Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

NAFTA Was a Bipartisan Effort

Both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton deserve credit for the trade deal.

By Comments

Photo by Joe Raedle/Newsmakers

In the wake of Monday’s presidential debate, Donald Trump and his supporters have devoted much of the week to defending the Republican position on the appropriate amount of weight a woman may gain after being crowned Miss Universe. Americans who take an interest in the subject of trade, however, have been debating another one of the claims Trump made that night. While vigorously assailing NAFTA, he attacked Hillary Clinton’s record on trade, and her husband’s; the treaty “is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere,” in his telling, and as he said to Clinton: “your husband signed” it.

The treaty in question is one I feel strongly about, for the reasons I laid out in the October issue. No trade deal is perfect, and the best of them are bound to have disruptive effects on the economies. That is, in a sense, what they are designed to do. More to the point, the disruptive effects may be adverse for specific industries and regions. and I think we can all agree that it’s important for policymakers to keep that in mind as they negotiate such agreements. States like Indiana and cities like Pittsburgh are proof that it’s possible to be resilient in the face of change and even to emerge revitalized, but that isn’t guaranteed and doesn’t happen by magic. With that said, it’s been more than twenty years since the passage of NAFTA, and the evidence shows that it has helped foster economic growth in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Trump is flatly wrong to blame Bill Clinton for his role in its passage, because he is flatly wrong to blame anyone for their efforts on behalf of a treaty that has proven to be one of America’s better deals.

Trump is, however, correct to say that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. He would also have been correct if he had said that Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush, signed it and he would have been correct if he had said that they both did. There is documentary evidence that both men did so. Here is a video of Bush signing NAFTA, on December 17th, 1992. Here is a video of Clinton signing NAFTA, on December 8th, 1993. Here is a technical explanation, from the Baltimore Sun, of the reason that Bush’s signature, in 1992, was not sufficient to implement the treaty:

Mr. Bush had to allow Congress 90 days to consider the agreement before signing. Yesterday was the first possible day for his signature. The clock will start ticking again when Mr. Clinton submits implementing legislation to make the necessary changes in U.S. law and tariffs required by the treaty. There is no deadline for Mr. Clinton to take this action, but once he does Congress will have up to 90 legislative days to vote up or down on the implementing legislation or change it.

In other words, despite our contemporary disregard for Congress, the legislative branch exists, and the founding fathers of our nation accorded it certain powers. NAFTA is a congressional-executive agreement; as the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome explained recently, that means that after being signed by the president, it had to be converted into implementing legislation, by Congress, prior to being passed into law. Bush was the president when NAFTA was being negotiated, but his signature on the treaty was not sufficient to pass it into law, and about a month later, Clinton had become president. Worth noting, though, is that Clinton’s signature was not merely a formality. NAFTA was controversial at the time, with Democrats leading the opposition to it. This opposition persisted even after Bush signed the treaty, and after Clinton was inaugurated as his successor; ultimately, the Senate ratified the treaty only after Clinton negotiated side agreements, addressing concerns about labor and the environment.

In other words, Bush spearheaded the effort to pass NAFTA. And although Republicans led the charge in Congress, it would be remiss for a Texan to ignore the crucial support they received from Texas Democrats such as Lloyd Bentsen, then our senior senator—or to miss the opportunity to commend Texas Democrats in Congress today, such as Joaquin Castro, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Henry Cuellar, whose support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership has put them at risk of some backlash from the left. And the Clinton administration did real work to complete what Bush started. There’s been a lot of reminiscing, this week, about Al Gore’s substandard debate performances during the 2000 presidential election, but very few reminders about how compellingly he made his case when he debated Ross Perot on the subject of NAFTA, shortly before the ratification vote, in November 1993.

It can be a little tricky to characterize the respective roles that Bush and Clinton played in the NAFTA process. But to say that only one of them was relevant would be flatly ahistorical, and to say that either party is solely culpable would be disingenuous. The truth is that both parties deserve credit for NAFTA, as do both of the presidents who signed it—for the treaty itself, and for their willingness to put aside partisanship to achieve its passage.

Related Content

  • John Bernard Books

    Bipartisan? I thought it was an effort by the evil republicans to ship our jobs to Mexico for cheep labor?
    Huh?

    • Erica Grieder

      That’s all too often the case–which is one of the reasons why I appreciate all the people who fought for NAFTA, and have a special fondness for Texas Dems who stood up for their districts even though a lot of national special interest groups on the left are against trade. the politico story (linked above) has a great quote from Eddie Bernice Johnson, the congressional rep from Dallas, who faced a backlash from labor unions because she supported TPP:

      “It gets your attention,” Texas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson said of the loss of AFL-CIO’s backing, adding that trade is an “economic engine” for her Dallas district. “But I cannot neglect the stance and conditions of my district that I pledged heartily to represent.”

      Regardless of whether you agree or disagree on the issue at hand, it’s heartening to hear an elected official say that these days, isn’t it? “I cannot neglect the stance and conditions of my district that I pledged heartily to represent.” Good for her.

      (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/labor-democrats-trade-deal-tpp-219810#ixzz4LmJncC8o)

      • Jed

        “the reasons why I appreciate all the people who fought for NAFTA, and have a special fondness for Texas Dems who stood up for their districts even though a lot of national special interest groups on the left are against trade.”

        you don’t have to oppose “trade” to oppose an agreement like NAFTA.

        • WUSRPH

          You cannot have a “trade deal” without some loss. The problems with NAFTA resulted from the govt not taking the necessary steps to help those affected, not from the deal. A 100% “win” deal would reuire that making the other nation virtually our colony which might be okay with JJ and Trump.

          • Jed

            in clarifying, you have affirmed (part of) my point. i assume that was your intent. yes, one of the sets of problems with NAFTA lay in the failure to address its impact on workers. another area of problems not sufficiently addressed includes environmental impact. and on and on. these things could and should be addressed without preventing “trade.”

          • WUSRPH

            Take a look at the sites I posted for the TPPA and see if they have been better addressed in this newer agreement.

          • WUSRPH

            But are those failures of the treaty are of the US and state governments to subsequently adapt to the impact NAFTA had on those areas?

          • Jed

            if it involves action (or enforcement) by the signing entities, then it should be in the treaty.

          • WUSRPH

            That would be true in the case of provisions requiring decent wages for workers, pollution standards and anti-dumping, etc. that are part-and-parcel of the deal BUT what I am most concerned with is the implementation efforts we have to make ourselves to compensate for any damages to our workers and economy. A trade pact is like the US constitution in that it sets out the guidelines and rules but does not implement them. That is up to the Congress and state and local governments. The problem with NAFTA is that the efforts that were made were not sufficient. One hopes that we have learned our lesson and would do so to implement whatever needs to be done to adjust to a TPPA.

      • gordo

        Erica-NAFTA was a net minus for border communities because it obviated a number of competitive advantages for US border communities-skills, technologies, proximity, etc. and a net plus for interior Texas communities because border proximity was no longer a necessity. When Mexico acceded to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in the 1980’s under de la Madrid, border communities benefited greatly for a period of time by being able to export more consumer goods into the interior, as they had been doing for generations into the borderlands. As the Walmarts and Home Depots of the world began to open stores in Mexico, that advantage greatly lessened. No competitive advantage lasts forever, a cautionary note for Texas today.

        • John Johnson

          Good point, and totally ignored. Just read the book Wolf Boys, which TM printed a sample reading of in last month’s issue. It highlighted this same issue and went further by outlining how the agreement opened the door to massive scale imports of drugs into the U.S. and moved all the cartels to the Texas border.

        • Kozmo

          And I don’t see the Border in any better shape today than it has been for 30 years or more. Poverty, colonias, exploitation, crime — it should make all Texans ashamed of our neglect. NAFTA hasn’t helped these people one bit far as I can see, let alone the hundreds of thousands of workers or farmers elsewhere in the US or Mexico. These trade “deals” are always good for the establishment businessmen, though.

          • gordo

            Inevitably so. Governments everywhere under-invest in their frontiers, because the benefits of investment bleed over to those on the other side of the border. Much better to invest in the interior regions, where the benefits of the investment-and the voters-are concentrated. It is actually a rational economic response. We ask our US/Mexican border to do two fundamentally incompatible things: facilitate the movement of goods/people we value, and restrict the movement of goods/people we don’t. Therefore, the dis-economies concentrate on the border and its residents, and the economies of scale flow elsewhere. Not just on our border, but on the US/Canada border and elsewhere. One of the main factors in the Brexit vote outcome, in my estimation, is that same calculation-Britian can get the benefits of the European market without bearing its share of the costs of labor migration, refugee resettlement, and the like. Capital need not respect national borders anymore, so to them its a wash.

  • Shelly H.

    I have to admit that was one of those wait, WTH moments in the debate for me. Sadly it was eclipsed by the dozens of OMFGWTFBBQ?!?!?!?!! moments that came before and after it.

    NAFTA is one of the main reasons the Texas economy weathered the tech bubble bursting in 2000-2001 and then the recession in 2008. The debate was the first I had heard that NAFTA was bad since the early days of the treaty as it was transitioned from the HW Bush administration to the Bill Clinton administration. Other than Trump stated that it is a bad treaty, I can’t find any reason that would support his claim. Unless one of his foreign advisors suggested he could use it as a club to try and force Mexico to pay for his wall, or that somehow he could use it to beat Clinton in their debate.

    I am kinda baffled at the sudden dislike of this treaty beyond that Bill Clinton provided the leadership to congress to implement it.

    • Sam Jacinto

      Good luck trying to find evidence for any of Trump’s claims

  • José

    There’s a lot of reasons why it’s dumb for Trump to scream at HRC about NAFTA. The most significant one, in my judgment, is very simple. Hillary did not have any formal role in negotiating or passing the agreement. Contrary to what dim witted Trumpkins may believe, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are not running for office. The candidate is Hillary Clinton. She has policy proposals, experience, and personal characteristics of her own. Trump ought to be man enough to compare himself to his actual opponent, just like Hillary Clinton does.

    • John Bernard Books

      Then she wasn’t co-prez? Dems always want it both ways.

  • BCinBCS

    Erica wrote: “No trade deal is perfect, and the best of them are bound to have disruptive effects on the economies. “

    One of the glaring problems with NAFTA was the disruption caused by opening U.S. mass produced farm products, like corn, into the Mexican market. The availability of low cost foods drove many Mexicans off of their land disrupting their lifestyle and livelihood. Many Mexicans forced off of the farm had no choice but to begin working in low wage maquiladoras while others decided that the best answer to their unemployment was to cross the Rio into the U.S.

    I am a proponent of free trade in the Americas. Increasing the wealth of all of the western hemisphere would eliminate many of the problems that are indigenous here and bolster this continent from the strife and warfare that has plagued Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Treaties, such as NAFTA, must be drafted with an eye on the unintended consequences and on providing a benefit for all nations involved. These agreements should never be partisan or coercive and there should always be provisions for the populations whose jobs and lives are disrupted.

    • gordo

      Cogent observation. I concur. NAFTA was conducted kinda like we do our fantasy NFL draft. Mexico, Canada and the US each chose to protect certain sectors of their economies, and to open up others. The US chose to protect aviation, and Mexico and Canada chose to protect natural resource extraction-oil in Mexico’s case, wood products in Canada’s. The US caved on ground transportation, to the dismay of the Teamsters, but knew even than that advances in truck transportation and the necessary investment in technology made Mexican labor cost advantages immaterial. The maquila program, on the other hand, predates NAFTA by some two decades. It is a Mexican concession to US manufacturers, and was meant to create unskilled jobs for agricultural workers kicked out of the US in the 50s and early 60s. Didn’t turn out that way-the Law of Unintended Consequences works in Mexico as it did in the US. Maquilas bagan to employ mostly female workers, because that was the largest, cheapest, most exploitable labor pool available at the time.

  • José

    It’s amusing to see Trump and others get hysterical in attempting to portray certain issues as solidly partisan when they really aren’t. Trade is certainly one such item, where there are Dems and Republicans on both sides. And, sadly, immigration reform is another. It ought to be possible for reasonable people to hammer out an agreement that is better than the status quo both for business and for the public interest. That’s not going to happen when the GOP kowtows to Trump populism and Tea Party foolishness.

  • Kozmo

    “Credit”? Infamy, I’d say.

  • Gary Denton

    NAFTA led to the loss of good paying manufacturing jobs in the US and gains in low paying agricultural jobs (often filled by Mexican immigrants) and low paying retail and moderate paying transportation jobs.
    In Mexico it led to massive losses in poor paying agricultural jobs and gains in moderate paying manufacturing and transportation jobs and poor paying retail jobs.
    It had a moderate effect in lowering inflation by reducing some prices in both countries.
    To claim it was an unmitigated success means ignoring the effect it had on wages in the US which a privileged white collar writer may be inclined to do.

    • Too Sweet

      NAFTA undoubtedly affected industrial wages by encouraging movement of manufacturing to Mexico, but it wasn’t the root of the industrial wage decay. I think you need to go back a couple of decades to the 70s, when states like Texas, and OK, and Tennessee decided they were going to establish or expand their own industrial base by drawing industry away from its traditional home in the northern or Midwest states. Large corporations took advantage of poorly considered economic development incentives to flee organized labor and union wages in the north by shifting manufacturing to southern states. They saved about two-thirds on hourly wage costs and offered few or very reduced benefits to their new workers. My father was an executive with one such corporation and moved with a division to Oklahoma. The South got the plants, the corporations got to move at a greatly reduced cost and northern workers took a big hit in high wage union job availability.

      I say the economic development benefits were ill considered, though, because all they really did was show big companies that they could move an entire operations. Most had become hidebound in the north because they had operated at the same location for a century or more, often with a workforce that had worked in the plant for generations. But they learned they could drop everything and go elsewhere.

      So when first the siren song of NAFTYA lured them to Mexico, they were quite ready to close all those plants they opened in southern states and move their whole manufacturing operation to maquilas. Often they could do it at little cost. Later, Chinese and other Asian business people started building plants and looking for something to make in them. As economic development incentives expired, companies were closing all those new southern plants and contracting their manufacturing out to Asia, mostly China. Milwaukee tools are not made in Milwaukee (or anywhere in the U.S.) anymore, despite more than a century of history there. Same with Chicago tools and Chicago, Black&Decker, etc. The list is long.

      The working class has been getting reamed, slowly, for decades. It wasn’t just NAFTA. That is just one match in the box.

      • WUSRPH

        Too Sweet makes an excellent point about the jobs already moving before NAFTA, but the truth does not matter to those to whom it is what they want to believe—ala Trump. The changing nature of our economy from manufacturing being the primary sector to consumption and services was a long-term development but simple minds produce simplistic answers.

      • John Johnson

        Right on the mark; they’ve just kept going from North to South, and now to Mexico, Central America, South East Asia, China and India. These multinational, homogenous world corporations have no fealty to the U.S. worker or the country. By definition, they are all about making money anyway possible. Compare this to the independent companies or smaller corp’s of decades ago who considered all employees members of the family. This country is moving in the wrong direction.

    • John Johnson

      Well stated.

    • Sacagewea

      As a refugee from the
      Rust Belt, I can report that jobs left there long before NAFTA was signed.

      • Sacagewea

        It started in the ’60s with Japanese cars, then Nixon went to China.

  • WUSRPH

    Interesting story in the NY Times about how Trump may have avoided paying income taxes for nearly the past 20 years. Of course, he had to loose nearly a BILLION DOLLARS in one year to do it……And he’s a great businessman? What is it four or six or even more bankruptcies?

    • John Bernard Books

      At the time Trump was a dem and took a Billion in write offs given to him by his dem friends in Congress….
      I’m not sure that anything to do with NAFTA.

      • BCinBCS

        JBB, just because you think that the moon is actually the sun asleep does not make it so.
        If you continue with the crazy rantings, people will think that you are crazy.

        • WUSRPH

          Don’t worry he will only get worse as the election gets closer.

          • Sacagewea

            How low will he descend?

          • WUSRPH

            He has barely scratched the surface….He still has his full arsenal of sexual slurs and attacks to use, plus his claims of misdeeds by the Democrats.

          • Sacagewea

            He has a persecution complex.

          • John Bernard Books

            Great here we go with your sexual fantasies…..again

          • Wilson James

            As low as his idol, The Great Pumpkin.

          • John Bernard Books

            the paid shill has returned….

        • John Bernard Books

          Let me see a looney leftie thinks I’m crazy……hahaha

  • John Bernard Books

    Hillary tells dems to turn in your masculinity or else…
    “A university in the United States has begun offering classes in “constructive male allyship,” providing a space where male students are able to “question and deconstruct toxic masculinities.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/us-university-offers-course-for-men-to-deconstruct-toxic-masculi/

    Only Hillary will be wearing pants on the road to the WH

  • WUSRPH

    Two good articles in the latest issue of the New Republic that might be of interest. One explores the different kinds of populism represented by Trump and Sanders and there possible survival after their defeats. Nothing that new, ut it puts them into perspective (that word JJ hates). The second is a review of two new efforts to explain the nature of Trump’s core constituency. Both may not be available on line but are worth searching for….The cover story is about Trump’s closest advisors—the kind of people he has chosen to express and spread his message and who would probably play key roles in a Trump Administration. It is frightening that these people could be in places of real power…….they certainly don’t fit the image that JJ likes to spread of Trump surrounding himself with qualified businessmen and experts who can run things.

  • WUSRPH

    There are said to be more than 20 separate sections of the TPPA specifically designed to protect American workers added as a result of the experience with NAFTA and the other trade deals. It would be interesting to see just what changes they would make…..and if Trump and the others opponents of the deal (including Hillary to an extent) are playing politics about issues that , as usual, have already been addressed.

  • BCinBCS

    With less than thirty comments in three days, I think that it is safe to assume that NAFTA is not a burning issue with the readers of BurkaBlog. To broaden the conversation and to get a feel for what others think, I would like to ask what BB readers think about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty (TPP) that President Obama favors and both Hillary and Trump oppose.

    At this time, even though I generally favor free trade and the removal of obstacles to it, I oppose the TPP. This is mainly due to the provision that allows other countries to overturn U.S. laws and rules using non-U.S. courts. It might be an expedient and righteous thing to do but I see plenty of room for abuse.

    Anyone else have opinions about the TPP?

    • Sacagewea

      Those aspects are still open for negotiation

      • Sacagewea

        The countries on the west coast of South America present opportunities for stabilization.

    • WUSRPH

      As I understand it, the provision is nothing new. Disputes under existing World Trade Organization agreements are settled in A non-U.S. Court. Have been for years. The idea is to provide a neutral court that is not affected by national politics or bias. The same, of course, applies to disputes we have with other nations. It is not a one-way street.

      With that as an understanding, I generally support the TPPA however my support presupposes that the US govt. and states will take action to adjust for any job loses and disadvantages suffered by US workers and companies…..thru such things as job training, education, the promotion of new industries (with incentives to locate in highly affected areas) and, where needed, relocation assistance. Clinton has indicated support for virtually all such steps (with the possible exception of relocation assistance which is something I am promoting). Trump, as usual, has provided no specifics.

      P.S. You might notice that I posted two links to sites that supposedly discuss the protections for US workers included in the TPPA last night. See below.

    • José

      Trade might be one of those subjects where most casual participants of the GriederBlog know that they don’t know much and hence refrain from posting. As opposed to most other subjects where they don’t know how little they know.

      As someone generally inclined to avoid restrictions unless there’s a good reason I’m largely in favor of TPP as a way to deal with the realities of a global economy. In other words, a light amount of regulation to keep things reasonably fair. Many of the criticisms that I read are wishful and wistful attempts to hold on to a national economy that cannot and will not exist in the future, TPP or not. America will adapt to the future conditions and evolve intelligently, or it will wither and die.

      • BCinBCS

        As opposed to most other subjects where they don’t know how little they know.

        Yea, Dunning-Kruger Effect.

        • John Bernard Books

          Its the IYI effect caused by an ever expanding government.

          • BCinBCS

            Or the (I) effect from reading so much right-wing nut propaganda.

          • John Bernard Books

            How does one read too much of the truth? You should try it it might boost you out of the low information voter class.

          • BCinBCS

            JBB, I literally laughed out loud reading your ironic reply. Thanks for the moment of humor.

          • John Bernard Books

            We laugh at you daily. Thanks
            BC serious question, is it you desire to become pearl?
            All you need is a fifth of gin and your IQ….

  • WUSRPH

    Is ANYONE going to watch the VP debate tomorrow (Tuesday) night? I hope that Pence retains his image as a “good guy” and does not pick up the personal attacks on Bill and Hillary that Trump is pushing.

    • Sacagewea

      We will watch Tim Kaine show he is smarter than Mike Dense .

    • Wilson James

      I think both are decent men. Pence is a bit of a zealot, but like a good Baptist preacher he will have all the answers that fit his base. Kaine is a realist and understands the country. Should be fun.

  • Jay Trainor

    Keep in mind, prior economic disruptions were jointly address with cooperative efforts by Republicans, (though grudgingly) and Democrats to pass a stimulus package to get the economy moving. That didn’t happen in 2008 because Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. John Cornyn and the Republican leadership were determined to make President Obama a one term office holder. “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

    Besides, according to Donald Trump, we all now know the Fox facts, NAFTA is Obama and Hillary’s fault!

  • WUSRPH

    Whether one supports/opposes/is undecided on the TPPA, NAFTA or any of the other trade agreements adopted since the GATT probably depends on how far toward autarky a person believes his or her country should be.

    Personally, I prefer to live in a country which had the capacity to meet all its basic needs for steel, energy, clothing, food and other essentials commodities from domestic production……..like we used to do before WW II……BUT those days are gone for reasons good and bad and are not coming back. The days of a totally self-sufficient economy—or even close to one—are long gone for virtually every country in the world. It just is not possible in the modern economic and world and, even if it were, the cost in higher prices, taxes, inflation and necessary government spending to make it possible would substantially lower our standard of living.

    This does not mean that I would be happy if we gave up all our capacity in these areas and became totally dependent on foreign sources for much of what we consume. Fortunately, this is not now the case. Nor is it likely to become such no matter which candidate wins in November. (Trump talks a autarky game, but he talks a lot of things that are not possible and are not going to happen.)

    What is needed is an ordered system of trade with protections for our workers where possible and action by our governments—stand and federal—to provide compensation for any harm where needed. In my view the TPPA is part of the continuing effort to insure such a system……and, as such, should be adopted.

    • BCinBCS

      British PM Theresa May announced Sunday that she would trigger EU Article 50 at the end of March 2017 to leave.

      • WUSRPH

        That gives her 2 years to make a deal…..but from what I heard and read while in England and since then there appears to be little support in the EU for a deal that would, in effect, give the UK all the benefits of EU membership but none of the costs. In fact, a group of the smaller nations have said they would veto any such agreement.

        • BCinBCS

          Since the March 2017 trigger is six months away, I assume from your comment that there is an eighteen month delay before Brexit becomes effective?

          • WUSRPH

            Nope….they have two years from the beginning of the formal process to reach an agreement…..That would be til March 2019… Of course, the Brits can always say “kings x” any time during that process and withdraw their application to get out of the EU.

          • BCinBCS

            Having been there last month, do you think that England might have a change of heart and vote to stay in the EU?

          • WUSRPH

            Probably not but they will soon learn that much of what the British equivalents of Trump told them was untrue. That may have some affect on future elections as will the failure of the Conservatives to be able to deliver what the Btexiters were promised. The problem is, however, that neither of the other two major parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, are in any shape to take advantage of the situation. Labour is coming apart at the seams and the Liberals are down to 7 members in the Commons and have been totally repudiated.

  • John Bernard Books

    How much did your State rep steal today?
    “Thirteen thousand dollars in payments to family members. Seventeen thousand dollars for musical performers. Eleven thousand dollars to redecorate a Capitol office.
    Over the last 15 years, state Rep. Dawnna Dukes has filed tens of thousands of dollars in unusual expenses in campaign finance reports, an American-Statesman review has found. Some — like $2,700 to a seamstress — seemingly conflict with state ethics rules. Others — like more than $30,000 in gas reimbursements, which is eight times more than all of her fellow Austin legislators combined — raise questions.
    Earlier this year, the Texas Rangers, Travis County district attorney’s office and State Auditor’s Office launched a criminal investigation into how the longtime Democratic legislator has handled personnel and spending in her legislative office. Former employees have alleged that Dukes used state money to pay a now-former legislative staffer to run personal errands for the lawmaker. Law enforcement authorities are also looking into whether Dukes assigned her staffers to work on a cultural festival on state time and whether she broke any laws when she accepted state money for working but wasn’t actually at the Capitol.”
    http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/dawnna-dukes-campaign-spending-raises-questions/nrhzM/

    Once Dukes retires from looting tax dollars Dukes’ state pension will be about $74,000 a year……wow!

  • John Bernard Books

    Can dems steal the election?
    “Before his appointment by Democratic Gov. Terence McAuliffe, Cortés was a left-wing operative of Virginia Voting Rights Restoration Campaign, within the left-wing Advancement Project. The project was funded and supported by George Soros, through his Tides Foundation and Open Society Foundations.

    The report makes the direct charge: “At the instruction of Commissioner Cortés, local election officials refused to provide us with records showing the voting history of non-citizens removed from registration lists.”
    http://pushjunction.com/l/24749

    You might remember Guv McAuliffe a Clinton crony tried to use an executive order to allow felons to vote.
    Felons, illegals and dead people always vote for dems……

  • WUSRPH

    Isn’t it fun that the speculation on who “leaked” Trump’s non-payment of any income taxes is that it was a former Mrs. Trump? What is it they say about a woman scorned?
    No matter what the source, the news should add to Hillary’s regained four point lead. The fact that he was able to lose nearly a billion dollars in one year might even make JJ stop bragging about what a great businessman Trump is/was/might have been/claims, etc.

    • John Johnson

      Oh, Professor, I understand the difference in personal loss and someone who runs a fed agency that can’t account for billions of the taxpayers money. Do you?

      • John Bernard Books

        You mean like the $6 billion Hillary misplaced?
        “The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.”

        $6 billion wow no wonder Dave the government worker wants Hillary elected…..

      • WUSRPH

        Name me a “good businessman” (other than Trump) who has gone bankrupt at least four times, if not six or more, who loses nearly a billion dollars in one year, who has at least twice had to pay fines for refusing to rent to people of color (as a group), who has milked taxpayers of nearly another billion in special concessions and who has all the law suits for non-payment, etc. and on and on…..You want to think he is some miracle worker and great success but he is nothing but a real estate and gambling hustler. He is every thing you’d condemn in anyone else.

        • BCinBCS

          Who lost nearly a billion dollars in an up year – the Dow-Jones average gained 35% that year !

          • WUSRPH

            But think of the skill and judgment it took to pull it off. He’s so good that he can arrange to make it unnecessary for him to pay income taxes for nearly two decades.

          • BCinBCS

            The second BB chuckle of the day.

          • John Bernard Books

            Trump didn’t lose a billion dollars in an up year, it was accumulated over several years. Perhaps you should learn our tax laws.

          • BCinBCS

            Perhaps you should learn our tax laws. Deductions are only allowed in the year in which they occur. If the losses accrued over several years then each of those years should have that year’s loss deducted.

        • John Johnson

          Lots of successful people have used the horrendous tax laws to their benefit. Google all the independent “success stories” where a bankruptcy was involved. I will repeat…even with all Trump’s warts, he is the one I am voting for. Our choices are horrible. Hillary is more of the same. Trump got rich off of the system; Hillary got rich off of us.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, The Donald’s statement that he “could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose votes” certainly applies to you. He certainly has you hook, line and sinker in his grift.

          • WUSRPH

            Four to six bankruptcies?

        • John Johnson
          • WUSRPH

            Several major differences between Lincoln and Trump One. Lincoln paid off his debts over time.. He did not leave hundreds of thousands of people holding worthless promises. And, Lincoln did no start out with as much as a $14 million stake from his father.
            You need to pick your examples with more care. This one only makes Trump look worse.

          • John Johnson

            Keep reading, Pedant. Thomas Jefferson…several times. The list is long.

          • WUSRPH

            Jefferson was recognized as a bad businessman who always overspent….and covered debts by selling of some of his slaves. He was bankrupt when he died and his estate had to be sold. What slaves does Trump propose to sell off to pay the national debt?

            And US Grant had to be bailed out at the end of his life…because he lost everything when he put faith in a Trump type businessman.

            Sad stories….but not something we should emulate.
            But, in each case, they tried to pay their debts. Trump just walked away from his….

            You need to quite trying to defend the indefensible.

          • Jed

            i can’t believe you even entertained this argument.

            all those other figures had some claim to the presidency that did not rely on their business skills.

            trump’s *only* claim is his business acumen. so when that turns out to be illusory, it is not the same as saying “jefferson wasn’t any good at business.” because jefferson still has his claim to the office while trump doesn’t.

            the fact that JJ went here shows that he now recognizes that trump has no claim to the office. he is just trying to make himself feel better for voting for him anyway.

    • BCinBCS

      I read an interesting comment over at LG&M from a CPA and IRS employee who has audited high income individual’s tax returns for 23 years. The most interesting thing that he mentioned was in response to the Trump Tower postmark on the envelope that contained the tax return; turns out that there is an IRS office in Trump Tower. He wasn’t accusing anything or anyone, as a matter of fact, the reader had to put two and two together themselves. I would expect that if the return came from that office rather than from the Trump side, heads will roll.

      • WUSRPH

        It is more likely a case of putting 2 and 2780 together and getting 2……I think it is much more likely to have been either Ms. Maples or one of the thousands of his employees he has stepped upon over the years who had access and was just waiting for an opportunity to strike back.

        • Wesley TX

          whoever it was – a grateful nation thanks them. 😎

        • BCinBCS

          Proly

      • BCinBCS

        BC wrote: “…turns out that there is an IRS office in Trump Tower.

        I have since learned that the income tax form that was leaked was for state income tax so it couldn’t have been the Trump Tower IRS office that leaked it.

    • Wesley TX

      I would guess that Trump mailed those himself, too coincidental in timing to how smart he is to not pay any taxes and then a return is delivered which gives a “good reason” he doesn’t pay any taxes. How many of his supporters will still vote for him based on what a “good businessman” he is after he lost almost a BILLION dollars in one year.

      • BCinBCS

        Wesley, I can’t get over the fact that he lost nearly a billion dollars – a billion dollars.
        A billion dollars to a government or to a large corporation like Google or Apple is a normal amount of zeros but the loss of a billion dollars by an individual is a monumental screw-up. What a businessman!

        • dave in texas

          And he lost that billion dollars while operating a casino, which is the closest thing there is to actually being able to print your own money. FFS, losing money on a casino doesn’t just make someone a bad businessperson, it makes them a blithering idiot or a criminal. Or in this case, likely both.

  • John Bernard Books

    NY Times says to hell with our reputation…
    “Over the weekend, the Times reported a story about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s tax returns. The returns may have been obtained and published illegally. This comes just weeks after the top editor at the paper, Dean Baquet, said he would risk jail time to obtain Trump’s tax returns.”
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nb-staff/2016/10/03/mrcs-brent-bozell-blasts-hypocritical-nyt-their-hypocrisy-breathtaking?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_content=bozell-trump-nyt

    may have gotten them illegally…..they are willing to go to jail to help Hillary.

    • dave in texas

      They’re willing to go to jail to help the country, you lackwitted simpleton. Not Hillary – the country. That even includes you, despite your contempt for the nation’s democratic ideals and principles. You could show a little gratitude instead of your usual obtuseness and lack of critical thinking skills.

      • John Bernard Books

        How does helping elect Hillary help the country moron?
        and I maybe grossly over estimating your intelligence
        ” Specifically, those who have an IQ between 0 and 25 are idiots; IQs between 26 and 50 are considered imbeciles; and those who have an IQ between 51 and 70 are considered morons.”

        Would you commit a felony to help elect a politician? Apparently Dave thinks its ok…..

        • BCinBCS

          So where on that scale are you?

          • John Bernard Books

            Over your head……as if you didn’t know.
            So BC the dem do you think committing a felony to help a politician is ok, too?

          • BCinBCS

            Pure Dunning-Kruger.

          • John Bernard Books

            You suffer from cognitive dissonance yanno the right brain left brain thingy where neither is in control.

          • WUSRPH

            IQ, of course, has nothing to do with rationality.

          • John Bernard Books

            or common sense which most pedants lack…

      • WUSRPH

        I guess he had no problem when Ollie North and company committed a series of crimes in what they thought was the best interests of their country—-they were wrong, of course. But then they were doing it for a Republican president who had trouble remembering what he had done and said…..what with his Alzheimer.

        • John Bernard Books

          How much did Bob steal while you were his flunky?

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems love them some crooks. Dave the guv worker says he would commit a felony to help elect Hillary.
    “The moment when deputies led state Rep. Ron Reynolds from a courtroom to the Montgomery County Jail on Nov. 23, 2015, might reasonably have been seen as the end of his political career. Incarceration does not inspire confidence in voters or donors.
    Yet now, almost a year after the lawyer’s conviction on five misdemeanor charges of illegally soliciting clients, Reynolds appears poised to win a fourth term representing District 27 in eastern Fort Bend County. Because of Reynolds’ high name recognition and the district’s penchant for straight-ticket Democratic voting, among other factors, analysts see little chance of an upset by his Republican challenger, Ken Bryant, a former Fort Bend Independent School District trustee.”
    http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/Tablet/HoustonChronicle/SharedArticle.aspx?href=HHC%2F2016%2F09%2F30&id=Ar00200

    How far would you go……?

    • BCinBCS

      The real question is: How bad are the Republicans in Ft. Bend County that they cannot defeat a convicted Democrat?

      • WUSRPH

        A combination of a potential indictment and poor health in the case of Ms. Dukes will likely save the Texas House of Representatives the potential embarrassment of having an
        indicted member when it meets in January but it has done nothing to relieve it from having a member who has been convicted of six counts of barratry and is appealing a jail sentence in the case of Rep. Reynolds. The House could resolve the problem by refusing to seat him….but that would stir up a lot o trouble and accusations of racial bias as it did when the U.S. House refused to seat US Rep. Adam Clayton Powell some years ago….but it is still conceivable that a
        GOP member might try.

  • BCinBCS

    OT for this Geider post but…Oh My!

    Michael Chertoff just announced that he is voting for Hillary Clinton !

    Who is Michael Chertoff?
    From the Bloomberg article:

    “Twenty years ago Michael Chertoff was near the top of the Clintons’ enemy list. He was the lead Republican counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee, one of the first of many Congressional investigations into Hillary Clinton.

    Clinton later cast the only vote in the Senate against him when he was nominated in 2001 to head the Justice Department’s criminal division. She was also the lone no vote against Chertoff in 2003 when he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the third circuit.

    All of this though was before the Republican Party nominated Donald Trump as its presidential candidate. This has shaken the party of Reagan. Chertoff, a life long Republican, will now be voting for the Democrat in November.

    Over the weekend, Chertoff — the former secretary of Homeland Security — told me his decision came down to national security. “I realized we spent a huge amount of time in the ’90s on issues that were much less important than what was brewing in terms of terrorism,” he said. For Chertoff, Clinton “has good judgment and a strategic vision how to deal with the threats that face us.”

    Apparently someone who really should know thinks that Hillary isn’t guilty after all. That really has to hurt.

    • José

      Amazing, isn’t it, the number of experienced Republican officials who have come out against Trump and for Clinton. Also conservative columnists and newspapers. Also, by my last count, a majority of high ranking military officers.

      • BCinBCS

        I may be repeating a lick of the icing rather than a full slice of the facts because I haven’t taken the time to confirm it but I read that Trump has not been endorsed by a single major newspaper, not one. On top of that many conservative newspapers that have always – always – endorsed Republican Presidential candidates are not endorsing Trump.

        • José

          According to Wikipedia, just five publications:
          Drudge Report
          National Enquirer (YES!)
          New York Observer
          New York Post
          Santa Barbara News-Press
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016?wprov=sfsi1

          Gary Johnson has more editorial endorsements than Donald Trump, for crying out loud!

          • BCinBCS

            Well, if he’s good enough for the National Enquirer, then he’s good enough for me.
            /major snark/

          • WUSRPH

            PS….I think I read that his son-in-law owns the NY Observer.

  • donuthin2

    Anyone want to guess what will come out of wikileaks tonight or at least soon?

    • WUSRPH

      Probably something Putin and company have saved up to help The Donald by hurting Clinton…as you are suggesting.

    • BCinBCS

      I read that the wikileaks release would not occur due to “security concerns” (whatever that means).
      Do you know anything different?

      • donuthin2

        Nothing except a release is supposed to be made this week.

        • WUSRPH

          As The National Review points out, if they are going to release anything significant that will affect the election, they need to hurry up as:

          “As of Monday, 129,801 Americans had already cast a ballot. That pace is going to pick up quickly in the coming weeks. By Election Day 2012, 46 million Americans had voted early.”

      • Shelly H.

        Security concerns? excuse me while I bust a gut laughing.

    • Wesley TX

      more of Trumpling’s Tax Returns showing he doesn’t pay any federal tax??? It should come as no surprise to anyone that Donald mailed that 1995 return himself in order to spin “what a good businessman” he is before the rest of the returns come out showing he pays no federal taxes.

    • BCinBCS

      Julian Assange had Trump backers awake at 3:00am Tuesday night to hear the damning revelations that he had on Hillary Clinton. According to the Washington Post :

      “Over the course of two hours Tuesday — with the world’s media and bleary-eyed Trump die-hards across the United States tuning in — Assange and other WikiLeaks officials railed against “neo-McCarthyist hysteria,” blasted the mainstream press, appealed for donations and plugged their books (“40 percent off!”).

      But what they didn’t do was provide any new information about Clinton — or about anything else, really.

      The much-vaunted news conference, as it turned out, was little more than an extended infomercial for WikiLeaks on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of its founding.

      It looks like the Trump backers got wikirolled.

  • John Bernard Books

    I don’t recall seems to be the stock answer Bill and Hillary use when caught lying….
    “Q. Mr. President, before the break, we were talking about Monica Lewinsky. At any time, were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office?
    A. I don’t recall
    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/16/us/testing-president-excerpts-clinton-deposition-jones-sexual-misconduct-suit.html

    They’re corrupt, they’re sleaze and they’re back…..

  • WUSRPH

    Does Trump not paying any income taxes make him one of the Troll’s famous “47 percenters” who he loves to attack for taking and not paying?

    • John Bernard Books

      He can’t be he makes money something you know nothing about.

  • John Bernard Books

    One of the favorite mantras dems hide behind is “do it for the children.”
    “At 42.4 million, there are now more immigrants, legal and illegal, in America that ever before, fueled by a massive flood from Muslim nations, and the growing numbers are substantially impacting public services like public schools, according to a weighty new analysis of Census Bureau data.
    One impact of note: There are 10.9 million students from immigrant households in public schools, accounting for 23 percent of all public school students, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.”
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/census-record-42.4m-immigrants-23-of-school-kids-muslims-biggest-jump/article/2603543

    Dems need voters at the expense of our children…..

  • John Bernard Books

    Clinton destroys Obamacare…
    “The people that are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies.””
    “It doesn’t make any sense. The insurance model doesn’t work here. It’s not like life insurance, it’s not like casualty, it’s not like predicting floods. It doesn’t work.”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/04/bill-clinton-trashes-obamacare-behalf-hillary-makes-case-single-payer/

    • BCinBCS

      Ah, the beauty of editing and only licking the icing of the policy cake.

      I spent a looong time trying to find the context of the clip that you present, JBB, and I finally found most of Bill Clinton’s Flint, Michigan speech (36 minutes worth). The part of his speech covering health insurance is from 25:42 until 28:30 and can be found here:
      http://www.flushyoutube.com/video/Rva2kLSBAWY

      In context, Bill Clinton was pointing out that some people who don’t have health insurance and who make too much money for the subsidies are put into insurance pools where the insurance company, due to the uncertainty of the health costs of those in the pool, raise their rates precipitously in order to cover their asses. Because those people are not organized and therefore have no buying power, they have no alternative. Under this system, the insurance companies either break even or make huge profits on those particular high cost insurance pools. Bill states that Hillary wants to change that part of Obamacare to allow those people to join Medicare or Medicaid.

      What is not mentioned in the edited clip that is circulating through right-wing media like a gasoline fire and that is not brought up in Bill’s speech is that this problem is a direct result of Republicans voting down funding for the Obamacare provision that would have “insured” the insurance companies in case they happen to get a pool with a larger than normal number of unhealthy individuals.

      So it boils down to Republicans doing everything in their power to cripple Obamacare and, when they do, then complaining about how it doesn’t work.

      • John Bernard Books

        pearl let me hep ya….
        “Bill Clinton criticized President Barack Obama’s signature policy reform while on the stump for his wife, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, calling Obamacare “the craziest thing in the world.”
        Speaking Monday at a Democratic rally in Flint, Michigan, the former president ripped into the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for flooding the health care insurance market and causing premiums to rise for middle-class Americans who do not qualify for subsidies.”
        “”On the other hand, the current system works fine if you’re eligible for Medicaid, if you’re a lower-income working person; if you’re already on Medicare, or if you get enough subsidies on a modest income that you can afford your health care,” Clinton said. “But the people that are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies.”
        http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/bill-clinton-obamacare-craziest-thing/index.html

        who are you gonna believe me or your lying eyes….

        • BCinBCS

          And who do you think you are going to convince by simply repeating the edited, cherry-picked, incomplete quote again?

          You’re a great little Goebbels.

  • WUSRPH

    When all this activity has ended, hopefully with the election of Clinton, maybe we could start a discussion of the kind of political system that will be best for America’s future since it appears that the current structure is not working that well. (Of course, if might work better if one of the two parties (guess who) had not declared that its goal was to keep the other side from accomplishing anything and, as a result, refuses to even consider compromise.)

    While in England I watched the chaos in the Labour Party as its “leader” tries to reshape it from a representational system to close to a direct democracy similar to the ideas behind American populism.

    Among the changes he is pushing (and getting some thru) is having the party members—not the elected members of Parliament—by a direct vote of the mass membership—select both the party leader and the members of the cabinet (or “shadow cabinet” in this case) as well as having them directly vote on what policy issues the parliamentary members should adopt.

    This is, of course, a direct attack on the principle of “representational government” on which this country is based. If fully implemented it could make the members of parliament little more than messenger boys and girls for the membership totally contrary to the traditional view as expressed most eloquently by Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism.

    This populist or direct democracy approach is hardly possible in a country the size of the UK but advocates of computerized communications, etc. say it could probably be made to work even in the US….Of course, even if its were possible, the question is whether it is desirable, especially when even the JJ’s often complain that the masses (as he has referred to them) are so easily mislead—as Trump proves every day. But it is likely to be something we are going to see advocated by both the right and left populists if the upcoming Congress continues to be stalemated.

    • WUSRPH

      Another interesting thing about what is happening in England…..They now have 650 seats in the House of Commons, the lower House of their Parliament, and are now undergoing their version of redistricting. (We in comparison have 435 members of the US House of Representatives.) What is weird in this day of folks wanting more representation is that they are planning to cut by membership of the Commons by 50 members.

    • Sacagewea

      The system can work, but the process by which we select our representstives is failing. Get money out of politics for starters.

      • WUSRPH

        Could not agree more.

  • WUSRPH

    Suppose you saw where Trump did a verbal slapping ala Gen. Patton of American servicemen by suggesting that those who have trouble adjusting and or have mental problems from their service were just not tough enough to handle it?

    A truly great American whose experience with the military consists of a few months in a boy’s military academy where they play dress up soldier.

    • WUSRPH

      Wait, wait ….Here comes the defense of his remarks……a lot of it from folks like Trump who found some way or another to avoid service.

      • Gunslinger

        B-b-b-but, he didn’t need to go into the militree….he was makin’ money an creatin’ JOBS! That’s what Murica is all about!

        • WUSRPH

          Come on JJ defend this one….Tell us how many Americans have questioned the courage of the military, including your own and your dad’s, over the years, and how we should not be concerned by Trump’s total callousness.

    • Shelly H.

      I read the remarks in context, and listened to them as well and technically he was right, HOWEVER; the way he said it was insensitive and borderline contemptuous. In this instance, I think he was trying to express empathy, probably at the direction of his handlers, but he’s just so socially inept and tone-deaf that he just doesn’t have what it would take to pull it off. I mean bless his little heart he tried to not sound like the self-centered a$$ that he is.

      And OMFG, yes I did sort of defend him, again, but of all the horrible things he has said this probably falls into the merely insensitive category rather than the OMGWTFBBQBob???!!! did you just hear what he said? category.

      I’ve heard veteran’s that I respect express similar sentiments, some more empathetic than others but the overall sentiment wasn’t contempt but of bewilderment over why some would choose to commit suicide. Suicide is almost always beyond a rational person’s understanding. Even if you have suffered from depression unless you have experienced those feelings it can be incomprehensible.

      So I’m not giving him a pass but I’m not going to get overly worked up over the comment either.

      • WUSRPH

        And unless you have been in combat or in a combat zone where there is a constant insecurity and have seen your friends die in the most violent ways possible you have no right to judge those who have. We can read about war, study it; watch it in films, but not having been there we can never understand what it means to others and how it can affect them. Some are clearly mentally “tougher” than others, but all–accept the clearly insane—have to be affected by their experience in one way or another. To suggest that one is weak because of how they react is an insult to the millions who have served this country. As to whether he was trying in his own more than inept way to show empathy…..remember this is the man who questioned the courage of John McCain because he was captured and who has repeatedly declared that he, THE DONALD who never served a day, knows more than all of the generals. This is a man who has contempt for the those who, unlike him, were not “smart” enough to avoid serving.

        • Shelly H.

          I have not been in combat. My father did I don’t know how many combat tours in SE Asia in the 60’s & 70’s his last one he came home early after being injured in late ’72 or early ’73. I saw as a child what it did to my father, and as an adult I saw how it affected my brother, and cousins who served in Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

          I am not passing judgement on those who served – I am merely offering an observation on what was said, giving some perspective on it if you will. Trump has said far more horrid things than this, his comments on McCain being right up there at the top of the list.

      • John Johnson

        I respect the fact that you have objectively analyzed what he meant as opposed to how it was stated. Trump has said some off the cuff, bonehead things, but often his positions are misconstrued by the words he uses, and he, rightfully so, is skewered for them.

  • WUSRPH

    34 more days.

    • John Johnson

      Brexit!

  • WUSRPH

    We know have very good reasons to believe that Trump was able to avoid paying income taxes for many years….BUT it would be interesting to see his current tax returns to see if he is still somehow “losing” enough each year to guarantee that he won’t have to pay taxes this year or for many years to come. The fact that he won’t release them—and that he complains that the IRS audits him every year—perhaps suggests the possibility of some really “creative” accounting.

  • John Bernard Books

    Are you gonna vote like we tell you?
    “Hillary Clinton’s problem with millennial women was exposed for all the world to see on live TV this morning when MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle asked a crowd of female college students at Longwood University — site of tonight’s VP debate — if they feel connected to the Democratic nominee.
    Their one-word response: “NO!” And stick around until the end for Clinton surrogate Jennifer Granholm get stumped on why these women can’t connect”
    http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/10/04/lol-msnbc-anchor-asks-millennial-women-if-they-feel-connected-to-hillary-gets-told-no-on-live-tv/

    Maybe there’s hope for the millennials after all……

  • John Bernard Books

    You must pay us to play…
    “One spreadsheet appears to detail how much banks have given to lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee. Another document shows how much banks gave to Democratic lawmakers and how much those banks received from the 2008 bailout bill to stabilize the financial sector, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
    “It looks like big banks and corporations agreed to donate to the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated TARP funds,” wrote Guccifer 2.0.”
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/guccifer-hacker-clinton-foundation-files-229113#ixzz4M9x28cXE

    I’m starting to think all dems are crooked….

  • John Bernard Books

    How smart are suburban women?
    “But white suburban women have switched party allegiances several times in recent elections, voting Republican in 2004, Democratic in 2008, and Republican again in 2012, according to an analysis by NORC at the University of Chicago of data from the General Social Survey. Among white suburban women, 56 percent supported Obama in 2008, dropping to 46 percent in 2012.”
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/suburban-white-women-weigh-their-options-in-a-bizarre-election/

    How can anyone be that flips between parties? This means they are voting on style and not issues.
    Not too smart if they voted for Obama in 2008.
    I won’t hold my breath for them to vote any smarter in 2016.

  • WUSRPH

    Off to see the VP debate. The first few moments saw some wild swings by both candidates….but I think the likely mood was set earlier in the day by Gov. Pence. He spent the day saying how he hoped it would be a serious debate and that he hoped “Bill Clinton’s infidelities would not even come up”
    —thereby bringing them up at every chance. A real pro at work.

    • WUSRPH

      First reaction to the “debate”: Pence did much better than Trump did in his debate, but he was unable to successfully defend against the quotations from Trump that Kaine kept coming back to. If it is judged on who seemed to be the “nicer” person, Pence will come out okay. He also did fairly well on attacking Clinton and trying to link her to Obama……but, at the end, he was not able to escape the fact that he was tasked with the indefensible—i.e.–defending Trump.

      • BCinBCS

        I have two observations concerning the VP debate:
        (1) Mike Pence, meet the woodshed;
        (2) Ted Cruz, that’s how you debate.

        (I do wish, however, that Tim Kaine had not interrupted so much at the beginning of the debate.)

  • John Bernard Books

    Pence wins HHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUge…..
    Kaine came across as most liberals do, as a pushy, prissy pedant. Pence schooled him with facts as the pushy prissy pedant constantly interrupted him with shouts of “I’m her right hand person”
    “CBS News’ Elaine Quijano repeatedly attacked Gov. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) during the 2016 vice presidential debate in Farmville, Va., on Tuesday.
    The debate moderator criticized Pence for failing to answer questions when he was unable to get a word in with constant interruptions from Hillary Clinton’s running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).”
    http://www.mrctv.org/blog/watch-cbs-moderator-repeatedly-attack-pence-vp-debate

    Mike Pence won the debate and may have just won the 2016 prez election for Trump……with the help of Bill Clinton of course….
    ““It doesn’t make any sense. The insurance model doesn’t work here. It’s not like life insurance, it’s not like casualty, it’s not like predicting floods. It doesn’t work.””
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/04/bill-clinton-trashes-obamacare-behalf-hillary-makes-case-single-payer/

    Yep Bill said what we all know Obamacare is a disaster and doesn’t work. Tim Kaine is Hillary’s lap dog and a laughing stock.

    Trump has won the 2016 election.

    • BCinBCS

      Man JBB, you are profoundly dense. This is the third time that you have posted this incorrect interpretation of Bill Clinton’s speech and your interpretation is becoming worse.

      Please see my explanation for Bill’s statement in my earlier comment (the one after the first time that you posted this incorrect interpretation of his speech).

      • John Bernard Books

        Ok now we all know you are just plain stupid
        “Bill Clinton criticized President Barack Obama’s signature policy reform Monday while on the stump for his wife, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, calling Obamacare “the craziest thing in the world.” But he attempted to temper his criticism at a Tuesday rally.
        So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world,” Clinton said.
        On Tuesday, he tried to clean up his criticism.”
        http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/bill-clinton-obamacare-craziest-thing/index.html

        Have someone try to explain to you what “Bill Clinton calls Obamacare ‘the craziest thing in the world,’ later tries to walk it back” means. Notice I said try to, I’m not sure you’re capable of understanding…….

        • BCinBCS

          No JBB, you’re wrong – for the fourth time.
          Repeating it over and over will not change the truth.
          I’ve tried to explain this to you on four separate occasion. Now I’m not sure that you’re capable of understanding.

          Bill Clinton’s “craziest thing in the world” quote was directed at the part of Obamacare that has insurance companies raising their rates on those that do not have group policies (like the kind that one gets at work) and make too much money to qualify for the subsidies NOT at Obamacare as a whole. That is the criticism that he is trying to walk back.

  • John Bernard Books

    How Hillary will try to steal the election…
    “That’s the latest conventional wisdom from presidential-poll watchers. But it may not be legal American citizens in my adopted home state who choose the next commander-in-chief. Instead, it could very well be foreign non-citizens voting illegally in the Rocky Mountains – and in other crucial swing states – who seal our country’s fate.”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440706/voter-fraud-2016-election-integrity-vital

    Many believe that it takes massive voter fraud for dems to steal elections. But it doesn’t, it takes many small efforts by dem groups to skew the results. It could be felons voting, or illegals or the dead but voter fraud exists and dems steal elections. They will try to steal the 2016 election. Voter ID is critical to stop them.

  • John Bernard Books

    Folks the 2016 election is almost over.
    “Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) lost badly to Indiana Gov. Mike Pence in Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate — despite having home field advantage in Farmville, Virginia — raising new doubts about Hillary Clinton.
    Those doubts are twofold: first, about her decision to choose so weak a candidate, who seemed unable to answer basic policy questions; and second, about Clinton’s health, since if her medical troubles are as bad as feared, Kaine may be taking over at some point if she is elected.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/04/tim-kaine-loses-vp-debate-new-doubts-hillary/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

    Hillary and Kaine are both terrible candidates. Trump was not my first choice but he is certainly better than the choice. Now we have to ensure the integrity of the election. Dems are going all out to steal the 2016 election.

    • BCinBCS

      JBB, you just keep on vacuuming those Breitbart talking points. I’m sure, like Confederate money, you can show them to your grandchildren one day and tell them how valuable they are.

      • Gunslinger

        Dude, 100 extra style points awarded to you for the Confederate money reference! Genius.

        • John Bernard Books

          how racist of you

      • John Bernard Books

        so something else went over your head what’s new?

        • BCinBCS

          You’re like a second grade student trying to comprehend calculus, insulting everyone for your inability to comprehend.

  • donuthin2

    Style definitely went to Pence. Substance, not so much. We will hear a lot of replays of the Kaine questions about things Trump said that are documented and seeing Pence shake his head and mouthing something like he didn’t say that. If those head shakes are a part of fact checking, his outcome will not be that great. The last question about the social issues was answered eloquently by both, but I much preferred Kaine’s response.

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/hbat6e4

    Here is the link to a fact-check of the VP debate. Both stretched the truth a bit, but it looks like Pence did a little more than Kaine.

    The general feeling appears to be that Pence won on style and “nice guy” (as I suggested last night)…..but that Trump lost because Kaine was able to make Trump’s views a center of the debate and Pence was not able to refute his attack.

    • John Bernard Books

      The pushy prissy pedant got his butt handed to him….sound familar?

  • John Bernard Books

    How serious is it?
    “Former vice president Al Gore will start campaigning for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, according to individuals briefed on the plan, in an effort to mobilize young voters who see climate change as a key issue.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/04/al-gore-to-campaign-for-clinton-hoping-to-galvanize-young-voters-on-climate-change/?utm_term=.75fec51875bb

    fear mongering at its finest by blow hard Al.

  • WUSRPH

    The New Republic’s cover story is on why Hillary’s various characteristics, including what some say is her “flexibility” on issues, makes her the best choice for president. It includes some of the “Only Nixon could go to China” argument I made earlier on this blog.. It also has an article on my greatest fear about Trump—i.e..—what do he and his true believers, like JJ and the Troll, do AFTER HE LOSES. The possibility of their refusal to accept their loss—-the total rejection of the Miracle of the Election of 1800—and a continuing effort to undermine both the legitimacy and the effectiveness of a Clinton Administration that does not rule out violent opposition to the operation of our government— could present a constitutional challenge to this country unmatched since 1860.

    • Shelly H.

      That is definitely a worry I have as well. I am comfortably secure in that the military would not participate in such a rebellion since I believe that the vast majority of Officers, both commissioned and non-commissioned, take their oath to defend the constitution seriously, but if Clinton wins and has to use force to put down a rebellion it is not going to be pretty.

      How ironic would it be that some of us who are strong proponents of the 2nd amendment end up defending against these idiots? FWIW I am strong believer in the entirety of the Constitution and that all of it should be defended equally and vigorously.

      • WUSRPH

        I think we will get a clear impression of how Trump plans to proceed late on election night when, I expect, he will refuse to make the traditional call to Clinton to congratulate her and offer his best wishes for the good of the country but, instead, will try to fire up his crowd with continued attacks on her and her right to be president.

        • Shelly H.

          Oh I expect he will do exactly that.

        • John Bernard Books

          Maybe he’ll email her…

      • Too Sweet

        I think any type of meaningful armed insurrection is unlikely. After the Civil War structural changes were put in place to minimize the chances of a recurrence. The question of whether a state can legally secede was well settled by the war. But prior to that war, enlisting in the military was kinda like joining the national guard. Local enlistees were assigned to local bases. So when the secessions started, the South got their early weapons by seizing federal bases and forts. It was easy because most of the soldiers were local and, even if they disagreed with the raiders, they were unwilling to shoot local folks. Now, when someone enlists they are stationed far from home in an area where they are surrounded by strangers. I suspect anyone trying to seize weapons from a federal post these days would find themselves very quickly neutralized.

        • WUSRPH

          I agree that an armed rebellion like that in 1861 is most unlikely. But what I fear is a continuing attack on her legitimacy and calls to resist any actions she may take or laws she gets enacted. A “non-cooperation” strategy in which the State government—as already advocated by Gov. Abbott and others in the Legislature on a number of issues—and millions of individuals refuse to respect or obey federal laws and use all their technical skills to hack and paralyze the government can be just as dangerous today as armed rebellion was in 1861.

          • Too Sweet

            I think you are giving the organizational efforts of Trump’s personality cult way too much credit. I believe a significant percentage of Trump supporters are really voting for “not-Hillary.” The fever will break after the election. I still believe the Republican Party will try to stonewall Hillary, but what Republican Party? The only people they hate worse than Democrats is each other. The Republican Party today is a forced marriage of convenience among a lot of people who cannot agree on anything except “not Hillary.” Post-election will be ugly, but no worse than today and maybe a bit better. Sooner or later the bridges have to get fixed. You can only stonewall so long.

          • WUSRPH

            I would agree with you that the organizational skills of Trump himself are not that great……but the Hate that JJ and others express can result in a lot of individual actions that, when added together, can have a dangerous impact. Nor do I see Trump disappearing…..I see him—as has been predicted—running his own “TRUMP NETWORK” that spreads his vile night-after-night…..I hope you are right that sooner or later bridges have to get fixed and that stonewalling cannot go on forever…..but I fear that only works when both sides believe there is something worth preserving and I think most radical revolutionaries of the far right do not believe our present system is worth it…..They want it destroyed and replaced without something far different than the America of today.

          • Too Sweet

            Then it will be the JJ types vs. the 1 percent. They are the ones with the most at stake.

          • John Johnson

            If you want to crawl in bed with the “they want her assasinated” group of loons, go ahead. I have never advocated for that, nor has anyone I know. It is just more pitiful exaggerations by those running scared. Maybe you can ask them to show where I have expressed that action…or for that matter, where any of Trumps mainstream supporters have. I have simply stated that if Hillary wins, the anti-establishment, anti-elitest group I am a member of will find another leader to push our agenda. “Pushing” does not mean pulling a trigger, or violent insurrection. WUSRPH knows this…but he is such a pedant, he has to embellish, twist and contort.

          • WUSRPH

            The crisis I fear does not require violence in terms of physical assaults on others. What I have suggested above—refusing to cooperate or obey federal laws or regulations, refusing to accept her legitimacy and attempting to frustrate the operations of government does not require that kind of violence. Nor do I think that there will be any violence by other than a few crazies….although that could be damaging enough if it involves threats to the lives of our leaders by those who, whether rightly or wrongly, think they have been encouraged to do so by Trump (“Second amendment solution”….disarm her guards and see what happens, etc.) .

          • John Johnson

            Why don’t you just quit posting speculative b.s. with absolutely no merit? If there is going to be insurrection, it will be over the failure of Obamacare. Yanking major money out of people’s pockets at an alarmingly increasing rate has a tendency to do that much more so than anything else. It causes the ignorant uninformed to start paying close attention. Stop the nonsense. Quit typing just for the sake of typing. It grows old.

          • WUSRPH

            A lot of folks said we should just ignore the KKK-types and in Germany many said that Hitler was a foolish little man who would just go away with he was ignored. Both turned out to be very wrong actions to take. I concern myself with what might happen because of what has happened elsewhere and in other times. Insurrections, physical or otherwise, do not just happen. They have to have leaders who plan, plot and exploit them.

            Remember:

            “He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it…”

            “In history, a great volume is unrolled for our
            instruction, drawing the materials of future wisdom from the past errors and infirmities of mankind.”

            Edmund Burke

            “Human nature will not change. In any future great
            national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learn wisdom from of them.”

            Abraham Lincoln

          • John Johnson

            We’ll then, you know that the oppressed will not lay low for decades of heavy handedness. We have had decades of laws being passed, through bought votes by the Big’s, that have them rolling in cash, even during times of depression…cash that they are holding on to; cash that is being used to buy up competition and do away with it.

            Our tax laws are screwed up, with all sorts of loopholes for the Big’s, bankruptcy laws that are more favorable for corporations than they are for individuals, and lack of laws that prohibit legalized gambling and speculation by banks and investment houses.

            Throw in the unenforced immigration laws and you have a totally unacceptable situation

          • WUSRPH

            Actually, based on the historical record, I do know that the “oppressed will…lay low for decades of heavy handiness.” They have and do. It takes not only a long period of frustration and want PLUS leaders who plot, plan and exploit that feeling to produce any kind of an insurrection with any chance of success. You like to think that time is now in the U.S. and you want to believe that Trump is that person….but I suspect that the voters next month will show you that a majority of your fellow Americans do not agree. They may, like me, see the need for some changes and improvements but they are far from seeing this country as being the sick and decadent world you imagine it to be. Nor do they see a totally unqualified megalomaniac who expresses neo-fascist views as the answer to their needs for leadership. Sorry, but you are going to have to wait a while longer for your revolution.

          • John Johnson

            Then what are you worrying about? Make up your mind. You are all over the place. People need a catalyst, not an exploiter. Trump has planted no seeds; he has watered them. There is a difference.

          • WUSRPH

            Just because I do not believe that a majority of the people would or do support your call for radicial change, does not mean that I do not fear that a minority will try to find a way to bring it about any way. This is particularly true of those who misled themselves into believing that Trump was some sort of a savior and who, likely encouraged by him, will insist that he had to have won unless he was cheated.

          • John Johnson

            I repeat…Trump is no savior, he is a catalyst. Repeat after me…catalyst

          • Shelly H.

            A catalyst for what? A catalyst for an authoritarian regime? A catalyst for stupidity? A catalyst for hatred and bigotry? I don’t see anything worthwhile that man could be a catalyst for.

          • John Johnson

            And you wouldn’t, Shelly, because you don’t get it. Peggy Noonan does; the Economist does; a few other publications do…but most of you Minah birds don’t…and you never will.

          • Shelly H.

            You’re right. I’m not that blind. I can actually see the big picture and not just the tiny section you’re focused on. Not all change is desirable. Change that only benefits a small privileged group and is disastrous for those not in that group isn’t desirable.

          • John Johnson

            “Small group.” What a goofy statement.

          • BCinBCS

            WUSRPH wrote: “…pouring accelerant on a previously low flame of bigotry and racism.

            Very nice.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ wrote: “Yanking major money out of people’s pockets at an alarmingly increasing rate …

            The cost of health insurance is not increasing at an alarmingly increasing rate. The cost of health insurance has begun to level – it’s still increasing but not at the rate that it increased prior to Obamacare. Fact.

          • John Johnson

            You must have missed the billions Obama just turned loose to the insurance companies to cover their loses. Pay up front or out the backdoor. It’s a total joke.

          • WUSRPH

            Of course, you pay one place or another…No one other than those who believe in either the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus has even though that it would be otherwise……There was always going to be a cost and it will have to be paid….either by individuals all out of them own pocket ( or, for those unable to pay, by having no coverage at all) or by the general pocket we call government. That is how the system works…..The ACA is and always has been a mechanism to provide health insurance coverage to the greatest possible number of people. It is accomplishing that goal. The problem with the ACA is that it tried to provide what a National Health Service provides—I;e;–nearly universal coverage—thru the existing private health insurance system. That added all kinds of complexities to the mechanism that would not be found in a straight “single payer” system. But the country was not ready for a real NHS and the Congress did the best it could at the time. It also never thought that changes might not be required as experienced was gained….The only person who does not understand that is the one who refuses to do so and who expects perfection in a imperfect world or who is looking for an excuse to justify an attack. I am sorry to say that that seems to be you.

          • John Johnson

            Your being obtuse again. The point I am making is that Obamacare cannot support itself as structured. It is grossly unfair. It will not survive. You can defend it all you want to, but by any measure, other than the uninsured now having coverage, the system is failing.

          • WUSRPH

            First, of all I am not now (nor have I ever) defended the ACA as being the perfect solution or said that it probably would not need changes and fixes as problems were exposed during its operation.
            What you are seeing happening is just about what was expected. It was understood from the beginning that there would have to be subsidies for individual policy holders who could not afford even the pool policies available through the exchanges. That has proven to be the case for two main reasons.
            First, some governors and states, such as Texas, refused to expand Medicaid, as the bill proposed. This left more low income people dependent on the ACA for coverage. This, in turn, increased the cost of the subsidies.
            Second, It was hoped that the need for the subsidies could be kept down somewhat by more persons with less need, primarily the young, purchasing policies because of the mandate and its tax/fine if they did not. To be truthful, that has not worked out as well as it was hoped as fewer young persons have signed up. This suggests that the GOP’s idea of a mandate with a penalty has not been as successful as the Heritage Society and Newt Gingrich thought it would be when they first unveiled the idea. But it was an effort worth making to try to keep the costs of the policies down.
            Similarly, it was understood that some insurance companies would be unable to make sufficient profits to keep offering the exchange-rated policies without a subsidy for them. As such, provisions for just such payments were was built-into the law.
            No one—apparently other than you—ever thought the system would be self-supporting or that it would not require substantial infusions of federal tax dollars. There were estimates made of what that cost would be….but they could only be estimates until we had some actual experience. Now that we have, it is time to adjust the law to reflect that knowledge. Clinton has plans to do so.

          • John Johnson

            Horseshit.

          • Jed

            “First, some governors and states, such as Texas, refused to expand Medicaid, as the bill proposed. This left more low income people dependent on the ACA for coverage. This, in turn, increased the cost of the subsidies.”

            this is not actually correct. those of us being denied medicaid are also precluded from getting any subsidies – because congress thinks we should be getting medicaid.

          • BCinBCS

            Please provide facts and figures to substantiate your claim that Obamacare is failing.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, you must have missed the billions of excess reinsurance money, paid by the insurance companies, that was just turned loose to them.

          • John Johnson
          • BCinBCS

            This is simply amazing. JJ, I spend hours researching and correcting the statements of the most conservative posters here on BurkaBlog and now I have to do the same thing with the New York Post article that you posted. So, I’ll keep it short and simple.

            (1) Was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Obamacare passed into law?
            Yes, on March 23, 2010

            (2) Is there a provision in the ACA for reinsurance?
            Yes, in Section 1341.

            (3) Does it require the collection of a fee for each policy issued to cover reinsurance costs?
            Yes, for all non-grandfathered policies. The fee for 2016 is $27.00.

            (4) Does the ACA dictate from where the fee must be collected by each insurance company?
            No, but almost all companies add the cost of the fee into the cost of the policy.

            (5) Once each insurance company is compensated for costs covered by the reinsurance fund, what happens to any excess?
            Part of any excess rolls over to the next year but the bulk is refunded to the insurance companies that paid it.

            (6) Was refunding any excess reinsurance funds to the insurance companies part of the ACA?
            Yes.

            (7) So is it correct when the Washington Post in the article that JJ referenced claims about the return of excess reinsurance fees that: “That huge handout [the refund] to the insurance industry is also illegal.”?
            No, it is not correct. The Washington Post and JJ are wrong.

            (8) Are the reinsurance fees permanent?
            No, they last for only three years (2014-2016).

            (9) Why are reinsurance fees necessary?
            I’m tired and it’s late but if you really want to know, post a comment asking and I’ll take the time to explain it later.

          • John Johnson

            The Professor has taught you well. You must be on Medicare. If you were a working, middleclass family man in your 30’s, you would not be applauding Ocare; you would be raising hell, or as some I know, just paying the fine. Rates are jumping again next year; large insurers are pulling out of the program. It is just not working, and it never will.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, it’s amazing how you let your bias overrule your ability to see truth.

            Sure prices are jumping next year, the price of everything is jumping but the rate at which health care is rising is lower now than it was before Obamacare. And, JJ, look at the good that it has done. That working, middle class family can now get health insurance, especially if they have a child over eighteen or a pre-existing condition or huge claims for a chronic disease. People are getting and paying for insurance and seeing their family physician for preventative care and to manage any disease rather than not having insurance, waiting until they are terribly sick, going to the extremely expensive emergency room and sticking your city or county with the bill.

            Two large insurance companies are pulling out, the rest are staying. The two that are pulling out are doing so because they are inefficient as well as “gaming” the system. The very reasons that you rail about government.

            You have said before that Obamacare is not working and I challenged you to back that statement with facts and figures. So far…crickets. (I’d imagine you haven’t because you can’t.)

            You, like JBB, get an idea in your head and even though it is wrong (as I have repeatedly pointed out using facts) are apparently incapable of altering your opinion.

            So, JJ, call me a pedant, call me an ivory tower student because those are the only defenses that you have for your health care opinions.

            Oh, and tomorrow or some time later, be sure to repeat these same accusations because I doubt that these facts will alter your concreted mind.

          • John Johnson

            Your wordy post outlining stuff you have repeatedly professed classifies you as the next best pedant.

          • WUSRPH

            So, if, as you have stated, we assume that the ACA as currently operated will never work…..which is more than debatable….please give us your views on what should be done to (a) fix it or (b) replace it?

            Would you, for example, approve of a plan that keeps the basic ACA but allows private individuals to purchase coverage under Medicare at the same level of benefits, etc. as that program’s regular recipients (a “public option”)?

            Or, would you—as Trump has suggested in the past—-replace the existing hybrid system that uses private insurers to provide the coverage with a “single payer” system (perhaps Medicare expanded to all that also incorporates and replaces programs such as CHIP, Medicaid and other govt. funded insurance plans)?

            Or, would you—as some Republicans have suggested—-repeal the entire program, abandoning any idea of trying to provide universal care?

            Or, would you adopt the “you are all on your own” Ted Cruz approach in which there is no federal government involvement in health care at all (since he believes that any federal spending on health care is unconstitutional)?

            Or–as other GOPers have advocated, repeal the ACA and replace it with some combination of (a)
            a “health savings plan” (which only works for people who have the funds to contribute to it); (b) allowing insurance companies to sell their policies nationwide; and/or (c) repealing all requirements for “minimum coverage” requirements or “standard policies”?

            Or some other idea of your own.

            I know that all the posters on BB look forward to your guidance.

          • BCinBCS

            And my having to repeat those posts in reply to you represent your inability to learn and the concrete nature of your mind.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ wrote: “If you want to crawl in bed with the “they want her assasinated” group of loons, go ahead. … It is just more pitiful exaggerations by those running scared.

            I have to wholeheartedly agree with you JJ. How could anyone get riled up enough to assassinate that unconvicted criminal Hillary Clinton? What sort of a person would do something like that or, say, kill a group at Bible study in a church. It’s not in the realm of possibility.

          • John Johnson

            There are fanatics everywhere. Are you suggesting they are all Repub’s?

          • WUSRPH

            Of course not…but I suspect that of those who vote most of them will be voting for Trump.

          • BCinBCS

            When was the last time a Democrat called for the assassination of Trump or any other Republican, shot up a church, took over government facilities or refused to acknowledge their defeat at the polls?

          • John Johnson

            Trump called for no one to be shot. You chose to read it that way. The rest are good points, and bolster my position…both sides have loons

          • WUSRPH

            You are technically correct. He never said “Shoot her”….He did not even go as far as Henry II’s “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest”……but he used language that could be interpreted that, should Clinton be elected, she will be shot and/or the same might happen if her guards were removed now. Neither statement is advocating her death….but both are the kinds of dangerous things that should not be said. Of course, perhaps we should give Trump the benefit of the doubt on the grounds that it was just a case of the problem Trump seems to have that Gov. Pence talked about on Tuesday when he explained that Trump was often misunderstood because: “You know, the words don’t always come out exactly the way he means them.”

          • Jed

            excuse me, there are about 69% of the population in between those two groups, some of whom have skin in the game too.

          • Shelly H.

            He’s priming the pump with every outrageous comment about the legitimacy of the election, the sly hinting that someone could do something to prevent Clinton from taking office, the blatant cries of his followers to execute her…

          • Shelly H.

            Oh I think that will be a given unless Clinton wins with a substantial margin.

          • Jed

            “millions of individuals refuse to respect or obey federal laws and use all their technical skills to hack and paralyze the government”

            ok, but they have been doing this for 8 years (or 155 years) already. why the concern now?

          • WUSRPH

            Because most of what has happened in the past (with the exception of the anti-civil rights movement where state governments played a role) have been individual actions. Today we face the possibility of an organized and directed assault involving hundreds of thousands working together to subvert our government.

          • Jed

            you don’t think you just described the republican party since 2008 … (or 1964)?

        • Shelly H.

          Define meaningful. With all the militias, the alt right, the white supremacists, the possibility for an armed rebellion is possible. No, they won’t be able to raid military armories like in 1860, but even an insurrection with small arms is not going to play well on the domestic or international level.

          Even if it is only an incident like Kent State it will do lasting damage to the country. OTOH there is the possibility that it will shock intractable ideologues like Cruz, Abbott, McConnell, et al to wake up and start to cooperate with one another in congress. Might even wake up JJ to the dangerous ideas he is engaging in.

          • Jed

            “Even if it is only an incident like Kent State it will do lasting damage to the country”

            are you comparing the trump-olution with the protestors who got killed, or with the jackbooted thugs in uniform who killed them?

          • Shelly H.

            TBH I was thinking more of the fallout of that incident, the damage to the national psyche; I was thinking more of if there was an incident where a few persons were killed or severely injured rather than comparing or assigning motivations and sides from then and now.

            I don’t think that it would be a fair comparison to either side in the Kent State tragedy to compare them to Trump followers. BTW the “jack booted thugs in uniform” were just kids themselves without proper leadership to keep them calm in that confrontation. There were no winners with Kent State, both sides lost that day.

            It was the only time I could think of in modern history where our military fired upon our civilians, and the national guard is part of the military. It’s really a poor comparison at best but it was the only one I could think of that was in recent memory more or less.

    • BCinBCS

      It boils down to this: Trump and his followers who will not accept the result of the election are not true Americans.

      • Jed

        careful. the prospect of a stolen election – especially given the reliance on unverifiable voting machines – is not a fear exclusive to the trump crowd.

        i personally would not be surprised to find in a couple decades that *all* these elections are being stolen.

        this is the first time that my side has been considered a likely culprit, however.

        • WUSRPH

          The unreliability of voting machines is not a new topic. I was closely involved with elections law for several years back in the 1970s and made several studies of the possibilities of fraud. As part of that effort, I wrote a committee report for a legislative committee back in 1976 that outlined a number of problems with the IBM punch card voting systems that were then the fad….some of the same problems that showed up in Florida in 2000, in fact.

          BUT, I remain convinced that except in very small elections in small jurisdictions the possibility of “stealing an election” is very, very small. There are just too many people involved to pull it off.

          There is NO secure voting system….Never has been…and likely never will be…but there is no justification for the illogical fear that Trump and others try to spread for their political benefit.

  • John Bernard Books

    It must suck to be a dem today….Kaine’s performance was a disaster.
    Quick get the NY Times to do another hit piece on Trump.
    Dems are losing power and are working long into the night sharpening their snarky skills for twitter and Burqa blog….

  • John Bernard Books

    Why are illegals voting?
    “At least 86 non-citizens have been registered voters in Philadelphia since 2013, and almost half — 40 — even voted in at least one recent election, according to a legal group that sued to get voter registration records.”
    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/illegal-voters-uncovered-philly-just-tip-iceberg/

    Why can’t dems win without felons, illegals and the dead voting?

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems simply lack common sense…..and cannot discuss issues.
    Dems cheered when Trump’s rights were infringed upon as the NY Times released his tax returns without his permission.
    But….
    “Secret draft grand jury indictments prepared to charge Hillary Clinton with crimes in the 1990s cannot be released because they would infringe on the Democratic presidential nominee’s privacy rights, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.”
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/4/judge-shields-clinton-draft-indictments-release/

    I know dems believe the “end results justify the means,” but does that only go one way? Why is ok to violate Trump’s privacy rights but not Hillary’s?

    • BCinBCS

      Hey vacuum-bot, how do you know that Trump’s rights were violated? His joint tax return could have been sent by his ex-wife – all perfectly legal.

      • WUSRPH

        Did you see where Trump’s long-term tax accountant is just a little peeved at Trump for Trump claiming to be such a genius for having figured out how to avoid paying taxes. According to the man who did the work, the only thing Trump had to do with it—other than losing the nearly billion dollars in one year–was signing the tax forms he put in front of him. I guess Trump will now claim that his genius was in picking that guy to do his taxes but he cannot even claim that as Trump’s daddy picked him years before.

        • John Johnson

          Bottom line…he used the guy who knew how to use the unfair tax laws that protect the wealthy. Only a fool wouldn’t take advantage of them.

          • WUSRPH

            Bottom line: He is as sleazy, if not sleazier, than any of the Mr. Big, multi-national businessmen who have no concern for anyone but their profits who you condemn daily……You damn them….but praise him……I can only suppose that it is:
            (a) hypocrisy on your part;

            (b) envy that you were not smart enough to do the same (by the way, what did you do with those “loses” you say you suffered post 9-11?);

            (c) you seem to believe that as soon as he decided that his megalomania qualified him to be emperor of the world he was hit by a lightening bolt on the way to Damascus and has been “born again” ;

            (d) you actually believe in the “Only Nixon could go to China” thesis and hold that only a sleaze as big or bigger than Trump is capable of cleaning up what you consider to be the sleaze in our daily life; or

            (e) a combination of some or all of the above.

            If I had to bet on which it is, I’d have to put my money on a combination of (a) and (b).

          • John Johnson

            Hahaha. You have become what you profess to hate. Mind if I copy and save your post? I can’t hardly wipe this smile off my face.

          • WUSRPH

            You are, of course, free to do whatever you want with any of current or past posts since I, unlike you, leave them open to anyone to see. You and the Troll, however, seem to feel a need to deny access to your prior posts. I can only assume that it is you are too often ashamed of them.

          • John Johnson

            Is this retort the best you can do? You are slipping, Professor.

      • Wesley TX

        I have a crisp $10 bill that says Trump mailed that return in himself in order to get ahead of the negative publicity releasing the rest of his returns would generate this close to the election.
        The timing is too suspicious that close to his “because I’m smart” remark at the debate when Hillary announced he pays no federal taxes.

        • babyangel

          hi wes your kitty cat is so cute ! aww

  • WUSRPH

    Since this thread was supposedly about NAFTA, trade deals, Free Trade and Globalization and its impact, some might be interested in the special report in the latest issue of The Economist. It examines globalization looking at its good and bad aspects in The Economist’s usual thorough manner and then comes to a conclusion that, overall, it has more benefits than harmful effects. Of course, those whose mind is already made up on all things since they know what they know because they know it without any need for evidence or review will refuse to even take a loot at the articles. Others, however, may want to see what the evidence shows.

    • BCinBCS

      Link, please.

    • John Johnson

      You poo-poo’d the Economist’s piece on Trump backer’s that I posted a link to, and stated, along with Noonan’s, was the best explanation of who we are and why we are backing him over Clinton. Now you want to hold them in high esteem. The Brits need globalization as much, if not more, than any country. I would not expect them to take a position against it. They do point out the US job loses, but suggest our government needs to spend money to train and find them new jobs. With whose money?
      What type of jobs? We have become a service oriented economy with manufacturing going south. Skilled craftsmen do what? Engineers do what? If they do want to stay in this field, chances are they will be replaced with a $65K a yr engineer from India. You are a rube in so many respects. That is because you acquired all your “knowledge” from what someone else writes about any given subject. You have never truly experienced it.

      • WUSRPH

        Again you are remembering things the way you want to….I never “poo-poo’d” the pieces on Trump backers by the Economist or Noonan. I tend to agree with their views of the source of much of his strength. Some people are indeed frustrated by the failure of the economy to expand as fast as it has in the past and by the fact that some jobs and incomes will never come back. They also feel that the govt. and society pays no attention to them and too much to others. That does not, however, mean that I believe that their views of the problem and of the solutions are not simplistic or that I, like you, am unwilling to accept that there is a degree of racial and ethnic bigotry involved. I have, in fact, several times listed what I thought were the reasons for the feelings you and others express—-which you have said you agreed with. Feel free to check my posts on this or any other subject which I have left open to review…..unlike you who hide your previous posts.

        • John Johnson

          Well which is it? Do you agree with those pieces or are all of us a bunch of ignorant, racists, and mysoginists, bent on insurrection and assassination?

          • WUSRPH

            I agree with some of what they have said…..and have said so several times (see my posts)….and, no, I do not believe that all of you and your co-Trumptarians are “a bunch of ignorant, racists, and misogynists bent on insurrection and assassination:”……That, however, does not mean that some of those backing Trump so forcefully do not fit those definitions.

          • John Johnson

            We’ll, as I see it, and have for the last decade or so, the ones who are taking to the street in violent protest are Hillary supporters…and this has been ginned up in part by our president through premature accusations and goofy moves like Sharpton’s appointment as his emissary to Furgeson. Stupid stuff. He is the WPE…yet, you want to classify us as violent and dangerous.

          • WUSRPH

            I didn’t see any of those protesting in the cases you cite go into a Christian Church and shoot the members of a bible study group.

          • John Johnson

            Your retorts have recently become goofy. Crazy people come in all shapes, sizes and political persuasions; to pick out select incidences of violence on one side or the other simply reflects your total bias. I have attempted to address massive rebellion and the insurrection you so totally fear would be coming from the Trumpite’s; my point is that it is being manifested right now domestically because of the same words and actions Obama has used and promoted. He is guilty of the same stuff you are cussing Trump for promoting.

          • WUSRPH

            Of course, there are crazy people at all parts of the political spectrum and off the ends, but the only ones now being actively encouraged on a mass basis to deny the validity of the election and are who are being encouraged in racial and ethnic bigotry are the Trumpites. I will express due concern for other possible actors who may threat our system as they arise.

  • WUSRPH

    An interesting finding by 5-38:

    Trump’s support (and his chances) have always relied on him being able to corner a substantial majority of the White Vote, but new polls and 5-38’s analuysis shows that he is, in fact, doing substanailly WORSE among White voters than Mitt Romney did four years ago AND that his support among the group is DECLINING. He still is leading the world among white males without a college education but is slipping in the other groups within the White Voters category.

    http://tinyurl.com/hvpnwah

    • Jed

      that popular vote total for johnson is too high. write it down. 538 has overplayed its hand this cycle. they have forgotten what they don’t know.

      meanwhile, i would love to see 0.2 of an electoral vote.

      nice model, silver.

      • José

        From what I gather the model is not a projection of the Election Day results but instead it uses polling data as they are now. That may change substantially in the next few weeks, especially if voters decide that it’s not worth the risk to cast a protest vote for Johnson or Stein. I think it commonly happens that way.

        • Jed

          it changes constantly (not merely “in the next few weeks,” but rather every time a poll gets published). which is to say, it means nothing.

          they steadfastly refuse to call it a forecast for that reason, though it isn’t clear what they think people are using the info for, if not that. the whole thing is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

          here’s a forecast you can take to the bank (and one that has been unchanged in over 18 months): clinton 100% chance of winning, trump 0%. johnson gets 0.0 electoral votes.

          • WUSRPH

            Of course, as has been said many times before, “the only poll that counts is the one on election day (the actual voting)”. BUT what is important about these individual photographs of the feelings of the public at a specific point that we call polls is the PATTERN they show. So far that has consistently been that Clinton will win…..with some saying by a smaller and others a greater margin. That pattern is consistent……It could change…but all we can say now is what the best possible surveys indicate.

          • Jed

            nate silver won’t say it.

          • José

            I’ve been following FiveThirtyEight for a long while, maybe since the 2004 results, and gained quite an appreciation for what they do. They certainly aren’t the only writers whose work is misunderstood and/or misused by a few readers.

            As for Johnson and the calculated mean of 0.2 electoral vote, that doesn’t seem unreasonable as of today. Low probability outcomes do happen occasionally—in fact it’s a near certainty that something unlikely will eventually occur. That’s just basic probability. Johnson could win NM’s 5 electoral votes in the case of a late collapse by Clinton and Trump.

            If you trust your instincts that deeply then go take a look at the getting markets where you can actually lay down money on the election and make a killing. They aren’t too far off from FiveThirtyEight’s numbers.

          • Jed

            it was only a week ago that the “polls were shifting” bringing trump within the margin of error (samantha bee: “margin of terror”). nate silver was reminding everyone that his numbers were not predictive, and that they shouyld never have been calling the race for clinton in the first place. and everybody was having a hissy fit.

            all because a couple of outlier polls got released within a few days of each other. but since his “methodology” can’t just discard bad polls, we get a new “forecast.”

            now, a week later, the numbers have moved again, this time in clinton’s favor, because some more mainstream polls have come out, and everybody is back to talking about how badly trump is going to lose.

            that doesn’t count as “substantial”? it was enough to make nate silver go public and remind us all that he isn’t actually doing anything except averaging other people’s numbers together.

          • John Johnson

            Brexit.

      • BCinBCS

        Jed, I agree with you on Johnson. The man is ignorant and I refuse to believe that there are that many people who would vote for a candidate that dumb. (Yea, I know Trump destroys my logic but…whatever.)

        • WUSRPH

          His vote totals probably have not been helped by the fact that his VP nominee has virtually abandoned the ticket stating that defeating Trump by electing Clinton is more important than the Libertarian effort. Right libertarians like the members of the Libertarian Party are supposed to hate government in general, but apparently this guy hates the idea of a Trump government more than just any kind of a government.

  • John Bernard Books
  • WUSRPH

    Best line of the VP Debate and probably of the week:

    “You know, the words don’t always come out exactly the way he means them, But I’m telling you what the policy of our administration would be.”
    Gov. Mike Pence trying to defend Donald Trump’s many questionable, misleading or false statements.

    In other words, please pay no attention to what Trump may say…

    • Wesley TX

      pay no attention to the Cheetoh Man behind the curtain!!!

    • José

      It’s that Mexican thing, y’all. You wouldn’t understand.

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/zkaxdge

    If there is anyone out there who still thinks Trump is some great businessman, they need to read this article from Newsweek. Multiple failures. Multi-bail outs by Daddy.

  • John Bernard Books

    Uh oh dems caught again…..lies lies and more lies.
    “The New York Times recently reported Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 tax returns, selling the documents as “never before disclosed” to the public.
    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/04/trump-wrote-about-his-1-billion-loss-in-1997-and-nyt-published-it/#ixzz4MIU2MEiI

    But they was this “never before disclosed.” In Dec 1997 The Times published the first chapter of his book when he disclosed a $900 million loss due to….ready for this?
    “Trump attributes his huge losses to changes to federal tax law that disincentivized investing in the kinds of properties he owned.”

    Thats right the bureaucrats changed the tax laws causing Trump’s losses.

    The MSM works for the dem party, only a democrat is stupid enough to believe them.

    • BCinBCS

      Yea JBB, you just keep drinking that Kool-Aid. Anyone with a lick of sense would not buy three businesses that compete against each other using 14% financing even if they are casinos. It’s interesting that Las Vegas survived but somehow the over-leveraged Trump wasn’t able – but of course his mistakes were due to the government (along with the other three to seven bankruptcies).

  • John Bernard Books

    Can Hillary steal this election?
    “Former Colorado secretary of state Scott Gessler identified nearly 5,000 non-citizens in Colorado who voted in the 2010 general election. Gessler’s office uncovered upwards of 12,000 non-citizens registered to vote.
    But our constitution protects us from dems right?
    Put on your shocked faces: These illegal non-citizen voters overwhelmingly supported Democrats. And their votes were enough to tilt the presidential election results in North Carolina to President Obama, along with handing over “Democratic victories in congressional races including a critical 2008 Senate race (Al Franken’s victory in Minnesota) that delivered for Democrats a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.””

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440706/voter-fraud-2016-election-integrity-vital

    Dems have been stealing election their entire history. Their policies are so bad they need felons, illegals, the dead and stupid people voting for them.

  • John Bernard Books

    uh oh dems caught in another lie….dems are still spinning(lying) to cover Bill’s remarks.
    “As Larry pointed out yesterday, Mr. Clinton called Obamacare “the craziest thing in the world.” But it wasn’t just one awkward line. Clinton was making an argument that private insurance didn’t work for health care. “It doesn’t make any sense. The insurance model doesn’t work here. It’s not like life insurance, it’s not like casualty, it’s not like predicting floods. It doesn’t work,” Clinton said.”
    Dems can’y admit the goal is single because they lied and said it wasn’t…
    “Long ago Rep. Jan Schakowsky created a real headache for Democrats when she said eliminating private insurance was the goal of the public option. At the time, Democrats denied it and even Schakowsky herself went on television to walk back her remarks. Now, seven years later, it seems Bill Clinton has embraced her point of view. Would we even be here now if Democrats had been honest back then?”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/05/clinton-campaign-tries-spin-bill-clintons-attack-obamacare/

    Dems can never admit their true goals as no one wants what they’re selling…..except dumazzes like BC and WASSUP.
    “Would we even be here now if Democrats had been honest back then?””
    Dems created the disaster called Obamacare so they could drive us to single payer. Had enough of the lying bastids yet?

    • BCinBCS

      That’s five times that you’ve repeated this lie.
      You and Larry O’Conner obviously did not listen to Bill Clinton’s speech.
      Have you no scruples; have you no shame?
      It seems to me that any victory won through dishonesty is hollow.
      Maybe W can come up with some quotes about people, like you, who are so dishonest that they purposefully and knowingly disseminate lies.

      • WUSRPH

        I think the fact that he has repeated posted falsehoods and deliberately distorted information answers your question about whether he has any scruples or shame. He has convinced himself that his is locked in some sort of a battle with ultimate evil and that anything he does is justified and moral. Of course, that is what most fanatics do.

        • John Bernard Books

          spin it you want you want errand boy but I have integrity I have never voted for a lying dem

          • BCinBCS

            You have a disturbing idea of the meaning of integrity.

      • John Bernard Books

        What you mean CNN lied?
        http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/bill-clinton-obamacare-craziest-thing/index.html

        When a lefty says CNN lied…….you know its getting bad.

        • BCinBCS

          CNN didn’t lie, they reported the comments of Larry O’Conner who lied.
          (And you accepted his lies hook, line and sinker without checking on their truthfulness.)

  • WUSRPH

    Any thought on Dan Patrick’s attempt to remake the Texas Ethics Commission so that it will strop trying to enforce the law on MQS and his owner? It appears that he tried to get one commissioner to resign early so he could replace him with a MQS stooge and, when that effort failed, he unleashed a hostile Senate committee on the Commission. Anybody who knows him knows that that is not a straighter arrow than Chase Untermeyer or his predecessor as chair, Paul Hobby….

    • WUSRPH

      Abbott appointed two to the TEC today.. I have been out of action too long to know anything about their politics. Does anyone have any info on them. His record on the ethics commission is less than sterling….closer to pewter….As AG he never seemed to be able to get around to taking legal action on the matters referred to his office by the Commission….so I doubt that either is going to be a real strong advocate of the commission taking a more active role…..Most of those it regulates would rather see it limited solely to being a fancy file cabinet for the required reports.

  • WUSRPH

    Republicans like to claim that they are the party that REALLY represents the American people. Well, let’s look at some figures that suggest that they may be wrong:

    “The key structural fact of American politics is that the GOP is an overwhelmingly white party while the Democrats are a multi-racial coalition. In 2012, according to Gallup, the Democrats were 60 percent white, 22 percent black and 13 percent hispanic—versus 89 percent white, 2 percent black, and 6 percent hispanic for Republicans.” (figures from the New Republic)

    Which seems more reflective of the ACTUAL America of today?

    • John Bernard Books

      so blacks are dem slaves….who’s fault is that?

      • BCinBCS

        You are truly, truly a reprehensible person.

  • John Bernard Books

    Did you see where one dummy posting here said, “I have two observations concerning the VP debate:
    (1) Mike Pence, meet the woodshed;
    (2) Ted Cruz, meet Tim Kaine – that’s how you debate.

    Uh oh..
    “Here’s the reality: Kaine was not so good Tuesday night.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/05/hillary-clinton-is-way-overcompensating-for-tim-kaines-poor-debate-performance/

    Most lucid Americans agree Kaine was not so good, or terrible.

    • BCinBCS

      It depends on what you thought that Kaine’s goal was for the debate. If he wanted to tie Pence to Trumps outlandish, crazy claims then he won walking away. If he wanted to set up a run for the Presidency in 2020 then Pence won. (But then, how does that help Trump in 2016?)

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems say there is no voter fraud….
    “A massive investigation is underway in Tarrant County as law enforcement officers from the Texas Attorney General’s Office investigate a vote-harvesting scheme alleged to involve as many as 20,000 ballots.”
    http://townhall.com/columnists/lawrencemeyers/2016/10/06/massive-voter-fraud-sweep-under-way-by-texas-ag-n2228904

    well I’ll be……dems caught in the act

  • WUSRPH

    The fact that the Troll has dragged this thread off into a discussion of the ACA/Obamacare, etc. and that some of us have responded suggests that maybe a thread on that issue might be justified. We know that Erica is less than a fan of the ACA so maybe she could start the discussion by explaining why she dislikes it and what she thinks should be done to resolve those problems. This would be a discussion that does not involve Donald Trump (other than by someone noting his varied positions and lack of positions on the issues) and Hillary only in passing (in noting that she does have a detailed position)…..And, it might be nice to get away from them for a day or two.

    • BCinBCS

      I’ll second that.

      • WUSRPH

        Complaining is always been easier…….

    • José

      Let’s be sure to emphasize the second question in the topic, what should be done differently. Some folks are awful good at complaining about problems but not so good at solving them.

    • SpiritofPearl

      I would ask first if healthcare is a public good like defense, education, and infrastructure.

      • WUSRPH

        Some indication that health care might be a public good can be learned from the history of the US Armed Forces involvement in the passage of such things as health care, commodities distribution (prior to food stamps) and food stamps themselves. The military played an important background role in all of these moves because of its experience in WWI and WWII when it found that as many as one-third of the potential manpower pool was physically deficient from poor diets, childhood diseases and other health related causes and it had to provide dental services for one out of every three soldiers. Times have changed somewhat since then….primarily because of these and similar programs—but it was clear that lack of adequate health care and diet made this a weaker nation.

        • WUSRPH

          Another indication of how great the “good old days” were is that an estimated 20% (1 out of 5) of those called up for the drat in WW II were illiterate.

          • SpiritofPearl

            How can those of us who agree with you and Mr. B convince others that it is also the best economical choice? Medicare has much lower overhead costs than private insurance providers.

          • Jed

            total costs don’t matter, only the impact on the elites who run our country. as long as they would suffer from a reform, it won’t happen, no matter how much better it would be for the rest of us.

      • BCinBCS

        I have wrestled with the concept of universal health care since 1981. Shortly before Obama became President, I wrote a white paper on a method for providing universal health care while preserving the health insurance industry. I chose this method because I realized that the political and economic forces associated with the health industry would not allow a move to a single payer system.

        Before I could advocate a universal health care system I had to answer the foundational question of whether health care was a privilege or a right. This is how I answered that question in the paper:

        “That began my nearly two decades search for the definitive answer to the question of whether health care is a right or a privilege, a search that concluded in the year 2000 when I realized that without adequate medical care the rights granted in the United States Constitution to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” would be impossible.

        I believe that health care is a Constitutional right and WUSRPH believes that it is a public good. I do not see how anyone can argue with either reasoning. Now the only question should be: How do we implement universal health care.

      • Jed

        check out the work of today’s nobel economics winners, who find that shifting public goods into the private sector creates such an incentive to reduce costs that quality of service disproportionately suffers. they specifically highlight education and prisons, but it sure seems like the behavior of the insurance industry is evidence to include healthcare in this category.

        • SpiritofPearl

          The latest were into contracts

    • John Bernard Books

      the illegals you want to insure, should they have the right to vote also?

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems say there is no voter fraud…
    “Indiana State Police added 48 additional counties Thursday to an investigation into allegations of fraudulent voter application information in Indiana.”
    http://fox59.com/2016/10/06/state-police-expand-indiana-voter-registration-project-investigation-to-57-counties/

    Dems have used voter fraud to steal election for the last century. Lock em up!

  • John Bernard Books

    Liberals love to fear monger, Shep is the token liberal on Fox
    “He said: “This moves 20 miles to the west, and you and everyone you know are dead — all of you — because you can’t survive it.
    “It’s not possible unless you’re very, very lucky. And your kids die, too.””
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/07/fox-news-anchor-shep-smith-says-of-hurricane-matthew-your-kids-w/

    then Hillary tells us only she can protect us from hurricanes?
    “When it comes to protecting our country against natural disasters and the threat of climate change, once again, Donald Trump is totally unfit and unqualified to be our President.””
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/06/hillary-blames-hurricane-on-climate-change-says-trump-unfit-to-protect-usa-from-the-threat-of-climate-change/

    and we thought Kaine was the crazy one on the ticket….

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/j63uux3

    The next time the Troll or JJ launches into one of their misleading attacks on the ACA, direct them to some factual information. Of course, they won’t read it—or believe it—as their intent is not a factual discussion but a political attack but maybe someone else will and, as a result, will not be mislead by them.

  • WUSRPH

    At this time of the year back in the days when Paul Burka as running this blog we might now be beginning to talk about something nearly as important as the presidential race—–the Major League Baseball Playoffs……Paul would be telling us how the Arlington “chokers” are going to win it all….and I would be pushing for the St Louis Cardinals (having abandoned the Houston Half-Astros when they moved to the Junior Circuit) but the Birds didn’t make the cut this year….Neither did Houston for that…..However what is really interesting this year is the way the Chicago Cubs have been playing……It has been more than 100 years since they have won the World Series (Teddy Roosevelt was the president the last time) and this year their fans are no longer saying “NEXT YEAR” but actually considering the wild possibility that it might be “THIS YEAR”. I am also surprised to see the Cleveland Indians in the playoff as, although it has not been as long for them, it was not that long ago when no one gave them a serious thought.

    • dave in texas

      And the last time the Cubs even made the World Series, Harry Truman was president.

  • John Bernard Books

    WH in collusion with Clinton on email scandal…..
    “Newly disclosed emails show top Obama administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server.”
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-coordinated-on-clinton-email-issues-new-documents-show-1475798310?mod=e2fb

    Whats next paid dem shills telling us how great ACA works……

  • John Bernard Books

    ACA works…
    “During a debate Thursday at the National Conference Center, the audience openly laughed at Virginia Democratic congressional candidate LuAnn Bennett when she attempted to tout Obamacare’s affordability.”
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/10/07/va-dem-candidate-says-obamacare-has-made-health-care-more-affordable-crowd-breaks-out-in-laughter-n2228908

    No matter how much we laugh at dems they get back up off the floor and spout the same old tired lies…..

  • John Bernard Books

    Uh oh another lie…
    “Tim Kaine “I’m Conservative” ad 2005 – “I’m against same sex marriage and for sanctity of life””

  • John Bernard Books

    Why don’t dems want to work?
    “What Eberstadt calls a “normative sea change” has made it a “viable option” for “sturdy men,” who are neither working nor looking for work, to choose “to sit on the economic sidelines, living off the toil or bounty of others.” Only about 15 percent of men ages 25 to 54 who worked not at all in 2014 said they were unemployed because they could not find work.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-quiet-catastrophe-millions-of-idle-men/2016/10/05/cd01b750-8a57-11e6-bff0-d53f592f176e_story.html?postshare=31475762443093&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.f514dbbb26bb

    ““viable option” for “sturdy men,” who are neither working nor looking for work, to choose “to sit on the economic sidelines, living off the toil or bounty of others.” ” I believe that used to be called lazy, now they’re just known as 47%ers.

  • Walt Longmire

    I can’t hear you as my ears can only hear that “great sucking sound” of American jobs going to Mexico.

    Now they are going everywhere –except the USA.

  • pbr90

    Much needed clarification of how both parties contributed to economic failures America has suffered through, and still exist.