Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

Is Russia Influencing Trump’s Thoughts on Energy?

What the Republican presidential candidate’s comments about oil and natural gas say about geopolitics.

By Comments

The Patterson 298 natural gas fueled drilling rig drills on land in the Permian Basin that is owned by Apache Corporation on February 5, 2015 in Mentone, Texas.The rig, which is only 21 days old, is the first drilling rig in Texas that is 100-percent fueled by natural gas.
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Is the Republican presidential nominee in cahoots with the Kremlin? As recently as four years ago, that would have been an absurd question. But back then, of course, the candidate in question was the eminently normal Mitt Romney. This time around, it’s Donald Trump, who recently appealed to Russia (“if you’re listening,” he added, plaintively) to commit espionage against Hillary Clinton, now the official Democratic nominee. This was such a brazenly insane thing for a presidential candidate to say that the outrage it elicited actually registered with Trump, who took to cable news yesterday to insist that he was just “being sarcastic.”

Perhaps this is Trump’s attempt to add some levity to an unusually contentious election cycle, but I’m not sure his joke was well advised. Nor was this appeal to the Russian hackers the first detail about the 2016 election that should raise concerns about whether Moscow is trying to meddle in our affairs. A number of people from various parts of the political spectrum have flagged this concern. Erick Erickson is one example; Franklin Foer is another; I’ve also noted some oddities along the way, including, back in February, with Trump’s oddly fervent defense of Vladimir Putin.

And now Trump’s recent comments have me thinking about an issue dear to Texans: the energy industry. It’s my view that any presidential candidate’s energy policy should be evaluated as not just energy policy but foreign policy. Trump’s ideas on the subject are surely music to Putin’s ears. Trump’s official plan, as described on his campaign website, is more or less boilerplate. But in the past year, he’s said two things that are strange enough on their own and troubling when taken together.

First, Trump has repeatedly called for America to “take the oil” of Middle Eastern countries, specifically Iraq, Libya, and Saudi Arabia. At the Republican debate in South Carolina, for example, he insisted—angrily and falsely—that he had been opposed to the Iraq war from day one. He then went on to claim that he had long advocated a different approach to the region: “I also said, by the way, four years ago, three years ago, attack the oil, take the wealth away, attack the oil, and keep the oil.” As with his signature policy proposal, the border wall, it remains unclear if the idea is metaphorical; Trump has certainly never explained how one would go about commandeering the oil, or how he would respond to the various objections the countries in question would inevitably raise. Still, he has been a ferocious and tireless advocate for the idea. It’s a dubious proposal, but his support for it is seemingly sincere.

The second notable comment Trump has offered on American energy policy came in May, when Robert Murray, the founder and CEO of an eponymous coal company, told attendees at the Virginia Coal and Energy Alliance about a meeting that he recently had with the candidate, at Trump’s request. According to Murray, Trump had asked him a number of questions about energy policy. One of them, Murray noted, was, “What’s LNG?”

Per the Energy Information Administration, natural gas, which can be converted to a liquefied form for storage or transport, accounted for almost 30 percent of the energy consumed in the United States last year. I suppose it’s possible that a seventy-year-old American businessman and presumptive Republican nominee for president has never heard of liquefied natural gas, or LNG as it’s called for short, but natural gas is a pretty important component of the U.S. energy portfolio. And, as you would probably know if you had read a single issue of the Wall Street Journal at any point in the past five years, America’s ongoing growth in natural gas production has been the key driver of the concurrent plunge in coal consumption.

In other words, a presidential candidate who requests a meeting with a coal executive and proceeds to ask him what LNG is, well, that’s a presidential candidate who appears to not know a thing about the energy industry and didn’t even bother to read the Wikipedia entry on “Energy in the United States.”

That Trump is such a presidential candidate puts his calls to “take the oil” of OPEC countries in an unsettling new light, especially if you consider the recent historical context. Back in December 2014, I wrote a post calling for Texans to remain calm despite the drop in oil prices. There was handwringing over the dip, so I wanted to reassure readers who feared a repeat of the eighties oil bust that the Texas economy writ large is more vulnerable to drops in oil output than drops in oil prices. I also wanted to remind readers that in the oil industry, a drop in prices doesn’t necessarily signal a drop in production. As I wrote then, “The laws of supply and demand . . . are distorted by considerations about things like geopolitics, infrastructure, financing and the physical properties of oil itself, such as the fact that it flows around underground.”

Let’s zero in on an example of how politics specifically can affect oil prices. At the time of my writing, Saudi Arabia was producing too much oil to make sense from a strictly business perspective, and thus selling its product at a loss. The country could have easily constricted production, thereby raising global oil prices. But here’s an important fact about Saudi Arabia, the largest oil-producing country in the world: it’s a kingdom with cash reserves. A Houston oilman brought that up to me back in 2014 when I asked him if I was overlooking anything about how the oil price drop would affect Texas. In other words, Saudi Arabia could afford to sell oil at a loss for a while, and so, the oilman reckoned, it would.

The country’s production levels were being driven by geopolitical concerns. So while Saudi Arabian production was making life hard for oilmen in the second-largest oil-producing country—the United States—the strategy was actually targeted at the third-biggest oil-producing country, one that has an economy that is less industrialized than ours, less diversified, an ambitious country, to be sure, but one that relies on oil revenues to balance its budget. In other words, Saudi Arabian production was messing with Russia. (Saudi Arabia continues to use this strategy.)

So I think it’s very much worth noting that Trump, who is so poorly informed about the energy industry that he literally asked a coal executive what LNG is in May, is trumpeting a bizarre proposal to “take the oil” of Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, a tricky plan that would involve various risks for the United States—but not for Russia, which would be the direct beneficiary of any success we might have on their behalf. Trump’s desire to “take the oil” may be nothing more than a coincidence. It’s hard to tell with that guy. And in all seriousness, I highly doubt he’s proposing it as a personal favor to Putin. But Trump has a number of associates—such as Paul Manafort, with extensively documented ties to Russia—and Putin himself showed us back in February that Trump is suggestible soil. Someone presumably planted this seed. And given that we have legitimate cause to ask whether that person’s concerns are aligned with those of the United States—regardless of the answer, that should be cause for concern.

Related Content

  • John Bernard Books

    Don’t look at me I didn’t vote for him……millions of dems did tho…..

    • BCinBCS

      No JBB, millions of Democrats did not vote for Trump.

      This is the third time that I have corrected your mistake about this. Research has determined that the additional votes that Trump received in the primary election were from Republicans that do not normally vote in the primaries but do vote in the general election. (The consequences of this are apparent for his probable vote totals in the general in November.)

      JBB, please try to keep up. You might also try expanding your source of information beyond the conservative apology rags that you currently read. Having a well rounded knowledge base would keep you from appearing so foolish.

      • dave in texas

        I’m pretty sure keeping up is beyond his abilities. I thought it was pretty funny that he mentioned that he didn’t vote for Trump. That hasn’t stopped him from full-throatedly defending every racist, bigoted statement and lie that’s come out of Trump’s mouth over the last few months, though.

        • Beerman

          Dave, folks like the Troll can’t seem to see the big picture. What is really interesting and eye-opening to me is that the working class voters, like the Troll, that have been the most damaged by Corporate America and their trickle-down economic policies have joined the Trump takeover of the Republican movement. The working middle-class is getting screwed and they have fallen in love with one of the greedy billionaire characters that has always screwed them. It is like a soap-box opera….it blows my mind.

      • Wilson James

        I couldn’t see what he said….other than “this user is blocked”. I advise the option.

      • John Bernard Books

        How many times do I have to post this before it sinks in….
        “Using 2000 and 2008 as baselines, the conclusion was staggering. Trump only got about 3.3 million Republican Votes. The rest are Democrats, approximately 12 million of them.”
        http://www.redstate.com/diary/creinstein/2016/06/25/12-million-democrats-voted-republican-primaries/

        My Dad gave me sound advice on how to deal with dems. He said, “Son you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make ’em drink.”
        So I said, “Then the best thing to do is just hold their head under water?”

        yep…..

        • Cory Youngblood

          If you really believe 12 million …MILLION…democrats voted for Trump…. i can’t even finish posting this because even YOU don’t believe what you’re saying.

          Go back to Moscow and have some borscht, now, spaci bo comrade.

        • BCinBCS

          JBB, you have stated many times that Democrats have crossed-over to elect Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. With recent analysis I have tried to correct that fallacy. In your latest attempt to state that Trump’s election is due to Democrats you presented as evidence what is apparently the original RedState June 25, 2016 article that started this controversy. In it, Michael Harrington claims that of 15.3 million votes, 3.3 million were from Republicans and 12 million were from Democrats. In other words, 78% of Donald Trump’s votes were from Democrats while only 22% of the votes were from Republicans who wanted him as their President. Despite that this makes no common sense, let’s look at some facts:

          When questioned about his methodology, the author of this controversy had this to say about his conclusions (emphasis is mine): “My data sources may not be perfect, do you know how many results I can get today for a given Primary election on a given year? It can be scary bad. Getting Secretary of State information can be extremely difficult which means I have usually used numbers that seem to be the most logical, from the best seeming sources.

          Politico looked at the same data and came up with a different conclusion. It found that : “While Trump’s insurgent candidacy has spurred record-setting Republican primary turnout in state after state, the early statistics show that the vast majority of those voters aren’t actually new to voting or to the Republican Party, but rather they are reliable past voters in general elections. They are only casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time.

          When Politico presented their conclusions to Alex Lundry, the director of data science for Mitt Romney in 2012, he said “All he seems to have done is bring new people into the primary process, not bring new people into the general-election process … It’s exciting that these new people that are engaged in the primary but those people are people that are already going to vote Republican in the [fall]. It confirms what my suspicion has been all along.

          Others have stated”… for the crossover hypothesis to stand, evidence would shown [sic] that where the contests are closed, Trump did win and only won contests that are open. But the facts [sic] is that out of 28 closed primaries, Trump won 19, to Cruz won 8 and Rubio won 1; this result clearly defies crossover theory.”

          Finally, there is yet one more bit of damning evidence against the original author’s conclusion that was presented by a commenter. It is that: “… I cannot forget that this [Michael Harrington] is the same diarist that, through his in depth analysis, assured us that Cruz had already effectively won the primary in April and that Trump had less than a 1% chance of winning. There may well be some confirmation bias in his analysis.“.

          JBB, I eagerly await your reply with supporting evidence for your continued adherence to this fallacy.

          • Beerman

            Good analysis…well done. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️’S

  • WUSRPH

    A bully with a bully’s approach to the world.

    • Beerman

      A very thin-skin Bully……..

      “A man who can be baited by a tweet should never be given nuclear weapons.”

      • dave in texas

        Other than Khizr Khan’s speech, that was the best line of the night.

        • WUSRPH

          A speech that the Fox Network somehow did not feel was worth broadcasting…

          • Sam Jacinto

            Hmmm. Neither did they show General Allen’s.

          • Cory Youngblood

            OH anything that might POSSIBLY sway swing voters and republican voters the GOP just plain didn’t broadcast. And yes, last night, Geraldo Rivera actually endorsed Hillary but without saying the words. man did Hannity blow a gasket at him.

          • dave in texas

            word

        • BCinBCS

          Dave, I wrote a reply late in the life of the previous thread Onward to Philadelphia. In it, I give my opinion on the speeches by Hillary Clinton (meh), Michigan ex-Governor Jennifer Granholm (she need a lot less caffeine) and Khizr Kahn.

          I feel so strongly about Kahn’s speech that I would like to repeat the post here. I wrote: “Finally, the home run speech of the night was a short, less than ten minute speech given by Khizr Kahn about his son, Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq protecting his soldiers. It was the “must hear” speech of the night. I urge everyone to take nine minutes and watch it. It can be found here:
          http://www.pbs.org/newshour/videos/#188762
          “.

          I stand by my request, everyone should see it.

          • BCinBCS

            You know how I feel about Kahn’s speech, now let’s get Trump’s reaction to it – and I’ll let Ezera Klein over at Vox speak for me:

            On ABC this morning, Trump responded to Khan’s speech. I don’t know what I expected from Trump.

            [snip]

            “If you look at his wife, she was standing there,” he [Trump] said, on national television. “She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”

            This wasn’t a slip of the tongue. In an interview with Maureen Dowd, Trump took the same tack. “I’d like to hear his wife say something,” he said.

            Let’s be very clear about what Trump is doing here: as ABC wrote, he’s suggesting “Khan’s wife didn’t speak because she was forbidden to as a Muslim.” This is bullshit. It is flatly, verifiably, false. But that’s almost beside the point.

            [snip]

            If you would like to see Ghazala Khan speak, you can do so in this interview she gave to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. As Fallows writes, she breaks down sobbing while speaking of her son. It suggests she let her husband give the DNC speech for a simple reason: she remains overwhelmed by grief.

            This is the woman Trump decided to slander. This is the gauge of his cruelty.

            This isn’t partisan. This isn’t left vs. right. Mitt Romney never would have said this. John McCain never would have said this. George W. Bush never would have said this. John Kerry never would have said this. This is what I mean when I write that the 2016 election isn’t simply Democrat vs. Republican, but normal vs. abnormal.

            The complete article is here:
            http://www.vox.com/2016/7/30/12332922/donald-trump-khan-muslim

          • BCinBCS

            As I learn of more and more of Trump’s bad behavior, I have been racking my brain for a way to put him in his place as Joseph N. Welch did to Joseph McCarthy when he asked him at one of the Army-McCarthy hearings, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

            Well, I found it and it is courtesy of the Reverend Maureen Gill who wrote via Facebook about Trump’s reaction to Ms. Kahn not speaking at the Democratic convention. She wrote:

            GOD I’M SPITTING MAD. THIS IS FOR TRUMP: Trump, you incomprehensible, despicable bully, you stinking cowardly sociopath, how DARE YOU ask why Mrs. Khan was quiet as her husband spoke!

            My GOD, you are a cold, nasty bastard! Every person with a heart understood WHY that shattered, grieving woman stood in stoic, grace-filled silence as her dear husband called you out for the nothing you really are…

            Honest to God, you are a hate-filled monster: HAVE YOU NO SHAME? HAVE YOU NOT AN IOTA OF HUMAN DECENCY?

            You’re such a clueless, vicious hedonistic, narcissist that your crippled mind can’t imagine how anyone could speak volumes in dignified silence or how any mother could not bear to open her mouth publicly about her hero son’s death… instead of looking at this brave AMERICAN MOTHER and seeing what every other decent human being saw, seeing her unbearable heart break and struggle to not break down, YOU have to suggest, imply, insinuate that she was silent out of some forced cultural or religious coercion. My GOD, you are a loathsome bottom feeder.

            And BTW, THIS is what that gracious, grieving AMERICAN MOTHER OF A WAR HERO SAID TO LAWRENCE O’DONNELL:

            “First of all, I thank all America who listened from their heart to my husband’s and my heart, and I’m so grateful for that. And it was very nervous because I cannot see my son’s picture, and I cannot even come in the room where his pictures are. That’s why when I saw the picture at my back I couldn’t take it, and I controlled myself at that time. So, it is very hard.”

            DONALD TRUMP: YOU ARE A DISGRACE; A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A MAN. CONTEMPTIBLE.

      • WUSRPH

        That is the case with all bullies…..They strike out at the world because they are so frightened of all of the rest of us….

  • BCinBCS

    After observing Trump since he became a serious contender as the Republican presidential candidate, I have come to the conclusion that what he knows about foreign policy could fit in my little toe. And, what he knows about domestic policy could fit in my next-to little toe. How anyone can take his candidacy seriously is beyond me.

    • Wilson James

      Agreed. Not only is he ill-prepared emotionally, his lack of knowledge is frightening. How could such a man rise to the leadership of the conservative movement in this country? All the comments and criticisms levied on him by the D’s ring true. Vote for him? Not to be overly rude but that would take a very severe case of stupid.

      • Cory Youngblood

        The GOP gave birth to him and it all started with their completely ridiculous reaction to the first Clinton presidency with talk radio, rush limbaugh, etc, steadily pushing over the top propaganda to people who previously only voted GOP because of abortion. and now those same people believe everything that’s fed to them. WE SERIOUSLY had someone on national TV during the RNC say that Hillary Clinton was in league with Lucifer. How do you use logic to argue with someone who is functioning on belief instead of logic?

    • Beerman

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

      Interesting breakdown on Trump’s lawsuit history. Note how many personal claims are settled by Trump to keep detailed info from public records? There is an old saying about, “where there is smoke, there is a fire.” Unbelievable history of screwing people…….

      • Cory Youngblood

        never thought about that but great point!

    • Cory Youngblood

      Only an insane person would support him, unless they just plain never pay attention to the news. And yes, i’m sure i’ll get jumped on by KGB trolls telling me “you can’t trust the ‘MSM’ media.”

      This is so out there ridiculous it’s unreal.

  • Beerman

    Just read an article making the point that Trump should be pressured into releasing his Tax returns to disprove any connections with Russian oligarchs. “Voters need to know if we have a Manchuria Candidate with the keys to the Oval Office who is under control of a foreign power. Voters deserve very clear evidence that that is not the case.”

    Democratic Party needs to stay on this demand and question the Russian connection every day. Many left-center right-center independent voters, like myself, are concerned about the possible Trump business/ideology connection with Putin and the Russian Mob. It is a legitimate concern for all Americans.

    • Saint Berach

      No less legitimate are Clinton Foundation donations from countries, like Saudi Arabia, for whom Secretary Clinton approved armament purchases — speaking of Manchurian Candidates under the influence of foreign powers.

      The Clinton foundation should be pressured into releasing their donations list to disprove any connections to foreign governments and Hillary’s political positions and/or activities as a Cabinet secretary.

      • Supposing that those donations, that all of their books, were made public and Saudi Arabia or a member of their royal family donated to that charity, exactly how does that prove that Secretary Clinton approved armament purchases? Purchases that would require the approval of several republican controlled committees, the Pentagon, the Intelligence community and the President?

        That’s the problem with 99% of the claims against Hillary, they don’t stand up to facts & logic. The people like yourself that keep repeating them aren’t stopping long enough to actually think them through. They sound plausible enough that what little is understood about how offices like the Secretary of State, Defense, Treasury, etc work that people are allowing their emotions to accept the claims as true with minimal examination to see if they hold true.

        • Beerman

          Bingo…..

      • WUSRPH

        They already disclosed there contributors:

        https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors

        But you knew that. You just wanted to lie about them again.

        • Beerman

          Thanks, good info.

          It is a shame that we can’t get similar info on Trump’s real world of finance?

          I know, I know it is coming and it will be AMAZING…AMAZING…BELIEVE ME…BELIEVE ME…

          • WUSRPH

            I know you are being sarcastic. Nothing Trump will “reveal” will tell anyone anything.

          • Sam Jacinto

            But we just have to wait for that pesky audit

      • Cory Youngblood

        no. just stop. Enough of this “hillary is JUST as bad as Trump” fake BS narrative.

        This is insane that we’re seriously discussing whether or not Trump’s relationship with Putin is acceptable or not. No sane person supports this guy.

        Yes. If you support Trump for president, you are not sane. Including you.

  • Erica,
    I’ve read a several articles that have pointed out or outlined how connected and dependent on Russian financing Trump is for his businesses. A couple have also mentioned how vulnerable he is to suggestion by those that flatter him. One author went so far as to call it naiveté.

    In his own words he has said he wouldn’t be hostile to Putin since the man called Trump a genius. If anything can be learned is the inherent flaw that having business experience doesn’t automatically translate to governing.

    Honestly, at this point we should call a spade a spade. Trump’s words and business dealings, are at bare minimum borderline treasonous. It’s not that he’s clueless or not clever enough to see what he has mired himself in, if is just that he is unable to actually look at future outcomes beyond whatever vague idea that will support his goal for present that he has in mind. This is a typical trait of narcissists, they are unable to plan for the future in any concrete manner beyond what will achieve their immediate goals. It is why there is nothing outlined as plans for how to enact his policies. Why all of his policies are just feel good platitudes, soundbites if you will, and why whenever a reporter or opponent challenges the lack of substance he gets enraged and shouts how we don’t need the details we should just trust him to do what he says he will.

    An advisor who called for Hillary to be executed, multiple allegations of rape, his lies, so many bankruptcies and defaults that US that most western banks refuse to loan him money, his lies, lawsuits numbering over a thousand, many of his top advisors beholden to either Russia or the Bratva, his consistent and unrepentant lies, his joyful and gleeful racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and xenophobic bigotry, and I haven’t even begun to get into his ridiculous claims of how he would make America great.

    Any single one of those I listed make him unsuitable for any elected office, yet he was nominated by the republican party to be president. There is not a rational reason that people would ignore or defend such claims as those that have been leveled against Trump. And yet they do. God save us all.

    • Beerman

      Amen…

  • Rules of Blazon

    Man o man, we crushed that convention. Glad it’s over, though, because now we can really hammer Trump on his ties to Russia.

    We are gonna crush this election!

    • Cory Youngblood

      I hope so. I wanted to reach through the tv and smack EVERY single one of those “Im not sure who I’m gonna vote for…maybe Jill Stein” people there.

      • Sam Jacinto

        Green party has had ZERO electors, ZERO house seats, ZERO senate seats, but they did put one republican in the White House, along with darth vader.

        • WUSRPH

          But they are so “pure”……Of course there was that thing a few years ago about one of Rick Perry’s big backers helping third parties get on the ballot in order to divert votes away from the Democratic candidates.

      • Rules of Blazon

        I feel ya. They were so ridiculous. Maturity level of middle schoolers. But they truly do not matter.

  • John Bernard Books

    Did ya forget?….I didn’t
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYGsadcBiFA

    • Cory Youngblood

      weak.

      • John Bernard Books

        Cory go play at the kiddie table before you get spanked…..

  • John Bernard Books

    Two years?!?
    ““Cincinnati was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity,” Nancy Marks, a senior official at the IRS, told the FBI. That was in the summer of 2011. The public wouldn’t learn of the scandal until May 2013.”
    http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/28/obama-administration-knew-of-irs-scandal-2-years-before-congress-but-did-nothing/

    Dems have been using the IRS to target US Citizens. Time to vote all dem politicians out.

    • Cory Youngblood

      Just stop. Go back to your friends at the KGB and have a vodka.

  • John Bernard Books

    Did you believe her?
    “Hillary Clinton said she was not interested in taking away guns from Americans during her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, in spite of her past comments on the issue.”
    http://freebeacon.com/issues/641146/

    I’m pretty sure no one did…..

    • Cory Youngblood

      I believe her more than Trump who has yet to say one truthful thing besides his opinion.

  • Sam Jacinto

    An open letter to Donald J Trump:

    Dear Mr Trump,

    You are a genius of the first order – the greatest businessman the world has ever known. Your wealth and good taste are further examples of your incalculable merit. You are never wrong, and your sage wisdom is worthy of its own encyclopedia. I write to you to implore you not to waste your talents on such a menial office as President of the United States. You will encounter far too many obstructionists and nay-sayers worthy of being fired, but pesky laws and petulant judges will hinder you from firing them (and many of them may be Mexicans). Better you should use your talents to leave for future generations the accumulated knowledge that you have had since the beginning and concrete reminders of your greatness.

    I humbly suggest that you, alone, can achieve the greatest feat of construction of all time. Being bogged down in the mundane duties of office will prevent you from completing this wonderful feat. You, and you alone, can construct in each of the world’s capitals the finest hotel in each country, marked with your name in lights at the top. Your legacy – for all the world’s future generations – a reminder of the greatness that is Trump for now and always.

    • Cory Youngblood

      brilliant. it reminds me of the part in Drag Me From Hell when the Lamia demon is possessing Adriana Barraza, and Dileep Rao tries to reason with him and kisses his butt and try to make him not take Alison Lohman’s soul.

  • John Bernard Books

    Trump trounces Hillary…..
    “Updated returns for Clinton’s speech, delivered during the 10 o’clock hour on nearly all television networks, offer a tally of 33.7 million viewers from the four broadcast networks and three cablers with coverage. Trump brought in 34.9 million viewers across all nets carrying the speech.”
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-hillary-clintons-dnc-915706

    Bill slept through Hillary’s rant like most Americans…..

    • Cory Youngblood

      No. He didn’t.

      • John Bernard Books

        Cory you can have an opinion but not you’re own set of facts….

    • BCinBCS

      Everybody loves to watch a train wreck.

      • John Bernard Books

        empty seats and sounds machines do not count….

  • John Johnson

    Erica, you had to bend and stretch a bunch to get all the pieces of this thread to loosely fit together, didn’t you? It reminds me of the WaPo articles I read every morning on Trump. They hate him, too.

    Your boy got beat; your boy made stupid strategic mistakes; your boy’s political future is over. It’s tough for you to take. I get that.

    I just can’t understand your slinging muck at Trump and giving the slimiest, connivingest, stinkiest woman alive a walk.

    Furthermore, you come off in this thread as playing some sort of expert’s role in educating ignorant readers. You are nothing more than another person with an opinion to give. Here, you’ve done so, based on a story you read about Trump asking a guy what LNG was. Really?

    • WUSRPH

      JJ I really am sorry to see you get more and more alike the Troll everyday….You used to contribute something to the debate, but in recent weeks you’ve gotten farther and farther off the topic into some sort of a fixation with insulting Erica. It doesn’t bother her a bit….Nor should it since it gets more and more childish. Now go ahead and insult me…..

      P.S. Why do you want her to say nasty things about Ann Coulter? I don’t think Erica is giving her “a walk”. She just has not had any reason to write about her.

      • Sam Jacinto

        5 stars for the postscript

    • Sam Jacinto

      Why do you hate Hillary? Facts, not talking points.
      Here’s why I think she is so reviled.
      1. She is an educated, smart woman who refused to stay in her place.
      2. She declined to act in the “traditional” role of first lady.
      3. She is not “arm candy”
      4. She insisted on including her maiden name – a threat to traditional “values”
      5. She has been hounded by the republican smear machine with false memes (killed Vince Foster, Whitewater, commie, socialist, killed Amb Stevens et al, , “takes a village” is commie big gummint BS, coming for your guns, socialized medicine, committed crimes, “it doesn’t matter”, and on and on)
      6. She led the healthcare fight, but then the REPUBLICAN plan became Obamacare.
      7. She didn’t want to be Tammy Wynette
      8. She had a gawky red-headed kid
      9. She has cankles
      10. She married Bill
      11. She is a lawyer with lawyerly answers that are easily misinterpreted by those who don’t listen.

      Republicans have wasted MILLIONS investigating her for the past 25 years with NOTHING to show for it.

      What is your list?

    • Cory Youngblood

      No. Nobody is twisting anything. These are DEMONSTRABLE FACTS:
      Trump loves Putin and asked the KGB to meddle with our election on live TV.
      Trump has no plans. Only rhetoric.
      Trump has no impulse control.

      Jesus the list is endless. WE are NOT against Trump because we hate him. We are against him because he’s nuts, acts like Hitler (no matter how much you hate that, but he does), and doesn’t have the temperament to run a McDonald’s, much less a freaking country.

      You are insane.

      • Beerman

        CY,

        JJ is far from being insane. I have followed him on this blog for quite awhile and he is not an idiot. He is just tired of politicians riding the government gravy train to enrich themselves. (I am, too). I believe that he is just fed up with the dishonesty as well as the pandering of politicians and their cronies as they take advantage of the system. However, I believe that he has picked the wrong horse to ride in the Presidential race. Trump will just make it worse, and I have expressed that to him on this blog several times. Common sense will eventually prevail as the campaign drags on and Trump continues to make his verbal mistakes. Many folks, just like him, will put partisan politics aside and get on with what has to be done to stop the demagogue Trump. He will rise to the occasion. Don’t sell him short.

        • He sounds just like many of my family members, including my husband. They have so bought into the lies, half-truths, distortions & exaggerations about Hillary that they can not comprehend that they could have been mislead for >30 years.

          • Beerman

            Ryan Holiday asked the question in his recent Dear Dad letter:

            “When your grandkids ask ‘What did you do to stop Donald Trump?’
            What are you going to say?”

            A great question for parents, grandparents, etc.

          • John Johnson

            You are in denial if you think all the charges against Hillary over the years are totally without merit. If she were a commonbred, she would be in jail. The most powerful among us, like the group of Wall Street’ers who caused our last financial crash, get a walk…in fact, Obama allowed them to be paid bonuses with bailout money we taxpayers provided. You and your ilk can stick your head in the sand as deeply as you deem necessary to avoid the truth. I will keep poking and prodding you in hopes that you will come to your senses.

          • The best and most damaging lies start with a smidgeon of the truth. I never said that ALL of the accusations against Hillary were without merit, just that the vast majority of them are. And the ones that had merit were investigated, yet either no wrongdoing was found, or that the level did not rise to a criminal offense.

            What does it say when a person refuses to accept an outcome that they don’t want to hear? When the facts do not match their emotional belief?

            Politics require reason and logic. That’s not to say that one shouldn’t be passionate about their beliefs, but when you let emotion to overrule or distort logic and reason then you’ve lost any credibility to present your case.

          • John Johnson

            You, in part, make my point for me. We, as a whole, seem to be willing to overlook bad, and even criminal behavior, in the elite class, whereas a commonbred would be tarred and feathered or worse, for the same bad behavior. I’ve had enough of it. If not criminal conduct, she is at the least guilty of gross stupidity and abhorrent behavior, rampant flip flopping, and questionable quid pro quo relationships which should disqualify her from serious consideration for the Oval Office.

          • Name them. Name these supposed relationships where there is quid pro quo. Produce the evidence of the claims you are making. Concrete evidence with a paper trail, money trail, etc. otherwise you are just spreading rumor and innuendo. Everything Trump has been accused of either has a recording of him saying it or there is a paper/money trail that can be investigated.

            Until you do that, I can’t take anything you say seriously.

          • John Johnson

            Geez, Shelly…she took $21M in one year for speaking to Wall Sreet’ers. There is 13 minutes of her on YouTube talking out of both sides of her mouth in real live color. There is her boss’s statement about her being fired from the Nixon tapes investigating board. There is Dick Morris’s book, along with umpteen others by people who have lived and worked beside her, about her demeanor and actions. No slander suits from her have been forthcoming. You just have to pull your head out and open your eyes. If you want to keep your eyes closed, just take a big wiff. Surely, you can smell the stink. I can’t make you stand and face the truth, so don’t keep saying “prove it” to me.

          • OMG A woman made $21M in speaking engagements! The horrors! How much money has Republicans from past administrations made, or Trump has made with those same “Wall Street” speaking engagements?

            The edited out of context 13 minutes?, funny how when it is put back into context in toto with the rest of the hearing that the entire meaning changes.

            As for the rest, it’s hearsay. So you’re saying that because she didn’t file slander suits that that is acknowledgement of their veracity? That smacks of desperation JJ. Everything that potentially had merit and several that did not have been investigated ad nauseam by Congress & a slew of special prosecutors. And what did they find? Hmmm?

          • John Johnson

            “You can lead a horse to water…”

            What does being a woman have to do with it? Who else has made $21M in one year from giving speeches? Please tell us.

            You haven’t seen the 13 minute tape, have you? If you had, you would understand how goofy your “altered/edited” statement is.

            The lost, deleted email deal is still fluid, and either the old parents of those killed in Benghazi are lying, or she is. I’m believing the old father who took notes as she spoke so he could give a good accounting to family members back home. But that’s just me; my head is up in clear air and not buried deep in denial.

          • I’m sorry, but I refuse to drink the kool-aid you are trying to force down our throats.

            And for the record it was a two year period and only $7.7m of the $21m was speaking engagements by banks. Her fees for speaking are about average for a speaker of her caliber.

            Then there is this which gives details of those fees which you keep referring to.

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

            And this… http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-speaking-fees-goldman-sachs/

            google is your friend

            And you can call me all the names you wish.

          • John Johnson

            Thanks for the link. I had forgotten about the $15M raised from banks and drug companies in the last Q by her super PAC.

          • Sam Jacinto

            Dick Morris? Jeez, what a reliable source he is. Her “boss’s” statement, from someone who had no authority over her, has been serially debunked and its source impeached many times for contradictions, fabricated events, etc. AS to ‘slander’, Trump has filed no slander suits over his ties to Russia, ipso facto, they must be true. Your information seems to come solely from the republican noise machine, without any effort to verify it from original sources.

          • John Johnson

            Is Morris lying? Who contradicted her Watergate experience? Trump has not been accused of anything other than having business ties with Russians, and certainly nothing illegal or slanderous. Why would he file suit?

          • Sam Jacinto

            I don’t read trash like Morris’ book. digit has been accused of stiffing his contractors, employees, and creditors; using the courts to bash ‘little people’; lying about his income and assets; lying about his early opposition to the war; lying about his TV ratings; lying about BHO’s birthplace; lying about Teddy’s daddy, lying about the fabulosity of his convention; serial infidelity; sexism; racism; xenophobia; saying America First, but making things elsewhere. There’s a new, easily disproven lie every day. He is a menace to democracy.
            Everyone involved except the one guy who made the watergate claims has debunked them.

            I made the filing suit comment in response to your preposterous claim – it’s just above. Even you can find it.

          • John Johnson

            It Hillary for you; Trump for me. See how it works?

          • Sam Jacinto

            Donald J Trump is a threat to our democracy – you and those like you filled with hate and unquestioning obedience are his enablers. May your descendants forgive you.

          • John Johnson

            And you are a member of the flock who believes what you are told instead of what you can actually with your own eyes. Multinationalism is killing the middle class; bought votes are are screwing all but the rich; immigration and antitrust laws are being ignored; the IRS is worthless and our tax laws unfair…and you sheep want more of the same from a woman who has been part of the system for over 30 years. Who are our grandchildren going to hate?

          • Sam Jacinto

            I am a member of the flock that believes in going to the original sources rather than swallowing anything that comes from blogs or email chains (or Dick Morris and Ann Coulter).

            With respect to your grievances – some I share. Income inequality and the pernicious effects of money in politics are critical problems that threaten our childrens’ futures. Tax laws ARE unfair. Only influencers with money seem to have any chance. Hillary was not my choice (nor was Bernie). Each comes with far too much baggage, deserved or not.

            The foundation is cracked and the roof is leaking, but the solution is not to burn down the house. digit (DJT) taps into fears and anger, but he offers no solutions and is merely pandering and extolling the past. The world has changed and we can’t simply ignore it.

            Although those grievances are heartfelt and real, your messenger is an egotistical, ignorant, fascist bully. His inability to control himself threatens the world. Do you really want “the football” following him around? He is no Lincoln, Reagan, or even Buchanan. Even Pat Paulsen would be a better choice.

          • John Johnson

            Thanks for your honesty, Sam. I will never vote for Hillary.

      • John Bernard Books

        “These are DEMONSTRABLE FACTS:
        Trump loves Putin and asked the KGB to meddle with our election on live TV.”
        No he didn’t
        “You are insane”
        Now that is funny a looney leftie calling someone insane….

    • Erica Grieder

      Look, John, I’m not sure what you’re hoping to accomplish by your endless belligerent grandstanding but unless you’re hoping to elicit my pity, you’re not succeeding. If you had a good reason for supporting Trump you wouldn’t be spending so much time desperately trying to browbeat me into ignoring the basic facts of the matter, which I’ve never had problems seeing. I’m sorry you can’t say the same, but that’s neither my fault nor my problem. Maybe an analogy would help? You’re like a guy who got curious about Scientology and after a few months of experimenting has started to have gnawing suspicions about it, which you know you should listen to, but you don’t, because at first you were proudly proclaiming the life-changing benefits of Scientology to anyone who would listen. And so now you can’t extricate yourself without admitting–to everyone who tried to warn you that you were obviously getting snookered–that you got snookered. So you decide ignore your doubts and convince yourself that Scientology is awesome. Because that’s easier on the ego than admitting that you epically goofed.

      • John Johnson

        Your analogies are just about as off base as your prognostications have been.

        I see two flawed candidates and I can’t stand one of them; you can’t stomach the other.

        You are so into bashing Trump, that you have given Clinton a walk. It would seem that she is as innocent in your eyes as she, herself, tells everyone she is. I have watched the Clinton duo get away with everything under the sun for 30+ years. It started back when you were playing with dolls. They both stink.

        Your boy lost. Get over it, or just admit that you want Hillary to win so Cruz might have another sliver of a chance at the Oval Office. That is fantasy.

        • BCinBCS

          JJ wrote: “I see two flawed candidates and I can’t stand one of them; you can’t stomach the other.

          .

      • John Johnson

        Disagreeing with a person who makes their living by giving us their opinions is now deemed “belligerent grandstanding”. I guess we’re just supposed to open wide and take a dose of whatever you are dishing out without question. That about it?

        • BCinBCS

          JJ wrote: “I guess we’re just supposed to open wide and take a dose of whatever you are dishing out without question.

          Or you could use facts and logic to support your candidate and use facts and logic to point out the fallacies in the arguments of those you oppose.

          • John Johnson

            Erica’s entire piece was based entirely on some unsubstantiated rumor about Trump asking someone what LNG is. We’re supposed to just swallow that as fact. It is easy for a Trump hater to do so; not as easy for them to accept Hillary as a liar, vacillator and pay-for-play’er when the proof is available for viewing in a number of ways.

          • BCinBCS

            So do a little research and find the proof where Erica is wrong.

          • WUSRPH

            The sad fact is that JJ has descended into a state in which all he can do is repeat the same things over and over again with not evidence. That and hurl insults.
            I guess it is time to do a Troll on him. He used to be able to contribute but that day has passed.

          • John Johnson

            It makes no difference to me if you hit a key that in essence pushes your head in the sand when I post…but I have to tell you how goofy that seems to me.

            You can’t see what I post so you obviously won’t be responding to it; I can continue to see yours and offer up retorts that everyone signing on here will see. That works for me. I encourage you to do it.

          • John Johnson

            I had someone tell me that you were a “———–“. Do a little research and get back to me on this.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ: I had someone tell me that you were a “———–“. Do a little research and get back to me on this.

            ????

          • No it wasn’t. That was a single portion of it. At minimum, it shows that Trump can’t even bother to prepare for a meeting on a subject that he wasn’t familiar with. If he didn’t see it as important for a vital domestic resource, not to mention the foreign implications of it, he’s not going to see preparing before meetings as important when it comes to foreign policy and other important issues.

          • John Johnson

            Your narrow mindedness is showing. If the LNG statement was bullshit than ” it shows that Trump can’t…” is bullshit, too. Stop with the goofiness.

          • My narrow-mindedness?

  • WUSRPH

    Funniest joke of the year: Trump says he will no longer be “Mr. Nice Guy”.
    It really would be funny if his mind were not so sick that he actually thinks he has been that in the past.

    • Sam Jacinto

      He never starts it, and has exorcised restraint. (spelling is intentional)

  • WUSRPH

    Trump says we will “take” their oil….but does not specify how…Well, why not:

    Option A. Squeeze out every available drop

    1. Drop the 82nd Airborne onto their oil fields to keep them from destroying the wells and pipe lines. Follow-up with the 101st. Land other division at coast to drive inland to linkup with airborne units as necessary to hold area for a period of two weeks. Use attack helicopters to patrol and protect the pipelines.

    2. Announce that any interference by locals will be met with use of nuclear weapons.

    3. Meanwhile, stealth air units (using F-22s 7 B-2s, missile equipped drones and cruise missiles) are striking their air force, air defense and communication links. Follow up with regular units (A-10s, Navy/Maine F/A-18s, F-16 etc. patrolling their roadways and blowing bridges, etc. to stop attempts by locals to reach seized areas).

    4. Land Marines at the shipping ports to ensure a perimeter around the storage and shipping units. Line up every tanker you can find (renting all available on international market and seizing any in US waters)….Suck up every drop in their pipe lines and storage facilities and pump them full. Destroy all facilities.

    5. Withdraw troops….fighting their way to the coast if necessary….ala the withdrawal from the Chosin reservoir in 1950.

    6. Haul ass before the locals get too angry.

    Option 2: Get only the easy to get stuff

    1. Air units (as described in Option 1) strike air forces, air defenses, communications and major transportation links.

    2. Announce that any interference by locals will be met with use of nuclear weapons.

    3. Drop 82nd Airborne, backed up by 101st, to seize oil storage and shipping facilities.

    4 Land Marine units to secure perimeter around storage and shipping facilities.

    5. Line up tankers…suck the tanks dry.

    4. Haul ass.

    See how easy it is. Just like a pirates raid in the good old days.

    • Beerman

      Now, that is solid sarcasm…….

      • WUSRPH

        Thanks…glad I could add a little humor.

    • John Johnson

      A big pile offered up by Professor Pedant. Wondering why you weren’t able to get a Hitler reference into this post.

      • WUSRPH

        There’s the insult. I knew I was coming…..Its about all you seem to be capable of these days.

        • John Johnson

          If not me, who? Who is going to keep you grounded? I can’t just let that head grow without constraint.

      • Beerman

        JJ,

        Comparing Trump to Hitler is a very valid argument. Both are “Caesars-type” leaders. Hitler led Germany into despotism and darkness, and Trump’s rhetoric illustrates a definite direction into despotism and darkness using hate and fear as vehicles to power.

        • John Johnson

          I believe Trump speaks the truth. He is not planting seeds in my mind, or in the minds of others like me. What he is spitting out has been there for years festering and growing. He made all of us aware that millions have been feeling and thinking the same way for a longtime. He has simply been a catalyst, not the Genesis. Everyone who speaks in pointed, direct, basic, straightforward, uncoated terms is not a Hitler. My football coach yelled, screamed, spit, embellished, and sometimes cussed a little, but he was not a monster or an abuser. He got the most out of us. Trump is no Hitler.

          • John Bernard Books

            JJ you sparring with the smartest people in the room, maybe in the whole wide world. They basically have two retorts on Trump, he’s another Hitler or he’s in bed with Putin.
            Dems have little or no imagination and only say what they are told.
            Poking fun at their dogmatic loyalty to bigger government is the only recourse.
            Not that they really believe bigger government is necessarily good, its what they been told to believe.

          • John Johnson

            All of these people who are dumping on Trump are not the same; they are even not members of the same party. Neither are the people who support Trump; some are Dem’s. There has never been a Presidential election like this one. It is not pretty; it will get worse. Even after it is over with, distinct lines will be formed and a deeper divide will separate the two.

          • Sam Jacinto

            The divide of reality vs fantasy

          • John Bernard Books

            I was referring to the commenters here and not the big picture….one simply cannot reason with 99% here so don’t bother.

          • Sam Jacinto

            Exactly what truth does digit (DJT) speak? Do you have ANY examples?

          • John Johnson

            Sam, you are a late comer to this site. I have listed my reasons for supporting Cruz early on, and my switch to Trump along the way…in detail. Most everyone knows but you.

          • Sam Jacinto

            JJ – That was not my question. Name ONE ‘truth’ that comes from that moron digit. I have seen your broad generalizations and talking points, but I want some specificity, please.

          • John Johnson

            1. U.S. trade laws are weighed heavily in favor of multinational corporations and against U.S. small businesses and workers.

          • Sam Jacinto

            That’s all you’ve got? Does anyone disagree with that statement? You are going to vote for him because of this? BTW, the sun rises in the East also.

          • John Johnson

            Hey, Bozo…you asked for one, and I gave you one.

          • WUSRPH

            The problem is that the statement is NOT TRUE.

          • John Johnson

            The point is you pompous blowhard is that you haven’t ever experienced “it”, yet you expound on literally everything as if you have and are the resident expert. It has grown very, very old.

            My export record is extensive. One year I shipped over 50 40′ high cube containers out of the U.S. I dealt strictly through Letters of Credit. It took extensive research to get this all set up. I dealt with U.S. branches of foreign banks. At the time, not one bank in the DFW area knew squat about LC’s. I also wanted to know more about the ExIm Bank and their lending practices. I had to go to a “broker” to get it.

            You also seem to forget my sharing that gripes to our Fed gov, through my senators and rep, and our Fed Trade Commissioner about my export experiences went unanswered.

            The government you defend so aggressively…the government you pimp for so diligently…is broken, corrupt, and totally inefficient. You are simply a product of that environment, and I, personally, am not going to let you get away with spreading bullshit about how wonderful, and honorable, and helpful the system is. You are on the propaganda side; not the trying to get something done side.

          • Beerman

            JJ, time will tell, you’ve changed your mind on Trump before (5 months ago-see below). It is going to be a nasty battle, no doubt about it. Don’t genuflect to Trump yet, you may, again, “throw the switch” and see the real Trump.

            John Johnson Erica Grieder
            5 months ago
            I changed my mind during last night’s debate. Don’t ask me what one thing threw the switch…it was just a build up over time. I realized I made a mistake. He is not presidential, he will say anything to win, and he flusters way too easily.

          • John Johnson

            Oh, I remember, Beerman. That was back when we had a lot more choices. We don’t anymore. Just two. I will never vote for Hillary; I would never hand over SCOTUS choices to her…and I’ll not waste a vote on Johnson that might help her win. It is a done deal for me. The choices are as clear as they are flawed.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, here’s some more “truth” about your guy courtesy of Buzzfeed News.

            Donald Trump has made restoring American jobs a centerpiece of his campaign, a pledge he reiterated last week when he accepted the Republican nomination for president: “I’m going to bring our jobs back to Ohio and Pennsylvania and New York and Michigan and all of America,” he said.

            This month, Trump is bringing jobs to Florida, as he looks to hire 78 servers, housekeepers, and cooks at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach and the nearby Trump National Golf Club, Jupiter.

            But instead of making sure those jobs go to Americans, he is seeking to import foreign workers for the positions, which pay $10.17 an hour for housekeepers, $11.13 an hour for servers, and $12.74 for cooks. He filed applications this month claiming he couldn’t find enough Americans to do that work, and is seeking temporary visas to bring in 65 workers at Mar-a-Lago along with another seven waiters and six cooks at the golf club.

            The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment. A call to Mar-a-Lago was not returned, and an employee at the Jupiter golf club declined to comment. But in the past, Trump has defended his use of guest workers by saying there was no other way to fill the jobs.

            “You can’t get help,” Trump told MSNBC’s Morning Joe in September. “Getting help in Palm Beach during the season is almost impossible.”

            Officials at a nearby career services agency have seen it differently. Last year, Tom Veenstra, a senior director at Palm Beach’s career services center, told BuzzFeed News that he had “hundreds of people in our database that would qualify for a lot of those hospitality jobs.'”

          • John Johnson

            I drove through Oklahoma last Thursday evening and stopped at a national chain fast food restaurant in a small town to use the facilities and get something to eat. A sign was posted on the door saying”Inside dining is closed due to lack of help. Please use the drive-thru.” The Obama administration has made it easier for people to sit at home and draw Fed freebies instead of working for minimum wage. Two choices…work and draw a check or sit home and draw a check and free medical. Tough choice.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, that is total BS. Any business can find workers even if they have to hire students or illegals. What that “Inside dining is closed due to lack of help” sign meant was “We want to hire people but we don’t want to pay them”.

          • John Johnson

            Spoken like a true microbiologist employee of someone. You don’t have a clue. Stick to what you know.

          • BCinBCS

            First of all, I run my own business now and secondly, I do have a clue. I could find five fast food workers within four hours and I live in an area with very low unemployment.

            That restaurant didn’t want to pay wages and benefits so they didn’t hire the workers. (And don’t even try to tell me how oppressive minimum wage is to small businesses.)

          • John Johnson

            You are a slumlord. Isn’t that what you told us? How many employees? Let me guess…

            This is a national chain. They would not let the franchisee shut down the inside to save a few dollars on labor. Furthermore, this was Oklahoma and you are hard pressed to find illegals in OK. They are tough on them like we should be everywhere. Citizens sit and wait for a government check. Why work. Get rid of illegals; require those receiving subsidies to work; end of problem.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, I am not a slumlord, I have high end single-family homes. If I recall correctly, it was you that used that phrase to first describe me and it is as wrong now as it was then.

            It is easy to find undocumented workers, even in Oklahoma. But let’s assume that you couldn’t. That would only leave the young looking for a first job and/or spending money, the elderly that want to supplement their retirement, mothers with school children who could work while their kids are in school and multiple people who would like to work part-time.

            The very small number of people who are on welfare are required to either be in school or training or have a job (and before you dispute this fact, look it up).

            The only reason for a national chain restaurant to be closed besides the owner not wanting to pay for workers would be that it isn’t in a large enough town to support it or it is in an ill-suited location, both which should have been discovered if the owner had taken the time to do a business plan.

          • John Johnson

            You and Prof. Pedant are becoming just alike. Why do you feel a need to come across as knowing everything about everything. I know the town I was in; you don’t. My brother-in-law lives in OK; I have been with him all weekend; he tells me that there are not many illegals in OK because the state and local governments are tough on them…yet you, a guy in Texas, who knows nothing about the retail QSR business there, much less up here, wants to go the expert-on-the-subject route. Stop it.

          • pwt7925

            We all have drunk uncles or crazy cousins who speak in pointed, direct, basic, straightforward and uncoated terms. They also aren’t Hitlers, but I can’t think one (in my family at least) who I believe is qualified or capable of being President. Being pointed, direct, etc. can be an admirable virtue, but when the pronouncements stem from ignorance, hubris, carelessness and laziness, it is simply hot air.

  • John Bernard Books

    read and weep…
    Electoral votes
    Hillary Clinton
    264.7
    Donald Trump
    272.9
    Gary Johnson
    0.3

    Popular vote
    Hillary Clinton
    45.5%
    Donald Trump
    45.0%
    Gary Johnson
    8.2%
    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

    • BCinBCS

      Read and weep…
      Popular Votes

      Hillary Clinton
      16,847,084

      Donald Trump
      14,009,107

      Electoral votes are apples and oranges in the Democratic vs Republican primaries, JBB. Nice try though.

      • John Bernard Books

        Thats Nate Silver’s projections for Nov. Look I can only give you the data I can’t understand it for you.

        • BCinBCS

          Where in your post did you mention that those are Nate Silver’s projections. One should not have to follow a link in order to find out what you mean.

          • John Bernard Books

            Can you show me the rule that says that?
            Look you big dummy if you can’t keep up….go play with the kids.

          • BCinBCS

            JBB, are you kidding me? Are you effing kidding me?

            First you post absolutely incorrect information and now you double down by stating that you don’t even have to say what you mean in your posts?

            Your school teachers must be very proud of you.

          • BCinBCS

            Oh, and by the way…

            According to 538, Who would win an election today:

            Hillary – 54.4%
            Donald – 45.6%

            ( http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now )

          • John Bernard Books

            That wasn’t the article I referred to but it shows you don’t depend on what the dems tell you to say every day….good job who knows you may even be able to have a thought of your own by this election….

          • WUSRPH

            Propaganda does not have to be true….The Troll is engaged in what he sees as a moral conflict with the evil of the world (i.e.—all Democrats and all people who do not see things exactly as he does). And to him there are no rules in that fight. You should have learned long ago—as the rest of us did the hard way—that you cannot reason with such a person. Nor should you have any confidence in the truth of anything he says or does.

          • John Bernard Books

            WASSUP what do you know about propaganda? Your whole life is based on being a paid dem shill….

          • John Bernard Books

            yes its called playing the dems game…deal with it.

  • John Bernard Books

    This is why dems are so dangerous….
    We live in a republic. For the clueless dems who don’t understand what that means…it means we elect representatives to represent us. Not go off the reservation and sell their vote like Al Franken did.

    No, Al your judgement is not better than the voters you represent, you’re voting for Crooked Hillary because you have no character, no morals and sold your vote.

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/h2arerz

    More on The Donald and the Russians.

    • BCinBCS

      W, in that article was this (emphasis is mine):
      The FBI is investigating, with all signs pointing to Russian involvement, though Moscow rejects this but experts argue Vladimir Putin has attempted in the past to damage western democracy, saying Russian security agencies have made cyberattacks on French, Greek, Italian and Latvian targets during elections. In 2014, malware was discovered in Ukrainian election software that would have robbed it of legitimacy.

      So, just how secure are our electronic voting machines from this type of attack?

  • John Bernard Books

    The majority of Americans(71%) are unhappy with dems….
    “But a nation hungry for change could rally to Trump, the consummate outsider. A Pew Research Center poll last month found that 71 percent of adults are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the nation. ”
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289857-100-days-to-go-in-volatile-race

    Democrat thugs killing cops, $20,000,000,000 in debt, the IRS out of control, the EPA out of control, the federal government is out of control and dysfunctional……not looking good for grandma.

    • BCinBCS

      JBB, you’re ability to analyze is severely limited. When 71% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in this country, it does not mean that 71% are dissatisfied with the Democrats.

      Did you go to school? Did you graduate? Did you learn anything? You should be extremely shameful of the outright ignorance that you demonstrate on this blog.

      And to think, your vote has the same weight as mine.

      • John Bernard Books

        “JBB, you’re ability to analyze is severely limited. When 71% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in this country, it does not mean that 71% are dissatisfied with the Democrats.”
        You big dummy democrats are running the country……duh!
        And to think, your vote has the same weight as mine.

        • BCinBCS

          JBB wrote: “You big dummy democrats are running the country……duh!

          Well duh…

          • John Bernard Books

            Any clue what party the prez belongs to?

          • BCinBCS

            You quoted a statistic that said that 71% of the people are dissatisfied with the way things are going in this country. That does not mean that 71% of the people are dissatisfied with the President.

            Reading comprehension.

          • John Bernard Books

            Yes it does…..look all I can do is furnish facts. I cannot understand them for you….

    • John Johnson

      Don’t forget the military. Billions being spent but pilots with no planes to fly because there are no parts for them. Why? Where is the money going?

      • Beerman

        JJ, I don’t want to get in the middle of your rants this morning; however, your remarks about our USAF did get my attention. As an “old airman,” I have been fortunate to have spent several years as an honorary Commander of the 388th Fighter Wing based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and, in fact, visited there last month for a General Officer friend’s retirement celebration. I did not visually see and/or hear any indications of what you have stated?

        The USA has the best and most ready Air Force in the entire world…no comparison.

        The following link shows the comparison versus other world powers and provides interesting info.

        http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/usaf-and-russian-air-force-a-comparison.html

  • There was this little gem from the Houston Chronicle…

    http://www.chron.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-Hillary-Clinton-8650345.php

    “The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.

    An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let’s say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation’s future, about each candidate’s experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them – fairly and decisively, we should point out – is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.

    Any one of Trump’s less-than-sterling qualities – his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance – is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, “I alone can fix it,” should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.”

    • Sam Jacinto

      To JBB and JJ and their fellow fantasists – the last sentence of the quote, “He is…a danger to the Republic”, is truth.

      • John Johnson

        He is a danger to the status quo, that’s for sure. Mainstream anything hates him, and well they should.

        • Beerman

          Here are some thoughts on Trump from one of those “mainstream” military guys:

          Retired Marine Gen. John Allen warned on Sunday that if Donald Trump was elected president, there would be mass unrest among the military rank and file over the policies that he would implement and pursue.

          “I think we would be facing a civil military crisis, the like of which we’ve not seen in this country before,” he said.

          The retired four-star general, who served as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, was a featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention. And for that, Trump derided him as a failure.

          Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Allen was asked about these attacks ― which he brushed off by noting that Trump had never served a day in his life ― and also how the lower ranks would react to Trump’s orders to reinstitute policies like torture, the targeted murdering of the family members of alleged terrorists, and the carpet-bombing of ISIS.

          “You know, from the moment that those of us who are commissioned ― and of course all of our enlisted troops as well ― assume the mantle of our responsibility in uniform, when we swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which is a document and a set of principles and it supports the rule of law, one of those is to ensure that we do not obey illegal orders,” he responded.

          “It’s an inherent responsibility in who we are. And so what we need to do is ensure that we don’t create an environment that puts us on a track conceivably where the United States military finds itself in a civil military crisis with a commander in chief who would have us do illegal things,” he added. “That’s a major issue that we’re facing here, the potential for a civil military crisis where the military could be ordered to conduct illegal activities.”

          • John Johnson

            You are either a friend of Trump’s or you are his enemy. That is the way he rolls. He does not shoot all his enemies; he just shoots off his mouth at them.

            As far as Allen goes…you think he speaks for all the military? How about the self-serving army guy who was head of the Bosnian operation, turned Dem and wanted to be Pres a few years ago. Did he speak for all the military? You really think the guys doing the fighting want to serve under Hillary? Not me.

          • BCinBCS

            Actually, JJ, the military likes and respects Hillary. She earned that as a member of the Armed Forces Committee of the Senate. (Don’t let your bias ruin your knowledge.)

          • John Johnson

            I’m not. Maybe they like her because she survived that firefight when she was getting off the chopper in Bosnia…or because they know she is going to let the undocumented spending continue unabated.

          • BCinBCS

            Or maybe it is because she spent hours and hours learning about the military and was willing to listen to its members and act upon their concerns but, hey, there’s always a cynical rational.

          • John Johnson

            I simply do not think the majority of active duty military people back Hillary.

          • BCinBCS

            Thinking does not make it so.

          • WUSRPH

            http://tinyurl.com/j5apfkl

            I know he will discount it because someone “told him” differently….but a little reality on the military strengths of the various nations might be useful.

  • Wurty

    Of course Trump knew what LNG is. But supposedly the other guy might have a different take on it. Trump is smarter than someone who won’t ask questions for fear of looking dumb. Trump never asks a question he does not know the answer too because to do so is being dumb.

    • None of what you said makes sense in any way shape or form. Even when I correct the god-awful grammar, there is no logic or reason especially in that last sentence.

      I take it English is not your first language?

      • John Johnson

        Elitests and aholes come back with retorts like yours. I understood his gist perfectly, and no one is asking you to correct anything.

        • You’re so predictable – if you can’t defend something, hurl names and make ad hominem attacks.

          • John Johnson

            Physician, heal thy self.

      • Beerman

        Trump University grad?

        • Actually I wonder if these drive by trolls are accounts that are being used by the Russian hackers. You know gotta support their patron’s investment.

    • Sam Jacinto

      Bob Murray, a coal executive, made the claim in a speech. Look it up. BTW – he’s no democrat (big D and small d)

      • John Johnson

        I heard someone say that the Clinton’s had Vince Foster killed and the Special Investigator’s report says that it was not suicide. Is it true? Should I base an entire thread on what someone said like this one Erica did? It’s easy to tell if one is biased or not…and we all are…so she should not be chirping if someone like me wants to lodge a gripe about what she has to say. She might make her living telling us what she thinks, but I don’t have to swallow it. She lives in her own little elite world; mine, and most Texans’ don’t resemble it in any way except locality.

  • Here is another gem…
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-fg-trump-foreign-policy-20160731-snap-story.html

    So many respected foreign policy experts that are against Trump.

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems you chose Trump over Cruz……..hahaha

  • John Bernard Books

    Time for the General Election so lets look at the facts:
    1. We have proof dems rigged the primaries….

    who are you gonna vote for?

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems rigged the primaries…and not one commenter here is outraged?
    How stupid are dem voters?

  • John Bernard Books

    Hillary first lesbian prez?
    ” “The bottom line is that if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2016, she will not only be our first female president, she could be our first lesbian president.””
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/hillary-clinton-lesbian-president-_n_3957349.html

    Could Hillary be blackmailed while prez…..

    • John Johnson

      Fisher is an idiot. My brother was born gay. This said, I wonder if someone like Erica wants to write an option piece using Jennifer Flowers statement about Hillary’s being AC/DC as the bases for outlandish speculation.

      • John Bernard Books

        I’m betting no….so I’ll have to do it.

        • John Johnson

          Hahaha.

  • John Bernard Books

    Clinton cancels campaign stop in Cleveland due to lack of interest. Remember all those empty seats at the DNC? They’re carrying over into Hillary’s campaign stops…
    “Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has canceled her planned appearance on Sunday in Cleveland. ”
    http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/clinton-cancels-impromptu-cleveland-appearance

    Will campaign be cancelled due to lack of interest?

  • Jackson

    If you are a Trump supporter, or even plan on voting Republican merely to “support the Party,” this article’s warning is worth considering: http://theweek.com/articles/638440/new-nationalism-rising-dont-let-donald-trump-destroy?utm_source=afternoon&utm_medium=article_1_07_31_16-12_48_55&utm_campaign=newsletter

    “This revolt is the politics of the provinces against the capital cities. These nativists are trying to reassert their cultural and economic interests, which they believe have been denigrated by a political settlement that enriches the elite and provides opportunity to foreigners at the expense of the old industrial and rural heartlands. Let’s call the phenomenon ‘the new nationalism.'”

    Excellent.

    • John Johnson

      They got everything right…except the part about being better off with Hillary.

      If not Trump, who? If not now, when?

      Who else will preach the same message? What other potential President is not controlled by the special interests Trump is railing against? The answer is “no one”.

      • Sam Jacinto

        So let’s put an ignorant fool into the most powerful office in the world.

        • John Johnson

          If I thought he was as much of a loon as you believe him to be, I would never vote for him. He shocks with his political incorrectness; he exaggerates; he boasts. I would take him over Hillary any day.

          • Sam Jacinto

            Then the only conclusion I can draw is that you are irrational.

          • John Johnson

            Hahaha. Back at ya.

      • Jackson

        I’m already past the point of attempting to find positives in Donald Trump, and definitely beyond comparing bad deeds between two candidates in the oversimplified cable news network fashion. While you claim that his “railing against special interests” will somehow result in the world becoming a less complex and more understandable/”fair” place (which I must presume is what you desire), Hillary is the one proposing to immediately introduce legislation that would overturn the Citizens United ruling.

        HRC has relationships with international banks. Any political leader of an industrialized and modern economy has to. The government cannot and should not be in the business of being a sophisticated actor all on its own in the global financial markets. The world is a much more sophisticated organism, socially and politically speaking, than it was in the era that Trump is vaguely harkening to take us back to, a place where we will be great again. When exactly was this? 1983? 1961? Sooner? And what are the elements of that world that he seeks to replicate, why exactly does he want to do it, and how will it be done?

        There is an appalling naivete in the New Nativism that Brexit and Trump represent. Not saying the impulse is without any justification, but when the world changes, some are left behind. That’s always been the case. I’ll be voting for Hillary because she at least recognizes this reality, and while she likely believes that gov’t should put programs in place to help those populations lacking the skills to adapt on their own to the new globalized arrangement, she’s also not foolish enough to pretend that the United States can retreat to weakness and simplicity and somehow remain the economic and ideological beacon of a world that has embraced free market principles and democratic liberalism.

        The changes wrought by interconnectedness and technology are just beginning. A vote for Hillary is a vote in defense of this country and in defense of economic progress; relatedly, a vote against all the cowardly Republican down-ballot candidates who have chosen to put their careers before their country and remained silent while an amphetamine-addled huckster capitalized on all of the crude instincts those selfsame Republican candidates nurtured in their primary base for 20 years is no less in order, both this year and in 2018.

        Clinton-Kaine 2016. For Liberty.

        • BCinBCS

          Jackson, you’re my hero. Damn well said!

        • Very eloquently said.

        • Beerman

          Three-pointer…good shot….

        • John Johnson

          With Hillary, you get more of the same…just what the multinationals want.

          The U.S. Big’s went to China and Mexico with their technology and found cheap welders, machinists and fabricators; they went to India and found educated engineers and biochemists willing to work for half price; they went from these places to still cheaper labor in places like Honduras and Vietnam. The multinationals’ goal is to level out the world’s cost of labor while buying up the world competition and dividing up the world into fiefdoms like our domestic airlines and health insurance providers have done.

          All of us, either directly or indirectly, will be working for one of the multinationals.

          Some talk of “dumbing down” the educational system…well this is what the Big’s want to do to the world labor force incomes..level everything. Some come up, others, like us, lose ground and meet in the middle.

          I want out autonomy maintained…recovered really.

          That’s my take on things.

          • BCinBCS

            So how are you going to fight against the tide of modernity; suppress the automobile and truck industry to keep the horse and buggy so that buggy whip makers do not lose their jobs?

            The answer is to change with the times. If we can no longer compete in manufacturing, then become the leader in technology – innovate your way to greatness.

            Who will put the U.S. on this track, Hillary or The Donald?

          • WUSRPH

            Trump has no idea about what he is suggesting—-most of the jobs he is “going to bring back” didn’t go overseas…they were replaced by automation and are never coming back—unless that is we revert to a the 1950s level of production……The only way we can do what Trump wants is to become an autarky……with higher inflation and higher costs for every good we consume….and a declining place and role in the world.
            The “good old days” are not coming back. Trump or no Trump.

          • BCinBCS

            W wrote: “The “good old days” are not coming back. Trump or no Trump.

            Of course that does not mean that with the right leader and a enlightened Congress we couldn’t have new good old days.

          • WUSRPH

            That is why it is vital to vote for Hillary and company.

          • John Johnson

            You and your mentor just repeat what you hear don’t you? That “give up the low end jobs and become high tech” has been spit out for years. Think about that seriously for a minute. Take a growing, much better educated population and tell me where you are going to put everyone. We either produce and build or we die.

      • Your belief that he isn’t controlled by special interests is shockingly naive. But it’s even worse because it’s not just any special interests who have control over him but a hostile foreign government. That you continually deny it in spite of what is slowly becoming overwhelming evidence that he is at minimum their duped pawn if not knowingly colluding with them.

        • Beerman

          Special Interests want power, absolute authority, money and celebrity…Trump fits perfectly with the today’s Special Interest types!

        • John Johnson

          You aren’t serious. Anyone who has done business with the Russians is their pawn? They have something on him which can be used to blackmail him? He is a Russian agent? Do you know how goofy this stuff you are spitting out sounds?

          • I’m saying that he is heavily in debt, both personally and commercially, to Russian banks which are controlled/owned by the Russian government. US and Western banks won’t loan him money because he is a bad risk. This is pretty well documented and corroborated by Trump and his family.

            To say that he merely does business over there just shows what lengths you will go to deny the truth.

          • John Johnson

            Banks won’t loan money to anyone anymore. Money they used to loan is now used to gamble with on Wall Street.

            As far as Trump goes, if all of what you say is true, how is that different from the Clinton Foundation ties to the Russians and everyother questionable country in the world?

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, banks loan me money. I just purchased another 3-bedroom house July 7th. What’s Donald’s excuse?

          • John Johnson

            Are you an expert on commercial financing, too?
            Study up, Pilgrim. Cars and home mortgages are one thing, commercial financing another. Check into financing large hotels and high rises.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, my lending is commercial lending. I’m a RE investor and the rule and requirements for that are totally different from owner-occupied RE.

            I find it interesting that you, a guy knows nothing about the the investment real estate business wants to go the expert-on-the-subject route. Stop it.

          • John Johnson

            Stop it. You borrow mortgage money for single family dwellings…not apartments, high rise office bldgs or large hotels. You are no Donald Trump.

          • BCinBCS

            And you, sir, don’t know what the eff you’re talking about.

          • John Johnson
          • BCinBCS

            Oh, you’re referring me to “book learning” when I have intimate knowledge of the subject because it is my business?

          • funny how that double standard works isn’t it?

          • John Johnson

            I would never “preach” to you about microbiology or renting single family housing, yet that doesn’t keep you and your mentor from trying to one up my personal experiences in importing, exporting, financing, and personal business ownership under multiple SIC codes. You are Pedant’s…you know it all.

          • BCinBCS

            We are not trying to “one up” your personal experiences, we are trying to show you that your microeconomic experience is not applicable to a macroeconomic environment.

          • John Johnson

            Hahaha. You are full of it. I know more about that than you do, too. Do you know what the transfer pricing departments at the major accounting firms do? They enable the multinationals to avoid paying U.S. taxes and more easily move operations overseas. They, themselves, are multinational. I may be micro, but I deal almost exclusively with macro players. Quit trying to show me yours is bigger….and go read up on what I sent you on commercial construction financing.

          • Really? Do you even read what you write? You continually preach to us and scoff at anything that doesn’t align with your POV. The only person trying to one-up anyone is you. You believe your business experience makes you an expert on all aspects of business. Guess what? It doesn’t.

            I willingly admit I am not an expert on business, not even the business I was engaged in before I had to retire for medical reasons. I know quite a bit about the industry and service sector I worked in, I keep up to date with it through colleagues who are still in business, and by continuing ed that is required, but that doesn’t make me an industry leader or expert by any leap. The difference is you believe your experience makes you an expert and more qualified to tell us how business works, when your experience is no more or less than mine is, or Beerman’s, or BC’s, etc.

            Experience is not the be-all end-all of learning. Your experience applies to you and you alone. It may be used as an example of your particular business niche, but trying to apply it across the board to all businesses makes you as much of a know-it-all elitist pedant that you sneeringly refer to the rest of us as.

          • John Johnson

            Thanks for the sermon.

            I don’t discount anyone’s personal experiences. What I don’t like is some bookworm telling me that he knows more about things like import/export laws and procedures than someone involved in actually dealing with the system in order to earn a living.

            If you want to line up behind this group, I am going to call you out on it when you chirp long and loud about some subject you have “read about” but never experienced. It happens all too often here.

          • Beerman

            BC, actually Commercial Real Estate loan guidelines are quite simple. An legitimate Commercial lender is interested in the real Cash Flow available from the operation of the project, and whether it will realistically service the debt load. The real Equity to Debt ratios are also very important in deciding the personal commitment of the borrowers, as well as the Credit history of all parties guaranteeing the loan. Also, timing to the availability of a Lender’s capital at time of request can be important because of liquidity and/or interest rates at that moment in time, and, of course, commercial real estate market conditions in the area of the proposed project.

            Developers that have problems meeting these simple guidelines will usually go outside the normal credit markets to overseas investors and/or secondary high interest lenders for their needs. These type of borrowers usually have personal credit history problems, lack of solid equity, bankruptcy history, lack of borrowing integrity history, legal lawsuit back loads, etcetc. Many times these funds from overseas are illegitimate and carry many side effects that will surface later in transaction…they can be very risky.

            It would be a good bet that DJT’s financial statements and IRS filings would show some of these type arrangements because of his past litigation problems on projects.

          • WUSRPH

            The fact that you haven’t declared bankruptcy at least four times living others out millions and millions of dollars might have had some bearing on whether you or he gets a loan.

          • I know plenty of business people who have no trouble getting loans. I also know plenty of people who can get consumer loans with no trouble. Could it be because they have good credit and a history of paying their bills? Oh and not asking for more than what they realistically can handle debt-wise?

            I can’t imagine why you would think that banks, who are themselves in business, would lend money to people who are not qualified or have shown that they can’t be trusted to pay loans back. You claim to be a businessman, yet you see to not understand this simple concept of lending.

          • John Johnson

            You don’t know squat…just what someone has told you or you have read. I’m convinced of that.

          • Yet we are supposed to accept your expertise as sacrosanct?

            Whatever.

          • John Johnson

            What do you do for a living? What have you done? In my mind, it has a lot to do with how much store I should place in your expounding on any given subject.

          • What difference would it make how I answer those questions? If I were to say I was a SAHM and raised two responsible adults, you would say that I am ignorant of real life having shuttered myself away. If I say I am a blue collar/service worker you’d say I have no understanding of running a business, If I say that I was a small business owner you’d ask what type of business and say that also would not give me any credence in your world.

            FTR I am or have been all of the above. I am mostly self educated in that I am a voracious reader, but you take very little stock in education as you have stated repeatedly on BB. So whether or not I meet your arbitrary qualifications of having done something you think worthwhile or not to take store in my opinions is irrelevant.

          • John Johnson

            You’re right, I probably would. Practical experience is a key component to learning, and much more important to acquired knowledge than reading what someone else who has done it has to say. Staying at a Holiday Inn Express just doesn’t measure up.

          • Beerman

            JJ, that retort, “someone has told you or you have read” is stupid. Learning from other people, reading material created by other people, is how we educate ourselves. We need information from other people. I have had literally thousands of teachers in my lifetime. We all have.

          • John Johnson

            Did you read about producing and distributing beer, or did you “live” it? If I read about it do you think I can match your knowledge on the subject? How about flying a plane?

          • Beerman

            You miss my point, teachers/mentors are the key to learning whether verbal, written or by example. We don’t wake up over night “smart” because we can deliver beer……..

          • John Johnson

            And you misunderstood my point. I am a reader myself and I had some great teachers, but having a good teacher, who may or may not have any practical knowledge themselves, and/or reading about how to fly, or export Case loader/backhoes, or arrange payment through an LC, or making beer, does not render one an expert who should be trying to tell someone who has how it is.

          • WUSRPH

            It reminds me of the fact that a number of major American companies did business with that German fellow even after the beginning of WW II. Many were still just “doing business” with him right up to Pearl Harbor. Maybe JJ is right about major businessmen, like Trump, having no morals.

        • WUSRPH

          Whether Trump is or is not controlled by special interests is not the problem. The problem is what he believes, what he says and the threat he represents to representational government. It is not who controls Trump…but what Trump wants to control that is the danger.

          • I think that they are equally troubling and that one doesn’t necessarily preclude the other.

            Regardless, he is unfit to be President and that the danger of him being President is too ghastly to be borne.

    • WUSRPH

      That’s a fair description of the voting patterns in the Brexit election in England proper.

  • John Johnson
    • Beerman

      Interesting articles…Combine them with 60 Minutes, and what I’ve experienced, and other sources, it definitely raises the question asking if this is part of a PR attack, from military, posturing for Budget dollars within the Sesquestration Budget Crisis?

      Good question, and I don’t have answers to the question, it is above my pay scale. However, I am confident that America has the greatest military force in the world, when we need it, and that fact has been proven more than once in our history protecting the freedoms of democracy.

      http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/sequestration-ash-carter-congress-defense-pentagon-116899

      • John Johnson

        I don’t disagree with your assessment of being the best…I am wondering why we spend millions to train fighter pilots only to see them grounded without anything to fly. We need a full accounting of where our money is going…and not just in the military.

        • BCinBCS

          JJ, many have tried many times but the military bookkeeping is so out of control that it is an impossible task.

          From today’s The Financial Times:
          The Defense Department over the years has been notorious for its lax accounting practices. The Pentagon has never completed an audit of how they actually spend the trillions of dollars on wars, equipment, personnel, housing, healthcare and procurements.

          An increasingly impatient Congress has demanded that the Army achieve “audit readiness” for the first time by Sept. 30, 2017, so that lawmakers can get a better handle on military spending. But Pentagon watchdogs think that may be mission impossible, and for good reason.

          A Department of Defense inspector general’s report released last week offered a jaw-dropping insight into just how bad the military’s auditing system is.

          The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the behemoth Indianapolis-based agency that provides finance and accounting services for the Pentagon’s civilian and military members, could not provide adequate documentation for $6.5 trillion worth of year-end adjustments to Army general fund transactions and data.

          The rest of the article is here:
          http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/07/31/Pentagon-s-Sloppy-Bookkeeping-Means-65-Trillion-Can-t-Pass-Audit

          • John Johnson

            Good info. It is not just the military. It seems that there is not one Fed department that can give a full accounting of where the money goes. Not one. Hillary’s State Dept. couldn’t. Where is the accountability? Who do you think is going to actually initiate change? Someone who has been in the system for over 30 years and has never said squat about it before?

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, I’m sympathetic to what you are saying but to believe that Donald Trump, a man who can easily be manipulated by flattery, a man who makes his decision according to the last person to talk to him, is not the person who can accomplish this change.

          • John Johnson

            We’ll see.

          • BCinBCS

            God, I hope not.

          • Beerman

            Don’t you think that government accounting problems are more a Congressional responsibility than that of POTUS? Why doesn’t our do-nothing Congress have “hearings” on these type of problems, instead of the partisan grandstanding crap that they are concentrating on today?

            Congress, in my mind, is a much bigger problem, and a complete change is needed within those clowns.

          • John Johnson

            I want a change from top to bottom.

  • John Bernard Books

    I just watched the Chris Wallace interview of Hillary….
    Chris, “you said the Benghazi attack was because of a video”….plays clip of Sec of State Clinton saying those exact words.
    Hillary, “Chris I said many things that day.” shrugs…..silence
    ?…….wha…..

    • John Johnson

      Whaaaat? Really?

  • John Bernard Books

    I’m having second thoughts about voting for Hillary….during her speech Thursday night she said,
    “I remember meeting a young girl in a wheelchair on the small back porch of her house. She told me how badly she wanted to go to school — it just didn’t seem possible in those days. And I couldn’t stop thinking of my mother and what she’d gone through as a child.”
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-hillarys-tearjerker-handicapped-girl-wheelchair-dnc-speech-lie/

    It turns out Hillary lied………

  • WUSRPH

    I built some buildings and made a bunch of money—that’s a sacrifice!
    D. Trump.

    • BCinBCS

      I saw that too…how sad.

    • How anyone could admire or vote for someone so lacking in decency is beyond my comprehension. I’m glad he doesn’t seem to get it and is doubling down on his statements. It’s causing more people to wake up to how unfit he is to lead.

  • WUSRPH

    The problem with Trump’s relationship with Putin and Russia is not just that he has the relationships but that he sees noting wrong about it. I don’t know whether he has a soul or not. I will leave that to the theologians. But it is clear that he has no sense of morality. If you cannot tell the difference between them and us you are unworthy of the title of American citizen.

  • John Johnson

    HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD

    Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.

    Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes.

    Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION message was removed.

    Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. His promises are in black, with updates in red.

    1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary [No longer voluntary],

    2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program [Now 7.65% on the first $90,000, and 15% on the first $90,000 if you’re self-employed],

    3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year [No longer tax deductible],

    4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent], and

    5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income [Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed].

    Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’ — you may be interested in the following:

    Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

    A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

    Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

    A: The Democratic Party.

    Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

    A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

    AND MY FAVORITE:

    Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

    A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

    Now, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

    And the worst part is, the uniformed believe it!

    • Beerman

      JJ, talk about “uninformed,” Good Lord, this lie on SS program goes back for years on the Internet. It is so inaccurate and full of bull manure that it is really alarming that any rational person would believe it. It is hard to believe that you could be “conned” into believing it. Now, I know why you believe the lies from Trump and the hate material on Hillary so much…it is evident that you believe everything that comes over the Internet? Please…please…research your info before forcing it on the rest of us. Your misinformed posting on Social Security places a gray area on your other postings…think about it…facts…facts…facts.

      Variations: A version of this piece started circulating via e-mail in 2005:

      Origins: The Social Security system has been a contentious political issue ever since it was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and implemented in 1935. Arguments regarding how the system should be used, administered, and funded — and even whether it should exist at all — have been the subject of debate for many decades now. In this vein, the above-quoted item seeks to enumerate (and assign blame for) alterations to Social Security that have supposedly betrayed the intent of the system as originally conceived back in the 1930s. Most of the entries contained therein, however, are inaccurate regarding what changes were made and/or who was responsible for making them:
      . . . participation in the Program would be completely voluntary
      There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes (now commonly

      Report Advertisement
      known as FICA, from an acronym for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security “shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid.”

      It is true that Social Security provisions originally applied only to “workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65 in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, and on American vessels,” and thus those who worked in fields not designated as “commerce and industry” (e.g., government workers, farm workers, doctors, lawyers) neither paid into the Social Security fund nor received benefits from it. Nearly all of those exemptions have been since phased out.
      . . . participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program
      Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years:
      1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.
      (2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum.
      (3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.
      (4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum.
      (5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.
      These figures have been adjusted many times over the years. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as of 2005 participants pay 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income (with their employers contributing a like sum) into what is commonly known as OASDI (from an acronym for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, the official name of the basic retirement benefits portion of the Social Security program).
      . . . the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year
      The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions:
      For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages.
      Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since.
      . . . the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program
      The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the “general operating fund.”

      However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be “independent” is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only “be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government,” such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can “invest” Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government “pays back” this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won’t have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report:
      In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated.
      A somewhat dated but detailed article about how the Social Security trust funds are invested can be found here.
      . . . the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income
      It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983.
      Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

      A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
      As noted above, the monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been “put into the general fund.” The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund’s inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself:
      Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This was done administratively by President Johnson. At the time Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974 Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions were to reflect a “unified” budget that included trust fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.

      Beginning in the late 1970s, Social Security faced financial problems, and over a period of time legislation was enacted to restore the financial health of the program. However, because the Federal budget deficit remained large, interest in reducing Social Security spending continued. This routine consideration of Social Security constraints led to concerns that cuts in Social Security were being proposed for budgetary purposes rather than programmatic ones.

      In response to this concern, a series of measures were enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a more distinct part of the budget and permitting Congressional floor objections (points of order) to be raised against budget bills containing Social Security changes.
      This method of accounting for the Social Security Trust Fund in the federal budget was reversed in 1990.
      Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

      A: The Democratic Party.
      As noted above, Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions.
      Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

      A: The Democratic Party.
      Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds.

      Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the bipartisan Greenspan Commission, which had been created by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296-166), but the proposed amendments received “Yea” votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan.
      Q: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

      A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
      In 1993, Congress passed legislation that increased the percentage of Social Security benefits subject to taxation from 50% to 85%. As with the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act, this increase applied only to taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds.

      This change to Social Security was but one element of the massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) introduced in Congress in 1993. OBRA was barely passed by a 218-216 vote in the House of Representatives, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it (although 41 Democrats voted against it). Likewise, the Senate vote on OBRA was deadlocked at 50-50 (again, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it, although 6 Democrats voted against it) until Vice-President Al Gore (a Democrat) cast the deciding “Yea” vote. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (also a Democrat).
      Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

      A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
      No one — whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien — is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — the latter is a federal welfare program “designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income” by providing “cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.” Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican).

      Additional in

      • WUSRPH

        He still won’t believe the truth. He, like the Troll, believes only what he wants to believe.

        • Beerman

          Distorted Internet propaganda is one of the ills of social media, and Mr. Trump is very good at the BS game online.

          • WUSRPH

            The real illness is the refusal of people like JJ to check any thing they are told I know they do not believe in science. They prove that all the time. But they somehow have convinced themselves to accept anything they agree with. No questions answered…Similarly, they reject anything that does not agree with their prior beliefs. Perfect examples of a concreted mind….or what is left of one.

          • WUSRPH

            The problem is not so much that the information is distorted. There is plenty of distorted information in books, etc. as well.The problem is a mind so concreted that it will accept only the information it agrees with in advance or which supports its views.

            One thing you are supposed to get out an education is the knowledge that you should be critical of all information until it has been checked and the data and bias and reliability of its source have been verified. And they applies both when you agree and disagree with the information. But that does not work if your mind has been concerted shut by the certainty that you know the truth of all things.

          • Beerman

            Creates a fertilized field for con men, snake-oil salesmen and get rich quick seminars.

          • WUSRPH

            And people like Trump and his new little believer, the Troll, add a inch or two to the pile of fertilizer per day.

          • José

            Way back in the early days some folks predicted that the Internet would do wonders for opening minds. Imagine, all that information at everyone’s fingertips. People around the globe were going to be exposed to truths that previously had been withheld from them or was otherwise inaccessible. And yet things turned out almost the opposite. Before Internet you were pretty much pushed into interacting with the people in your community, even those who belonged to different political parties or churches, or who had different occupations or ethnic backgrounds. You got your news from one of three big TV networks or a major daily newspaper, all staffed with journalists and editors who had observed the world and understood pretty well what was the truth and what was important. Society had a leveling influence.

            But with the Internet all of a sudden a person could find a few other souls who had the same narrow interests and beliefs. They could talk with each other directly without being challenged by contradictory opinions or even facts.

            And now we have an army of dangerously deluded people who believe that liberals are trying to impose some kind of white-hating Muslim atheist socialist New World Order, and they are honest to goodness convinced of this no ans because everyone they talk to believes the same danged thing and they pass around the same “facts” that must be true because everyone is passing them around.

            It makes a fellow want to go yank some folks out of their darkened bedrooms, away from their computers, and into the bright sunlight of reality.

          • Beerman

            Good summary of the Internet swamp……

    • Beerman
      • John Johnson

        That’s more like it. “Combination of true and false”.

        • Beerman

          No, your posting on SS is distorted and completely false. Internet propaganda at it’s worse.

          • John Johnson

            No, it was not “completely false”. The move that is most aggregious to me was LBJ moving SS funds under the general funds umbrella so this money could be used to finance the war in Vietnam. Worthless IOU’s in the form of bonds were issued to cover the raided funds. The SS Trust Fund is now owed trillions. There is nothing phoney about this fact.

      • John Johnson

        I just deleted a post on the history of SS because it was not completely true, as pointed out by Beerman.

        • John Bernard Books

          Liberals use snopes to further their distortions.
          “Millions of Americans, including national leaders, who rely on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction, may be surprised to learn that behind the Wizard’s curtain, is just a husband and wife doing research on their own.
          http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91196/#10wVlVc4Dl3P3ltP.99

          snopes is simply two old hippies. A hubby and wife team out of California.

  • John Bernard Books

    HISTORY LESSON ON TREASON
    “You can read the full KGB memo detailing Kennedy’s secret letter and request for electoral intervention here.
    Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
    “On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
    Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
    Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
    First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
    Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”
    Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.”
    http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10/ted-kennedy-secretly-asked-the-soviets-to-intervene-in-the-1984-elections/

    The dems asked the Soviet Union to interfere in our election process?

    Listen folks I know most commenting here are dummies. But you gotta admit you’ve learned just how corrupt the democrat party is from me. Not that any of you care.

    • John Bernard Books

      Dems won’t touch this as it is the absolute truth like all my comments.

  • John Bernard Books

    Dan Rather explains why democrats are such abject liars….
    “Rather: “Well, because I think he is. I think at core he’s an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so, but I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.”
    O’Reilly: “Really?!?”
    Rather: “Yeah, I do.”
    O’Reilly: “See, I can’t. I want my government to be honest across-the-board. I don’t want people lying.”
    http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cyberalert-05152001-dan-rather-bill-clinton-i-think-hes-honest-man

    For the democrat commenters here I’ll explain it. Dan Rather said he thinks Bill Clinton and of course Hillary are honest people even they lie about anything and everything. It is commonly known as liberal logic.

    • BCinBCS

      So, if you believe that, JBB, how do you explain Trump and his endless lying?

      • John Bernard Books

        I’m not saying all democrats are liars, I am saying all liars are democrats.

      • Sacagewea

        Save your intellect for a more worthy opponent. Pearls before swine . . .

  • John Bernard Books

    Our friends dems have thrown out a red herring about Trump and Putin…..
    “But her handling of a major technology transfer initiative at the heart of Washington’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia raises serious questions about her record. Far from enhancing American national interests, Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in this area may have substantially undermined U.S. national security.”
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195

    Mrs Bill was in bed with Putin?….huh?

  • John Bernard Books

    I’m shocked I tell you shocked…
    “Hillary Clinton is an inveterate liar”
    Host Chris Wallace asked Clinton about some of her prior statements which, according to FBI Director Comey, were not true. In response, Clinton said, “Director Comey said my answers were truthful and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
    wow!!!!!!
    “Wallace played a clip of FBI Director Comey at a congressional hearing disputing Clinton’s account, but Clinton refused to acknowledge having sent and received classified material.”
    watch the interview dems…………..
    “This is far from the first time Clinton has been caught lying about this issue. Nearly everything she said in her first press conference was a lie and she continues to lie egregiously about this to this day.”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/31/washington-post-hillary-clinton-is-an-inveterate-liar/

    inveterate-having a particular habit, activity, or interest that is long-established and unlikely to change: its ingrained, its who she is….an inveterate liar.

  • John Bernard Books

    To all the girly men here…its time we had a talk….
    “If you’re doing any of the things on this list, don’t get your panties in a knot, just stop doing them.”
    http://average2alpha.com/21-things-modern-men-need-to-stop-doing/

  • WUSRPH

    Hillary got her post convention bounce in the polls. A solid lead both straight up and with the Libertarian in the race. Of particular interest is that the increase comes primarily from Independents who have seen Trump and are not impressed.

     

    http://tinyurl.com/jse6kvt

  • Sacagewea

    Trump was created by the GOP. Now they must reap what they have sown:

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/how-the-stupid-party-created-donald-trump.html?
    action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region%C2%AEion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0&referer=

  • John Bernard Books

    Clinton Cruz in 2020? Ted Cruz secretly supporting Hillary…..
    “We strongly believe that Ted Cruz met with Obama to talk about the RNC and what Ted’s new role would be in the narrative of the Democrats and how he would aid and support them.
    Many Ted Cruz Texas delegates now view Cruz as helping directly or indirectly Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump. Some indicated that they would never vote for Ted Cruz again, regardless of what office he may choose to run for in the future. One Cruz delegate even held a sign “Clinton/Cruz 2020” in front of him.”
    http://www.eutimes.net/2016/07/ted-cruz-met-with-obama-prior-to-rnc-endorses-hillary-rick-perry-set-to-destroy-cruz/

    News only a democrat can believe….

  • John Bernard Books

    Lies like a cheap rug….
    “Wallace: After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true.
    Clinton: Chris, that’s not what I heard Director Comey say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity, in my view, to clarify. Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the e-mails. I was communicating with over 300 people in my e-mailing. They certainly did not believe, and had no reason to believe, that what they were sending was classified. In retrospect, different agencies come in and say, well, it should have been, but that’s not what was happening in real time.”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/01/video-watch-the-moments-hillary-clinton-lies-through-her-teeth-on-fox-news-sunday/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

  • Madrigalian

    The subject of Russia’s influence in American politics has been a hot topic of late, particularly as the MSM continues to link Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and the DNC hack. However, a report published by the Government Accountability Institute presents a new twist in the Kremlin-US political ties. It all started with the 2009 “Russian reset” touted by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    One such project was Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley. As chief diplomat, Hillary was in charge of courting US companies to invest in this new Russian city. Russia, on the other hand, had committed to spend $5 billion over the next three years (2009-12).

    Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton…

    Russians tied to Skolkovo also flowed funds to the Clinton Foundation. Andrey Vavilov, the chairman of SuperOx, which is part of Skolkovo’s nuclear-research cluster, donated between $10,000 and $25,000 (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton’s family charity”

    However, as US intelligence agencies including the FBI were soon to find out, the Russian Silicon Valley served other purposes as well.

    More from the WSJ op-ed: “The state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.”Moreover, the report said: “the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project—the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine. . . . Not all of the center’s efforts are civilian in nature…”

    “The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies. The [Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application.”

    – Does Texas Monthly care?

  • Realist50

    “At the time of my writing, Saudi Arabia was producing too much oil to make sense from a strictly business perspective, and thus selling its product at a loss.”

    Sorry, but this isn’t the case at all. Saudi Arabia has insanely low production costs that are estimated to be $10 per barrel or less. (See http://graphics.wsj.com/oil-barrel-breakdown/ ). For a variety of reasons – primarily (i) that it’s part of the OPEC cartel and (ii) that the marginal barrel for the world market from elsewhere has far greater costs than Saudi oil – they’ve historically chosen not to produce flat-out.

    One can question whether their current strategy makes sense from a long-term business perspective. Is their strategy a smart one because it is driving out investment in higher cost production? Should they instead have cutback more production to support prices? Or would that just result in an ongoing need to give up market share continually as other production comes online?

    So Saudi Arabia has taken a short-term revenue hit that may or may not have bigger benefits in the longer-term. They are not, however, anywhere close to selling oil at a loss.