How you run, swim, jump all matter.

  431. Is it too early to call Kentucky for Bevin? I think it's a bit early but I think Bevins got it.

  432. At the moment the Democrat is in the lead. But a lot of votes from rural parts of Kentucky have not been counted yet.

  433. If Bevin wins, it will be by a handful of votes. More likely he loses. He did not make himself popular. Almost all the down ballot races have gone to Republicans.

  436. Politico reports 100% precincts in, Bevin came up 5466 votes short.
    Teach me to call at 34%.
    Nite all.
    [Edit : counts are still updating. Don't know. I'm calling it a night.]

  437. Lucia: "It's going to be a big problem for Democrats working on impeachment while Biden is running, and for now, near the top of the pack, and perhaps later gets nominated."
    .
    I think you are forgetting that Trump getting "caught" trying to suggest the Biden conflict, and his self-admitted ultimatum to fire prospector Shokin, be investigated ended up inoculating Biden. The media is so staked in the Trump take-down (from being bought into the Brennan-Comey-Obama information op) they are no longer just biased, they're desperate. I predict a total news blackout on Biden's corruption except for liberal-ignored conservative news outlets.
    .
    As SteveF linked above, John Solomon has new and damning documents showing US DoS coordination 2015-2016 on how to handle inquiries re Burisma – Hunter conflict: call VP. Biden.
    .
    Lindsey Graham committed on Hannity tonight that somebody in the senate will investigate Burisma – Hunter. I could hear the collective yawn as only a handful of conservative reporters would seriously cover it and the rest will call it a partisan conspiracy theory. It may even help Biden.
    .
    If I am overly pessimistic perhaps someone can cite a good recent counter-example of the MSM put truth before politics. The turning point in my mind was when the MSM were visibly annoyed at the Benghazi military contractors for going to Fox to try to bust the likely Clinton created cover story. Remember, just days before the 2012 election who the last debate moderator, CNN's Candy Croley, literally refuted Mitt Romney's assertion that Obama had sanctioned a non-terrorist attack cover story, leaving Obama smiling and Romney speechless and stung. At that point the truth had been out for two months on Fox News but not on the MSM.

  438. Ron Graf (Comment #177595): "…ended up inoculating Biden. … I predict a total news blackout on Biden's corruption except for liberal-ignored conservative news outlets."
    .
    Biden has not been inoculated. He as been exposed. At least some of his opponents will seek to exploit that exposure. It may well be that CNN, the Times, Post, etc, will refuse to report such stories. But the MSM is not longer trusted by a large majority of the populace. That surely includes a lot of independents and moderate Democrats. And the MSM no longer has a virtual monopoly on the news. Outside the Washington bubble, there will be an effect.
    ———–
    Ron Graf: "Lindsey Graham committed on Hannity tonight that somebody in the senate will investigate Burisma – Hunter. I could hear the collective yawn"
    .
    It seems to me that Lindsey Graham says a great many things but does very little. So a collective yawn is probably an appropriate response to the wheezing of such a windbag.

  439. "At least some of his opponents will seek to exploit that exposure."
    .
    That would only be Tulsi Gabbard. But if she takes out one more Dem she will be investigated for being a Putin asset.
    .
    When it gets down to the wire Biden is inoculated from another front runner using an angle that would excuse Trump's otherwise impeachable crime.

  440. Ron Graf,
    "If I am overly pessimistic perhaps someone can cite a good recent counter-example of the MSM put truth before politics. "
    .
    I can't. For all of my adult life, there has been clear political bias in the MSM (both broadcast and print) against anyone opposed to the progressive agenda. That bias has gradually grown worse (Walter Cronkite to Dan Rather to Don Lemon shows the trend), but the election of Trump eliminated all pretense of 'neutral reporting' by the MSM. It is clear that the MSM regards Trump as such a catastrophe that most any means to damage him, including publication of unverified outright falsehoods, is now acceptable.
    .
    I think an even bigger recent change is the complete contempt the MSM now holds for anyone who voted for Trump or who supports policies Trump supports (and Republicans in general, of course). Where in the past (say, pre-Obama) many MSM outlets gave lip service to the need for political compromise, that is now just about completely gone. The MSM, and the politicians they support, want to politically overpower all who oppose their agenda, by most any means available, and force compliance with their progressive policy views…. no compromises. It is terribly discouraging, but I think the MSM's arrogance and dishonesty may very well lead to Trump's re-election.

  441. The KY Republican Party is run by Mitch McConnell. Matt Bevin ran a primary against Mitch McConnell in 2014. Despite the supposed Republican lean of the state, had Bevin won that primary, he would have lost the Senate race in November.
    Bevin had a primary challenger that nearly beat him this year.
    Republicans won every other state office. This is actually one more seat than they had before.
    Eventually Kentucky Democrats will run out of relatives of former governors to put up for these seats.

  442. SteveF, I agree with your assessment of the decline of press objectivity. As our whole western democracy depends on the delicate checks and balances, of which the press is a crucial cog. A politically biased press hampers its most crucial function, that of the information conduit in holding back the eternal creep of corruption.
    .
    The left's driving fear is of "big corporate" corruption. While the Tea Party right, which I identify with, sees "big government" as the primary source of corruption. The obvious reality is that human nature is the source, as the founders realized. With the fall of the MSM to a purely ideological corrupted party organ and the conservative press spending most of its time just keeping up with trying to combat the misinformation, the net result is that many corrupted persons are getting a pass, especially if they have any connection to a Clinton or woke left.

  443. FWIW, Gavin, who’s model predicts an equilibrium sensitivity of ~2.7 per doubling, seems to be doing a little bit of arm waving about most of the CIMP6 models showing sensitivity of close to 5C per doubling. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/11/sensitive-but-unclassified/
    .
    Gavin (carefully) couches doubts about the 5C sensitivity values in many soothing words, and gives no offense to the climate woke. Still, I think he ducks the biggest doubt of all: the CIMP6 models at 5C seem wildly (crazily, insanely!) out of line with many empirical estimates. AFAIK, nobody has suggested the empirical estimates could be off by a factor of 2.5! The models are almost certainly very wrong. Maybe Nic Lewis will have something to say about this obvious divergence.

  444. While waiting for Horowitz (Godot) I thought I might ask DeWitt and others their thoughts on the weird Arctic ice recovery at this time of the year last year which may be about to recur even though currently it is second or third lowest in extent.
    Last year in 2 months it went from 3rd lowest to 13 th lowest, an amazing percentage change before dying out in a whimper at a slightly higher than expected maximum.
    Changes were in the order of several SD with maximum gains of over 200,000 on a number of occasions.
    I hope i5 occurs again in which case there might need to be some revision of the possible SD.

  445. The next Mt. Pinatubo scale volcano should provide a great amount of evidence of ERF. Because however much the ERF has increased since 1991 from increased GHG emissions should be proportional to an increase in efficacy of volcanic aerosol. For analogy, imagine two burners on a stove at the same temperature. One is at a steady state temperature with a pot of warm water. The other burner plate is at the same temperature but is warming with a pot of cold water on it. If one then cuts the for a minute while measuring the temperature of the burner plate the one with the cold water will be a much steeper drop than the one with the warm pot.
    .
    The global surface temperature drop per amount of volcanic aerosol should be larger the larger the ERF. If aerosol cooling efficacy is proportional to ERF then instantaneous increases in aerosols provide an indirect measurement of ERF.
    .
    Edit: Models should already be able to predict the future aerosol efficacy and be able to reproduce in since Mt. Agung (eruption 1963), El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991).

  447. Ron Graf (Comment #177608): "The next Mt. Pinatubo scale volcano should provide a great amount of evidence of ERF."
    ,
    Hardly. You can't pick out Pinatubo in the global temperature data unless you know where it should be.
    .
    Ron Graf "Because however much the ERF has increased since 1991 from increased GHG emissions should be proportional to an increase in efficacy of volcanic aerosol."
    .
    No, the various forcings are additive. The effects are small and can therefore be treated as linear (Taylor's Theorem) which makes them additive.

  448. Mike M, what I hear you saying is that I have a really novel idea and that I haven't sufficiently explained it.

    Here is a chart of the CMIP5 model mean. Notice the concentration of dips at 1963, 1982 and 1991.
    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CMIP5-short.png
    .
    I am not saying the instrumentation is yet sensitive enough to get a clear and accurate signal of volcanic forcing. But since it is instantaneous and periodic it's a great candidate for prediction, which is the cornerstone of validation.
    .
    What part of my analogy of the water pots (SST) on the stove burners (SAT) and power (TOA) do you disagree with?

  449. Ron Graf (Comment #177611): "what I hear you saying is that I have a really novel idea and that I haven't sufficiently explained it."
    .
    No, I understood what you are saying and I say it is wrong.
    .
    Ron Graf: "Here is a chart of the CMIP5 model mean."
    .
    Well, maybe the dips are there in the models.
    .
    Ron Graf: "I am not saying the instrumentation is yet sensitive enough to get a clear and accurate signal of volcanic forcing. But since it is instantaneous and periodic it's a great candidate for prediction, which is the cornerstone of validation."
    .
    In principle, sufficiently accurate measurements subsequent to a major volcano should provide a good test. But it has nothing to do with the amount of forcing from other sources.

    The maximum effect on temperature should be about a year after the eruption. For many purposes that could be called instantaneous.
    .
    Ron Graf: "What part of my analogy of the water pots (SST) on the stove burners (SAT) and power (TOA) do you disagree with?"
    .
    I dispute the claim that it has anything to do with volcanic forcing.

  450. Mike M. (Comment #177610Ron Graf (Comment #177608): "The next Mt. Pinatubo scale volcano should provide a great amount of evidence of ERF."
    “Hardly. You can't pick out Pinatubo in the global temperature data unless you know where it should be.”
    Everyone talks about the effect of Pinatubo on Climate change.
    How can it possibly be indistinguishable.

  452. angech (Comment #177613): "Everyone talks about the effect of Pinatubo on Climate change.
    How can it possibly be indistinguishable."
    .
    Sarcasm? It is so hard to tell, these days.

  454. Mike M,
    "Hardly. You can't pick out Pinatubo in the global temperature data unless you know where it should be."
    .
    Only in Willis Eschenbach's world. Once you account for the influence of ENSO on global average temperature, the effect of Pinatubo is pretty clear. It is smaller than the climate models predict (because they are too sensitive to forcing!), but the effect of Pinatubo is clear and obvious.

  455. Mike M,
    “Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy".
    .
    Wait, I thought it was all the 99+% white (1/256 Native American) Harvard professors who claim to be 'women of color' that form the backbone of our democracy! She is a lying sack of excrement.

  456. Mark Bofill,
    I suppose I could read the Babylon Bee, but the actual/real news reports are almost indistinguishable from the Bee. The strange thing is that the similarity is a source for problems for the Bee: Declarations of "false" stories from 'fact check' leftists MSM… the bizarro left is so wacked out that the Bee seems serious to them! You just can't make this stuff up.

  457. Steve,
    Mmm. Yeah. I read about that on the Bee.
    https://babylonbee.com/news/concerning-survey-finds-too-many-people-think-snopes-is-a-real-fact-checking-website
    .
    I don't know if I'm with you. I actually think the Babylon Bee is a bit too straightforward and honest to be mistaken for MSM.
    https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-criticizes-pregnant-woman-for-shooting-poor-defenseless-man-who-was-simply-seeking-asylum-in-her-home
    I mean I know it's satire. But… Sometimes it's pretty darn close!

  458. SteveF (Comment #177617): "Once you account for the influence of ENSO on global average temperature, the effect of Pinatubo is pretty clear."
    .
    News to me. Do you have a source for that?

  460. SteveF (Comment #177622): "For example, look at figures 4 and 5 here: http://rankexploits.com/musing…..t-warming/
    Pinatubo stands out pretty clearly."
    .
    Sorry, I don't see it. Yes, there is a dip at about the right time. But if one did not know where it was supposed to be, I don't believe one could pick it out from all the other ups and downs with any confidence.

    This should link directly to the figure: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Figure5.png

  461. Mike M,
    "Sorry, I don't see it."
    .
    Odd, because I think it is pretty clear. I'm pretty sure there are multiple publications which draw similar conclusions. Sure, there is plenty of other variation, so the S/N ratio is not very high… but we are talking about climate science, where S/N in most analyses is well approximated by zero. BTW, one of the motivations for that post was the bizarro conclusion in the Foster and Rahmsdorf paper about the relative lack of volcanic response and concurrent large solar response, which make no physical sense.

  462. “We monitor and model the effects on world-wide temperatures of the June 1991 volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. Global mean air temperatures were reduced, by up to 0.5°C at the surface and 0.6°C in the troposphere, for some months in mid-1992, in approximate accord with model predictions. Differences from these predictions occurred in the Northern Hemisphere winters of 1991-1992 and 1992-1993, as a result of atmospheric circulation changes that yielded continental surface warmings not fully reproduced by the model. The effects of the eruption were less evident by 1994. Stratospheric warmth following Pinatubo lasted until early 1993 according to Microwave Sounding Unit data.”
    –
    Mike M,
    "Sorry, I don't see it."
    –
    MikeM Mount Pinatubo and it’s effects are easy to find on Google and have formed a major part of comments on natural variability for 27 years. I am pretty sure you know this. This leaves your comment more as I don’t buy it rather than I don’t see it.
    This is wrong but impossible to argue with you on it.

  463. SteveF (Comment #177624): "I think it is pretty clear."
    .
    It is perfectly clear. Ex post facto.
    .
    SteveF: "there is plenty of other variation, so the S/N ratio is not very high … one of the motivations for that post was the bizarro conclusion in the Foster and Rahmsdorf paper about the relative lack of volcanic response"
    .
    Right. So it all depends on what question one is trying to answer.
    If the question is "Was there a response?" then, if the exact timing matches up, we can answer "yes" with a high degree of confidence and no way can one reasonably answer "no".
    If the question is "Can we use the temperature record to identify volcanic eruptions?" then the answer is pretty clearly "no". So I stand by my earlier statement that you can't pick out Pinatubo in the global temperature data unless you know where it should be.
    If the question is "Can we use the response to volcanoes to determine climate sensitivity?", as Ron Graf suggested, the answer is again "no" because of the low S/N ratio. Although it might be possible to put a useful upper bound on the sensitivity.
    ———
    angech (Comment #177625): "Mount Pinatubo and it’s effects are easy to find on Google and have formed a major part of comments on natural variability for 27 years. I am pretty sure you know this."
    .
    Yes, I know that. And it in no way contradicts what I have been saying.
    .
    What is at issue here is clear thinking vs. sloppy thinking. There is a difference between observations that agree with a claim and observations that demonstrate a claim. There is a difference between qualitative agreement and quantitative agreement. There is a difference between ex ante and ex post argument. Failing to recognize such difference, especially the last, causes all sorts of errors.

  464. If all you look at is the surface temperature or the lower troposphere temperature, you may not have a definitive volcanic signal for the recent large eruptions like Pinatubo. But that's not the only data available. Large volcanic eruptions produce a strong signal in the stratospheric temperature that you don't see with, say, ENSO. So the temperature profile will tell you that there was a large volcanic eruption without any other information.

  465. Of course the next large eruption could be Tambora scale (VEI-7). Then there won't be any doubt.

  466. Mike M, I was not claiming any uniqueness of volcanic forcing vs. any other radiative effects. My point was that volcanic is distinguishable from the others and periodic so it's magnitude and direct effects can be scientifically assessed. The other point is that if there exists a large radiative imbalance due to the inertia of ocean temperature from overturning cold water from hundreds of years ago, one would expect a sharper and deeper downward response to the removal of the imbalance than is a new temporary negative imbalance was being established. That later case the oceans would act to mute the drop in GMST by becoming a warming influence.

  467. Apparently John Solomon was fired from the Hill and picked up by Fox News. There is a full-court press on him by the left due to his reporting on the Bidens and Burisma. https://www.thedailybeast.com/water-finds-its-level-as-fox-news-hires-dictator-loving-deep-state-loathing-john-solomon?ref=scroll
    .
    Solomon reported that he was told by Ukrainian prosecutor Lutsenko that Obama-carryover ambassador Marie Yovanovitch handed him a "do not prosecute" list on behalf of the Obama administration. Lutsenko later "walked that back" which is not spelled out whether he claims it never happened or he is claiming he never told Solomon it happened. It doesn't apparently matter to the left. All they know is Solomon printed a lie, which general Vindman confirmed was a lie under oath, trashing Solomon. https://www.thedailybeast.com/vindman-burns-trump-booster-john-solomon-in-testimony-all-the-key-elements-of-his-reporting-were-false
    .
    I wonder how many believe that Solomon made up a story. Clearly almost everyone on the left, including Trump's DoS. Scary — the civil divide deepens.

  468. Huh. "Dictator-Loving, Deep State-Loathing". I guess the author of that headline is self-identifying as logically challenged.

  469. Ron, I remember reading that John Solomon was starting his own thing after leaving The Hill. It's not clear who else would be part of it.

  470. Mike M. “Ron Graf (Comment #177608): "The next Mt. Pinatubo scale volcano should provide a great amount of evidence of ERF."
    Hardly. You can't pick out Pinatubo in the global temperature data unless you know where it should be.”
    –
    What is at issue here is clear thinking vs. sloppy thinking. There is a difference between observations that agree with a claim and observations that demonstrate a claim. There is a difference between qualitative agreement and quantitative agreement. There is a difference between ex ante and ex post argument.
    –
    A small point is that we do know where Pinatubo is in time and space and the global temperature data. We are not trying to predict it, merely looking at the known effects at the known time.
    Hence Ron is right to point out that when the next big explosion occurs the resulting pattern of temperature change will provide help in workin out ERF better.
    Not knocking your assessment in the difficulty in picking up past volcanic effects in some temperature data sets.

  471. angech (Comment #177633): "A small point is that we do know where Pinatubo is in time and space and the global temperature data. We are not trying to predict it, merely looking at the known effects at the known time."
    .
    You are starting to catch on. But that is not a small point, it is a critically important point.
    .
    angech: "when the next big explosion occurs the resulting pattern of temperature change will provide help in workin out ERF better."
    '
    No, that would require a *quantitative* assignment, not just a *qualitative* one. If the T excursion following an eruption is similar in magnitude to T excursions that have nothing to do with eruptions, then we can have little if any confidence in saying how much of the excursion was due to the eruption. Then the excursion would have little or no value in estimating ECS. That would be true even if the timing of the excursion is such as to provide a fairly high degree of confidence in saying that the eruption contributed to the T excursion.
    .
    It occurs to me that by matching the entire sequence of T's following an eruption, it *might* be possible to form a stronger assessment. Also, with a decent sample size of eruptions one could strengthen the argument. But I am not holding my breath.
    ———-

    Addition: Looking again at SteveF's article, Figure 12 suggests that the prospect for testing ECS might be a lot better than I thought:
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/figure-12.png

  472. Angech: "What is at issue here is clear thinking vs. sloppy thinking. There is a difference between observations that agree with a claim and observations that demonstrate a claim. There is a difference between qualitative agreement and quantitative agreement. There is a difference between ex ante and ex post argument."
    .
    Any investigation involves asking a similar set of basic questions.
    1) If a hypothesis were true then what evidence would be expected?
    2) What quantitative measurements would be expected?
    3) Would the evidence be detectable? Could the measurements be made within conclusive error.
    .
    Forgetting number 4 for right now, a granted actual observations have a lot of noise due to yet unknown and unpredictable natural variation, the models show all the volcanic responses because they know to look for them because the aerosols effects are fed in. My thought is IF the volcanic eruption is large enough to significantly affect SAT, SST as well as OHC, then its signal should tell us something about the hypothesized radiative imbalance at the TOA. And that imbalance is part of the equation for ECS. And if we find ECS we also would know TCR just be removing the radiative imbalance factor.
    .
    Thought experiment: If the radiative imbalance at the time of Krakatoa (1883) was zero, and we compared it to another Krakatoa tomorrow where the radiative imbalance is 1C, for example, would the signal on SAT, SST and OHC be the same? I say no. Qualitatively, I would expect a sharper drop in SAT and SST but an identical deflection in OHC. If 1883's Krakatoa at its peak response dropped the SAT by 1C and the SST by .3C, for example, I would expect that tomorrow's Krakatoa would drop the SAT by ~1.7C and the SST by 0.5C, as a rough guess without any math, based on the respective temperature gradients.
    .
    Remember, the TOA imbalance is mainly with SST. The higher the imbalance the stronger the gradient effect on SAT and thus for every incremental increase in the imbalance there is a log diminished response in SAT. A hot coffee that is 50C higher than room temperature will lose temperature at a much faster pace than a coffee with the lower gradient of 5C above room temp.

  473. Edit: "Forgetting number 4 for right now, a granted…" should read Forgetting number 3 for right now, and granted…
    .
    One more way to look at it as that in Krakatoa (1883) the TOA imbalance would have gone negative by X thus the SST would be warming the SAT and counteracting the drop in radiative forcing and thus dampening its response to the event. In tomorrow's Krakatoa the imbalance would peak at 1-X and thus the SST would have a diminished counter to the radiative cooling.

  474. "Of course the next large eruption could be Tambora scale (VEI-7). Then there won't be any doubt."
    .
    At least we would have a few days of Trump free news, ha ha.

  475. Ron Graf (Comment #177635): "If 1883's Krakatoa at its peak response dropped the SAT by 1C and the SST by .3C, for example, I would expect that tomorrow's Krakatoa would drop the SAT by ~1.7C and the SST by 0.5C, as a rough guess without any math, based on the respective temperature gradients."
    .
    That is what I understood Ron's original claim to be and I am quite sure it is incorrect. The reason is that the changes are all small enough to be in the linear regime.

    Let's say we have some complex function of several variables:
    y = f(T, R, x)
    where the variables T, R, and x have values of zero for some reference state; that is, they represent anomalies from the reference state. Then, under very general conditions, we have, for small variations, the approximation:
    y = a*T + b*R + c*X
    where a, b, and c are constants. So the effects are additive and independent. That is true even if the original function is non-linear and includes interaction between the various variables.

    For larger changes, we would get terms proportional to T^2, T*R, etc. In such a case, what Ron argues could be true, although there would no general result for the sign of the effect (it could be smaller rather than larger). But that is just not the case for the effects under discussion.

  476. Mike M, I follow your math until your last paragraph and I do not see how your math applies to my claim. I agree that volcanic aerosol can be algebraically added to all the influences to come to ERF.
    .
    My claim is that surface atmospheric temperature (SAT) is responding both positively to GHG and negatively to lagging SST, (which is the cause of the imbalance at the TOA). Thus the change in SAT (dSAT) equals a constant times radiative imbalance (aN) minus a constant times SST (bSST). Both constants are the respective rate of SAT response to the respective anomaly. So dT =aN – bSST. The Krakatoa (1883) in my example had the equation dT = -2 +1 and the Krakatoa of tomorrow as dt = -2+.3. The exact relationship of the dT response to radiatve drop and the SST stabilization are just guesses. But the radiative drop in forcing although being exactly the same in both eruptions the one today would have 1C less in offsetting stabilization from SST imbalance. Thus dT becomes more sensitive to any negative radiative influence.
    .
    Another way to think about it is that if the oceans were not there the dT would be much more responsive to ERF. When the ocean temperature is out of balance by X it is essentially not there for that X amount.

  477. Mike M
    “No, that would require a *quantitative* assignment, not just a *qualitative* one. If the T excursion following an eruption is similar in magnitude to T excursions that have nothing to do with eruptions, then we can have little if any confidence in saying how much of the excursion was due to the eruption. Then the excursion would have little or no value in estimating ECS. That would be true even if the timing of the excursion is such as to provide a fairly high degree of confidence in saying that the eruption contributed to the T excursion.”
    –
    Respectfully disagree.
    The T excursion, any T excursion, has a probable ECS associated with it. The fact that any number of T excursions may be natural does not detract from the estimation of the energy change involved with a particular excursion.
    This is the what Ron is trying to estimate.
    The fact that the excursion might have been due to a seperate does not stop one using the actual effect for an estimation, it just lowers the confidence in the result a little.

  478. Mike M,
    “Figure 12 suggests that the prospect for testing ECS might be a lot better than I thought”
    .
    Ya, well, I have been aware of that for a while. Nearly all short term variation is well described by a handful of measured variables. The underlying secular trend becomes much more obvious once those are taken into account. The bigger issue is that there remains a substantial disconnect between the underlying secular trend and any plausible medium term trend in forcing. We are forced to conclude that a reasonable empirical estimate of ECS has to be based of a much longer period… as Nic Lewis (and others) have used to make an estimate of ECS. Which turns out to be a bit under 2C per doubling.

  479. SteveF, wrt your linked chart would you say that all the excursions are both unknown and unforced? Would you also agree that magnitude is pretty consistency less than 0.2C from the mean?
    .
    If Mt. Pinatubo produced a 0.3C ENSO adjusted excursion and the radiative imbalance in 1991 was 0.5C, for argument sake, would you agree that if the imbalance today is 1.0C the we should expect an excursion of in the neighborhood of 0.6C for the same eruption?

  480. Ron Graf,
    If you mean excursions from the trend from known forcings, then yes the causes are by definition unknown. Whether or not they are ‘unforced’ is impossible to answer, since causes are unknown. I agree that the residual deviation from the ‘expected’ trend is on the order of +/- 0.2C.
    .
    WRT a Pinatubo-like future eruption: I don’t see any reason why the deviation in the long term trend would not be comparable to the deviation in trend from Pinatubo. I mean, the deviation is due to an applied change in forcing, not due to an existing radiative imbalance which is causing an underlying trend. The complicated part with volcanoes is that the distribution of stratospheric aerosols is not likely to be uniform globally, and even if uniform globally, the effect is to reduce solar energy, not restrict radiative loss to space, so the regional cooling is likely to be at least partially proportional to local solar intensity: stronger at low latitudes than at high, and stronger in summer than in winter. The influence of stratospheric aerosols is not going to be globally uniform like the presence of non-water atmospheric GHGs.

  481. Tom Scharf,
    “Of course the next large eruption could be Tambora scale (VEI-7). Then there won't be any doubt."
    .
    At least we would have a few days of Trump free news, ha ha.”
    .
    I doubt it. The MSM would find some way to blame Trump: if not for the volcano itself, then for his ‘disgusting reaction’ to it or his completely inadequate emergency response. It is all anti-Trump all the time, and will be until he is no longer in office.

  482. Steve F: "WRT a Pinatubo-like future eruption: I don’t see any reason why the deviation in the long term trend would not be comparable to the deviation in trend from Pinatubo."
    .
    OK, I think most agree that the land temps should rise in a steeper trend than the oceans because the latter's much higher heat capacity and slow overturning. This is the primary source of the "radiative imbalance." Forgetting advection for simplicity, one could then say there were two radiative imbalances, the one at the TOA over the oceans and the other much smaller one over land that would be equivalent to a world without oceans. The latter would be very sensitive to deflections in forcing of any kind and the radiative imbalance would always be small. The opposite is the case for the SST in relation to the TOA.
    .
    Now adding advection, the SST influences the SAT and visa versa, the former more than the latter. So SAT is responding to two influences, radiative and SST advection. In a world at radiative equalibrium that sees a deflection in radiative input the influence on SAT will be negative from radiation and positive from the stabilizing SST advection. In a warming world, with a steadily high SST imbalance, that experiences a deflection in radiative input the affect on SAT will be negative from radiation and also negative from advection, thus SAT in that situation should have a faster and steeper response. Unless I am missing something.
    .
    WRT to the complexity of the local responses to and eruption, that is all the better. The higher the complexity of the fingerprint the easier the validation from a fit. There would be many independent equations of expected local results, both over land and oceans. The model that gets them all right would be the winner.

  483. Ron Graf,

    Suppose there were an ongoing rise in temperature due to radiative imbalance… say, 0.15 C per decade, or 0.015C per year (on average). Excepting possible immediate "system state" feed-back responses (for example, rapid transition to El Nino conditions may itself be state change response from a sudden drop in solar intensity in the tropics), a large volcano would cause a temperature drop (average of land and sea surface) of ~0.5C over a year or so, followed by an exponential return to the original upward trend line over ~5 years or so; this dip and recovery would be *superimposed* on the underlying ~0.015C per year rise. The integral of the dip below the underlying trend should be just about the same as the integral of a comparable dip in a "stable" temperature environment, since both represent a lagged response to a sudden drop solar intensity (along with a reasonably rapid return to the normal solar intensity as sulfate aerosols dissipate).
    .
    Look at the graph of the GISS estimate of volcanic influence and the lagged response in my old post (figure 9). In truth, the exact response will be more complicated than the simple exponential used to generate that graph, because there is a wide range of heat capacities for atmosphere, earth's land surface, and ocean, and within the ocean itself a wide range of responses…. up to many centuries. But for relatively short perturbations, like that from a volcano, the very long response times don't much influence the measured response. A single (relatively fast) exponential function is just an approximation, of course, but a useful one.

  485. Ed Forbes,
    The Bush administration, the "intelligence agencies", and the much of the press wanted to get rid of Saddam, so the WMD story was passed back-and-forth until lots of people believed it. Same as with the Steele document…. The "intelligence agencies", the Obama administration, and much of the press wanted to get rid of Trump, so the Steele document was passed back and forth until lots of people believed it. We are still waiting for Godot (err.. the Inspector General) to issue his FISA report, where the Steele document is a critical piece. It should be interesting to read.

  486. What a howler. Wash. state legislature this year passed a law overturning the 1998 voter referendum banning the use of racial preferences by government.
    .
    There was a voter referendum recently to overturn their overturning of this 1998 referendum (and thus once again ban racial preferences). This is how the referendum was worded:
    .
    "The legislature passed Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerning affirmative action and remedying discrimination, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this act. Initiative 1000 would allow the state to remedy discrimination for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public education, employment, and contracting. Should Initiative 1000 be Approved?"
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/washington-state-voters-overcome-doublespeak-reject-racial-preferences-again/
    .
    I hope that was clear, ha ha. There will be no preferential treatment with affirmative action. It apparently narrowly passed.

  487. SteveF, thanks for your insightful reply. I disagree that the GMST would recover to the original trend line project from before the event. It would recover instead to the same trend but offset in time corresponding to the mean of the integral of the recovery. Obviously, the planet's steady warming was interrupted during the interval. This might be what you were saying. If so never mind.
    .
    I think you agree that planets having different surface heat capacities would have different responses in SAT for the same relative perturbations in energy flux. I think you would also agree that in a planet that had a variable star an interruption in the incoming radiation during the warming phase would have a larger signal than the same interruption during the stars cooler state. That's just common sense that if you miss a low payday its less impactful than if you miss a big payday. So do you also agree that a planet that is warming will have a larger signal from an identical volcano happening on a planet in equilibrium?

  488. Tom Scharf,

    … no preferential treatment or quotas…

    To translate the french idiom ce rire, it is to laugh.

    According to your link, it narrowly failed, not passed, which means that affirmative action is still banned in WA.

  489. Tom Scharf, Seattle is in the process of 'finding' ballots that might flip the referendum to no. Apparently the Socialist who lost to Amazon's candidate is now back in the lead.

  490. Ron Graf,
    " It would recover instead to the same trend but offset in time corresponding to the mean of the integral of the recovery. Obviously, the planet's steady warming was interrupted during the interval."
    .
    No, I don't think that is correct.
    .
    "So do you at least agree that a planet that is warming will have a larger signal from an identical volcano happening on a planet in equilibrium?"
    .
    No, I don't think it will unless there is much more going on than just a small radiative imbalance. The best estimate for the current imbalance is in the range of 0.65 – 0.7 watt per square meter. The flux from the sun is on the order of 1360 * 0.7/4 = 239 watt/M^2. So the current imbalance is tiny compared to the overall energy flux though the system. A major volcano is a considerably larger perturbation (GISS estimates -3.5 watt per square meter peak for Pinatubo, so changes the imbalance considerably more) than the current 0.65 imbalance.
    .
    Suppose the volcano happened with no underlying secular trend. Do you think the temperature would never recover to the starting temperature, but instead assume a new, permanently lower temperature? (real question)
    .
    For me, a first pass at understanding the physical process is pretty simple: the deflection of the temperature downward *reduces* heat loss to space, and the integral of that reduced heat loss to space equals the integral of the reduced solar flux from stratospheric sulfate aerosols, so the surface temperature gradually returns to the original value (in balance) or to the original trend ( imbalance). With an underlying secular trend (upward or downward) due to an existing radiative imbalance, the surface temperature trend pretty much has to gradually return to the original trend line (whether up or down)… which is to say, returns to the original radiative imbalance driven trend. The only difference from the no-trend case is how you do the integration of the temperature "deflection"; with an underlying trend the deflection is relative to an extrapolation of the original trend line, rather than relative to a constant (original) temperature.

  491. MikeN,

    "Seattle is in the process of 'finding' ballots that might flip the referendum to no."

    Nothing new for WA. As I remember that happened in a governors race not that long ago.

    And it's flip the referendum to yes, because that's how it's worded. If it passes, then the legislature's reinstatement of affirmative action remains in effect.

  492. "Suppose the volcano happened with no underlying secular trend. Do you think the temperature would never recover to the starting temperature, but instead assume a new, permanently lower temperature?"

    No, you are correct that the equilibrium temperature will be the same regardless of the journey to arrive there as long as we are talking about a one time perturbation. If we are talking about an underlying periodic perturbation, even if chaotic, that will have to be assumed part of the equilibrium. So taking it into account the same higher temperature without perturbations will never be reached. This is likely why volcanoes are removed from model forecasts.
    .
    I would like to correct my assertion that the resuming trend would be identical with an offset in time. The resuming trend would be slightly steeper in proportion to its larger imbalance.

    SteveF, do you agree a planet with scant heat capacity would produce a sharp well defined dip in SAT corresponding with an interruption in incoming energy as compared with a planet with high heat capacity? I'm sure you'd agree that a deep ocean covered world's signal would practically be lost although the integral of that signal would be identical to the low heat capacities signal, all things being equal. In a planet where you have areas of both low and high heat capacity part of the signal will be a mix of the sharp and the long stretched. But when that planet is under a steady warming influence the high heat capacity area is acting as a drag to response. Thus when warming gets interrupted for cooling the oceans are already pulling on the SAT so they should drop rapidly as compared to a world in equilibrium where the oceans would act to stabilize the drop with their heat capacity.

  493. Ron Graf,
    I think I may see the point of confusion. An underlying constant secular trend corresponds to a gradual increase of forcing (giving a constant imbalance) not a constant level of forcing, which would lead to a gradual approach to some new equilibrium temperature, and imbalance gradually falling to zero. The situation with constantly rising GHGs is one of *rising* forcing. So even though a volcano can briefly overwhelm the steady rise in GHG forcing, that GHG driven rise is still happening in spite of the volcano, and the secular trend upward is the baseline to which the system gradually returns following a volcano.

  494. "The situation with constantly rising GHGs is one of *rising* forcing."
    .
    Yes, I understood that. I don't see it bearing on my claim, though increasing GHG changes the shape of the response to a volcano in both rising and static GHG scenarios, it also is a different shape for SAT in a coupled system when there is an imbalance with the SST vs a response at equilibrium. BTW, the imbalance I am speaking of is of the mean trend imbalance. I realize that the SST-TOA imbalance could disappear at the peak of an El Nino. This would make the volcano act more similar to the equilibrium example, but still slightly sharper because the SST would be slightly sharper due to the El Nino holding back overturning the SST is more percentage-wise influenced by radiative than it normally would be or in La Nina. In the case of La Nina the imbalance is exaggerated and the SAT would be a double-whammy of cool influence from SST and the drop in incoming solar.

  495. Ron Graf,

    " …it also is a different shape for SAT in a coupled system when there is an imbalance with the SST vs a response at equilibrium."
    No, I don't think so, at least not any different when the "shape" is relative to the underlying secular trend.
    .
    I fear we are not making any progress here. That is OK, it is not going to end the world either way.

  496. Yes. Musings at the blackboard are not existential threats yet. But could you address any of my premises specifically. Then I could reply to that.

  497. Ron Graf,

    I hesitate to continue because the truth is, assuming I understand your premises correctly, that they seem to me both unnecessarily complicated and non-physical to boot.
    .
    "though increasing GHG changes the shape of the response to a volcano in both rising and static GHG scenarios, it also is a different shape for SAT in a coupled system when there is an imbalance with the SST vs a response at equilibrium. "
    .
    The change in shape of the response is real if there is an underlying secular trend, because it is superimposed on that trend…. there is a slope on which the response takes place. I do not see higher GHG at equilibrium (at least not in the plausible range… e.g. comparing 550 PPM CO2 with 300 PPM) as having much of any effect on the shape of the response to a transient event like Pinatubo. The world at equilibrium 2C warmer or 2C cooler will not change the shape of the volcanic response in any meaningful way.
    .
    Yes, obviously, a planet with only dry land surface will have lower heat capacity and so a much "sharper" response to any transient event…. I just don't see how this has anything to do with your other suggestions, like "it also is a different shape for SAT in a coupled system when there is an imbalance with the SST vs a response at equilibrium." The range of response times, (atmosphere, land, and especially oceans) will change the shape of the response compared to a planet with a dry surface, but except for the above mentioned superposition on a long term trend, being in equilibrium or not won't make much difference.

  498. " I just don't see how this has anything to do with your other suggestions…"
    .
    Is this the only place we can agree? I hope not. Assumptions and premises lead to conclusions. I hope you can help me make it more clear. I respect your opinion.
    .
    You did admit that a world with low surface heat capacity is more responsive than one with high capacity. I know you agree that our planet has measurable regions of each of these planetary characteristics. Without looking, just from theory, I would predict that land indexes show a higher response to Pinatubo than SST indexes. Before I go further do you agree that this would be expected?

  500. SteveF (Comment #177661): "I hesitate to continue because the truth is, assuming I understand your premises correctly, that they seem to me both unnecessarily complicated and non-physical to boot."
    .
    That is my conclusion also.

  501. MikeM, if I remember right your conclusion was based on the assumption that volcanic eruptions had no significant signal. I got about two steps further with SteveF. I will continue to post the idea until somebody replies with enough understanding that they can help develop the idea or refute the assumptions.

  502. Ron Graf,
    You are comparing lower troposphere temperature (UAH) over land with sea surface temperature. Not sure what you are trying to show. Of course there will be more response where there is less heat capacity. This has nothing to do with your claim that the level of GHGs, at equilibrium, will significantly change the shape of the temperature response to a volcano like Pinatubo.

  503. Ron Graf,

    If you would list your assumptions (as referenced in your last comment), that might be helpful.
    .
    “I will continue to post the idea until somebody replies with enough understanding that they can help develop the idea or refute the assumptions.”
    Please explain exactly what that ‘idea’ is, because it is not at all clear to me.

  504. Anybody understand the gist of the argument before the Supreme Court regarding DACA either way? I have looked at numerous reports but nobody seems to touch the substance of what the argument is about. I even turned to Popehat and searched for DACA and didn't see anything on it.
    [Edit: Does anyone understand and would that anyone do me the immense favor of relieving the poverty of my comprehension with a few words of explanation, is what I meant to ask.]

  505. Oh nevermind, finally I find a few words of explanation here:

    https://www.cbs58.com/news/supreme-court-set-to-hear-arguments-on-daca
    .
    —snip—
    The plaintiffs, including the University of California, a handful of states and DACA recipients, will argue to the Supreme Court that the phase-out violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how agencies can establish regulations.

    "An administration may impose new or different priorities, but only if it adheres to the APA's requirements and clearly states its policy choices so that it can be held publicly accountable for them," Theodore Olson, a lawyer for the challengers, argued in court filings.

    At issue before the justices is not whether the administration has the power to rescind the program, but how it chose to do so.

    Olson said that the law demands, "and the public deserves," a "genuine analysis" and "lucid explanation" of the relevant policy considerations before reversing a "long-standing policy and subjecting 700,000 individuals to deportation to unfamiliar nations where they may not even speak the language."
    —snip—
    .
    Seems strange to me I had to hit so many articles to find any explanation at all. *shrug*

  506. Ron Graf (Comment #177665): "if I remember right your conclusion was based on the assumption that volcanic eruptions had no significant signal."
    .
    No, my *conclusion*, drawn from the data, was that the *magnitude* of the signal from Pinatubo could not be established with any confidence.
    .
    Ron Graf: "I will continue to post the idea until somebody replies with enough understanding that they can help develop the idea or refute the assumptions."
    .
    I do not dispute that, in principle, a large eruption might permit an estimate of climate sensitivity. What I dispute is the claim that increased anthropogenic greenhouse gases would increase that signal. I think that SteveF is making the same criticism.

    —————
    SteveF (Comment #177667): "If you would list your assumptions"
    .
    I second that. I don't think Ron Graf ever clearly stated his assumptions; they were just mixed in with his argument.
    .
    SteveF : "Please explain exactly what that ‘idea’ is, because it is not at all clear to me."
    .
    Not at all clear to me either. I thought I understood the idea and showed why it is wrong. But it seems I did not understand it.
    .
    I would not object to letting it drop. But if Ron Graf is going to pursue the matter, he should at least give the argument in a form that permits specific criticisms.

  507. mark bofill (Comment #177669): "violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how agencies can establish regulations."
    .
    That's rich. Obama's original order did not adhere to the APA, but now they say that changing it requires adherence to the APA. The APA is not applicable, since "Courts have also held that the U.S. President is not an agency under the APA. Franklin v. Mass., 505 U.S. 788 (1992)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)#Basic_purposes
    .
    mark bofill: "Seems strange to me I had to hit so many articles to find any explanation at all."
    .
    Not so strange, since the law is not actually relevant. It is just a fig leaf being used in an attempt to cover up nakedly political judicial decisions.

  508. ~grins~ Thanks Mike.
    .
    >>Not so strange, since the law is not actually relevant. It is just a fig leaf being used in an attempt to cover up nakedly political judicial decisions.
    .
    Looks that way to me too. But I like to make some effort to see that I'm not overlooking something of actual substance before drawing that conclusion. Looks like I'm not.

  509. DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of the authority of Congress by President Obama. Saying that Trump can't repeal it based on a technicality that doesn't, in fact, apply to the President is chutzpah of the highest order. Obama tried a similar tactic for adults, DAPA, which was enjoined by the courts.

    "The unconstitutionality of Obama's actions [DACA] were confirmed when Obama tried to implement a second, similar program in 2014 called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA. Like DACA, DAPA provided an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as adults and gave them work authorizations and access to government benefits.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand. As the Fifth Circuit said, the fact that the president declined to enforce the law and remove illegal aliens "does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change."

    https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/daca-unconstitutional-obama-admitted

    DACA effectively gives illegal immigrants who arrived as children the rights and privileges of legal resident status. As the court said, the President may decline to enforce a law, but the law remains in place until Congress acts. My prediction is that the SC will uphold Trump on a 5-4 vote with the progressive wing wildly flapping their arms to justify their votes.

  511. Mike M and SteveF, thanks for making me ponder more and I think I can do better to explain the connections.
    .
    Assumptions:
    1) Our planet's temp at land surface (SAT) is a mix of radiative fluctuations that are muted by advection from the seas, which have a higher heat capacity.
    2) For a given X deflection in incoming or outgoing radiation the SAT will have a reaction in magnitude of m(X) over a time interval of t(X).
    3) For X deflection in radiation the SST will have a reaction in magnitude also of m(X) but over a time interval of ~10t(X). In other words the same integral or area under the curve is seen in SAT and SST in the reaction to X but the SST reaction is smeared over about a ten times longer time period. Thus the clarity of the signal is only a tenth of the SAT signal clarity.
    4) Since the SAT is reacting to radiative deflections in the face of SST advection muting that reaction the higher the proportion of radiative influence in ratio to SST advection the faster and more defined the SAT reaction (signal).
    5) The slow reaction of the oceans compared with SAT will produce a temperature gradient. The higher that gradient between SAT and SST the higher the influence of SST over radiative.
    6) When a deflection in radiative influence occurs that also produces a gradient to which the SAT reacts.
    7) The current GHG influenced climate is increasing SAT by only ~half the amount that it would but for the SST gradient.
    8) If that gradient were removed we would see an almost immediate jump in SAT to the ECS driven temperature.
    9) Conversely, if the radiative incoming was dropped to be in radiative equilibrium with the oceans we would see SAT immediately responding to adjust to SST.
    10) If SAT was already at SST which was at radiative equilibrium and we made a similar drop in radiative incoming that would be resisted by SST's influence.
    .
    Therefore the SAT signal for a downward deflection in radiative input when SST is at equilibrium is a muted signal in comparison to the signal when there exists a significant gradient. One more way to see it is if a burst of solar energy occurred in the amount and profile of an inverse Pinatubo right now would we expect to see the same peak in SAT as we saw rut in 1991? I would say not because the SST gradient would be higher rather than lower. And the higher the gradient the faster the kinetics. The muting SST influence would thus be enhanced.

  512. "Not so strange, since the law is not actually relevant. It is just a fig leaf being used in an attempt to cover up nakedly political judicial decisions."
    .
    That pretty much sums it up. The administrative procedures law is irrelevant because it absolutely does not even apply. Trump made clear to Congress: pass immigration laws that strike a compromise between 1) drastically reducing/stopping the uncontrolled flow of illegal immigrants, and 2) establishing permanent legal residency for the DACA people. Congress flipped Trump the bird.
    .
    DeWitt,
    I wish I could be as sanguine as you about how the SC will rule. As a matter of law, the case should have been laughed out of every court that heard it; the lower courts are blocking Trump on DACA on a strictly political basis. The problem at the SC is one vacillating, mealy-mouthed justice named Roberts. I fear he will cave and keep Trump from eliminating DACA, for no reason other than "to protect deserving people". Another iteration of his ridiculous Obamacare opinion. IOW: "Screw the law, screw the Constitution, and just do whatever feels fair." I may vomit if that happens. Roberts is the biggest disappointment on the Court in my lifetime, worse than even Kennedy.

  513. Never underestimate the left's legal obfuscation capabilities, they are very good at what they do, all the while bleating on about dangers to legal norms and democracy.
    .
    DACA will follow the same path as the "Muslim ban". The argument is not the President doesn't have the authority here, but the memo to file was inadequate according to a rather uncharitable reading. It can eventually be enforced after enough legal warfare and everyone knows it. As I recall the cancelling of DACA was a maneuver to try to get Congress to act on a compromise, The Wall for DACA or some such maneuver. It does not seem Trump and company have tried very hard to correct the legal typos.
    .
    I'm for skilled immigrants allowed to enter legally and a path to legal citizenship for those who have proven to be law abiding and productive. The partisan circus on immigration is disgraceful, it's nothing but hand grenades.

  514. Ron Graf,
    "7) The current GHG influenced climate is increasing SAT by only ~half the amount that it would but for the SST gradient."
    .
    I don't have the time (or energy) to address each of your listed items. But the above looks to me wrong. For that to be true, heat accumulation would have to represent half of current net forcing. The rate of heat uptake (ocean, atmospheric, land, ice melt) is on the order of ~0.7 watt/M^2. The best estimate of forcing above pre-industrial (as of AR5), net of aerosol offsets, was in the range of 2.3 watts/M^2. Because GHGs have increased since AR5, the current net forcing is more like 2.4 to 2.5 watts/M^2. So 2.4 – 0.7 = 1.7 watts/M^2 after accounting for heat accumulation. Were there *zero* accumulation of heat, the expected average surface temperature rise above a pre-industrial condition would be on the order of 2.4/1.7 = 1.41 times what it is today….. not double what it is today.
    .
    "One more way to see it is if a burst of solar energy occurred in the amount and profile of an inverse Pinatubo right now would we expect to see the same peak in SAT as we saw rut in 1991?"
    .
    Yup, very close to the inverted dip.

  515. Ron Graf (Comment #177675): "3) …the same integral or area under the curve is seen in SAT and SST in the reaction to X but the SST reaction is smeared over about a ten times longer time period. Thus the clarity of the signal is only a tenth of the SAT signal clarity."
    .
    That is directly addressable with data. The various T data sets (BEST, GISS, HadCRUT) have separate time series for land, ocean, and global. The Pinatubo signal is not dramatically more obvious in the land series.

  517. Ron Graf (Comment #177675),

    Assumptions 1) and 2) seem fine.

    3) is not true, as pointed out above.

    4) and 6) appear to be technically true, but moot.

    5) I don't understand "The higher that gradient between SAT and SST the higher the influence of SST over radiative."

    At this point, I think I see a key aspect that you are overlooking. The seasonal difference in T between land and ocean can be tens of degrees. That overwhelms any difference due to forcing.

    Like SteveF, I see no justification for assumption 7).

    8) and perhaps 7) seem to conflate two different things.

    There is a relatively short time scale (decadal) delay due to the heat capacity of the well-mixed part of the ocean. That will mute transient T changes, such as from a volcano. I estimate that the resulting T change would be 50-60% of what it would be without the ocean. But that does not impact the long term steady rise in T except to cause it to lag a little behind the trend in forcing. For a roughly linear increase, the slope will be unaffected.

    The second factor is the transfer of heat into and across the ocean thermocline. SteveF (Comment #177678) addressed that.

    9) and 10) are either tautological or I don't understand them.

  519. Mike M,
    The senator from Hawaii has been an obvious id!ot for a very long time… at least since 2007 when she was elected to the House; no need to belabor the obvious.

  520. I'm telling ya. Just read the Bee. It's no weirder than real news when you get right down to it.

  521. From what I understand (which may not be much) the *problem* with the administrations position on the law suit is the specific argument they made. That argument might not fly.

    But, if Trump had just revoked DACA for policy reasons, that WOULD have made it go "poof". The problem is he's arguing Obama creating it was illegal, and that *might not be true*.

    Maybe if Trump loses this at SC he can just revoke it for policy reasons afterwards. Everyone agrees he has that power. But for some reason (likely political) he wanted to argue the president can't create this sort of program in this way.

    (Oddly, I'd like the outcome to be a president can't just create this sort of program. I'm more "on the one hand on the other" about DACA itself. Like everyone, I'm sympathetic to individual kids who got hauled here when they were young, and who might have to go back!)

  522. MikeM: "3) is not true, as pointed out above."

    3) For X deflection in radiation the SST will have a reaction in magnitude also of m(X) but over a time interval of ~10t(X). In other words the same integral or area under the curve is seen in SAT and SST in the reaction to X but the SST reaction is smeared over about a ten times longer time period. Thus the clarity of the signal is only a tenth of the SAT signal clarity.
    .
    I reiterated here what I thought was a good point of agreement with SteveF. The area under the curve of any energy flux deflection will be identical (due to energy balance) regardless of the heat capacity. The energy balance does speak on the kinetics (signal). A low heat capacity surface will be very responsive that the signal will be quick and sharp, unlike the high heat capacity surface that will smear the signal out over a long period. The reason this point is critical is because the higher the imbalance the more new incoming energy signal to will be absorbed into the relatively cool oceans and not be available to give the sharp response in the low heat capacity areas. This is what I was saying in number 5.
    .
    I will try to explain number 8 another way. The difference between the SAT that will be reached at planetary radiative equilibrium, (assuming there is such a stable place), and the immediate response to forcing is the temperature inertia from the surface heat capacity. Because part of the immediate response is to bank the energy rather than expel it. The less energy banked the clearer the signal. For a world with a homogeneous surface heat capacity your signal response fixed by its heat capacity. But in a world with two types of surfaces the best one to look for a signal is the low heat capacity. The question then becomes does the high heat capacity portion of the surface have any role in determining the signal response of the low heat capacity surface. Everyone so far says no. I'm pretty sure the answer is yes when there is advection bringing influence of one to the other.
    .
    Steve F postulates that the current average radiative imbalance of the SST with the TOA is ~0.7C. Since the land area is getting cooled by the SST by a gradient of 0.7C that provides a headwind against further warming. The larger the increase in forcing the higher the imbalance and also the higher the gradient of cooling being advected over land. The seas are stabilizing against by exponential resistance against further instantaneous response to added forcing.
    .
    In this scenario of high positive imbalance SteveF claims that identical positive and negative fluctuations in forcing would produce the identical, yet inverted SAT signal. My thought is that more positive forcing would tend to be banked into the relatively cold SST, smearing the signal. But the negative forcing would have a tail wind to drop SAT instantly. The SST remember is bare of banked energy to bear in order to smear the SAT response. In fact the SST is pulling the SAT down until their gradient is brought to zero.

  523. >Everyone agrees he has that power.

    I don't think they do. He's had lots of executive actions done for policy reasons that have been blocked by the courts.

  524. Thanks Lucia. I agree with both sentiments; I'd prefer that the SC rule in a way that prevents future Administrations from undertaking these shenanigans, and I hope that we resolve the situation with the kids & people who grew up here as kids in a benevolent manner.

  525. MikeN,
    If one president can do something via executive order, another can surely undo that via executive order. Otherwise, different presidents don’t have identical authority…. which is simply bizarre, as well as contrary to all logic.
    .
    Lucia,
    I think most everyone (including Trump) is sympathetic to people brought to the States as children. If Congress were to institute a DACA like law, I am sure it would have broad support. The sticking point is how to do something like DACA and not strongly encourage even more people to bring their kids to the States illegally, as DACA does. Any effort to discourage (by new laws, or even enforcement of existing laws!) has been strongly resisted by Democrats in Congress. They simply refuse to restrict unlawful immigration in any meaningful (AKA effective) way…. as your many exchanges with Joshua show clearly.

  526. Marc Bofill,
    I agree that a SC ruling which defines DACA as unlawful use of prosecutorial discretion would be a very good outcome. After all, giving people legal residency by fiat is obviously not the same as choosing to not prosecute illegal residency! But I think the chance of that is slim-to-none. Limp-noodle-Roberts will probably listen to Kagan and Breyer, and accept their support (a convincing 7-2 majority!) for a very narrow ruling that says Trump can cancel DACA, but simply ignores the illegality of DACA….. so there is no restriction on a future Democrat to immediately re-institute DACA on their first day in office. I really don’t think Roberts has a legal principle in his whole body.

  527. Ron Graf,
    “Steve F postulates that the current average radiative imbalance of the SST with the TOA is ~0.7C. Since the land area is getting cooled by the SST by a gradient of 0.7C that provides a headwind against further warming. The larger the increase in forcing the higher the imbalance and also the higher the gradient of cooling being advected over land. The seas are stabilizing against by exponential resistance against further instantaneous response to added forcing.”
    .
    I really didn’t postulate anything; the *measured* uptake of heat is close to 0.7 watt/M^2 globally. I have no idea why you are expressing an energy imbalance as a temperature (0.7C). It has nothing to do with temperature. It is probably true that land is ‘cooled’ by the ocean to some extent (on average globally), but it goes both ways: in winter, most of the northern hemisphere is being warmed (a lot!) by the ocean. Transfer of heat *into* the thermocline IS much (much!) slower than transfer into or out of the mixed layer (top 50 to 100 meters over much of the ocean, seasonally deeper in many places), and you could argue that could make some difference in the response curve for a sudden positive spike versus a sudden negative spike (a large volcano). But any such difference, if it exists at all for short term events, is likely to be very small compared to the size of the response. It would surely be invisible against the continuing weather noise in any case.

  528. MikeN,
    ** He's had lots of executive actions**
    Sure. But I didn't say he can do anything and everything by executive action.

  529. SteveF (Comment #177691): "If one president can do something via executive order, another can surely undo that via executive order."
    .
    I don''t that is or should be perfectly symmetrical. A long standing policy that has been accepted by multiple administrations and Congresses acquires a weight beyond what it might have had originally. That is especially true if people have come to depend on the policy. Stare decisis ought to be a consideration in administrative decisions as well as judicial ones.

    Of course, none of that applies in the case of DACA. Obama presented it as a temporary, stopgap measure until Congress could take action. It was not adopted by Congress or accepted by any subsequent administration. No one could reasonably assume that it was a permanent action.

    ————–
    SteveF (Comment #177693): "I agree that a SC ruling which defines DACA as unlawful use of prosecutorial discretion would be a very good outcome."
    .
    Perhaps, if that is the actual issue before the court. But it is not clear to me that it is.
    .
    SteveF: "Roberts will probably listen to Kagan and Breyer, and accept their support (a convincing 7-2 majority!) for a very narrow ruling that says Trump can cancel DACA"
    .
    There is a lot to be said for both convincing majorities and narrow decisions. They are less likely to be attacked in future since they are more likely to be seen as proper judicial decisions rather than political ones.
    .
    SteveF: "but simply ignores the illegality of DACA so there is no restriction on a future Democrat to immediately re-institute DACA on their first day in office."
    .
    I don't think that is a real issue in practice. Such a future presidential action could still be challenged in court, with the ruling on DAPA as a precedent. More to the point, a decision to uphold Trump would probably be followed by a Congressional compromise, mooting the issue. That is preferable to judicial action.

  530. Mike M,
    The legality of DACA is for sure one of the issues before the Court; a quick look at the legal briefs will confirm that. Which doesn’t mean the Court will rule on that question; my guess is they will (yet again) refuse to constrain either the executive or the legislature. The fifth circuit ruling that Obama’s extension of DACA to include the parents of those brought to the states as children (the people who broke the law!) was illegal was upheld on a 4:4 SC deadlock after Scalia died. There is good reason for the Court to finally address the same basic issue as the fifth circuit did: does the President have the authority to ignore laws? But as I said, I think Roberts (being Roberts!) will find a way to duck the most important legal/constitutional question in the case.

  531. SteveF (Comment #177697): "I think Roberts (being Roberts!) will find a way to duck the most important legal/constitutional question in the case."
    .
    I agree, except I think that is probably a good thing. I am a big believer in judicial restraint. Part of that is that courts should decide no more than they have to. And courts should not make rulings solely to preempt something that might happen.
    .
    SteveF: "There is good reason for the Court to finally address the same basic issue as the fifth circuit did: does the President have the authority to ignore laws?"
    .
    But the President does have *some* authority to not enforce the law. For example, if a DACA compromise was working its way through Congress, it would be perfectly appropriate for the President to suspend action against those who be protected by that compromise. Such actions should be examined on a case-by-case basis. For SCOTUS to try to establish guidelines in advance would amount to the court usurping the role of the legislature.

  532. Mike M,
    " For example, if a DACA compromise was working its way through Congress, it would be perfectly appropriate for the President to suspend action against those who be protected by that compromise."
    .
    Of course. But that is not the situation we are talking about. There is no action being taken by Congress, and even Obama-the-lawless himself stated that DACA was a stop-gap measure to give Congress time to act. It didn't act. For years. Yet DACA continues, in spite of no legal basis. IMO, the Court should put a stop to this. It is plainly illegal.
    .
    "I am a big believer in judicial restraint. Part of that is that courts should decide no more than they have to."
    .
    As am I. Courts, and especially the SC, should absolutely *never* be effectively issuing new laws (as they often have done, to terrible effect). That is nothing but an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's legislative power. But the bigger problem I see is that the Roberts court will not stop the other branches from usurping power or enacting unconstitutional laws and regulations, even when blatant. As an institution, I find the SC weak and, worse, often actually damaging to the rule of law.

  533. Any restriction of prosecutorial discretion is, IMO, extremely unlikely. The police don't issue citations to everyone who they see exceeding the speed limit, for example. The problem with DACA and DAPA was that those orders also gave rights and privileges to the class of illegal immigrants who were not going to be arrested and deported that were not authorized by Congress. Yet the four progressives on the Court thought that was just fine by them. It's very much whose ox is being gored.

  535. DeWitt Payne (Comment #177700): "The problem with DACA and DAPA was that those orders also gave rights and privileges to the class of illegal immigrants who were not going to be arrested and deported that were not authorized by Congress."
    .
    Yes, that is the real Constitutional problem with DACA. But I think that has been addressed by the DAPA decision. So I don't see a need to repeat that with the current case. So a narrower decision (that a temporary measure can be rescinded as easily as enacted ) with a larger majority might well be preferable.

  536. >that a temporary measure can be rescinded as easily as enacted

    Only in this case it is 3 years after the measure is rescinded.

  537. Congress can solve the problem if it wants to, the most frustrating part here is that neither side wants to. Plenty of room for compromise here.
    .
    Prosecutorial discretion can only go so far, one assumes if Congress passes a law, allocates the money, and does some other unknown things for a law's enforcement then the executive has to enforce it at some point. Prosecutorial discretion can easily turn into selective enforcement against one's ideological opponents and that tangles with the equal protection clause. Apparently the executive is given a lot of leeway here.
    .
    DACA judgement apparently won't come out until June. I'd expect another lower court slapdown of activist judges who are obviously engaging in selective demands of legal rigor for their decisions. This could lead to an almost total ban on national injunctions if we want to find silver linings.

  538. Tom Scharf,
    "This could lead to an almost total ban on national injunctions if we want to find silver linings."
    .
    How do think that would happen? (real question) The Supreme court could state in their DACA opinion that district and circuit courts can only enforce their rulings within their respective districts and circuits, but I very much doubt that is ever going to happen. Congress has absolute authority to limit lower court jurisdictions in any way they want (and for that matter, eliminate all lower courts if they choose to), but I don't see how that will happen either. Can you explain the silver lining here?

  539. A couple stories worthy of The Babylon Bee:
    Daily Nortwestern apologizes to its readers for covering Jeff Sessions lecture, the typical SJW buzz word bingo article without explaining exactly what was wrong here.
    https://reason.com/2019/11/11/daily-northwestern-jeff-sessions-editorial-triggered-students/
    .
    Push for UF Student President to be impeached for inviting Don Jr. to address students. This was the TBT's leading headline yesterday, ha ha.
    https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2019/11/12/uf-student-president-faces-impeachment-threat-over-trump-jr-visit/
    .
    Far left speech is tolerated, but even mainstream right speech is under threat of ban. The cry bullies will not stop until the leftist institutions grow a spine. They are embarrassing themselves.

  540. SteveF,
    I don't think the national injunction ban would come directly from this case, but be a fine example of why it happens in a case or new law further down the road. There needs to be some restrictions on these injunctions as venue shopping for favorable judges, getting national injunctions, and then running out the clock is getting to be an abusive practice. This works both ways of course depending on who is in office.

  541. Mike M,
    " But I think that has been addressed by the DAPA decision."
    .
    I could not disagree more. A 4-4 'hung court' is far from a ruling that will be respected in the future under 'stare decisis'. The fifth circuit was correct: DAPA was plainly and obviously illegal; the SC needs to affirm that, even if it is by 5-4 in the DACA case.

  542. Tom Scharf,
    "There needs to be some restrictions on these injunctions as venue shopping for favorable judges, getting national injunctions, and then running out the clock is getting to be an abusive practice. This works both ways of course depending on who is in office."
    .
    Of course nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts need to be severely limited. And further, the SC needs to be *much* more sensitive to the kind of judicial over-reach that nationwide injunctions often represent… and they need to overrule most all of them as promptly as possible… that just means issuing a "stay" on the injunctions until it is "fully adjudicated". But only Congress can really solve the problem, and I still don't see how that will ever happen.

  543. I missed the coverage of today's circus. But I now read that Adam Schiff claimed he doesn't know who the whistleblower is.
    I think this claim was quite remarkable.

  544. mark bofill,
    Everyone in Washington knows who it is. Schiff is not credible….. every word he speaks is a lie… and that includes words like ‘it’ and ‘that’.

  545. Tom Scharf (Comment #177705): "DACA judgement apparently won't come out until June."

    Why do you say that? It seems that about 3 months is the typical time from oral argument to decision, although it can be much shorter or longer.

  546. Schiff also said any member who says the whistleblower's name will face an ethics investigation. How would he know?

  547. Mike M,
    I read three different legal blogs, and they all said to not expect a decision until June. Based on past performance, the court will release the most controversial rulings last….. so maybe late June. By the way, as I expected, Roberts was already making comments during questioning about how to avoid any ‘disruption’ for the 800,000 DACA recipients. I predict he is going to cave…. again. He is a CINO.

  548. SteveF (Comment #177715): "I read three different legal blogs, and they all said to not expect a decision until June. Based on past performance, the court will release the most controversial rulings last….. so maybe late June."
    .
    Fair enough. What I found referred to the average. But if all decisions were announced in June, then the average would be 4 months or so, compared to an actual average of 3 months. So it might well be that the wait is longer for cases heard early in term.

  549. It seems that the impeachment hearings might be establishing the true nature of Trump's crime.
    .
    "The first public impeachment hearing against Donald Trump laid out how a handful of loyalists led by Rudy Giuliani wrested control of U.S. policy from seasoned diplomats"
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-14/trump-s-shadow-ukraine-policy-laid-bare-in-impeachment-opener
    .
    And there it is. Trump is clearly guilty of thinking that just because he won the election, the foreign policy establishment works for him. Whereas, as we all know, it is the foreign policy careerists who have the Constitutional authority to determine American foreign policy.
    .
    So Trump is clearly subverting democracy by insisting that elections have consequences.

  550. The whistleblower approached Schiff’s office and staff about how best to further his complaint.
    Schiff’s staff had two former associates of his from the Whitehouse working for Schiff so they knew each other.
    A discussion with someone there led to him being directed to the Inspector General.
    How likely is it all this happened without anyone telling Schiff his name?
    Sounds like a great game of double jeopardy to me.
    In an office of 45 people not everyone is happy but everyone talks.
    Poetic justice demands a whistleblower from Schiff’s office, or two, will lower the boom on him very shortly.
    Trump could even give them a pardon though that would be misconstrued as bribery.
    In fact, in an office run by someone like Schiff, Democrats all but probably more like 3 or 4 ready to talk. People who behave unethically do it to their staff as well.

  551. Does anybody here know where I can find an up-to-date data file for historical anthropogenic radiative forcing?

  552. Mike M,
    Wikipedia (under radiative forcing) has a table for well mixed GHGs from the 1980s through 2016. But other contributors (aerosol effects… both direct and indirect, land use effects, fine carbon/soot on snow, etc) are wildly uncertain, especially aerosol effects. If you dig enough, you certainly can come up with some sort of history, but it will have fat error bars.

  553. Mike M,
    Wikipedia (under radiative forcing) has a table for well mixed GHGs from the 1980s through 2016. But other contributors (aerosol effects… both direct and indirect, land use effects, fine carbon/soot on snow, etc) are wildly uncertain, especially aerosol effects. If you dig enough, you certainly can come up with some sort of history, but it will have fat error bars.

    Sorry about the double comment, I mis-typed my email.

  554. angech, what you describe happens fairly frequently and most Congress persons on sensitive committees have similar procedures in place for handling prospective whistle blowers. Schiff claims (and has claimed repeatedly) not to have met the whistleblower. I tend to accept his claims. I doubt if most of his opponents will agree with me.

  555. I always get a laugh when I hear Republicans describe something as bad for the opposition. 'You Democrats shouldn't do this! It's bad for you!'

    Despite that, and risking no shortage of contumely… I will give advice to Republicans.

    Find a willing senior Senator. Have him approach the White House. Tell the president that if he ever tweets again the senator will vote for one article of impeachment.

    I might be right, I might be wrong–but this suggestion is offered in good faith.

  557. Hiya, Mark! And happy Saturday!!!

    Hearsay Defined

    Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. These out-of-court statements do not have to be spoken words, but they can also constitute documents or even body language. The rule against hearsay was designed to prevent gossip from being offered to convict someone.

    Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

    Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

    https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html

  558. You know, I heard the darndest thing about you over on ATTP Tom. Or was it SKS? DeSmogBlog? I didn't really believe it, but you've persuaded me to reconsider.
    You really ought to give some consideration to quitting your vile and disgusting habit of torturing cats to death.

  559. I have been the frequent recipient of love notes and tender messages at all three sites. Which one are you referring to?

  560. You know, I'm not sure what my original source was, but it doesn't matter. If you knew, you might retaliate against them after all. But Mike and Steve have heard similar stuff about you third or fourth-hand, so. I'm sure they'll be happy to testify.
    Get help Tom. Seriously. Torturing kittens is sick.

  561. Ah, I see your clever, if somewhat nefarious scheme. Sorry I didn't pick up on it immediately.

    The number of people convicted using hearsay evidence would fill a prison. Has, actually.

  562. Thomas Fuller,
    Look seriously now. I have never understood this about you. At this very moment, Anders has a post up and *your very own* lefty political tribe is having at you for your involvement in the CRUTape letters. IMO, and as always perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that they use the same smear tactics against you that are currently on display in the impeachment effort against Trump (accusing 'some' of going to lengths 'in order to undermine our understanding of an important topic. ')
    And what do you do, but come here and do *precisely the same darn thing* to Trump, for the same reasons.
    This mystifies me, frankly.

  563. Hiya Mark,

    I'm not quite sure I understand. I get criticized at ATTP because I don't think global warming is likely to be disastrous. I try not to smear anyone, but they smear me because that is what they do. I don't take it personally–I've seen them do it to countless others.

    I think Donald J. Trump is the master of smear, and gives as good (or better) as he gets. I think he is a disgrace to this country based on what he has done, not on who he is. I don't see much of an intersection…

  564. I do appreciate your answer. Thanks Thomas.
    [Edit: The blame is probably mine if you don't follow. I think I'm not expressing what I'm trying to get at very clearly.]

  565. That's kind of the funny thing about all this. ATTP and his gang want to put me in one tribe. Conservatives want to put me in another tribe.

    Can I have a tribe of one?

  566. You might be, actually.
    *I* lump you in with the left because I'm pretty sure I've heard *you* characterize yourself that way. Well, that and your social / political commentary in some (many?) ways seems characteristic of 'left'.
    Except climate change, for some strange reason.

  567. Do you see my dilemma Thomas? I'd like to ask why you don't believe AGW is a problem, but that goes nowhere. You're likely to tell me 'same reasons you don't'. But we can surmise from the statistics that your position is unusual in that most people of your political beliefs view AGW as a problem that needs to be addressed.
    I'd rhetorically ask why except I'd be obligated to supply my answer, and that'd take all day and bore the spit out of anyone / everyone reading, so I'll refrain. I don't think my explanation would impress you anyway. 🙂
    .
    [Edit: oops. I omitted a link to the statistics. These'll do, there are others I think:
    https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-march-2018/2/
    ]

  568. Hiya Mark

    1. I am a leftist–closer to Bernie Sanders (although I will probably vote for moderate mayor Pete in the primary). I will certainly vote for whichever Democrat gains the nomination.

    2. There are (were?) a number of Republicans that I greatly respect and would have happily voted for in the absence of a Democratic alternative.

    3. Donald Trump is not one of them.

    4. I happily accept mainstream science regarding climate change and human contributions to it in the past century and a half.

    5. I am not at all persuaded that science has definitively (or even marginally) pronounced on vital issues such as ECS, cloud cover, the interplay between the large carbon sinks, etc.

    6. The trend as I see it goes in a different direction–towards a modest figure for sensitivity, and concomitant modest temperature and sea level rises.

    I believe there is just as much hype (and of the same quality) for climate alarmism as there is in support of our current president.

    I lament both phenomena.

  570. ~sigh~
    No, I can't walk away from that.
    >>I believe there is just as much hype (and of the same quality) for climate alarmism as there is in support of our current president.
    ———————————————-
    Trump's coverage is overwhelmingly negative.
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/
    .
    Do I need to go find statistics for media coverage of climate change, or can we just agree that the media overwhelmingly presents climate change as a problem?
    [Edit: Will this do?
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/25/the-guardian-joins-a-major-media-initiative-to-combat-the-climate-crisis
    ]

  571. Yes Mark, it’s odd that @TP wants to control the narrative so much that he uses moderation to remove Tom’s comments. A more honest approach would be to respond to the comment if it appears to be incorrect. This is of course just repeating the behavior that made Climategate so bad in the first place. Scientists should not be activists and the public is not pleased when they try to control the narrative and massage the ‘facts’.

  572. *shrug* I wasn't trying to beat Anders up. It is what it is over there. I was hoping to get Thomas Fuller to reconsider his Trump Derangement Syndrome mostly.

  573. Just in case anyone who hasn't been following the latest / current impeachment scam reads and wonders, my fictitious hearsay regarding Thomas Fuller was meant to mirror the treatment Trump is receiving. For the record I wasn't seriously suggesting I'd heard Tom tortures cats.

  574. Tom Fuller,
    “I think he (Trump) is a disgrace to this country based on what he has done, not on who he is.”
    .
    Tump is, I think, more an embarrassment than a disgrace. His behavior (including his foolish tweets) is usually horrible and counterproductive, and his statements are often demonstrably false… even more so than most politicians. He would be better off if he would stop much of that. But as some clever journalist noted, Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not literally. I think some of what he has done is clearly good: look at the economy, stock market, unemployment numbers for blacks and latinos, and real wage growth for those same groups. There is much to disagree with, and even laugh at, in how Trump conducts himself, and there is a close to 50:50 chance that will cost him a second term. But he is far from a complete failure. Most importantly, for many of Trump’s reluctant supporters, and I am among them, the alternative seems clearly worse.

  575. Tom Fuller,

    WRT Trump supporters versus ‘climate alarmists’: I think the distinction is whether the alarmists are taken literally (versus seriously) or not. Almost nobody takes everything Trump says literally; they know he is either misinformed, less than honest, or both. That is not the case with ‘climate alarmists’: they want (and indeed demand) to be taken both seriously and literally, no matter how outlandish and distorted their pronouncements. And while your average citizen in the street can point out Trumps inaccuracies and snicker at them, that is not so simple a task when most ‘alarmists’ are tightly wrapped in the protective blanket of ‘advanced science’. You are absolutely right; the consequences of GHG driven warming are unlikely to be catastrophic, and there is strong empirical evidence the sensitivity to GHG forcing is modest, and that sea level rise, while significant, is not going to be a meter or more in 80 years. You are also right that Trump is, at best, an embarrassment and a liar. Note that only when stating the former are you band from certain web sites. I hope that tells you something about those on left/green side of the policy spectrum.

  576. Tom Fuller,
    That word should have been “banned”, not “band”, of course. Sorry.

  577. Tom,
    “Schiff claims (and has claimed repeatedly) not to have met the whistleblower. I tend to accept his claims.”
    –
    Very noble and well said. It is not nice to impute on people.
    There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, as opposed to hearsay, that he did. Even from his TV appearances. He seemed to release the gist of the complaint a month before it became public. How was he to know some random CIA stranger who worked closely with two of Schiff’s news staffers when at the White House would felicticiosly come out and say exactly the same things that Schiff had already said? Not to mention that he then approached Schiff’s office for “further”directions.
    I am naive I guess…

  578. The Chairman of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence darn well better know who the whistleblower is. The committee he chairs is charged with the oversight of basically all U.S. intelligence organizations. He's leading the impeachment of the President and the ball got rolling based on the whistleblower's account.
    Give me an effing break already.

  579. Tom
    TDS.
    My wife has it too.
    Pernicious habit like smoking.
    He is bombastic, vain,vain,vain, and flaunts his money and lifestyle.
    Tough.
    His history is vulgar and offends people but is no different to millions of other men.
    All of these things make him automatically less electable.
    So why did he get elected.
    He promises and delivers on many things most Americans want and wanted.
    So show us the “better” candidates.
    –
    “1. I am a leftist–closer to Bernie Sanders (although I will probably vote for moderate mayor Pete in the primary). I will certainly vote for whichever Democrat gains the nomination.”
    This is not thinking then?
    Examples,
    Mary anne Williamson gets the nomination? Democrat really?
    Hilary Clinton ? Democrat truly?
    Donald Trump? Remember his views are closer to Democrat ideals in a lot of cases and at one stage he was seriously considered as a Democrat Candidate in the past.
    That would be a doozy for your values.
    Yes I will vote for the Donald as a Democrat, all his flaws aside, but never as a Republican.
    So flaws are proven unimportant by your logic.
    2. There are (were?) a number of Republicans that I greatly respect and would have happily voted for in the absence of a Democratic alternative.
    Respect is what might get it for a Republican if no alternative but damn respect and vote for prince Andrew if he were a Democrat?
    By the way I sympathise, have voted Labour Party, Australian Democrats and socialists almost 50 years but do change when issues, not respect, become important.

  580. Thomas William Fuller (Comment #177723): "Schiff claims (and has claimed repeatedly) not to have met the whistleblower. I tend to accept his claims. I doubt if most of his opponents will agree with me."
    .
    As a person who thinks Trump is being nice when he calls Schiff "shifty", I agree with you. I believe that Schiff has never met the whistleblower. I will go further and say that I think it quite possible that Schiff does not know the whistleblower's name.

    Of course, people on Schiff's staff have met with the whistleblower and do know his name. Schiff could ask them anytime he likes, but he does not ask them so as to maintain his plausible deniability.

    Given a choice between Schiff's "truthfulness" (or is it truthiness?) and Trump's "lies" (most of which are pretty trivial), I will take the latter 25 hours a day, 8 days a week.
    ———-

    Addition: Trump lies about little stuff but tells the truth about the things that matter. It seems shocking since we have grown so used to politicians who tell the truth about little stuff and lie about the things that matter.

  581. Yah, you guys are right. I don't know what I was thinking. It's just the impeachment of the President. The identity of the whistleblower is just one of those things Schiff would leave to underlings; I'm sure he had absolute confidence that the staffers could be trusted to manage it and tell him what he needed to know.

  582. mark bofill (Comment #177750): "The identity of the whistleblower is just one of those things Schiff would leave to underlings; I'm sure he had absolute confidence that the staffers could be trusted to manage it and tell him what he needed to know."
    .
    I sense sarcasm. But that is exactly what I think is happening. Schiff has more important things to worry about, like preening for the camera and raising funds for the party. The latter is *literally* Schiff's job; he got his chairmanship as a reward for fundraising and his continuation in that position depends on continued success at fundraising.

    Because politicians have more important things to worry about than policy, setting policy in Washington has become the job of staffers and career bureaucrats. So much so, that such people now think that it is their *right* to set policy.

    Now let's suppose that we elected a President who rejected that idea and claimed that it was the job of elected officials to set policy. What would happen? No need to guess, we have our answer. Impeachment.

  583. MikeM,
    I'm honestly sorry about the sarcasm. The older I get the more I realize I'm just fundamentally an irritable and disagreeable codger. I'll try to rein it in a bit.
    .
    I don't think your viewpoint about Schiff is without merit, but I still disagree. It's such a basic, fundamental question (…Oh really? Wow! Who is s/he!?…)that Schiff really has had no good reason *not* to ask that I haven't been able to realistically imagine him not having asked. On the other hand, it seems like it's something Schiff could have been worried about (…is this thing going to blow up in my face? You guys are *sure*, right, that using this guy isn't going to go sideways on me somehow…). I think he'd have had these considerations for all the reasons you point out; he wants to look good on camera. *And* obviously he wants to appease supporters who oppose Trump. Heck he might even personally feel the same way his supporters do.
    .
    But I'm aware of my limitations, and I know perfectly well I'm wrong plenty, and this just might be one of those times where some personal quirk of mine prevents me from imagining something perfectly reasonable.
    .
    Thanks Mike.
    *shrug*

  584. Even when I run the simulation in my mind [where I assume] Schiff really is a straight up guy, it seems to me that due diligence would have compelled him to ask who the guy was. I don't mean to harp on it, but Schiff *is* Chair of the Intelligence Committee. He's used to being privy to highly classified details and doing oversight. Why wouldn't he believe he ought to know who the whistleblower is as part of his oversight responsibility, is what I ask myself in this case. I don't see any reason for him to decide he didn't need to know that. [Edit: and again, without sarcasm this time; this is sort of an important matter. It seems to me that a Congressman who took his responsibility seriously would want to be as sure as possible about his position before pursuing the impeachment of the President. ]

  585. Tom Fuller, you say you believe Schiff has not met the whistleblower. Schiff also said he does not know the identity of the whistleblower. He also set out a rule that no one on the committee may name the whistleblower in his hearings. How will he know if they have done so, if Schiff doesn't know the identity of the whistleblower?

  586. mark bofill (Comment #177752): "It's such a basic, fundamental question (…Oh really? Wow! Who is s/he!?…)that Schiff really has had no good reason *not* to ask that I haven't been able to realistically imagine him not having asked."
    .
    Perfectly reasonable. That is how I would expect normal people to act. But swamp critters live in a world so far removed from normal reality that I do not think "perfectly reasonable" is a reliable guide.
    .
    mark bofill (Comment #177753): "Even when I run the simulation in my mind [where I assume] Schiff really is a straight up guy, it seems to me that due diligence would have compelled him to ask who the guy was."
    .
    But what if you assume that Schiff is a self-absorbed devious guy?
    .
    mark bofill: "I don't see any reason for him to decide he didn't need to know that."
    .
    The reason would be loss of flexibility and deniability. Important if you are a devious, shifty sort, but not if you are a stand up guy.
    .
    mark bofill: " It seems to me that a Congressman who took his responsibility seriously would want to be as sure as possible about his position before pursuing the impeachment of the President."
    .
    I agree completely.

    I think that the problem is that your assumptions are flawed due to your being an honest person without extensive experience dealing with the type of people where dishonesty must be assumed.

  587. Mike,
    ———————
    I think that the problem is that your assumptions are flawed due to your being an honest person without extensive experience dealing with the type of people where dishonesty must be assumed.
    ———————
    Thank you.
    .
    The reason would be loss of flexibility and deniability. Important if you are a devious, shifty sort, but not if you are a stand up guy.
    .
    Only if somebody can prove it. Doesn't look like anyone can. I don't think he lost anything.
    [Edit: Only if somebody who has some motivation to prove it can prove it, I should have said.]

  588. Thanks for explaining your views to me though. I understand why you view it the way you do, and you might be right. We can agree to disagree about this.

  589. Here is the thing: there are probably dozens of bUreaucrats at a similar level as ‘the whistleblower’ who would step up to offer condemnation of Trump. Heck, there there are probably *thousands* of people in the bureaucracy who are willing to claim almost any conceivable condemnation of Trump. That matters not at all. What matters is who has first hand information that reflects poorly on Trump. this is (of course) just about absent from the record.

  590. Steve,
    I hope so. It looks like it; it doesn't seem to me that the current hearsay effort is going anywhere much.
    Sometimes I wonder if the Dem / media strategy is simply to keep crying and screaming until voters put someone else in office just to get them to shut up for a little while.

  591. Marc,
    It sure looks like that. The real issue is fundamental political differences on policy. Carrying on 24/7 about how horrible a person Trump is avoids the discussions which should be taking place about policies. Ultimately, the goal is to keep Trump from being re-elected, so they can stop his policies without having those policy discussions, and has nothing at all to do with removing Trump from office before January 2021 (which is not going to happen).

  592. So now Pelosi is calling on Trump to resign because what he did was worse than what Nixon did. I guess that means she thinks that the Senate won't remove Trump from office based on the evidence produced so far and more hyperbole is required.

  593. DeWitt,
    I am calling on Nancy Pelosi to resign because she has wasted so much of the people’s time and money on the impeachment ‘investigations’.

  594. SteveF (Comment #177762): "I am calling on Nancy Pelosi to resign because she has wasted so much of the people’s time and money on the impeachment ‘investigations’."
    .
    Hear, hear.

  595. What's an existential threat to Western civilization isn't global warming itself, it's global warming hysteria. It's distinctly possible that we could shoot ourselves in the foot economically in the name of reducing emissions while atmospheric CO2 continues to increase at the same pace. IMO, China is moving to electric cars because China has to import oil, not to reduce carbon emissions. Other developing economies in Africa, say, are not going to limit their development, assuming that they ever actually get started, by restricting themselves to 'renewable' energy. They will burn fossil fuels.

    A big rock falling out of the sky would be an existential threat. Global temperature increasing, even in the most unlikely worst case scenarios, simply isn't. See, for example, the PETM. It was hell on benthic foraminifera, but not much else. And it started from a higher global average temperature. It would be catastrophic for some people, but not for everyone.

  596. The NYT's laments that people are tuning out political news. This is no doubt because they once again believed the impeachment hearings were "the big one" that would take Trump down and are now disappointed to find out it isn't moving the needle … again … again. The media is quite disappointed in America and their inability to discern the rightful truth printed on their holy pages.
    .
    ‘No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out by a Fog of Political News
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/polls-media-fake-news.html
    .
    Who would actually watch these impeachment hearings? It is manufactured drama that might as well be run by the same crew who did Survivor. At least with Survivor you don't know how it will end, but this drama has an endpoint that is 99.975% certain (citation needed). Party line votes followed by level 10 acrimony.

  597. I have a fundamental problem with a DC bureaucracy that refuses to work with whoever the (not always wise) American people choose to send there. This reinforces my desire to send in yet another bull into their delicate China shop to wreck the place. I see bureaucrat's entitlement to power on display, not poor hard working DC professionals done wrong by the redneck's poor choices for representatives.
    .
    I get that Trump is a bozo and he does dumb things, but just like the criminal justice system there are solutions to problems between doing nothing and the death penalty. They cannot seem to ever look inward and see that it is their entitlement and aloofness that brought Trump upon them in the first place. Anyone who was motivated to vote for Trump by the schadenfreude of seeing the establishment suffer has gotten their wish, ha ha.
    .
    They can lecture us with the great command of a thesaurus how taking out Bin Laden or Baghdadi does not stop the ideology of violent Islamic Jihad but appear to believe with great zeal that taking down Trump at any cost is the solution to all their problems.

  598. I'd like to ask if others dispute this simplified narrative and if so, which points:

    1. Congress appropriated $391 million in defense funding to give to the Ukraine for the purchase of Javelin anti-tank missiles.

    2. The OMB placed a hold in the disbursement of these funds at the direction of the White House.

    3. In the call memo released by the White House of the July 25 conversation our President had with the President of the Ukraine, Donald J. Trump said 'I want you to do us a favor, though' to insure the release of funds.

    4. There were actually two favors: The public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and an investigation of any role the Ukraine may have had in the interference with the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

    As a progressive liberal, I obviously look at these in a very dark light. However, I understand that many readers of this blog have defended the President and will continue to do so. That's fine.

    But do we agree on this presentation of events? Are we sharing the same facts? (I understand that this narrative is greatly simplified–but do you see this as what actually happened?)

    Thanks

  599. Thomas William Fuller (Comment #177767): "I'd like to ask if others dispute this simplified narrative"
    .
    I am not sure about the specifics of 1 and 2, but don't know if the specifics matter. There was a hold on appropriated funds, but the Ukrainians seem never to have been told of it.
    .
    Fuller "3. In the call memo released by the White House of the July 25 conversation our President had with the President of the Ukraine, Donald J. Trump said 'I want you to do us a favor, though' to insure the release of funds."
    .
    That never happened. There was no mention of holding up or releasing the funds. Trump did ask for a "favor" but with no threat or promise of something in return.
    .
    Fuller: "4. There were actually two favors: The public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and an investigation of any role the Ukraine may have had in the interference with the 2016 U.S. presidential elections."
    .
    I don't think that is correct. The "favor" was investigating interference in the election. There was also mention of investigating the Bidens, but I don't recall anything about a public announcement.

  600. Tom,
    ——————————-
    3. In the call memo released by the White House of the July 25 conversation our President had with the President of the Ukraine, Donald J. Trump said 'I want you to do us a favor, though' to insure the release of funds.
    ——————————-
    I went and reread the transcript a couple of times. Maybe my eyes are just glazing over, because reading Trump is almost as unpleasant for me as listening to him, but I'm having difficulty locating the part where they discussed the release of funds you refer to. Could you point out for me where that is in the transcript?
    Link here:
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

  601. And yep, I'm with Mike. I reread it yet again and find no mention of a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens.

  602. Hi Mark and Mike

    You're correct in that the request for a public announcement was not in the call memo and may not have been on the call. That apparently came later, after the Ukraine learned of the hold (late August? Early September?)

    As for the release of funds, President Zelensky refers to it as 'we are almost ready to buy more Javelins for defense purposes.' As he has no internal funds for this, it refers to the Congressional appropriation.

  603. Thomas William Fuller (Comment #177767): "As a progressive liberal, I obviously look at these in a very dark light."
    .
    Why? Real question. I am not at all certain the answer would be obvious to a progressive Democrat; it is certainly not obvious to this conservative Trump supporter.
    .
    I can see reasons to take a dim view of the events as you described (which is not, I think, how they happened). But I don't know if they are your reasons.
    .
    I have a hard time with the idea of using aid as leverage to dictate the internal affairs of other countries. But aid as leverage seems to be a long standing policy in Washington; Biden has bragged about doing it. It seems to me that the only strings attached to aid should be that it be used for the intended purpose. So far as I can tell, that is what Trump was doing with the hold up of the aid to Ukraine.
    .
    I would also have a problem with asking for a politically motivated favor, even without an explicit quid-pro-quo. So I would have a problem with Trump asking for the Ukrainian government to take specific actions re Biden, independent of what Biden actually did. But I have no problem at all with Trump asking for the Ukrainians to investigate things that impact the U.S., such as election interference or corrupt acts by U.S. officials. Yes, the results might benefit Trump politically, but I don't see a problem with that. Trump's opponents should not be immune from the truth.

  604. Thanks Tom.
    I see that. I don't see Trump saying 'to insure the release of funds' though or anything close. Can we agree that you are inferring that idea and that nowhere in the transcript is it explicitly stated?

  605. I think a fundamental problem of interpreting a written version of a spoken conversation is that it is easy (or convenient) to forget that conversations don't work the same as written correspondence.
    .
    Firstly, and this should be patently obvious, we don't talk the same way we write. As question and response must be relatively quick, conversations are also a "sloppy" affair. It's not uncommon to determine what you will say next before the other person has finished speaking to avoid an uncomfortable silence. When someone starts a response, they are not necessarily directly referencing what was said in the last sentence of the previous paragraphs, they may be responding to any part of it. They may not even be referencing what was previously spoken about before at all but are simply looking to change the subject onto other things.
    .
    That said, the sale of weapons that Tom is referring to in which Trump says 'I want you to do us a favor, though' referenced the investigation into election meddling, not Burisma. I find it hard to imagine that asking for help in investigating election interference would be an even remotely impeachable offense, even assuming aid was withheld to gain cooperation.

  607. DaveJR
    **I find it hard to imagine that asking for help in investigating election interference would be an even remotely impeachable offense, **
    .
    I don't see how asking for help in investigating election interference is **any sort of offense**. If it's not even an offense, I don't see how it could possibly an *impeachable* offense!
    .
    Sure, it may turn out discovering more about election interference would help the person who asked for help investigating it. But it's something that should be investigated. Presumably, the more we know, the more it helps those innocent of interfering and hurts those guilty– but that would be a good thing.
    .
    Holding funds congress appropriated could be an offense. OTOH: The executive gets to hold funds and disburse them. Whether it could be an offense depends on why. The President holding them for a purely personal reason could be an offense. So, the "Biden" hook could be a problem. But investigating election interference is NOT purely a personal reason. Getting help in investigating election interference is beneficial to the US as policy. So, even if that favor was asked, as I noted– asking it is not an offense. Doing things to encourage it is not getting anything personal for the president.
    .
    Do we actually know why the funds were held? Have we heard the Administration's reason? (I'm just waiting for things to trickle out– so those are real questions. For all I know they were "held" precisely because they were to be disbursed when the Ukranians WERE ready to buy the Javelins. That would seen a rather routine thing to do so as to ensure the money is available for Javelins and not spent otherwise. (Government have been know to spend money that is present in an account….. and then not have it to buy whatever it was earmarked for.)
    .
    If that was a reason for the hold, the information that they were ready to buy was something that then needed to be communicated. There could be other reasons for holds. I doubt that money is generally disbursed 3 seconds after Congress authorizes money.

  608. Lucia,
    —————————-
    Do we actually know why the funds were held? Have we heard the Administration's reason?
    —————————-
    Mulvaney's muddied the water on this issue. Originally he said it was held up to obtain cooperation in investigating the server. Then he walked it back.
    In no event did he indicate it was about the Biden's though. Also, there is always the question about whether or not Mulvaney's being honest about the matter.
    *shrug*
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/17/mulvaney-says-trump-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine-aid-not-tied-to-biden.html

  609. Jim Jordan gave an explanation that the funds were held up while Ukraine administration's anti-corruption stance was verified, as required by Congress in distributing funds.

    What does the Ukraine leader mean by 'we are almost ready to buy more Javelins for defense purposes.'?
    Why were they not ready at the time of the call, or any time prior?

  610. Washington (CNN)US administration officials knew as early as May 2019 that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky felt pressure from President Donald Trump's allies to conduct investigations that were politically useful to the American president.

    That's according to former Trump White House official Fiona Hill, who in recent testimony before Congress said she was told of that pressure contemporaneously by an American businessman and former Obama administration official who had met Zelensky's team on May 7.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/politics/ukraine-zelensky-pressure-trump-investigations/index.html

  611. Zelensky *himself* reported he did not feel pressured. I'd ask if you find this persuasive, but maybe I should instead take somebody else word regarding what you think. Dave, do you think Tom finds this persuasive?

  612. Thomas William Fuller (Comment #177780): ""according to former Trump White House official Fiona Hill"
    .
    Just seems like more vague rumors. The Deep State's favorite weapon.

  614. Tom
    “3. In the call memo released by the White House of the July 25 conversation our President had with the President of the Ukraine, Donald J. Trump said 'I want you to do us a favor, though' to insure the release of funds.
    4. There were actually two favors: The public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and an investigation of any role the Ukraine may have had in the interference with the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.
    As a progressive liberal, I obviously look at these in a very dark light”
    –
    I am not sure why being a progressive liberal makes one turn down the lights when looking at facts.
    Nor how the words “ progressive liberal” have devolved or evolved into “politically correct”.
    Presumably it’s something that happens in the dark after giving informed consent three times and in sign language.
    –
    If the events had occurred the way you portrayed them then most people would have felt dismay, but not for the reason of being pl or pc.
    –
    Actually appreciate strongly most of what you say except in the case of TDS.
    Horowitz December 12th., or whatever. Ho hum

  615. Tom, I don't dispute these facts per se even though there is a lot of ambiguity about the conditionality. As in any endeavor of this kind there are all kinds of "understandings" different people will have that are quite different. This is why Schiff's star chamber will come up with contradictions in testimony.

    But this is absolutely nothing. Foreign policy is about quit pro quo's.. Biden did it before when he had an obvious conflict of interest. Obama did it ALL THE TIME such as when he said "tell Vlad I'll have more flexibility after the election" indicating he was trying to use foreign policy to get re-elected.

    Further, corruption in Ukraine was a big concern in Congress too. Nunes even said the legislation conditioned the aid on action on corruption. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Trump bringing these concerns to the attention of the Ukrainians. He probably believes as I do that Biden is deeply enmeshed in corruption himself and deserves to be investigated. If he's innocent, what's the concern? The concern is that he's guilty.

    Further, those bringing these charges have conflicts of interest or are proven liars. Just like Russian collusion, it is a giant Democrat/media narrative designed for a political purpose. Do you dispute these facts?

  616. Prelude to a telephone call

    The previous prosecutor general for the Ukraine, Lutsenko, was notoriously corrupt. One of his many failings was failing to investigage Burisma, the company Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of. The owner of Burisma is a well-connected oligarch.

    The EU, the U.S. and several multi-lateral organizations called for his dismissal. Joe Biden was sent as spokesperson to announce the stated US view that Lutsenko should go. He did so. One of the things he called Lutsenko out for was a failure to investigate Burisma.

    Lutsenko and his boss, Poroschenko, then president of the Ukraine, had agreed to investigate Biden and Burisma. They did so because in 2017, Trump put a hold on the initial purchase of Javelin anti-tank missiles. Sadly, they could not hold up their end of the bargain as Zelenski won the election in April. But that was just a momentary setback.

    Lutsenko's replacement is a stalwart, anti-corruption zealot. His boss, President Zelenski, was elected on an anti-corruption program. He has worked hard to implement it. U.S, ambassador Yovanovich worked with them both to help their efforts.

    Rudy Giuliani, EU Ambassador Sondeland and of all people Rick Perry (wasn't he a singer?) wanted to reinstate the deal Trump had done with Poroschenko. But Yovanovich was in the way. So Giuliani and two guys out of a Tarantino film, Lev and Igor, made up a bunch of crap about Yovanovich as an excuse for Trump to recall her. Which he did.

  617. Tom,

    I agree with you. The media handling of the whole affair is reminiscent of Baghdad Bob's propaganda. Except it isn't funny.

  618. Thomas William Fuller (Comment #177786)

    What a confused mess. The claim that Lutsenko was "notoriously corrupt" might be true. But it is hard to tell, since that description is applied to almost every Ukrainian politician.

    Yes, it seems that Lutsenko failed to investigate Burisma. In fact, he ended the investigation allowing the oligarch in charge to return from exile. It seems the oligarch got value for money when he hired Hunter Biden.

    The EU etc. did not call for Lutsenko's removal and Biden had nothing to do with that. The Obama administration orchestrated the calls for the removal of his predecessor, Shokin. That was accomplished via Biden's quid pro quo. Shokin may well have been corrupt; he was certainly accused of that.

    Until now, I have never heard any claim that Biden called out any Ukrainian prosecutor for failing to investigate Burisma. Or that Lutsenko and Poroschenko made any agreement to investigate Biden and Burisma, they certainly never did anything about it, for reasons obviously unrelated to the election of Zelensky two years later. Or that had anything to do with withholding military aid. I do not believe any of that without evidence.

  619. The other thing to bear in mind here is that the corporate media are totally corrupt. Do you Tom believe the project Veritas exposure of CNN's dedication to an impeachment narrative rather than fact reporting? That narrative long predates the Ukrainian phone call. Even the New York Times lamented today that people just don't believe them anymore. After 3 years of shading every report to further their narrative, my trust in them is less than zero. If they say it, I almost automatically believe there is something false or cherry picked about it. Trump's remarks on Charlottesville are a classic case where in context Trump is saying something different (that there are good people who want to keep Confederate statues) than the cheery picked phrase out of context was deliberately used to imply. It was always a smear and a politically motivated attempt at guilt by association.

    In any of these issues, Trump's state of mind is critical to guilt or innocence. I personally think Trump is pretty direct about his motivations. He was outraged and angered by the Russian hoax which he knew was a fraud. Thats why he really wanted to shut it down. He likewise is outraged and angered by Schiff's lies and his show trial tactics. Many will say those feelings are justified just as Teddy Roosevelt's anger against Tammany Hall was justified.

    Trump and Barr are right to be very angry about the whole Russia investigation. We will know for sure on December 11, but I now believe this investigation likely was directed by Brennan and the White House (long before the FBI got involved) to infiltrate the Trump campaign and find dirt on it and to influence the election outcome and after Trump won to keep him from governing effectively, i.e., it's always been a politically motivated operation based on planted evidence and opposition research originating overseas, i.e., "dirt" most of which is false. And fully supported by a complicit media anxious to report any leak no matter how unreliable to further the narrative.

    Those who don't like Trump's personality or style tend to get more and more unhinged and to become deranged in their attribution of subhuman corrupt motivations to him. Most of this deranged minority are in fact really upset by Trump's policies which are quite conservative by comparison with Obama's and on the whole pretty effective (energy independence and border security to name two). This is unprecedented since the 19th Century age of yellow journalism and violent rhetoric and actions by extremists. Odd how Democrat political machines are just as corrupt now as in the 19th Century.

  620. I agree with Mike on Tom's claims. We need more that a CNN story and just his narrative.

    If Tom's claims are true it seems the demand to investigate Biden predated his entry into the race and that Trump's concerns about Ukrainian corruption are long held and probably genuine. That's not surprising as Obama's administration was also very concerned.

  621. Lucia said: "Holding funds congress appropriated could be an offense. OTOH: The executive gets to hold funds and disburse them. Whether it could be an offense depends on why. The President holding them for a purely personal reason could be an offense."

    This is my point too (sorry I didn't read your comment before responding to Tom). The burden of proof is pretty high I would say to show that Trump had corrupt intent given how widespread the concern about corruption in Ukraine was including in Congress. It is possible too that Giuliani was feeding Trump biased or incorrect information.

    Given how supine the media were with regard to Bengazi and Obama's fraudulent narrative designed to help him win the upcoming election, I just think this smells like more partisan noise from Trump haters.

  622. David Young,
    **Trump had corrupt intent **
    And it's also important to discuss what CORRUPT intent is. So, for example, if he held up funds contingent on the President of Ukraine actually paying Trump off, that would obviously be CORRUPT intent.
    .
    OTOH: Holding off until Ukraine proves that the UKraine is not going to spend it on some thing other than what Congress intended? That's "intent", but certainly not *corrupt*. It's doing what Congress actually intends.
    .
    Now, I've picked extreme ends, but it's to show that we really need to know what the *intent* was and then determine if that was *corrupt*.

  623. Sorry for commenting so much. Speak up if its too much.

    I wanted to go through my version of the similarities of the 21st Century to the late 19th Century because they are striking.

    In both eras there was an extraordinary concentration of wealth accompanied by falling real wages. There was no SEC then and the current SEC seems toothless to prevent monopolistic and deeply immoral practices.

    In both eras there was massive immigration and a growingly diverse electorate. In both eras recent immigrants were mostly Democrats largely because of the political machines dispensing benefits and the fact that the Democrats were more hostile to big business. The Republican party was then largely a Christian evangelical party and that is still largely true. There was very widespread voter fraud orchestrated by the Democrat machines. Little has changed in this regard.

    In both eras there is a large group of increasingly disaffected people who turned to socialism, anarchism, or communism. In both eras there was an active white supremacist movement. It was much worse in the 19th Century when the Klan was quite respected and mainstream in many places. There was widespread political violence including the assassination of 2 presidents and an unsuccessful attack on Teddy Roosevelt. Some of this is driven by falling wages and the obvious abuses of the "free" market which is of course never really "free" if there is corruption.

    In both eras the media was hopelessly partisan and "yellow" in that they would print any rumor or falsehood to generate sales or further their political goals. Unlike today the corporate media was conservative and Republican.

    In both eras the intellectually fashionable ideas were deeply flawed and dangerous. Social Darwinism in the 19th Century became a favored doctrine of intellectuals of all stripes. It was even referenced in a Supreme Court decision. Racism was justified by this pseudo-science and was a primary motivation of Sanger's "work" on "family planning." Further eroding the landscape was Romanticism which in the 19th Century invaded many areas of life with its anti-rational biases and a desire to go back to a pure era before Civilization and its constraints intruded on the era of the noble savage. This was all rubbish.

    In the 21st century, intellectuals and their leaders in academia have also gone mostly "woke." Cultural Marxism is perhaps worse than Romanticism because its totally irrational and in fact denies biology in toto. It is used to justify racism and medical self-mutilation. The whole idea of the nation state is under attack (enforcing borders is racist) and in many places civilized standards of public health and safety have been completely discarded (I see this in Seattle with its homeless "crisis"). Even science itself is increasingly corrupt with shoddy and biased becoming almost an expectation.

    We are witnessing interesting times, but I do hope the outcome is better than in the 19th Century which culminated in the "Progressive" Woodward Wilson trying to replace the constitution with the administrative state and the disastrous World War I followed by the great recession and the humiliation of Germany.

  624. I am appalled, appalled I say to hear how disgracefully Mr Strozks slow investigation of the Weiner laptop has been covered by the DOJ. His team were able to review the 100s of thousands of e mails and work out they were all Ok in just 48 hours. The man deserves a medal for this incredible display of American speed and ingenuity, not a 60 day punishment and later sacking.

  625. Funding for Ukraine and every other possible future friend of the US is "quid pro quo" conditional on their behavior. That's part of the equation.
    .
    I could care less what happened in this Ukraine call, nobody seems to ever bring up the fact that there was no investigation, and the funding was released. Fuller's filling in the blanks of the "progressive liberal dark correct facts" on what was really meant in the transcript is emblematic of this whole affair. Everything is perceived in the most uncharitable way for your opposition. The FBI / Clinton / Dossier mess was OK because Trump was and is evil. Once that precondition is set everything else follows and your own noble cause corruption is overlooked. It's so tiring.
    .
    There was an alleged *** conspiracy *** to withhold funding for political favors, yawn. Trump probably truly believes he is uncovering corruption that the western media refuses to touch, and feels victimized by the same type of political opposition forces who used the tools of government against him. Progressive dark thoughts can selectively see through any plausible deniability here, but the Comey / Strzok et. al. plausible deniability must be respected and dismissed. The entire affair was very likely amateurish dirty politics by Trump, but after years of Russian Collusion hysteria it doesn't move the needle for almost everyone because the other side stinks just as bad, if not worse. It has been impeachment in search of a justification since Nov 8, 2016.

  626. Tom Scharf (hi!), the quid pro quo was outlined in the call memo of July 25 and amplified (per witness testimony) several times.

    The money was released 2 days after the whistleblower's existence was revealed.

  627. The problem that Palosi has at the moment is pretty stark. She is claiming there was bribery. No witness so far however either in public or in the star chamber has used that word however except one usage with respect to Hunter Biden. Tom, I'd be curious to know if you agree with Palosi.

  628. Tom Scharf,
    ————————————-
    The entire affair was very likely amateurish dirty politics by Trump, but after years of Russian Collusion hysteria it doesn't move the needle for almost everyone because the other side stinks just as bad, if not worse.
    ————————————-
    I also suspect this to be the case, and I agree. I don't get worked up about it because I think it's all the same stuff and it's just that Trump isn't very slick about it. The whole Russian collusion investigation was politically motivated for goodness sakes.
    Sauce for the goose.

  629. Thomas
    **The money was released 2 days after the whistleblower's existence was revealed.**
    .
    That's one frame. Another is "just before the end of the fiscal year which was the drop dead date after which it would vanish". If you worked in places that rely on federal funds, LOTS of money gets released, authorized and/or spent just before the fiscal year. It's a magic drop dead date.
    .
    There are several other events that can explain the timing. (Many of which include people reminding Trump of the importance of the end of the fiscal year along with other issues!)
    .
    I'm not going to claim the the airing of the whistleblower was NOT the reason for the release. But I'm also not going to jump to the conclusion it was when there are other plausible explanations. ESPECIALLY since the "fiscal year" issue is a very, very common one, happens every year to lots of things, and can, by itself explain the decision to release authorized funds.
    .
    Sometimes, the simplest more common explanation IS the explanation.

  630. I'm all for DC cleaning up their messes and beginning to act like the leading lights they market themselves as. The reason why I am mostly ignoring this affair is the performative aspects of the politicians just makes me nauseous. The prosecutors are grimly proceeding on a historic impeachment for the good of the country because their duty and servitude to the citizens command it. It's less convincing than a 2nd grade play, ha ha.
    .
    I don't think it's even the particular people in office at the moment, DC has become a cesspool that makes people think they have to behave like this to survive because everyone around them is doing the same thing. It's like playing golf and everyone around you is not counting strokes and kicking opponents balls into the woods. If you want to win in this game …
    .
    I don't have any answers here other than to note that in my lifetime my perception is it has gotten a lot worse and I have lost most of my respect for the people involved. The last thing I want is to hand even more power and economic regulation to this DC bureaucracy.

  631. Thomas William Fuller (Comment #177796): "the quid pro quo was outlined in the call memo of July 25 …".
    .
    That is totally false.
    .
    "… and amplified (per witness testimony) several times."
    .
    Also false since no actual witnesses have testified.

  632. Mike,
    Yeah, this sort of leads back to where we started. If Thomas would concede that he is drawing inferences from the call memo, I'm not sure I'd have any quarrel with his statement. One ~can~ infer a quid pro quo from the memo I think, that's not insane. One might strengthen that inference with observations regarding other factual evidence. Still. Inferences and facts aren't the same thing.

  633. What I'm sort of puzzled about is this. If it's emphatically *not OK* for the US gov. to solicit assistance or cooperation from foreign governments in investigating U.S. presidential candidates (I presume particularly candidates from the other party), why was it OK for the U.S. gov. to solicit assistance or cooperation from foreign governments to investigate candidate Trump three/four years ago? It's rhetorical in that I don't think there is a real or valid answer to this question.
    Maybe it's just that *the President* isn't allowed to do this. He has to get some faceless spy from the intelligence community to do the dirty work. But I fail to see why that should be the case.
    [Edit: Maybe it's just 'Orange man bad.' I'm not sure there's really any more to it than that.]

  636. mark bofill (Comment #177802): "One ~can~ infer a quid pro quo from the memo I think, that's not insane. One might strengthen that inference with observations regarding other factual evidence."
    .
    I disagree. There is nothing in the transcript that, based only on the transcript, can be reasonably deemed an improper quid-pro-quo. But I agree that there *could* be a context in which the conversation could reasonably be so interpreted.

    "That's a nice plate glass window you've got there" is not in itself a threat. But there are contexts in which it could reasonably be interpreted as a threat.

    So one might infer a quid-pro-quo if Zelinsky had been made aware of the hold on the funds, then asked for a favor, then provided that favor, then received the funds. But the threat was never made and the favor never granted. The request was consistent with ordinary language in which no quid-pro-quo is attached to the request. And the release of the funds was required by law once certain conditions were met. So there is nothing in the context to support the nefarious interpretation.
    .
    Basically, Trump is being accused of being spectacularly subtle. By people who insist that Trump is totally incapable of being subtle. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

  638. Vindman's lawyer objects to a question from Jim Jordan that it breaks the rule on not identifying the whistleblower. Schiff agrees.
    Jordan responds, 'I don't see how this is outing the whistleblower. The witness has testified he doesn't know the identity of the whistleblower. Mr Chairman, you have said, even though no one believes you, you don't know who the whistleblower is, …'

  639. >Basically, Trump is being accused of being spectacularly subtle. By people who insist that Trump is totally incapable of being subtle.

    George W Bush was accused of all sorts of elaborate conspiracies while being very dumb.

  640. Passed early Sept in Ukraine.
    "Supported by 373 of 450 MPs, the legislation removes from the constitution a guarantee that the chamber's members cannot be held criminally liable without a vote by parliament. It will come into effect at the start of 2020."

  641. MikeN,
    I believe complete immunity from prosecution while in high public office is pretty standard in countries with lots of political corruption. That immunity is probably a very good indication of widespread corruption.

  643. Finally, we get some substance today.
    I gather this so far (not sure I have it all correct, jump in and tell me if somebody sees an error):
    1. Sondland testifies that Guilani demanded an public statement / announcement about the Crowdstrike server investigation and Burisma in exchange for a White House meeting for Zelensky.
    2. There is controversy about a phone call Sondland had with Trump about some rapper? (A$AP?) on July 26'th. Sondland has no specific recollection of investigations being mentioned, but he doesn't specifically remember that *no mention* of investigations happened either.
    3. On Sept 9'th he had a call with Trump where Trump explicitly told him he didn't want anything from Zelensky. No quid pro quo. Apparently this did not impress him, because he testified that after this call he *still* believed the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations.
    4. Mike Pompeo "gave him a green light" to ask Zelensky to announce investigations.
    5. Pence did not contradict Sondland when Sondland complained that aid appeared to be stalled on the condition of announcing investigations.
    .
    [Edit: Oh, and now it's thought the Dems will come after Trump for obstruction, since the administration did not supply Sondland notes and other materials he requested to help jog his memory about dates and details and such.]

  644. It seems like the play is to conflate the strong evidence supporting the fact that the Trump administration is investigating Ukraine's links with election meddling with the very weak "evidence" for "bribing" Ukraine to reopen investigations into Burisma, with possible political fallout for Biden (which the democrats frame as election meddling, in a completely unironic and unhypocritical way).
    .
    A kind of guilt by association.

  645. I'm sorry, but where is the substance? The only thing I see that might be an issue is:
    "Guilani demanded an public statement / announcement about the Crowdstrike server investigation and Burisma in exchange for a White House meeting for Zelensky."
    But even that is pretty thin. As Trump's lawyer, Guiliani pushing on the Crowdstrike issue is completely appropriate. And I can't get excited about dangling a White House meeting.

  646. Well, its substantial relative to the woman who was mad that Trump got rid of her… or the third fourth hand conversation guys from day one.

  649. https://www.infowars.com/bombshell-ukraine-indicts-burisma-holdings-owner-demands-trump-open-probe-into-bidens-dems/
    .
    The head of Burisma Holdings, the energy company on which Hunter Biden served on the board, has been indicted by Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General for money laundering and corruption, according to Ukrainian MP Alexander Dubinsky.
    .
    During a Wednesday press conference, Dubinsky claimed that an investigation into Nikolai Zlochevsky and Burisma found a “link that reveals how money is siphoned [from Ukraine],” notably through Hunter Biden, who received $16.5 million “through criminal means and money laundering.”

  650. Yeah, this whole impeachment effort is sort of tough luck for old Joe there. Well, the left wing of the party never really wanted him anyway; [privileged] creepy old white cishet male that he is.

  651. Sondland was asked after the recess,(paraphrasing) "Schiff is saying publicly that you testified Trump ordered a quid pro quo, CNN is running the story… Is it you testimony that no one on this planet told you there was a quid pro quo of assistance for investigations into Biden?" "Yes"

    Pence's team is saying the meeting with Pence that Sondland described never happened.

  652. It turns out that Sondland's testimony had all the substance of a mirage. Once you strip away his assumptions and inferences, two things are left. One is that nobody ever told him there was a quid pro quo as to aid. The other is that Sondland asked the president directly "What do you want from the Ukrainians?" Trump answered something like "Nothing except for Zelinsky to do the right thing."
    .
    It seems that the questioner who exposed that was Schiff. The man must be an idiot.

  653. Mark Bofill writes, "3. On Sept 9'th he had a call with Trump where Trump explicitly told him he didn't want anything from Zelensky. No quid pro quo. Apparently this did not impress him, because he testified that after this call he *still* believed the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations."

    Yeah, after he was told the whistleblower had filed a complaint.

  654. At 4:00 a.m. on September 9, Congress announced it was investigating Trump's conduct with regard to the Ukraine.

    At 5:19 a.m. Trump called Sondeland and said 'oh, no, there's no quid pro quo…'

  656. Sondland didn't say they wanted an investigation into Crowdstrike server, but about Ukraine's involvement in 2016 election.

  657. MikeN,

    I quote the fourth (4'th) point of Sondland's opening statement (link here:
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/20/gordon-sondlands-opening-statement-full-text/4247242002/
    )
    ————-snip—————
    Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and
    Burisma. …
    ————-snip—————
    The DNC server is the crowdstrike server I thought.
    *shrug*

  658. I'm not displeased. I think Sondland's testimony makes it more probable that the Dems will pull the trigger on actual impeachment. When the Senate takes this up, it won't be Schiff rules. The whistleblower will come out. Actual investigation of Hunter Biden's role and payments will come out. This may cost Biden the nomination, or if not that, the election. Trump supporters, IMO (and I think the polling on impeachment has supported this so far) are going to continue to support Trump regardless.
    So, bring it on.

  660. Thomas Fuller,

    It is possible Trump will not be re-elected in November 2020. It is also possible he will be re-elected. What is not possible is that he will be removed from office via impeachment. Any suggestion that he will be removed via impeachment is simply bonkers. I understand you think Trump is a catastrophe for the country. Please try to understand that many people sincerely believed Obama’s second election was a catastrophe for the country as well. Yes, obama was smoother in presentation than Trump. That doesn’t make Obama any less a law breaking president.

    Bill Clinton was a confirmed purgererr, and all-round dishonest SOB. Fair enough, Trump is truth-challenged as well. But Trump was not lying while, under oath, like Clinton was. most people don’t give much of a hoot about any of it. I will make a prediction: If the House votes to move forward with formal articles of impeachment, they will lose the House, fail to gain control of the Senate, and (horrors!) Trump will be re-elected. If enough Dem reoresentatives in Congree come to. their senseys

  661. I am not convinced that impeachment is a done deal. The hearings are not going well and it is obvious a Senate trial will be a waste of time. A lot of moderate Dems in the House are surely worried that voting for impeachment might sink their reelection chances. A trial would take Sanders, Warren, Klobucher, Harris, and Booker off the campaign trail for several weeks while keeping Biden's iffy behavior in front of the voters. Buttigieg would be in the catbird seat for the nomination unless Patrick or Bloomberg could pull off a late starting campaign.
    .
    It would make more sense for the House Dems to bewail the fact that those unprincipled partisan Republicans in the Senate won't let justice be done, nobly sacrifice their well-founded push for impeachment, and instead pass a motion of censure of Trump.

    But sensible and Democrat seem to be increasingly non-overlapping sets. So we shall see.

  662. I find all this amazingly absurd. Democrats say Sondland provided proof of bribery and abuse of power. But Sondland really said he never heard anyone say there was a quid pro quo for the aid. He said he just "presumed it." It was Giuliani who "had a quid pro quo" for a White House meeting. Giuliani has already essentially said Soldland had no knowledge of any such thing. Another witness who equivocated and contradicted himself and was immediately said to be lying by Pence and Pompeo. Whatever else you can say about Pence, he has a good track record for honesty.

    Schiff wins another 3 Pinnochios from the Washington Post for saying the whistle blower's identity was protected by the whistleblower law. So then why is he hiding this fact that everyone knows anyway? Latest Wisconsin head to head polls show Trump ahead of all the major Dem's and Trump has made large gains over the last month. SteveF is probably right about the election. If there is a Senate trial, Schiff can't carefully control the flow of information and Trump will be free to call witnesses on Ukrainian corruption and Obama era corruption. Will Senate Democrats be as partisan as Schiff? Some will but I think some will be more statesmanlike. And then there is Bob Barr and Durham. It's going to be fun.

    Once again the reason Republicans are all in on Trump is that he fights for their issues and fights hard. He also takes it to the elite partisans in the media and academia. When you have gotten used to being browbeaten into silence, fighting back and sometimes winning feels really tremendous. Trump's knowledge of human nature is pretty good I would say.

  663. I really believe there are enough Republican Senators willing to do the dirty and impeach Trump if anything a third of the way to to causing a problem gets to the Senate. Unlike Nixon and Clinton he is not part of the establishment and Burr and McConnell will vote against him with a number of others.
    There is one small bright light on his side.
    Alexander Downer from Australia.
    This man has the most rotten luck. Bad luck follows him like the thunderstorms follow that lorry driver in Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy.
    Talk about finding three four leaved clovers and a rabbit foot with the rabbit still attached and alive.
    If Alexander is the Democrats and CIA inflection point then the odds of them winning are astronomical.
    By the way Sam from three billboards in Texas had a role as Zaphod B in the film or TV series of Hitchhikers, great actor.

  664. David Young (Comment #177837): "Once again the reason Republicans are all in on Trump is that he fights for their issues and fights hard. He also takes it to the elite partisans in the media and academia. When you have gotten used to being browbeaten into silence, fighting back and sometimes winning feels really tremendous. Trump's knowledge of human nature is pretty good I would say."
    .
    Yep. And that is why Trump continues his aggravating tweeting. It is not because he is dumb or can't control himself, it is because it is smart politics. That he enjoys it is a bonus.

  665. angech (Comment #177838): "there are enough Republican Senators willing to do the dirty and impeach Trump"
    .
    I suspect that many Republican Senators would like to bring Trump down, but they know that would be political suicide.

  666. Thomas Fuller,
    I'd like to say first that I tend to agree with your idea that the reason Trump told Sondland he wanted nothing from Zelensky was probably that he [Trump] thought this was going to blow up and wanted to cover his butt.
    This said however, I'm unable to find a source that substantiates your claim about the timing. As far as I can tell, the news wasn't out yet on Sept. 9'th. For example,
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/nov/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-schiff-ukraine-timeline-phone-memo/
    This claims:
    "Sept. 9, 2019: Michael Atkinson, inspector general of the intelligence community, notifies Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, that there was a whistleblower complaint of "urgent concern."

    Sept. 19, 2019: Atkinson briefs the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door session."
    .
    It's possible that Trump had a source inside Atkinson's office. It doesn't seem likely that he got the information from Schiff, in my opinion.
    .
    Could you link your source for the timing you offered?
    Much obliged.
    .
    [Yay! I love it when I get the 666'th comment.]

  667. Yes, you devil, you. I'm sure it tickles your fancy.

    My source was Chris Cuomo on CNN last night.

  669. Thomas William Fuller (Comment #177842): "My source was Chris Cuomo on CNN last night."
    .
    In other words, there is not a credible source for the timeline.

  670. I'm on my phone which makes it hard to link, but I'm finding stuff besides the incredible Chris Cuomo suggesting the WH probably knew about the whistleblowers complaint sometime in mid August, well before the Sept 9th call.
    Shrug.

  673. mark bofill,

    "…I'm finding stuff besides the incredible Chris Cuomo suggesting the WH probably knew about the whistleblowers complaint sometime in mid August, well before the Sept 9th call."

    The operative words here are 'suggesting' and 'probably'. IOW, speculation. Trump doesn't seem to be a CYA type of person so without firsthand testimony to the contrary, I take the phone call saying no quid pro quo at face value. Also, as suggested above, the reason for the release of funds was also not a CYA move, but most likely a fiscal year end move, i.e. use it or lose it.

  675. Oh. You mean Schiff is actually looking for truth instead of conducting a witch hunt?

  676. Thomas,
    Thank you, honestly. That statement genuinely surprised me and made me laugh. Blessed be the progressives of the world who can say such things with a straight face!
    No. I don't think Schiff is looking for the truth. To the extent that happened I think it happened behind closed doors.

  678. Maybe Biden really is senile. At the debate last night he claimed to be endorsed by “the only African American woman who’s ever been elected to the United States Senate”.

    Sen. Kamala Harris immediately corrected him.

  679. DeWitt,

    Madness indeed. Restricting oil production in California will have zero impact on global emissions of CO2, or even emissions from California! What it will do is drive oil production (and so oil profits) down in California, damaging the local economy for no good reason.
    .
    I spent 10 days in California a couple of weeks back, traveling over much of the northern half of the state. There appear to be just as many SUV's and pickup trucks in California as there are most other places. There is NO WAY those big vehicles are going to switch to batteries in the foreseeable future. At some point, green madness is going to cause serious economic consequences in California. Maybe that will be a good example of the bad consequences of green madness and allow some other lefty states to avoid the same mistakes.

  680. Mike M,
    "Maybe Biden really is senile."
    .
    He was never the sharpest knife in the drawer, and always had foot-in-mouth disease. But that said, he does seem to me diminished compared to a decade or two ago. The guy will turn 78 before Jan 2020, which will put him in the age range of rapidly increasing incidence of dementia. (https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/jnnp/76/suppl_5/v2/F5.medium.gif)
    Good old Joe is already in the age range with ~15% incidence. If he were to serve two terms, his dementia risk would reach >30%. Scary stuff. Of course, Trump is no spring chicken himself, and would reach 78 before the end of his second term. Some claim Trump was demented before he ran for President. 😉

  681. From the article with the linked graph above:
    "A second—and related—methodological problem inherent to dementia is the insidious onset of the disorder. Neuropathological changes, eventually leading to the clinical syndrome of dementia, may start as early as decades before the disease becomes clinically overt. In analogy with the gradually accumulating neuropathology, the transition from healthy to demented is also gradual, rather than abrupt. The moment when dementia is diagnosed is in fact arbitrary. "
    .
    That is a big problem with quantifying cognitive decline…. ongoing for up to decades! I know that by the time my Dad's Alzheimer's was plainly evident (at about 78-79), he had long before suffered major cognitive declines…. his ability to work with numbers, acquire new knowledge, or even follow a complicated movie plot line, had all declined precipitously by his mid 70's.

  682. I've got impeachment hearing fatigue. Possibly others here do to, so I'll try to confine my remarks to this single comment and keep it brief.
    Mostly, after reading this:
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/as_long_as_joe_biden_is_running_for_president_he_can_commit_any_crime_he_wants.html
    I realized that the whole idea that Trump is doing something that will benefit him and hurt Biden is *predicated on the assumption that Biden has done something wrong in Ukraine*. Everybody thinks that because, well, obviously he [h]as.
    But what if he [h]asn't.
    Assuming this to be the case, Trump pressuring Zelensky to run an investigation is actually doing Biden a favor; clearing his name.
    It's something to think about.
    I'm not going into todays B.S. unless other people do, in which case I reserve the right to jump back in. But otherwise, meh.

  683. T. Fuller: "You mean Schiff is actually looking for truth instead of conducting a witch hunt?"

    The same truth seeker who stated in reference to FISA release: "the decision to employ an obscure and never before used House rule to release classified information without DOJ and FBI vetting was ‘extraordinarily reckless.’ The selective release and politicization of classified information sets a terrible precedent and will do long-term damage to the Intelligence Community and our law enforcement agencies. " Anyone who has read the FISA docs knows how silly and 100% dishonest this is.

    ……
    More: "The FBI had good reason to be concerned about Carter Page and would have been derelict in its responsibility to protect the country had it not sought a FISA warrant." https://speier.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/house-intelligence-committee-minority-response-release-chairman-nunes

    Schiff is the epitome of a dirty, corrupt politician. I believe the memo also argued that Republican judges could evaluate the worth of the application without contrary evidence, which is 100% wrong and which he knew to be 100% wrong.

    ……
    With truth seekers like Schiff the republic is really in good hands. (sarc)

    JD

  684. mark bofill (Comment #177849): "I'm surprised Schiff allowed Fiona Hill to testify, honestly."

    I am waiting to hear why.

  685. Mike,
    Oh. I had gotten the impression someplace along the way that some of the GOP congressman thought there'd be an advantage to questioning her. Apparently not. Almost certainly my mistake.

  686. I sort of think the dems are/were playing with fire when it comes to Hill as well, I just haven't had time to sort through all my thoughts there. Seems like room for stuff to come back and bite them somehow. I dunno yet. [I gotta go re-read her testimony]

  687. She was awfully insistent, for example, that Ukraine did not interfere with our elections. Well, reading the politico story makes me wonder. Poroshenko obviously didn't think Trump would win (heck, who did?).
    But it seemed to me she got pretty defensive about it. It makes me wonder.

  688. While the chances are low, I wouldn't bet against Trump's being removed from office.

    1) House votes to start impeachment proceedings in Judiciary Committee. It's possible they skip and go right to final vote.

    2) No Republican witnesses, because the majority doesn't call any. They instead use material sent by Schiff.

    3) In party line vote, Judicary votes out several counts of impeachment.

    4) Justin Amash votes to impeach while 18 Democrats in districts won by Trump vote no. Final vote on impeachment is 218-217.

    5) Per Senate rules, a trial commences, with House managers presenting their evidence.

    6) Trump's attempts to call Joe and Hunter Biden, Chris Steele, and others are attacked by the media as beyond the pale. Ben Sasse, Cory Gardner, and Mitt Romney agree not to issue subpoenas, and attack the President for not answering the charges at hand.

    7) Mitt Romney holds a press conference that he finds the charges to be serious, and that the President should consider resigning.

    8) Prior to final vote, Schumer calls for a rules change that they should use a secret ballot. Romney, Murkowski, Collins, and Pat Toomey vote yes.

    9) Joe Manchin and nearly every Republican declares he is voting to acquit the President. The final tally is 68-32 for removal as

    Tillis, Thune, Shelby, Sasse, Rubio, Romney, Roberts, Portman, Murkowski, McSally, McConnell, Lee, Hyde-Smith, Graham, Ernst, Cornyn, Collins, Capito, Burr, and Alexander all secretly vote to remove.

  689. Mike N,
    "I wouldn't bet against Trump's being removed from office."
    .
    I would.
    .
    "8) Prior to final vote, Schumer calls for a rules change that they should use a secret ballot. Romney, Murkowski, Collins, and Pat Toomey vote yes."
    .
    Can't happen. The Constitution sets explicit requirements of recorded votes: if 20% of the senators (or 20% members of the House) want a recorded vote, then the vote must be recorded. There is no way around the Constitutional question, and the "trial" will be presided over by the Chief Justice… who will know the rules. The House and Senate are allowed to set their own rules for almost everything, but not recorded votes.

  690. SteveF, thanks. That provision blocks that scenario quite well.
    I still wouldn't bet against Trump's removal, but they would need stronger charges so the 20 I listed can cast a public vote.

    The current proceedings are a means to allow other committees to get material they couldn't otherwise get. Presenting the appearance of an impeachment inquiry allows them to get tax returns, subpoena witnesses, and crucially, info from Mueller's grand juries. There is something in there that they feel could be politically damaging enough that they are trying to get it out in the open.

  691. Mike N,
    "Tillis, Thune, Shelby, Sasse, Rubio, Romney, Roberts, Portman, Murkowski, McSally, McConnell, Lee, Hyde-Smith, Graham, Ernst, Cornyn, Collins, Capito, Burr, and Alexander all secretly vote to remove."
    .
    Preposterous. Not going to happen.

  692. Mike N,
    "The current proceedings are a means to allow other committees to get material they couldn't otherwise get."
    .
    On this we agree: it is a fishing expedition to get damaging information about Trump. I doubt it will work; even if the SC were willing force Trump to produce evidence against himself, which I doubt they ever would, the SC would not rule on the case until it is utterly moot.
    .
    Voters are not watching the hearings. When the "trial" starts, Senate Republicans will read into the record dozens of verbatim transcripts from House Democrats, now in leadership positions, claiming any impeachment effort against Bill Clinton must be broadly bi-partisan, and *never* advanced by a strictly partisan vote. But a strictly partisan vote by Democrats it will be. The entire process is a strategy to keep Trump from getting re-elected. I suspect even that is going to fail.

  694. >the SC would not rule on the case until it is utterly moot.

    They issued a stay on tax returns very recently. They will probably rule on these things relatively quickly.

  695. SteveF, as you pointed out a secret ballot is off the table. However, if there were one, I think the list I provided is almost all people who would vote to remove, and there are several more.

  696. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/fbi-fisa-russia-investigation/index.html

    .
    A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.
    .
    Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham's criminal probe.
    .
    The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document's meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz's FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

  698. I have a question about the case that Schiff made during the hearings. Maybe someone who paid more attention to the hearings can answer it. My impression (in which I am not very confidant) is that a central part of that case goes something like this:

    There was nothing amiss about the Bidens' connection with Burisma. There was no Ukrainian interference with the 2016 election. Claims to the contrary are unfounded conspiracy theories. Any investigations of such claims are not legitimate investigations but are just efforts to dig up or create political dirt. It is therefore an abuse of power for a President to seek to start such investigations.
    .
    Did I get that right? If not, where did I go wrong? I am especially interested in answers from people who do not regard the hearings as bogus.
    .
    Note that I am asking if the above is what is being claimed, not whether it is really what happened or did not happen. I am also aware that one could try to make a case against Trump without the above, but I don't think that is what Schiff was trying to do.

  699. Mike,
    ———————
    I am especially interested in answers from people who do not regard the hearings as bogus.
    ———————
    I think that means you're asking Tom Fuller.
    .
    Read Schiff's opening statement here for the day of Sondland's testimony:
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/adam-schiff-impeachment-opening-statement-nov-20/index.html
    .
    It seems to me that he thought the investigations were an effort to dig up or create political dirt, but I'd say his point was more that Trump was conditioning foreign aid to serve his own campaign interests. He doesn't speak to the innocence or guilt of Biden at all in that statement as far as I can see.
    .
    [Edit: We could presume or deduce that the legitimacy of the investigations could provide a different plausible motive explanation for Trump than serving his campaign interests, but I didn't read Schiff getting into all that, I guess is what I'm trying to get at.]

  700. Mike M, if I understand it correctly, you have somewhat mischaracterized the position of the Democrats on the committee.

    Again, if I understand it correctly, the Democrats seem to feel that Burisma is/was either corrupt or led by a corrupt CEO/oligarch. That much of the civilized world called for an investigation into Burisma and other Ukrainian organizations similar in structure/corruption. That the prosecutor general for a previous administration did not investigate–indeed, made things worse. When the EU, IMF, various U.S. departments and the World Bank called for the removal of the prosecutor, Joe Biden very loudly made the case for his removal.

    A Ukrainian investigation was opened into Hunter Biden's connection with Burisma by the successor to the bad guy prosecutor. It quickly found nothing of interest and subsequently closed.

    As for Ukrainian influence into the 2016 elections, this is a meme that was transmitted by FSB agent Kilimnik to the White House via Paul Manafort. It is pretty obviously ridiculous, as there is zero evidence backing it up.

    Supporters of this theory point to instances where Ukrainian officials criticized Trump (some quite harshly) for his acceptance of Russian occupation of Crimea and continued incursions into other Ukrainian territory. As the new Girl on Fire (Fiona Hill) pointed out in her testimony yesterday, public officials from hundreds of countries criticized Trump prior to his election without it constituting a conspiracy against the election.

    The Russians mounted an operation to influence the election. The Ukrainians did not. Those who say the contrary is true are, wittingly or not, supporting a Russian story.

  701. Viktor Shokin is the name of the prosecutor Tom is referring to, I believe. I don't know who is alleged to have investigated Hunter Biden; I've got nothing on any such investigation at all.

  702. Thomas Fuller,
    "A Ukrainian investigation was opened into Hunter Biden's connection with Burisma by the successor to the bad guy prosecutor. It quickly found nothing of interest and subsequently closed."
    .
    Proof? Documentation? Or speculation?
    .
    So lemme see. Hunter Biden's connection to Bursima was investigated by the guy who replaced the prosecutor Joe Biden insisted be fired, and shockingly enough, found nothing of interest in that connection. That Hunter Biden, who knew nothing about the Ukraine nor about natural gas, was being paid $83,000 per month by Burisma is prima facia evidence of influence pedaling.

  703. Speaking of stories and memes, I think it's useful to differentiate between the widely accepted *fact* that Russia made efforts to interfere with the 2016 election and the debunked conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians.
    I'm under the impression that the origins of the Trump Collusion conspiracy theory had roots in the Ukraine. When the Senate trial comes up I do hope we hear from .. what is her name.. Chalupa. Alexandra Chalupa, as well as Fusion GPS, and the Ohrs.

  704. A court in Ukraine has ruled that two officials meddled in the 2016 election. Reporter by NYT in 2018.
    Politico reported around the inauguration of Ukraine's interference in the election, and how they were scrambling to make amends.

  705. The politico story I linked earlier makes a case for Ukranian interference. Leshchenko told the Financial Times "For me, it was important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world…" although he later retracted this (This is in reference to Trump and bringing down Manafort).
    Sounds pretty unambiguous to me.
    [Edit: Here's another really interesting politico piece relating:
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/alexandra-chalupa-testify-impeachment-069817
    ——————
    Andrii Telizhenko, a 29-year-old former political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy who says he was tasked with helping Chalupa dig up dirt on Manafort in 2016, has gone further, claiming there was direct coordination between the DNC and the Ukrainian government.
    —————–
    ]

  706. Mark Bofill,
    I'd say there is at least some chance articles of impeachment will not come out of the House at all… depends on how nervous the 30 vulnerable Dems in the House are when the time to vote arrives. Of course, Pelosi can pull the plug on the whole parade at any time if she wants, even before the Judiciary committee votes out articles. If she thinks she doesn't have the votes, that is what I think she will do.

  707. ~grins~ their constituents wouldn't like that very much. [Edit, sorry, I meant the solid blue state reps. I agree that some of the reps are vulnerable.]
    It probably *would* be the sensible thing to do though. Trump appears to be on the rise in the polls, although it's a bit early to be sure. It might be impeachment blowback.
    [Edit: recent polls here https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
    ]

  709. Uh-oh; Kevin McCarthy writes to Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff:

    House Rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A) states that “the Rules of the House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.” House Rule XI, Clause 2(j)(1) provides that “the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify…” Notably, this rule was not displaced by H. Res. 660 and, therefore, under House Rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A), it applies to the Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry.”

  710. Lucia,
    That's so. Still, I saw a poll that showed independents support for impeachment has been dropping over the last few days.[ Or rather a graph of polls. Think it was on 538]

  711. Might not be noise then. But there's time– so we can wait before coming to conclusions.
    .
    I have seen a few "anti-impeachment" mashups highligting the *near constant* media discussing "the end" for Trump which started pretty much immediately after the inauguration. I do think people are tired, and — rightly or wrongly– the Democrats have to make a very CLEAR case. Even the slightest indication that things might be partisan– like the original appearance that things were going to be a star chamber– and so on, is going to make at least SOME of the people in the middle just say– I'm tired of all this. And, like it or not, impeachment is such a big step that their being tired is in favor of NOT impeaching.
    .
    Yeah… the might ALSO be tired of Trump. But they are tired of being asked to pay attention to accusations and investigations that turn out to be a big nothing burger. Like it or not: the whole Mueller Report episode has probably made lots of people flat out tired. I know I'm tired.
    .
    So maybe the tide has turned on opinion for impeachment…. or not. It will take a few weeks to see.

  712. mark bofill (Comment #177874): "It seems to me that he thought the investigations were an effort to dig up or create political dirt, but I'd say his point was more that Trump was conditioning foreign aid to serve his own campaign interests. He doesn't speak to the innocence or guilt of Biden at all in that statement as far as I can see."
    .
    Thanks for the link, mark. It seems to more-or-less support what I thought. I agree that Schiff is charging Trump with using aid as leverage. But that is independent of the question of whether the investigations might be legitimate. If illegitimate, then Trump's request can *only* be improper. That casts all other actions in a very different light than if Trump was making a legitimate, reasonable request and the only issue was improper means.
    .
    Schiff says: "The first investigation was of a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine –and not Russia — was responsible for interfering in our 2016 election. The second investigation Trump demanded was into the political rival he apparently feared most, Joe Biden."

    And later: "Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the discredited 2016 conspiracy theory, and even more ominously, look into the Bidens."
    .
    So he clearly claims that investigating the 2016 interference would be illegitimate. He does not actually say that about Biden/Burisma, but he implies it by context.

  715. The responses to John Solomon's work remind me strongly of the climate establishment responses to Steve McIntyre. One side produces well evidenced breakdowns, the other claims there's nothing to see here. Far easier to tear the man down than to respond to his work.

  716. MikeM,
    The other piece of what Schiff is suggesting is foreign interference. From his statement:
    "…If the President abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, …"
    So I think my mind finally recovered from the audacity shock enough for me to follow this. Schiff is alleging that Trump is inviting foreign interference by trying to get Zelensky to investigate the [DNC sponsored?] foreign interference that affected Trump's 2016 campaign, from Ukraine.
    Huh.
    [Edit: Well, no not quite. Unless one thinks Burisma had something directly to do with Ukraine's interference, which I don't. *shrug* The server part, maybe. Except I don't think the server actually figured into anything at the end of the day. The Ukranians probably weren't the hackers.]

  717. mark,

    I am giving more and more credence to Tucker Carlson's magic decoder ring for leftist rhetoric: Whatever they are accusing their opponents of doing, that is what they are doing.

  718. But note that if what we are trying to determine is Trump's motives, it doesn't really matter if he's dead wrong in what he believes about a 'DNC server' that doesn't actually physically exist. Ignorant as he may be, he's trying to get to the bottom of what happened in 2016.
    .
    Along the way, I think he views Biden and Burisma as fair game. *shrug* I do too, actually, given the treatment he was subject to due to foreign interference in his own 2016 campaign.
    .
    [Edit: [RE Tucker] ~grins~ yeah me too.
    Also, here's a Washington Post article that makes the case against what I was saying more thoroughly
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/22/trump-accidentally-proves-again-that-republican-defenses-his-ukraine-request-are-empty/
    But Trump doesn't have to be correct. He can be a more or less honest dumbass. Judging by historical standards, I don't think being a dumbass is impeachable.]

  719. Biden v Trump debate-
    "You held up foreign aid, got Ukrainians killed, because you wanted them to investigate me and produce dirt on me for my political campaign."

    "Susan Rice sent an e-mail, you were in the room for meetings about investigating me and my campaign. Why don't you tell us what you did?"

  720. Mike M.,

    "I am giving more and more credence to Tucker Carlson's magic decoder ring for leftist rhetoric: Whatever they are accusing their opponents of doing, that is what they are doing."

    That's not exactly original with Tucker Carlson. The basic technique has been around for a long time. See, for example:

    "Gaslighters — people who try to control others through manipulation — will often accuse you of behaviors that they are engaged in themselves. This is a classic manipulation tactic."

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201702/why-gaslighters-accuse-you-gaslighting

    Gaslighting refers to the 1944 movie, Gaslight, where the villain tries to convince the heroine that she's going crazy.

    https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/1/21/14315372/what-is-gaslighting-gaslight-movie-ingrid-bergman

    Trump has been accused of gaslighting America, which is a classic example of the technique.

  722. Biden.
    “so they said they had — they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to — or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said — I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
    –
    A billion dollars.
    A massive amount of money.
    A six hour time frame to respond.
    On one man’s personal say so and not even the president.
    –
    A billion dollars and an extremely short fuse and a massive, massive explosion.
    –
    Plus nepotism.
    –
    Sledgehammer meet nut. Lots of groups may have wanted him removed which only shows something he was doing was upsetting very powerful vested interests.
    There was no need for VP Biden to use a Billion dollar threat prosecutor of all people. It is not like he had a position of active power in the govt, only that he was a possible impediment to corrupt practices in the Ukraine.
    –
    And to boast about it openly.
    How immune to common sense, decency and risk of prosecution did Joe Biden feel?
    Totally privileged.

  723. I really feel as though we live in different worlds.

    To me, both the Mueller investigation and the impeachment hearing show ample evidence to justify impeachment for numerous abuses of power and violations of federal statute.

    I find all this talk about the Bidens, FISA warrants, Crowdstrike, Strzok and Page, the Steele Dossier–all of it–irrelevant and fairly clear attempts to distract us all from what Donald J. Trump did.

  725. Angech, I think that is more Biden embellishing. He wasn't in Ukraine when the prosecutor was fired. There were Ukrainians in DC around that time.

  726. A footnote to the story of Biden withholding aid – I've read a couple of accounts now that say Shokin was *not* in fact fired until 2 or 3 months later.

  727. Hiya Lucia

    I wish I could do this in haiku… but the syllable count would be all wrong.

    1. Trump repeatedly violated campaign finance laws, including 7 felonious acts:

    Causing American Media Inc. (AMI) to make and/or accepting (or causing his then lawyer Michael Cohen to accept) an unlawful corporate contribution related to Karen McDougal.

    Two instances of causing Cohen to make and/or accepting an unlawful individual contributions related to Stephanie Clifford and February 2015 online polling.

    Two instances of causing Donald J. Trump for President LLC’s failure to report contributions from AMI and Cohen related to McDougal and Clifford.
    Causing Donald J. Trump for President LLC to file false reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

    Making a false statement by failing to disclose liability to Cohen for the Clifford payment on his 2017 public financial disclosure form.

    Conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining the lawful function of the FEC and/or violating federal campaign finance law related to “hush money” payments, false statements, and cover-ups of reimbursement payments to Cohen made by the Trump Organization.

    2. Trump repeatedly obstructed justice.

    Trump attempted to get James Comey, the FBI director responsible for overseeing the investigation into Trump’s relationship with Russia during the 2016 election, to drop an investigation into National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
    When Comey refused, Trump fired him.

    Trump made two more attempts at stopping the investigation by trying (unsuccessfully) to fire Robert Mueller, Comey’s predecessor. Then, Trump ordered White House Counsel Don McGahn to create a false record indicating that no attempts took place – McGahn refused.

    Trump has repeatedly attempted to intimidate or influence witnesses in proceedings against him.

    In all, Robert Mueller’s investigation revealed multiple instances where there was “very substantial” evidence that Trump had committed obstruction of justice.

    3. Trump has illegally profited from his presidency

    The Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits the president from accepting personal benefits from any foreign government or official.

    Trump has retained his ownership interests in his family business while he is in office.

    Thus, every time a foreign official stays at a Trump hotel, or a foreign government approves a new Trump Organization project, or grants a trademark, Trump is in violation of the Constitution.
    Trump has repeatedly pushed his properties as avenues to secure his favor, and multiple foreign officials have stayed at his properties while lobbying his administration.

    Saudi officials and an Iraqi Sheik stayed at his hotel when lobbying for their interests.

    China approved multiple trademarks for his family’s brands while negotiating trade policies.

    Trump promoted his club in Doral Florida for the 2020 G-7 Conference, and then the White House announced the multi-million dollar contract was awarded to Trump’s own resort after Trump’s suggestion. Ultimately, this contract was canceled despite his attempts to abuse his position.

    And every time he goes to golf at a Trump property, he funnels taxpayer money into his family business—violating the Domestic Emoluments Clause.

    To date, Trump has spent over $100 million taxpayer dollars to golf and vacation at his own properties.

    4. Soliciting or accepting foreign assistance in a U.S. election, in violation of U.S. law.

    Donald Trump publicly called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s “missing” emails on July 27, 2016. Five hours later, Russian hackers attacked Clinton’s personal office for the first time.
    In the middle of the 2016 election, Trump’s son was invited to meet with a Russian national regarding “information that would incriminate Hillary and…would be very useful to” Donald Trump. Donald Trump Jr. was told it was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort took the meeting.
    Paul Manafort and Rick Gates met with Konstantin Kilimnik, likely a Russian spy, multiple times in the summer of 2016 to provide him with internal campaign polling data detailing the Trump campaign’s midwestern strategy.

    Trump used U.S. military aid to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 elections.

    He illegally withheld $400 million dollars of military aid to Ukraine and in a call with the President of Ukraine, asked them to “do us a favor” by investigating Joe Biden’s family and a debunked conspiracy theory (that has been pushed by Russian intelligence) alleging Ukraine hacked the DNC’s computer servers.

    White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted in a press conference that Trump had withheld military aid to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate his rivals for the 2020 election. He told the public to “Get Over it” as the White House does this “All the time”. Other State Department officials made it clear to the Ukrainian government that the aide would not be released unless the Ukrainians investigated the Biden family for the purpose of helping Trump win re-election.

    Trump told the press that, in addition to Ukraine, China should investigate the Bidens specifically and said “If they [China] do what we want, we have tremendous power” in ongoing trade negotiations.

    After this occurred, a Trump aide claimed that the Chinese had, in fact, given him information on Hunter Biden’s business dealings in the country.

    Multiple witnesses confirmed in the public impeachment hearings before the House Intelligence Committee that Trump was attempting to bribe and extort Ukraine into helping his reelection.

    There is extremely solid evidence to back up each of the items on this list. I find it extraordinary that so many are willing to ignore it.

  729. Conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining the lawful function

    This is what bothers me the most about the Mueller investigation.
    This is not what conspiracy to defraud the US crime means.
    It is now being expanded so that a person can be prosecuted by making it more difficult for the government to know what he's up to.

  730. Tom, Your list is riddled with fake information.

    As you should be well aware, campaign finance violations are almost always civil violations. This is a giant nothing burger. Most politicians have multiple such violations. If there is a crime why hasn't Trump been charged? Answer: its a civil violation.

    Comey lied to Trump about whether he was under investigation. Trump was right to fire him since Comey was secretly leaking Russian collusion lies about Trump to get an independent council appointed whose findings were a nothing burger. Once again, if there was any criminal conduct, why hasn't Trump been charged and why did Nadler drop it? Answer: Mueller was clueless about everything and had nothing of substance except process "crimes" for some Trump associates who were in some cases entrapped.

    Obstructing justice requires corrupt intent. It's much more likely that Trump was really angry about being the target of a witch hunt and was trying to shut down a witch hunt. Nothing wrong with that. In any case the DOJ has cleared Trump here. Schiff also seems uninclined to follow this trail of misinformation.

    The Trump tower meeting is such a trite thing. It was not illegal to meet with a Russian who wanted to lobby against legislation. This is nothing compared to Hillary's campaign paying for Russian dirt on Trump that the New York Times says might be Russian disinformation. Why is the Russian dossier not a vastly bigger problem?

    You are totally wrong about the impeachment hearing witnesses. Most were asked if they knew of any evidence of bribery or extortion. Every one said "no." Did you even watch the hearings or are you relying on CNN or worse yet Schiff who even the Washington Post says is a serial liar?

    Mulvaney was actually right. According to Graham, Congress conditioned the Ukraine aid on action on corruption. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this linkage and its totally normal foreign policy.

    Tom, This list shows you to be unfamiliar with the law and also willing to credit the biased media reports of people who are driven by personal animus (that is amply documented). You also are showing little skepticism about your sources.

  731. The real question is why did Comey sign a FISA warrant application and by so doing certify that the information was verified and correct? He knew the application mostly involved the Russian dossier which was Clinton opposition research and his own FBI knew was mostly fiction. That's perjury it seems to me.

  732. Thomas,
    Thanks for listing. Now it can be discussed. I think you'll find people disagree with your interpretation of the list. They aren't trying to divert from that; they just disagree.

  734. Trump or blame Biden?
    I can find no words so great
    As when filled with hate?
    –
    “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
    1. Campaign financial laws? No,
    small stuff.
    2 obstructing justice ? No
    in fact the President has the right to obstruct justice enshrined in law, otherwise known as giving pardons.
    Trump fired Comey, on the criticisms by Rosenstein. His is the power to hire and fire. Whether it obstructs justice or not.
    3 illegally profited by his Presidency No
    Small stuff, laws for non presidents like Tlaib.
    4 Soliciting or accepting foriegn assistance in a US election.
    No
    No sense of humour either. When Trump hilariously asked the Russians to help Hilary find her missing e-mails as an obvious joke this is the first and best example.
    Perhaps you missed the sarcasm tag?
    Either you accept having the best CIA and FBI in the world which means extensive and intensive vetting of all presidential candidates and no way pernicious foreign governments can get the hooks in or you run conspiracy theories.
    Being extensively vetted also means if there was any such dirt on Trump he would have been impeached 3 years ago.
    – There are improprieties, FISA warrants, Steele dossier, Clinton computer bleaching and immunity, Brennan, Comey FBI and CIA breaches of internal and external protocols.
    Do you admit that the notion these happened exists?
    Do you support investigating them to clear the air?
    Or do you think that it is all OK to commit high crimes and misdemeanours against someone because you do not like them.-
    –
    The best answers find
    A way through the Gordian knot
    Of truth and shadow

  735. Tom,
    If you would select the two (2) or three (3) items you consider to be of greatest importance, I'd consider discussing those. But I'm not wasting my valuable time on a research project to refute you. I will say briefly that I think if you could look at the evidence in an unbiased way, you'd see that those of Trump's infractions that actually hold water are generally pretty garden variety, relative to other U.S. politicians, candidates, and Presidents.
    *shrug*

  736. "Obstructing justice requires corrupt intent."

    According to Barr, obstruction of justice requires corrupt means.

  737. mark bofill (Comment #177910): "Tom, If you would select the two (2) or three (3) items you consider to be of greatest importance, I'd consider discussing those."
    .
    An excellent response to a Gish Gallop.

  738. Tom F, maybe you should consider that the reason you feel you live on another planet is because your only sources of information are the equivalent of Real Climate, Skeptical Science, Think Progress etc. ISTM the denizens here are familiar with your arguments, but you are ignorant of theirs. Your anti-Trump list is reminiscent of the lists showing why AGW is a existential threat.
    .
    Funnily enough, this observation has also been observed by research. Progressives isolate themselves from “impure” sources of information, believing, IMO, themselves and their fellows to be morally and intellectually superior in thought and deed. This makes you easier to manipulate because you actively resist even entertaining arguments and ideas contrary to what you’re told are correct and true.
    .
    It would be interesting to know why you became a CC sceptic, because in that aspect you break the mold and that should have given you the perspective you appear to lack.

  739. Dave,
    ————-
    Funnily enough, this observation has also been observed by research. Progressives isolate themselves from “impure” sources of information
    ————–
    I'll admit to being surprised to hear this. Could you point me towards the research you're referring to?
    .
    I'd have figured that *everybody* generally goes looking for evidence to support what they believe by default. If anything, I'd have thought people high in openness (progressives?) would be most likely to read material that disagreed with their viewpoint.
    *shrug*

  740. mark bofill (Comment #177914): "I'd have figured that *everybody* generally goes looking for evidence to support what they believe by default."
    .
    That is certainly true.

    I think Dave is claiming that progressives are even more prone to that than conservatives. I *think* that is true, but I can't cite specific sources. Given the progressive dominance of news media, education, and entertainment, it is a whole lot easier to avoid conservative viewpoints than progressive ones. And progressives do seem to think that conservative opinions are not just mistaken, but are ignorant and impure. Therefore, they see it as pointless to engage with conservative opinions.

  742. >it is a whole lot easier to avoid conservative viewpoints than progressive ones.

    Not conservative viewpoint, but there was a journalist tweeting about why is Obama making jokes about eating dogs. NYT and others never mentioned it.

  745. DaveJR, looking at my browser history finds that I have visited a number of diverse sites in the past two days. Among them are conservative sites ranging from the National Review, Weekly Standard, Washington Examiner and others to blogs such as Instapundit and, well, the Blackboard, which is independent but very welcoming to conservative thoughts and commenters (and which I consider one of the strengths of this venue).

    I do get exposure to opinions other than my own. Without them being served up to me by those who consider themselves the purveyors of correct opinion.

    It all very much reminds me of the climate conversation, where people like Roger Pielke Jr. and myself would get excoriated for having our writings lifted without our permission and posted on skeptic blogs, including the GWPF which still hosts many of my articles lifted from the San Francisco Examiner.com blogfarm.

    Some among Trump's defenders point to an article's provenance as proof of falsity or malign intent. The same is true for some of Trump's attackers.

    So apparently we learned nothing from the climate conversation.

  747. In the spirit of constructive criticism I would note that there isn't an overwhelming number of conservative venues to draw from. Instead of you using that as a reason to say the media is dominated by liberal thought, you might consider, well, increasing the number of conservative venues.

    You conservatives are not well-served by topics being funneled through Fox and the Drudge Report or the broadsheets of Britain.

  748. TF, checkout
    https://www.censored.news
    For other viewpoints, Real Clear, Drudge, and Censored, you can get a broad range of news outlets.
    Some of the news orgs linked are a bit shrill, but quite a bit of news that does not hit the majors are covered by them.

  750. Tom Fuller,
    “I really feel as though we live in different worlds.”
    .
    That pretty well sums up the rather frightening political divide that has developed over the last 30+ years. There is not just profound disagreement on public policy, there is often profound disagreement about factual reality (eg my eyes rolled in utter disbelief reading your list of Trump’s crimes!) along with a broad refusal to compromise. I think this divide has widened mostly because the left has moved ever more left, while the right has hardly moved at all. But I suspect you think it is the opposite.

  751. ———————
    I think this divide has widened mostly because the left has moved ever more left, while the right has hardly moved at all.
    ———————
    I think what used to be liberal has become moderately conservative actually. Disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it; is that conservative or liberal these days? It's hard to say. But it contrasts with those on the left who call speech a form of violence. I read a number of people who identify as traditional liberals who no longer associate with the left.
    I'm not aware of a symmetrical situation on the right, but maybe I just don't get out enough.

  752. Tom, I second the Federalist as a good source.

    What has happened over the last 60 years or so is that leftist ideology has gradually taken over most cultural institutions in the West. That's particularly true of Universities and the corporate media. There are strong similarities to the late 19th Century. Cultural Marxism is however worse than Social Darwinism as an ideology because it is just science denial at heart.

    I'm not so sure its about most reporting being mostly reasonably accurate. An overarching issue however is selection bias. We know that CNN and other media outlets simply refuse to cover things that don't fit the narrative. With Trump there is also just hatred of the man and his way of conducting business. Media people have a self image as purveyors of truth and justice (an image that is totally wrong) but when Trump attacks them as "fake news" they take it personally and start becoming hysterical. That kind of blows a hole in the aforementioned self image. It's puzzling to me that the media is so unreflective that they continue to discredit themselves. Journalists are now almost as unpopular as lawyers.

  753. Another up and coming site is Daily Wire. They have Ben Shapiro and Andrew Klavan who are excellent. Shapiro is pretty neutral on Trump and to Tom you might like him.

  754. I watch Fox News quite often. Just not the opinionists. I think Shep Smith (sorry he's gone) and Judge Napolitano have/had a good grasp of the current situation. And I think Chris Wallace does a good job as well.

    But most of what I see in discussions emanates from the Hannity/Ingram/Carlson stuff, which is pretty bad, to be frank.

  756. mark bofill,
    "Disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it; is that conservative or liberal these days?"
    .
    Most definitely that is not supported by 'progressives' or 'socialists'; they want to control what everyone is allowed to say, and silence all who say anything they don't want to hear.
    .
    For sure 'conservatives' and 'libertarians' strongly support that statement. Maybe classic 'liberals' do too, if any of those folks actually still exist. Totalitarians of every stripe want to control speech. The right to speak and write what you think are among the few crucial rights upon which all liberty is based. Where speech is controlled, liberty is absent.

  758. DaveJR “Tom It would be interesting to know why you became a CC sceptic, because in that aspect you break the mold and that should have given you the perspective you appear to lack.”
    –
    He is a lukewarmer, I believe, happy to be corrected, because he applied logic to the science and realised, like Lucia and JC that it is not all cut and died.
    He has perspective moderated by the liberal progressive ideal he prefers.
    I can understand his anti trumpism. A majority of people are offended by his money and attitudes.
    It is very hard to shrug off the load of bad and fake press and look at the facts of what has been done and is being done to him.
    Tom could do this any time he wants. He feels no need to want. His privilege to do so. He does not have to apply logic or others moralities where he knows it is not needed.

  759. Seems foolish to try to speak for somebody who is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. Excepting Zelensky, apparently.

  760. Tom and Steven have both been great advocates in the past for clear thinking. Tom still does a great job. I should really stay away from trying to interpret other people.

  761. Sort of a great awakening for me (really just a reminder of how we leftists have behaved going back to the 30s) was seeing how people who I respected so much were so wrong about climate change. Paul Krugman. Kevin Drum. Barack Obama. Worse, how quick we leftists were to cut the throats of those who disagreed on any aspect of the party line. (Like me…) Quite the eye-opener.

    So I don't automatically trust what my fellow leftists say. Not on climate issues. Not on scandal and corruption. I actually have examined the evidence.

    Our president does not do well under such examination. Not well at all.

  762. Well Tom, I do respect you for your general forthrightness. But I doubt you have examined all the evidence in much detail about Trump. Given the corruption of the media (its equally bad on climate as on Trump), it requires a special effort to find balance to use in drawing a judgment. BTW, the media on climate have become truly horrible. Most everything they say is a lie or a big exaggeration.

  763. Tom,
    It's perfectly fine of course to think whatever you want to about Trump. FWIW, the sense I get from lots of people is resignation; they really don't care for Trump the man *at all* but prefer Trump the President to the alternatives for policy reasons. In your case you probably have different policy preferences anyway. Lucia used to like to remind me that regardless of all other considerations, Trump is still a pig, oink oink pig.
    I don't really know why I'm saying this. I don't want to convey a mistaken impression that I believe some sort of 'Trump acceptance' is a criteria for objectivity or anything similar to that, maybe. I don't think that's the case and don't want you to think I think that's the case.
    Trump has issues. I think he's preferable to the alternatives. That's about it, really. I get that not everybody agrees with that, which is fine by me.
    *shrug*

  766. I'm still going to contend that what sets Trump apart from previous Presidents is his style which is extreme transparency. Most other presidents, no matter how shady their policies, how illegal, how wrong, employ PR flaks to go out and spoon feed the media. If you are an Obama, the media fawn over you and refuse to cover anything that might be negative. Trump's personality is more like Teddy Roosevelt, who was a very bellicose, some would say chauvinistic, and opinionated person who always spoke his mind. In that era of course, there was not the constant amplification chamber of social media. Bear in mind that Roosevelt accomplished more to transform America than the previous 5 presidents combined.

  769. David Young (Comment #177944): "I'm still going to contend that what sets Trump apart from previous Presidents is his style which is extreme transparency."
    .
    Yes. And that is a big part of why he seems so obnoxious: we are so used to the polished obfuscation of politicians that actual honesty and transparency is a shock to the system. Also, of course, that is a big part of his popularity. And it is why he can't tone down the tweeting and be more conventional; then he would seem phony without being any more acceptable to those who hate him.

  770. The Weekly Standard closed its doors a long time ago. Krystal had so discredited himself with conservatives, the magazine I suspect had virtually no subscribers. In fact Krystal has spawned quite a few opinion pieces about why never Trumpers are a disgrace and were in many cases never conservatives at all. Bottom line, elite conservative leadership has been quite happy to play by gentlemen's rules and lose almost every important political and cultural point that mattered to conservatives in the last 40 years.

  771. Peggy Noonan in the WSJ thinks the Democrats have proved their point about Trump pressuring Zelensky to investigate Ukraininan 2016 election interference and Biden/Burisma by withholding funds. She asks how the Republicans are going to defend Trump against those charges. The answer, of course, is the same as the Democrats said about Clinton, that the charges, even if true, do not rise to the level of requiring his removal from office. If the Democrats could get away with that in 1998/99, when the charges against Clinton were both serious and true, i.e. perjury by lying to a grand jury about his relationship with Paula Jones and obstruction of justice by lying in a sworn deposition about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky then so can the Republicans.

  772. David Young,

    “…play by gentlemen's rules and lose almost every important political and cultural point that mattered to conservatives in the last 40 years.”
    .
    The Flight 93 Election…. Publius Decius Mus, September, 2016, said almost exactly this.

  773. DeWitt,
    Peggy Noonan once wrote a good speech for Reagan. As far as I can tell, it has been all down hill since then.
    .
    WRT the Bidens, only Democrats and Noonans could think the Bidens are not worth investigating. The evidence of selling influence is substantial, and it is not just Burisma. That is a defense a bit like the truth is in libel cases: Trump would be perfectly justified in suggesting the Bidens be investigated about corruption because there is clear evidence of corruption. Heck, Trump has been under continuous investigation since mid 2016, justified only by nonsense opposition research. Voters can see that the Bidens SHOULD be investigated.

  774. David Young (Comment #177949): "Krystal has spawned quite a few opinion pieces about why never Trumpers are a disgrace and were in many cases never conservatives at all. Bottom line, elite conservative leadership has been quite happy to play by gentlemen's rules and lose almost every important political and cultural point that mattered to conservatives in the last 40 years."
    .
    The NeverTrump crowd are indeed conservatives. But they put loyalty to their *class* ahead of loyalty to country or their political principles.
    .
    That "class" seems to be without a name since it has many names on which people can not agree: "elites", "establishment", "coastal elites", "cosmopolitan insiders", etc. Or this:

    "The New Class isn’t the super wealthy top 0.1 percent of earners, who are surprisingly egalitarian and have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They’re not the basketball millionaires or the high tech gazillionaires. Instead, they’re the top 10 per cent, the professionals earning more than $200,000 a year, whose toast always falls butter side up and who pass on their advantages to their children. They are skilled in the hyper-technical rules and adept in ever-changing Orwellian Newspeak that are employed to exclude the backward, the eccentric and the politically incorrect. "
    https://spectator.us/2018/08/how-donald-trump-dismantled-the-new-class/
    .
    And:
    "If we’ve become an aristocracy, it’s because of the artificial and unjust rules and institutions that have created a class society, and these include the broken schools and regulatory barriers that liberals support. We’re told that this can’t be changed, but that’s nothing more than a self-serving mythology"

  775. DeWitt Payne (Comment #177952): "She asks how the Republicans are going to defend Trump against those charges. The answer, of course, is the same as the Democrats said about Clinton, that the charges, even if true, do not rise to the level of requiring his removal from office."
    .
    Nah. That is how Republicans like McConnell would defend Trump. But if I am not mistaken, Trump will have his own defense team. They will defend Trump in a Trump approved manner: by going on offense.

    If the charges suggest that Trump asking for an investigation into Ukrainian election meddling was improper since that is a discredited conspiracy theory, then Trump's defense will bring in evidence of meddling and of the Clinton campaign's collusion with that meddling.

    If the charges suggest that Trump asking for investigation of the Biden connection to Burisma is improper since their is nothing to see there, then the Trump team will introduce evidence of the Bidens' corruption and the Obama administration's complicity in that corruption.

    If the charges suggest that Trump going against the bureaucracy is criminal, then Trump's defense team will put the Deep State on trial.
    .
    Br'er Fox has caught Br'er Rabbit and is fixing to throw him into the brier patch.

  776. >They will defend Trump in a Trump approved manner: by going on offense.
    ..
    This is the only effective long term strategy in my view. We have witnessed an unending parade of attacks on Trump. Sooner or later one of these efforts is bound to prevail. The key to stopping this is to impose a cost for attacking.

  777. Mike M,
    “And that is a big part of why he seems so obnoxious:”
    .
    There is no “seems” about it, he is obnoxious. Really, I am hard pressed to remember anyone I have known who is as consistently obnoxious.

  778. Mike M,
    I agree that Trump will go on offense. I think the most enjoyable part will be questions like “Mr. (foreign-policy-drone), based on the US Constitution, who do you believe sets foreign policy for the USA?”

  779. SteveF (Comment #177958): "There is no “seems” about it, he is obnoxious. Really, I am hard pressed to remember anyone I have known who is as consistently obnoxious."
    .
    Have you met Trump? Do you know anyone who has been as consistently in the public eye as Trump, filtered through a hostile media?

    Context matters. The context for Trump is professional politicians, after they have spent thousands of hours being polished into a blur by media consultants.

    Trump's public persona is abrasive. But it is not hard to find people who say that he is actually a nice guy:
    https://www.infowars.com/cnn-trump-probe-backfires-butler-reveals-hes-a-really-nice-guy/
    https://deadline.com/2015/08/donald-trump-the-apprentice-producers-speak-out-1201509008/
    https://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/01/prweb200511.htm

  780. Mike M,
    Trump may not be as horrible off camera as on, and of course I have not met him. He may be a bit the opposite of most politicians (like Hillary!) who are more difficult to like off camera than on. Still, please note that the third link you provided starts with this line:
    .
    "In truth, it seems “The Donald” may not be as much of a prick as the world makes him out to be."
    .
    That is damning with faint praise if I ever heard it. The self promotion, the puffery, the petty lies, the stupid tweets, etc. are awfully hard for most people to take…. even lots of people who voted for him. I reach for the remote to push the mute button when Trump shows up on TV almost as fast as I did for Hillary. I think the main reason Trump won was that the Dems put up the only candidate who is perhaps more difficult to like than Trump; Hillary's disgusting 'deplorables' speech probably cost her Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Now that Trump has a record in office (judicial appointments, strong economy, growing real wages, and very low unemployment), he may win again based on that record. But lots of people who vote for him will continue to think he is a jerk.

  781. I just had a funny thought: the State of the Union address normally takes place in early February; that would likely be during the heat of an impeachment trial (if that actually happens). I think chances are very good that Nancy Pelosi will refuse to allow Trump to speak. Pelosi is nothing if not vindictive. Will Mitch McConnell issue an invite for Trump to speak?

  782. I'd make an exception to my 'listening to Trump' aversion for that. That'd be one for the books.

  783. Mike, There is some substance in your argument. The "elites" are perceived by many as detrimental to the interests of the country and themselves. However for cultural conservatives who still make up a majority of the Republican party, there has been a deep disappointment in the constant string of losses on important issues like gay marriage. That's why evangelicals have been so strong in support of Trump. They are tired of seeing rollbacks of institutions that they believe are not just dictated by God but also necessary to a functioning constitutional Republic. They want results and are willing to accept leadership from a quite morally flawed person (Christian doctrine is that we are all morally flawed) if he brings about positive changes and stops the progress of cultural decline. Trump's judicial appointments have cemented this relationship.

    Never Trumpers are pearl clutchers who are more interested in style and their own perception of their moral purity and self righteous attitude than in political victory and actually making the country better. To improve things you must win political battles.

  784. Found a pretty balanced analysis of Trump and 2020 by Halperin reporting on Dem strategists. Bottom line, they know Trump is a very good politician and showman and is likely to win reelection. Worth the 30 minutes to listen.

    https://quillette.com/2019/11/22/podcast-64-mark-halperin-on-how-to-beat-trump-it-wont-be-easy/

    Mike, I agree that in a Senate trial, it is likely that there will be a lot of collateral damage to Obama, Biden, and other Democrats.

  785. David Young,

    That was worth listening to. The only blind spot I see with Halperin is that he is discussing mainly tactics and methods. What I think he misses is that Trump has done substantive things that help his re-election chances: judicial appointments (finally starting to balance some of the gaga-crazy leftists judges Obama appointed), trying to restrict illegal immigration, reductions in very costly regulations, a strong stock market, strong economy, and rising (real) wages, especially for those earning under the median (~$65,000 for a family). Those issues are the ones I think make Trump's re-election more likely. Being an effective communicator, connecting with voters, etc, is nice, but substance is better.

  786. SteveF, Bill Clinton gave a State of the Union in the middle of his Senate trial. I remember the response was given by some Congressmen and all that was said about impeachment was a reference to the president's 'situation'.

  787. MikeN,
    Yes, but Republicans back then played by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Pelosi most definitely does not. I will be surprised if Pelosi lets Trump speak. BTW, Republicans decided the Queensbury rules were for suckers when Harry Reid eliminated filibusters for all appointments except the SC and proceeded to pack the Federal Courts with a bunch of Obama’s nutcake lefty judges. McConnell warned Reid not to do it. What goes around comes around.

  788. Mike M.,

    When you give examples of Trump going on offense rather than defense in your post above ( http://rankexploits.com/musings/2019/angech-suggests-a-new-thread/#comment-177956 ) I'm reminded of this:

    There's an old legal aphorism that goes, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

    Your examples are all pounding the table. And I was talking about Republicans in general, not Trump.

  789. DeWitt Payne (Comment #177969): "Your examples are all pounding the table."
    .
    Yes they are. But the Dems have neither the facts or law on their side, so their case is pure table pounding. If the case were being tried by judges, countering with facts and law would make sense. But the case will be tried in the court of public opinion. So pounding the table it is.
    .
    One would be foolish indeed to challenge Trump to a table pounding contest.

  790. In today's WSJ, there's an op-ed by Daniel Huff comparing the subpoenaing of eight years of Trumps tax returns by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee from an accounting firm and the House Ways and Means Committee from the IRS with Trumps trying to get the Ukraine government to investigate the Bidens.

    "The U.S. Supreme Court last week blocked a House committee’s subpoena for eight years’ worth of President Trump’s tax returns. The committee will press the matter in further litigation. But the logic that supports the subpoena undercuts House Democratic efforts to impeach Mr. Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. In both cases, the use of official power to get dirt on a political rival is consistent with a broader, and valid, official purpose.

    House ethics rules explicitly prohibit using official resources to oppose a presidential candidate. Yet last April the Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed an accounting firm for the Trump tax records. The demand mirrored one by the House Ways and Means Committee, seeking six years of returns from the Internal Revenue Service. Obtaining these returns was a campaign issue for Democrats in 2016.

    Mr. Trump’s lawyers sought to block the subpoenas as an abuse of power. They argued the claimed legislative purpose was pretextual, and the true motive was to “turn up something that Democrats can use as a political tool against the President now and in the 2020 election.”

    In response to the Ways and Means subpoena, the Justice Department prepared a compelling 33-page memo that argued: “No one could reasonably believe that the Committee seeks six years of President Trump’s tax returns because of a newly discovered interest in legislating on the presidential-audit process.” Democrats argued it doesn’t matter as long as there’s a fig leaf of official purpose. Chairman Richard Neal insisted the administration may not “question or second guess the motivations of the Committee . . . regarding its need for the requested . . . information.”

    Oversight Committee Democrats echoed the point in federal court: “The Supreme Court has consistently noted that the motivations underlying Congressional action are not to be second-guessed, even by the courts.” They cited Barenblatt v. U.S. (1959): “So long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power.” Judge Amit Mehta agreed. Given “facially valid legislative purposes,” he held, “it is not for the court to question whether the committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-probe-trump-taxes-raise-similar-questions-11574634388 (paywalled)

    Huff and I don't see why the same argument doesn't also apply to Trump's actions.

    "Mr. Trump is likewise accused of using his official powers to target a political rival. His defenders also claim a valid official purpose, fighting corruption in Ukraine, which experts at the impeachment hearings acknowledge is a real problem. Fighting foreign corruption falls squarely within the president’s constitutionally assigned foreign-policy and law-enforcement functions. That’s why Mr. Biden was comfortable boasting in 2018 that as vice president he withheld foreign aid to fight corruption in Ukraine.

    Democrats say Mr. Trump’s justification is pretextual. But they’ve also taken the position that one may not look behind a valid official purpose, even in the face of strong evidence of political motivation. That going after Mr. Biden was about Ukrainian corruption is no less plausible than that pursuing Mr. Trump’s tax returns was about legislation."

    But, of course, politicians of all stripes always want to have it both ways.

  791. “We do have an overwhelming amount of evidence to why there was a hold on aide to Ukraine. I would call on Adam Schiff once again to release the deposition transcript of Mark Sandy. Mark is a dedicated career servant at the Office of Budget Management who came in to answer questions with regards to why there was a hold on funds to Ukraine.”

    Congressman Lee Zeldin on TV this weekend.

  792. "But they’ve also taken the position that one may not look behind a valid official purpose, even in the face of strong evidence of political motivation."
    .
    Good point. But it seems to me that there are two big differences between what the Dems are doing and what Trump did. First, the Dems are seeking to investigate Trump's finances from a time when he was not a public official. Second, there is reasonable suspicion that the Bidens' did something wrong.

  793. Mike M.,

    "Second, there is reasonable suspicion that the Bidens' did something wrong."

    Not according to all the newsreaders and most of the other talking heads in the MSM. Any time they mention allegations about the Bidens and Ukraine they always attach a phrase something like 'there's no evidence of wrongdoing.' Of course they never said that about Trump/Russia when it was equally true but with much less reason to believe it might be true. There will never be evidence if you refuse to look for it.

  794. "there's no evidence of wrongdoing."
    .
    I take exception to this. I don't think the sentiment expressed is the one intended. Maybe "there is no proof of wrongdoing". When a prominent politician has a child who gets paid in excess of a hundred thousand dollars a month to sit on the board of a company prominent in one of the politician's sphere's of influence, that *absolutely* qualifies as "evidence of wrongdoing". It's just not conclusive.

  795. DeWitt Payne (Comment #177974): "There will never be evidence if you refuse to look for it."
    .
    mark bofill (Comment #177975): " When a prominent politician has a child who gets paid in excess of a hundred thousand dollars a month to sit on the board of a company prominent in one of the politician's sphere's of influence, that *absolutely* qualifies as 'evidence of wrongdoing'."
    .
    Words have different meanings in different contexts. Mark is correct as to the everyday meaning of evidence. The legal meaning is stricter. And the biased press goes further and says that lack of proof is lack of evidence.
    .
    That is why I chose the term 'reasonable suspicion'. That is what is needed to look for evidence, which is what you need to establish proof. There is most certainly reasonable suspicion of the Bidens. But with regard to Trump's tax returns, there is no reasonable suspicion. It is a pure fishing expedition. Even if all is in perfect order the Dems will use the returns to leak things that can be made to look like dirt.
    .
    p.s. – Stuff like this is why Trump supporters are not going to waver in their support of Trump.

  796. SteveF (Comment #177962)
    "the State of the Union address normally takes place in early February; I think chances are very good that Nancy Pelosi will refuse to allow Trump to speak. Will Mitch McConnell issue an invite for Trump to speak?"
    There was debate on this last time. Basically it has to be done in the House of Reps with Pelosi's imprimatur.
    Trump tried to get the Senate to OK it but failed.
    He could do a fireside chat instead.

  797. angech,
    “Basically it has to be done in the House of Reps with Pelosi's imprimatur.”
    .
    Nah, there is no such requirement in law nor in the Constitution. The president is required by the Constitution to prepare an annual statement to Congress. For nearly all the first 100+ years (starting with Jefferson) that was a written statement, not a speech. McConnell most certainly could invite Trump to deliver his speech in the Senate. Heck, Trump could refuse to deliver a speech in the House, and instead deliver one in the Senate, or just send a brief written statement to Congress if he wanted. Jimmy Carter didn’t give a speech after he lost his reelection, he just sent a written statement.

  798. Mike M. and mark bofill,

    I believe the term of art is 'probable cause'. That's what's necessary to get a search warrant, for example. Whether there was actually probable cause to get a FISA court wiretap of Carter Page is an interesting question that the MSM has not only refused to investigate but has actively discouraged investigation. If the Steele dossier was, in fact, the only thing the FBI had, then there likely wasn't probable cause for the original wiretap order, much less the renewals.

  799. DeWitt Payne (Comment #177979): "I believe the term of art is 'probable cause'. That's what's necessary to get a search warrant, for example."
    .
    Probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. It is sufficient to issue search and arrest warrants and to indict. To reach that level typically requires an investigation. The authorities can not start an investigation (at least, not legally) just because they feel like it. They need reasonable suspicion. That is where things stand with the Bidens.

  800. DeWitt, Mike M,
    I think it is complicated:
    https://thelawdictionary.org/article/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/
    .
    I do not know if the appearance of corruption (Burisma/Bidens) falls within the legal definition of reasonable suspicion. That said, I am certain most reasonable people would agree the appearance of corruption with Burisma and the Bidens justifies further investigation and specifically complete disclosure of what contacts Joe Biden and Hunter Biden (or his associates) had with the Department of State.
    That sounds to me perfectly reasonable.

  801. I almost posted what Steve just said earlier but got sidetracked.
    So: What Steve just said.
    Add to it this – I almost don't care what the standard is. I just want whatever the standard is to be applied consistently, regardless of it's an Obama or a Biden or a Trump.

  802. mark bofill,
    "I just want whatever the standard is to be applied consistently, regardless of it's an Obama or a Biden or a Trump."
    .
    No, no, no… you have to adjust the standard based on the known ethical purity of the person. Since everyone knows the Trumps are all unethical, they must always be subjected to extreme scrutiny, while 'good people' like the Bidens, Obamas, and Clintons need no scrutiny at all… ever. /sarc

  803. Steve,
    No seriously, I understand that urge. I want Trump in office because I like the policy outcomes. I *hope* the guy doesn't turn out to be so much of a snake that we have to do something about it. I'm sure lots of people feel the same way about Presidents they like.
    But I could live with it a lot easier if everybody was willing to play by the same rules, I guess. Because when only one side gets held to account, the game is crooked, and at that point nobody cares about the rules anymore.

  804. I guess what I was thinking is that I'm not sure if anyone ~really~ believes the Obamas or Bidens or (god have mercy) the Clintons are noble, ethical people. I think their people support their ideology, just like I support mine. But if you want me to denounce my guy when he does something dirty, you gotta be willing to do the same. I don't see that and I don't think most Trump supporters see that right now. For goodness sakes, how was it OK to investigate Trump for years based on DNC oppo research and yet how can it be NOT OK to investigate Biden for possible corruption in the Ukraine? [Ugh. The rhetorical questions. Apologies. My answer is – it can't be OK and NOT OK depending on the guy]. There are ways to rationalize it, but the rationalizations don't make the underlying imbalance go away.
    …rant rant.. I have no point at this point. Just ranting.

  805. mark bofill,
    “I want Trump in office because I like the policy outcomes.”
    .
    Were that everyone was so honest. Very few are, and virtually nobody on the left is. The endless ‘Trump scandals’ are, and have always been, fundamentally a deep disagreement about public policy. The pearl clutching, the Schiff tears, the expletive shouting socialists, and the endless, pointless and counterproductive investigations of ‘misconduct’ by Trump are nothing but window dressing. Trump is doing things the left hates, and they want him gone…… by any means available. End of story.

  806. To get a FISA warrant on a US citizen, you have to show(at whatever standard) not just that they are a foreign agent, but also that they are or will be breaking the law. I'm curious to see what crime they will accuse Carter Page.

  807. This is astonishing, but not really surprising:

    "American democracy is in serious danger. It’s time for respected civic heavyweights get off the sidelines — that’s retired generals and admirals, former Cabinet officers, corporate executives, university presidents, ex-mayors, governors and members of Congress; religious leaders and even entertainment and sports figures — and band together to defend it."
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/26/heavyweights_must_act_to_save_democracy_141813.html
    .
    In order to save democracy we need an oligarchy!
    .
    The author does attack extremists on both left and right, but also goes in for the calumny of Trump as would be dictator.

    What he is really arguing for is the defense of the establishment elites.

  808. Mike N,
    "I'm curious to see what crime they will accuse Carter Page."
    .
    Page was never involved in a crime. They never accused him of any crime, and they never will.
    .
    They wanted a way to gather information showing Trump was a Russian 'asset'. Page was their entry into the Trump campaign, nothing more. They could not have cared less about Page or his nonexistent "crimes"; the target was (and is!) Trump.

  809. SteveF, they DID accuse him of a crime. It is in the redacted portion of the FISA warrant. They cannot get this warrant without describing a crime as Page is a US citizen.

  810. Mike N,
    An accusation clearly without merit. No charges were ever brought, nor will they ever be. It was all a means to get at Trump. Honestly, if Page had been consulting with a small newspaper in Wisconsin, would they have sought an FSIA warrant? I really doubt it.

  812. MikeN,
    I guess a fig leaf can take the form of a redaction in an FISA application. Since the existence of a FISA warrant is an implicit accusation of criminal activity, I should think Page himself would have standing to sue the DOJ for defamation unless they reveal the crime he was accused of.

  813. SteveF (Comment #177993): "I should think Page himself would have standing to sue the DOJ for defamation unless they reveal the crime he was accused of."
    .
    I don't think so. The prosecutors would no doubt claim absolute immunity. Even if that does not apply, there could be no claim for defamation since the FISA warrant was secret.
    .
    Page might be able to sue for violation of his civil rights. But to do that he'd have to argue that absolute immunity does not apply on the grounds that the investigators were not actually performing their proper duties. My impression is that immunity applied so generously that such a case would be virtually impossible to win.

  814. Mike M,
    Unfortunately, you may be correct that the DOJ would claim absolute immunity, and the Federal courts would likely agree. Which is why criminal lawyers say: even if you know you are 100% innocent, never talk to law enforcement officers, because they are utterly above the law, and can do terrible, dishonest things to entrap you without any consequence.
    .
    But it still seems unreasonable that the DOJ could disclose the existence of the Page FISA warrant, implicitly a public claim of likely criminal acts by Page, yet refuse to disclose what those acts were. They put Page in the position of being under suspicion of criminal acts, but unable to dispute that suspicion. I mean, Page wants the claimed criminal activity disclosed, so I think it risible the DOJ should want to ‘protect’ Page by not telling anybody (even him!) what the alleged crimes were. Being able to show the FISA warrants were based on rubbish is the only way Page can fully remove suspicion of criminal acts.
    .
    Trump can disclose what the claimed criminal acts were if he chooses; I am a bit surprised he hasn’t.

  815. Under what circumstances did DoJ disclose the existence of the warrant? I think it would make a difference if it was voluntary or forced by other events.

    Sadly, I think that law enforcement is allowed to out people under suspicion without allowing for a real response. Unidicted co-conspirators. Or arresting someone, then dropping the charges.

    I was not aware that Page had requested public disclosure of why he was under suspicion. And I was not aware that he is not allowed to know that. That is just wrong.

    ————–
    SteveF: "Trump can disclose what the claimed criminal acts were if he chooses; I am a bit surprised he hasn’t."
    .
    Perhaps he has has some paranoid concern that if he crosses the Deep State, he will be accused of high crimes and misdemeanors.

  816. Mike M,
    I believe disclosure was 'forced' on the DOJ in July of 2018 by freedom of information lawsuits by news organizations, which Trump apparently told the DOJ to stop fighting. The disclosed FISA application was (and remains to this day) heavily redacted.
    .
    "Perhaps he has has some paranoid concern that if he crosses the Deep State, he will be accused of high crimes and misdemeanors."
    .
    Humor aside, it does seem Trump wants most of the Page FISA information declassified, but the DOJ is *still* resisting: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/politics/carter-page-fisa-disclosures/index.html
    .
    Unbelievable. I suspect there is a combination of CYA and some honest desire to provide zero information on methods…. that is, to not allow any specific factual information to imply the methods used to gather it. But mostly CYA of staff at intelligence agencies acting with very poor judgement and with very dubious (AKA political) motives.

  817. If you want a good laugh, scan through the "disclosed" FISA applications and Court approvals. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1338-carter-page-fisa-documents-foi/844b27afa687de0dbee7/optimized/full.pdf
    .
    The documents disclosed nothing of substance, but repeat the same claims each time: that Page is a Russian agent and either in violation of US law or about to violate US law. Not sure exactly how they couldn't bring charges against him after seeing all his communications for 9 months. They don't even disclose the agent running the investigation (maybe Peter Strzok?). The disclosure is a joke; it needs to be close to 100% declassified, including the names of all the people involved.

  818. "I suspect there is a combination of CYA and some honest desire to provide zero information on methods"
    .
    That is a big problem with secret stuff; legitimate concerns can easily be hijacked in the service of CYA. There should be some procedure, not dependent on the whims of bureaucrats, to do right by citizens who have been wronged.

    Maybe the IG report will help to penetrate the veil.

  819. Good grief. Tonight on ABC I hear that Rudy Guiliani pursued 'lucrative' business deals while in the Ukraine, which raise concerns about conflict of interests. To the tune of some 300K, sounds like. The deal didn't go through.
    .
    But let's say it all together with me one time. "There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden."

Comments are closed.