Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

The Surprisingly Sunny Prospects for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Thanks to Donald Trump, we now know that “amnesty” is acceptable to most Republicans.

By Comments

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump waves from his vehicle during a tour of the the World Trade International Bridge at the U.S. Mexico border.
AP Photo/LM Otero

I began my career in journalism ten years ago this month, and it’s been an interesting ride. On the first day of my first gig, after having spent several days barricaded in a hotel room cramming on economic indicators, I was asked to write up a short analysis of Mel Gibson’s dramatic weekend. Most of my work since then has been devoted to more sober subjects, and over the course of the decade I’ve come to hold a few theories about American politics in particular. One of them is that in even the most dramatic and heated political debates, perhaps 80 percent of Americans—party affiliation aside—are broadly in agreement about the appropriate course of action.

Immigration reform and border security are an example. Over the past ten years these interrelated issues have been hotly and continuously contested, but if you take a big picture view of the policy debate, the disagreements between Republicans and Democrats are relatively marginal. Most Democrats would agree with Republicans that securing the nation’s southern border is a legitimate federal responsibility and a worthwhile use of taxpayer resources. Admittedly, what that might entail, exactly, isn’t precisely clear. But let me put it this way: the ambiguity over whether Donald Trump is proposing a physical wall or a metaphorical one persists in part because most people, including most Republicans understand that it could only be the latter. Although there is a value to strategic fencing in certain sections of the border, it would be ludicrous to build a gilded Great Wall of China stretching between San Diego and Brownsville. Trump may not understand that, but most Americans do.

Meanwhile, polling shows a clear and large consensus in favor of comprehensive immigration reform and the basic components that any such deal is likely to include. There is some debate over whether such a deal should be sweeping; John Cornyn, our senior senator, argued in 2014 that perhaps it might be easier to pass a series of standalone bills rather than pitch the nation on a package—which is an intriguing idea, but not a particularly emotive or polarizing one.

And on the policy questions, in any case, most Americans can agree on a few things. Legal immigration should be facilitated, or at least made less inefficient and unpredictable. Access to certain visas for highly skilled or specialized workers should be expanded. Would-be migrants should be screened on entry, and those who represent a security risk should be denied. Illegal immigration—via illegal entry or by failure to abide by the terms of a legally-issued visa—should be discouraged, but not by unduly draconian or punitive measures. And the 11 million unauthorized immigrants who are already here should be accorded some form of legal status, because legalization is preferable to the alternatives.

Our current policy, which mostly ignores unauthorized immigrants except when it comes time to a ferocious political debate, is suboptimal for both the workers in the shadows and the communities whose resources may be strained by, for example, school enrollment in excess of projections. Mass deportation would require a wildly expensive and intrusive expansion of the national security state. Enforcement through attrition would imply the deliberate pursuit of economic conditions that most native-born American workers would object to. All of that is easy to see, if you stop and think about it.

And here’s something surprising: most Americans can see the case for a path to citizenship. You wouldn’t get that impression if you watch cable news regularly, where partisan debates over “amnesty” are frequent and furious. The question is what ultimately scuttled the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” effort to pass comprehensive immigration legislation in 2013; President Barack Obama had insisted on the inclusion of a provision for a path to citizenship specifically, and a faction of House Republicans loudly refused to consider it. But polls suggest that a majority of Americans would have supported a path to citizenship, had the legislation passed Congress. In July of this year, in fact, Gallup found that 76 percent of Republicans would support it even now.

Alternatively, most Americans would probably consider a path to legal status of any kind as an acceptable compromise—and in all likelihood a majority of the affected immigrants would actually have seen it as such. In 1986 Ronald Reagan famously signed legislation that created a path to citizenship for the unauthorized immigrants then in the country; thirty years later, fewer than half of those who became eligible for his “amnesty” have applied for it. We’ll never know if Republicans had serious objections to the path to citizenship provision that Obama prioritized, back in 2013, or whether that merely struck them as fertile territory for grandstanding and demagoguery. Even so, I wish Democrats had given a path to legal status a try.

Recent events, however, have left me optimistic about the prospects for immigration reform next year, and we have one man to thank for it: Trump. Earlier this month, reports surfaced saying that the Republican nominee, in a meeting with Hispanic Republican leaders, had promised to take a less harsh tone on the subject of illegal immigration, and during his town hall with Sean Hannity here in Texas, Trump announced that the change might not be limited to his tone. “There could certainly be a softening,” he said, “because we’re not looking to hurt people.” That would suggest the kind of compassionate, common-sense ethos he spent the entire primary deriding when it was expressed by rivals like Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio. And over the past week Trump’s campaign has been floundering to explain the candidate’s garbled characterization of his own proposals, with the public consternation building to a point that the candidate announced he would give a major policy speech on the subject this evening.

It’s hard to predict what Trump might say. And it’s hard to see why it matters, frankly; he’s not likely to win the general election, and nothing about his campaign thus far has given the impression of consistency. But Trump’s flip-flopping on amnesty matters, because he’s spent the past two weeks with some of the GOP’s most vocal critics of immigration reform right by his side, supporting whatever his cause might be that day.

Jeff Sessions, the senator from Alabama, is a good example. He’s a longtime hardliner on the subject, and he might object next year if President Hillary Clinton calls on Congress to send her a comprehensive immigration reform bill, one that extends citizenship (or some other form of legal status) to the unauthorized immigrants already in the country. But Sessions joined Trump earlier today when he met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. The campaign will eventually end, and Trump, one hopes, will fade into the background. But either way, next year Congress will be full of Republicans who have preemptively signed on to the softening he’s now endorsed.

Related Content

  • WUSRPH

    I only wish I could agree with you……

    • JP

      I think until the problem of illegal entry is fixed most Americans will not be willing to consider anything that smells of amnesty, with or without a citizenship option.

      • Jed

        pretty sure polling says otherwise.

        • JP

          I seldom see polls that get the questions right.

  • Rules of Blazon

    This is silly. No immigration reform bill will pass as long as Republicans control the House. In fact, no bill of any consequence will pass. All Republicans will do is obstruct. The only way the dynamic changes in Congress is when enough Republicans are gone.

    • Erica Grieder

      They might not control the House next year. But if they do, I suppose Democrats will have to decide whether to pre-emptively declare defeat. If they do, I suppose you are right that it’s a safe bet that none of the legislation they’re proposing this year will pass.

      • Rules of Blazon

        Democrats are committed to governing. Of course they will try whatever they can to pass good legislation, and they will do so without regard to whether they are in the majority. That’s what it means to be a Democratic elected in 2016.

        And the Republicans, as you know, are equally committed to anti-governing.

        • Erica Grieder

          So are Democrats temperamentally incapable of winning a vote in both chambers of Congress? Or is Mitch McConnell just way more diabolically effective than he seems to the casual observer?

          • John Bernard Books

            3 zingers in a row and not one of them got. They actually believe the bs spewed by democrats.
            Yanno Erica its starting to look like the scandal laden Clinton/Huma team will lose.
            You see Huma as an asset and I see her for what she is a Muslim with terrorists ties.

          • José

            If Republicans maintain control of the House and their caucus remains hostage to an obstructionist right wing faction, how does that translate to “Democrats temperamentally incapable of winning a vote in both chambers”? I’m serious, Erica. What do you mean by that? It sure sounds like you are assigning blame to the party that is actually trying to get something done rather than the party of “burn it down” hooligans and their namby-pamby enablers.

          • Rules of Blazon

            I am totally stealing the crap out of “namby-pamby enablers.” Describes to a tee so many of the otherwise good folks I know up here in Collin Co.

          • Erica Grieder

            Well, let’s use the Texas Lege as an example because I follow its proceedings at a much more granular level. When there’s an obstructionist faction on some piece of legislation its members can be individually identified, by the media or their colleagues, for interventions of various kinds, and those sometimes work. Last session we saw that happen on, for example, the Pre-K expansion: a number of the Empower Texans-type Republicans were individually skeptical and Abbott’s office reached out to each of them directly to try to twist their arms; they didn’t convince everyone, but the expansion passed. And when Democrats stage these interventions with individual Republicans that sometimes works too. For example, TMF got his minimum wage measure out of Business & Commerce with the support of the committee’s Democrats plus one Republican (Villalba). It then got voted down on a mostly party line vote. Some Dems took that as proof of their prior assumptions. I took it as further evidence that when you pre-emptively declare defeat you will of course be defeated. (Side note because this is increasingly a bugbear of mine: let’s not assume that all obstructionism is wrong. Sometimes people are obstructing for principled reasons, to the relief of the general public; examples from last session include Byron Cook’s refusal to gut the Texas DREAM Act and Joan Huffman’s refusal to consider constitutional carry. And if Trump somehow does win I would sure be thanking God and the founders for Congress’s ability to obstruct a president’s agenda.)

          • José

            I surmise that your point is as follows. Obstructionists in the TexLege have been mitigated with some success if the players put in enough effort. Therefore the same thing ought to work just as well at the national level. If the US Congress has amassed a historic record of nonaccomplshment for the last six years, then blame resides with the Dems for just not trying hard enough. Is that about right?

            The flaw in that argument is that it regards the two obstructionist camps as roughly equals while ignoring the huge difference in the scale of their obstinacy. But they are not equals. Even though two things may be alike in substance, if the size or the degree or the extent is sufficiently disproportionate then they just are not the same. And that’s a big difference between Austin and Washington today. Congressional Republicans will not, in fact, accept half a loaf or even more. And what exactly would you say would have been the the winning formula for Obama to do business with the GOP controlled Senate and House? He’s tried getting involved and he’s tried staying out of the way. He’s tried shmoozing and being friendly and he’s tried being forceful and adamant. It just does not matter; the Republicans have set aside their party philosophy and the interests of the nation for one purpose only, to oppose Obama on every front and to deny him and his administration any semblance of success. Americans who care about this country ought to be outraged at the Tea Party nihilists and the Republican leadership that allow them to hurt us all.

          • Jed

            well, it stands to reason that, since republican voters appear to favor amnesty (for evidence: see headline), the continued failure to reform immigration must be the fault of fatalistic democrats.

            qed.

        • Unwound

          “Democrats are committed to governing. Of course they will try whatever they can to pass good legislation, and they will do so without regard to whether they are in the majority”

          this is pretty funny

  • WUSRPH

    Looks like the only obstacle to this coming about is named DONALD TRUMP. His speech tonight was certainly not a “pivot”…..build the wall, they will pay for it….arrest them and deport them (he has this problem with due process)….red meat for the red meat crowd….which is what you would expect with White Republican Arizonans…… (few of whom were born there).

    • JP

      “The guy apparently cannot figure out which Trump he is supposed to be”

      I think he is what the audience he is in front of at that moment wants him to be.

  • Jed

    what is acceptable to most republicans won’t matter as long as republicans keep electing representatives who don’t actually share their views.

    • Erica Grieder

      Texas Democrats! God bless you all. Is there any downside to trying? I mean, if we must have Congress might as well ask ’em to work for a living.

      • WUSRPH

        Listening to Trump tonight you’d think he doesn’t think we need one……..Of course, you need to try….Just as the Democrats and a handful of Republicans did in 2013….but what makes you think that the Cruz’s will be any less likely to play political games with it than they were then? Can Ryan—already under attack by the Liberty Caucus—bring a bill to a vote? The problem isn’t that the Democrats in Congress won’t try. It is that the GOP has refused to meet them. You think that may change but Trump, in effect, declared war on such plans tonight.

        • Erica Grieder

          Well, Trump’s not gonna win. And as I said I think there’s something to Cornyn’s idea that in light of how overheated the debate has gotten, there might be a value to passing some component of a comprehensive immigration reform bill as a standalone measure. But I mean look. I’m not old enough to understand, intuitively, whether the GOP’s obstructionism during the Obama era has been more successful than it would have been had Obama had a little more LBJ in his JFK. But I do know why NAFTA, for example, is a thing. It’s because supporters could count to 217 and in 1993 they did.

          • José

            Piecemeal legislation has its place, but I rather suspect that it doesn’t work well for Immigration Reform. Anytime there are major trades to be made they must be bundled together. Recall, for example, in the ACA that certain consumer benefits—such as eliminating preexisting conditions and lifetime maximums—were not feasible except by bundling them with the personal mandate. Horse trading has a legitimate purpose. So it will be with IR. One side cares about the plight of undocumented immigrants and the other wants to throw money at border security. Why should either agree to a halfway measure that satisfies one but guarantees nothing to the other? It’s like going out to buy a car and negotiating and signing two contracts, separate and totally unrelated, one for the car to be delivered and the other for the price to be paid. That makes no sense.

          • WUSRPH

            As one who has worked legislation thru a legislative body, I can tell you that Jose is right about the need to bundle such complex legislation into as few packages as possible. Some of the parts would be easy to pass as stand alone bills, but they need to be in he package to encourage votes for those to which there is more opposition. There also has to be some parts that are negotiable in case it becomes necessary to do some trading.

          • JP

            “and leave the tough problems unresolved”

            Isn’t that the point of being in office? 🙂

          • WUSRPH

            It may be now…but I don’t think it was when you and I were hanging around the east side of the Capitol Bldg. or even when I was over across the rotunda.

          • JP

            We used to have some really great politicians from both parties back in the day. Maybe it is social media that ruined things? Or too much TV? We all began to see so well that we became blind.

          • Erica Grieder

            that’s the counterargument and I think both approaches have pros and cons. I wonder if a third way would be to carve out *one* small measure that’s coherent on its own–funding for the eradication of carrizo cane, maybe?–and pass that to show that legislation can be passed, then proceed to a package deal.

          • Jed

            “Well, Trump’s not gonna win. ”

            you mean that whole year of hand wringing in this space was … what?

          • Erica Grieder

            It was a futile attempt to warn people that his campaign was not, as so many people twice my age assumed a year ago, some kind of “summer fling” that was good for ratings and fun for cable news hosts; it was a sickening and pathological display that would degrade our political discourse and leave millions of Americans even more marginalized than they were before, as a result of the fact that they were foolish enough to support his bid for the presidency. You’re right, it was really stupid of me to bother.

          • Jed

            that plus you kept saying he might win.

            if your story now is that it was about preventing degradation, i don’t see how nominating one loser is more degrading than nominating another …

            ultimately republican discourse is right where it was anyway, and if anything the majority backlash to it is stronger than ever. so maybe we should be thankful for trump.

      • Bajasail

        I may be wrong, but I think your piece is perhaps more a projection of hope than an assessment of what may be. Congress wouldn’t pass a Zika virus funding bill because of petty partisan gamesmanship, even though no one disagreed that Zika funding was prudent. Recall that Senate Republicans required that Zika funding come from cuts to Planned Parenthood and the ACA (other healthcare programs), and then, just to assure the public that their concern wasn’t just with the federal fisc, they also proposed repealing a ban on flying the Confederate flag at military ceremonies. And to be clear, they wouldn’t pass a funding bill. They could have, but they didn’t. Until the toxicity of the dysfunction is recognized and acted on by the electorate, the condition of the Congress won’t improve, and assuming that the the GOP will be better next session is wishful thinking unless the voters take out the trash, which is unlikely.

        • Rules of Blazon

          The Republican gerrymander of House districts is preventing voters from taking out the trash.

        • JP

          “unless the voters take out the trash”

          You basically have a choice between a Democrat or a Republican. The trash will stay.

      • JP

        I think the Texas Democrats got taken over by the Progressives…who used to be some really cool, sensible people…but now? Maybe I am jaded from living in Austin.

        • Erica Grieder

          go spend some time in san antonio, bexar county democrats = the best texas democrats.

          • JP

            I agree with that, for the most part. They seem to be fairly conservative much of the time but with heart.

          • Rules of Blazon

            Any Texas Democrat = the best Texas Democrat. I love San Antonio. But come on. We are all awesome. And we are so much fking fun. I have fun with my Republican peeps up here in Collin, but it’s always the best time when it’s team blue, and it don’t make no mind where.

  • WUSRPH

    Some day let’s have a little back and forth about the millions of jobs that The Donald says are being stolen from Americans….Let’s talk about history….and how the kinds of jobs they are filling are those throughout our history that have been filled by the “First Generation” of newcomers……the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Poles and on and on….How they are not the kind of jobs Second Generations take or will accept for their children…..A little reality on the subject for a change. If the illegals and their first generation children were not here to fill those jobs, they would either go unfilled or the salaries would have to be raised far higher than the minimum wage Hillary supports and Trump opposes. Let’s be honest with yourselves. We have our high standard of living….we have the cheapest food in the world SOLELY because those First Generation workers are paid so little.

    • donuthin2

      Not SOLELY, but in a large part. Can you imagine the cost of all the highway construction were it not for the availability of cheap labor to work on the hot asphalt machines, laying rebar in concrete, etc in the mid summer Tx heat.

      • José

        I saw a lot of roofs being repaired this summer. Walking past the jobs all you could hear was the sound of hard work, tejano music from the radios, and Spanish.

        • WUSRPH

          Economists estimate that 7.5 million of the 11 million illegals are in the labor force, mostly holding the kinds of “First Generation Jobs” in agriculture and the kind you cite.

    • JP

      Without illegals available to do those jobs, wages will rise. More people will do those jobs at the new wage level. They will most often be…green card holders. Even Cesar Chavez knew this…but his version of border control we don’t need.

      • WUSRPH

        You are right—as I said in another post—that most of the jobs will be filled BUT at higher wages….This will have n inflationary effect on the economy, driving up prices for all kinds of goods and services. Getting people willing to work in slaughter houses and in onion fields is going to be particularly expensive. We may gradually find out what it is like, as in most other countries, to spend 30 to 35% of your income on food. We now spend far less because we have the cheapest agriculture of all the industrial nations. There are two reasons for that—government agricultural policy and cheap farm labor. Without the “undocumented” workers food and fiber products may get substantially more expensive leading to the legendary $10 head of lettuce. But that is apparently something the Trumptarians either are willing to accept or, most likely, do not realize will happen. Should Trump be able to deport 6 million or more I expect we will hear a lot of screams about rising prices.

        • JP

          I think Trump knows that his Great Wall Project will fail the moment the first lawsuits hit, especially those of an environmental nature. You can’t simply build an unnatural barrier and expect nature to flourish. He will also have an excuse for his failure and will be happy with that. Same with the green card holders. He will spin it so that he can say that he got them documented. Maybe something good will come of it. The status quo is not acceptable but the cures may be worse than the diseases.

          • Beerman

            There are very valid arguments about how ridiculous it would be for the unbelievable manpower effort, and the trillions of $$$, it would take to build Trump’s Wall. However, I would prefer that our political leaders direct those same efforts and monies toward our deteriorating highways and infrastructure in America?

            And, where is Trump going to get the manpower to do the backbreaking work building the wall? Oh, I get it, we can use illegal immigrants to do the hard labor, and, of course, being supervised by his cronies and kin folks. Now, I know how Trump made his billions, and just wait until he gets his fingers in that federal piggy-bank. Like he said, AMAZING…AMAZING…

          • JP

            That is the fun part. Politicians of all stripes can make the most outrageous claims…and we just buy it.

  • gordo

    Nice, Erica. Keep it up. The view from the border may be somewhat jaundiced, given our location, but any path to legal status for the 1.7 million (est) indocumentos in Texas would be preferable to the 1 billion wasted dollars requested by the DPS mission creepers extant. As straight white males (como yo) become less to be the default option in Texas and the country, perhaps we can begin to accept the experiment in diversity that our country has embarked upon, and that Texas leads the way in pioneering. Buena suerta, y vaya con dios.

    • JP

      That should be the federal government patrolling the border in the zone they are allowed to by law. It should not be a Texas problem.

      One thing I remember from living in the Valley was the treatment of illegals by Texans….of all stripes. It still makes me sad.

      • gordo

        They do. Since the first Bush administration, and continuing under Obama, funding for Border interdiction has increased by a huge factor, and something like four times more Border Patrol agents are in the field. You can see it in the decline of crossers caught-fewer trying. Yet according to Pew, more undocumented persons are coming now by air than by foot. Should we build a yuge wall around all the airports, sea ports, and other entry points too? Just askin’.

        • JP

          We could build really, really tall walls around the airports and rust-proof ones at the seaports! Landing and takeoffs might get a bit hairy though. 🙂

          When I lived in the Valley and would go to the beach at night it was common to hear small aircraft coming over…without a single light visible. Must have been common to have electrical problems there. 🙂

          There is a popular book from some years back where a giant Lucite wall with Canada was built. It was just a funny story then…

          • WUSRPH

            Actually, a couple of years ago when JJ was screaming about the need to bring home the troops and station them in little campouts along the border, I came up with THE PLAN for a real border WALL. This was it:

            Yes. You can “secure” the border if you want to. But let’s not play at it. If you really, really want a SECUE BORDER all it would take is to:

            —clear at least a half-mile stretch inward from the border of all vegetation and flatten out all terrain features that block the view along the entire 1,900-mile border; (The Israeli wall in comparison is a couple of hundred miles at the best)

            —lay a mine field of at least 300 yards wide along the
            entire border;

            —-stretch razor wire fencing along the entire length with a fence 500 yards inward from the border and other fences at 500 yard intervals going inland till the half-mile line;

            —-set attack dogs loose between the fence lines;

            —light the whole thing at night;

            —lay all kinds of electronic vision, motion and smell,
            etc. devices;

            —dig shafts every quarter mile or so to install
            underground listening and motion devices to catch the diggers; (Trump talked about the tunnel problem on Wednesday night)

            —install a massive computer network to monitor and operate the whole thing;

            –construct a new DEW line of radars to catch any
            unauthorized aircraft or drones backed up with a missile system to shoot them down;

            —run constant manned patrols (at odd intervals) inside one of the fenced in areas;

            —build a final 25-foot high wall at the half-mile line
            with observation towers every quarter mile;

            —permanently station at least 100,000 troops at posts along the border to man the thing;

            –adopt a shoot on sight policy; and

            —spend a TRILLION or two to build and operate the thing.

            And, to be really “SECURE” we’d have to do the same thing along the Canadian border or the really
            bad guys will sneak in up there and, while we are at it, find some way to protect our Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coast lines from swimmers and boaters.

            Yes, you can do it…IF YOU WANT TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC of EAST GERMANY. Of
            course doing all this would (1) be economically and any other way totally irrational and (2) make this country into something totally different than it
            ever has been.

            But WE CAN DO IT…..

          • JP

            I think the UN would declare that to be an extremely rude thing to do and then would hold a conference with some really great food and drink to talk about it.

          • Beerman

            “People are telling me,” IT WILL BE AMAZING…AMAZING…BELIEVE ME…BELIEVE ME!

          • You forgot beautiful. And big.

  • John Bernard Books

    Bammmmmm! Another home run by Trump. It is starting to look like a Trump landslide in Nov.

  • John Bernard Books

    Time for dems to face facts:
    “The memo states all talking points and background information about the Benghazi attacks and included in a bold font that UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s claims about an internet video were “later proved false.””
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/knew-leaked-pelosi-docs-admit-obama-clinton-lied-benghazi/

    Dem politicians lie, the average dem voter is ok with this as long as its for their own good…..and who makes that judgement? You stupid idiots…..

    • JP

      I think established members of both parties lie…and cover each other until the heat gets too high.

  • donuthin2

    much of the problem is apparent as you read BB. It is the total lack of respect for the opposing political party no matter if you are democrat or republican. I wish for the day when we had conservative democrats and moderate republicans. I fondly remember when RR was elected president and a significant bunch of democratic congressmen, many from Texas, made it apparent they were willing to work with Reagan. They became known as the boll weevils. Later, the rabid right of the republican party began to organize campaigns against them and eventually defeated most of them. Charlie Stenholm is the one that I remember as being great on bi partisan issues.

    • John Bernard Books

      Yes dems were so willing to work with RR ie Ted Kennedy:
      “Ted Kennedy, the U.S. Senate’s longtime “liberal lion,” apparently tried to take advantage of Reagan’s aggressive stance toward communist Russia — by seeking the Russians’ assistance. The Federalist’s Sean Davis writes that “in the midst of the cold war, (Kennedy) begged them to intervene in a U.S. presidential election in order to unseat President Ronald Reagan.””
      http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2015/03/did_ted_kennedy_seek_soviets_h.html

      Dems are now paying the price for asking Trump to run……..

    • WUSRPH

      Most notably one of those Democrats who said he was willing to work with Reagan was the Speaker of the House……Obama. on the other hand, after the first two years had to face a Speaker who was dedicated not to working with the president.

      • Jed

        ???

        • BCinBCS

          Jed, put a period after “Speaker of the House” and a comma after “Obama” and you will get what W is stating.

        • Wesley TX

          should read “…willing to work with Reagan was the Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil. Obama, on the other hand…”

  • John Bernard Books

    It has been highly reported that both Hillary and Trump were invited by Mexico’s Prez to discuss issues.
    “Hillary Clinton today used her first public event in nearly a week to bash Donald Trump for “dropping in” on Mexico, saying building relationships takes more than “a photo op.””
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-hits-trump-dropping-mexico/story?id=41773006

    Trump seized the opportunity to start a conversation. He didn’t ask for a donation to play. Maybe grandma forgot she was invited……

  • John Bernard Books

    If facts do not persuade your faulty logic you’re a dingbat
    “Transgenderism is the ultimate triumph of ideology over reality – but only until something even loonier comes along. The creation of the transgendered, and demand for special rights for same, satisfies the ceaseless quest for new sexual minorities and furthers the goal of making ethical norms obsolete.
    A report, also released last week, by two eminent social scientists (one a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University), posted at The New Atlantis, found, “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex – that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’… is not supported by scientific evidence.” It also found that “only 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as a gender that does not correspond to their biological sex.” ”
    http://www.grasstopsusa.com/df082916.html

    Dingbat or the loony left.

  • shesaid1
  • shesaid1

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/27/opposition-to-immigration-reform-is-a-winning-strategy-for-republicans/

    “By any measure, fears of (Illegal) immigration are driving many white Americans to the Republican Party. And, indeed, the Republican strategy on immigration appears to have been successful. Republicans now control the House and the Senate, the governor’s office in 31 states, and two-thirds of the state legislatures. They are winning the political war.”

    “An even bigger factor is that the ties of racial and ethnic minorities to the Democratic Party are tenuous. Research by Taeku Lee and myself shows that most Latinos and Asian Americans don’t feel like they fit into either party. In national surveys, those who refuse to answer a question about party identification, those who claim that they do not think in partisan terms, and independents make up the clear majority of both groups. All told, 56 percent of Latinos and 57 percent of Asian-American identify as nonpartisans.

    Even among blacks, there are signs of ambivalence. Almost 30 percent of blacks feel
    that the Democratic Party does not work hard for black interests.”

    http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20151016_As_Trump_fades__be_smart_about_immigration.html#disqus_thread

    “Most Hispanics aren’t single-issue voters when it comes to immigration. A recent Gallup poll found that among registered Latino voters, 67 percent are at least willing to support a candidate who doesn’t share their views on immigration. And 18 percent don’t consider the issue important at all.

    What’s more, many Hispanic citizens have little sympathy for immigrants who haven’t played by the rules. Especially among Latino voters born in the United States, resentment of immigrants who have entered the country illegally can run deep. Forty-two percent of American-born Hispanics disapprove of President Obama’s executive actions to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/12/no-joke-trump-can-win-plenty-of-latinos.html
    Reuben Navarette: No Joke: Trump Can Win Plenty of Latinos

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/connorhoffman/2016/07/18/conservative-hispanic-leaders-poised-to-endorse-trump-n2194143
    Conservative Hispanic Leaders Poised To Endorse Trump

    Gee, No wonder why I fall into the Proud Independent group.

    • BCinBCS

      ahesaid1, almost all of what you listed is “licking the icing rather than getting into the cake”:

      There are many more complex reasons why Republicans have state political offices than immigration.

      Those Asians and Latinos who are Independents still vote for Democrats because they abhor Republican policies.

      Sure Blacks think that the Democrats don’t work hard enough for them. Do you think that means that they will vote for the party that works against them?

      Immigration is nowhere near the number one issue with Hispanics.

      You are taking good data and drawing wrong conclusions from it because you did not get into the “cake” of the issues.

      • shesaid1

        Unfortunately, it’s the Washington Post, Navarette, Gallup and others that are drawing the conclusions, not I.

  • shesaid1

    If Trump didn’t exist, why he would have been invented:

    https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/illegal-immigration-finally-turned-off-public/?singlepage=true
    How Illegal Immigration Finally Turned Off the Public

    “Why did the illegal-immigration issue launch Donald Trump’s campaign? Why did his recent tense press conference exchange with Univision’s Jorge Ramos please even some of Trump’s liberal critics? What is it about illegal immigration that has finally turned off so many Americans?”

  • shesaid1

    Here’s a synopsis of what happens when the Immigration Code is NOT enforced:

    https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-weirdness-of-illegal-immigration/
    The Weirdness of Illegal Immigration

    “….contemplate what happens in a social, cultural, and economic context when several million immigrants arrive from one of the poorest areas in the world (e.g., Oaxaca) to one of the most affluent (e.g., California). For guidance, think not of Jorge Ramos, but of the premodern/postmodern collision that is occurring in Germany, Austria, and Denmark.”

  • shesaid1
  • shesaid1

    From Telesur:

    https://www.youtube dot com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI

    Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents
    Private Prisons, Wall St. Love Hillary

    https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/despite-her-rhetoric-big-pharma-likes-hillary dot html

    Despite her rhetoric, big pharma likes Hillary

  • shesaid1

    http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/backlash-grows-over-trump-s-immigration-plan-507691587765

    “The former ambassador stated,” If you were to deport the 30 million undocumented immigrants in the United States that’s going to cost you about 130 billion dollars.”

  • shesaid1

    The U.S. currently has eleven non immigrant guest worker visa programs.
    http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/employment/temporary.html

    There is no cap on the number of workers allowed into the U.S. under the H-2A temporary agricultural guest worker visa program.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/263529-funding-deal-hits-backlash-over-increase-in-worker-visas
    “The provision could more than triple the number of H-2B visas for foreign workers seeking jobs at hotels, theme parks, ski resorts, golf courses, landscaping businesses, restaurants and bars. The move is intended to boost the supply of non-agricultural seasonal workers.”

    http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Resources%20for%20Congress/Congressional%20Reports/2011%20National%20Immigration%20%26%20Consular%20Conference%20Presentations/H-2A_and_H-2B_Visas.pdf

    Alabama had to bite the bullet and hire LEGAL Immigrants for its AG Industry:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-24/africans-relocate-to-alabama-to-fill-jobs-after-immigration-law
    Africans Relocate to Alabama to Fill Jobs After Immigration Law

    “East Coast began calling Atlanta refugee agencies several months ago looking for legal immigrants to come to Alabama for a year, said Mbanfu,
    refugee employment director for Lutheran Services in Atlanta. He said the company would have taken as many refugees as he could refer. The agency connected East Coast with refugees who had been in the country
    three to five years, he said.”

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-09-13-plants_N.htm
    Immigration raids yield jobs for legal workers

    ‘When federal agents descended on six meatpacking plants owned by Swift & Co. in December 2006, they rounded up nearly 1,300 suspected illegal immigrants that made up about 10% of the labor force at the plants.

    But the raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents did not cripple the company or the plants. In fact, they were back up and running at full staff within months by replacing those removed with a significant number of native-born Americans, according to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

    “Whenever there’s an immigration raid, you find white, black and legal immigrant labor lining up to do those jobs that Americans will supposedly not do,” said Swain, who teaches law and political science.”

    • JP

      I don’t think people have much of an issue with the hiring of people legally in the USA, whether they are here to work or become citizens. So long as they obey the laws and perform the same duties as everyone else….where is the problem? There probably is not much of one.

    • Sam Jacinto

      Is this a new troll – or an old one with a new name? So far I’ve seen no original thinking.

      • John Bernard Books

        You can recognize original thinking?

      • BCinBCS

        Sam, I think she must be JBB’s wife.

        • John Bernard Books

          Damn she must be getting under your thin skin….

      • shesaid1

        Only facts! Sorry to disappoint.

        • WUSRPH

          More factoids than facts. (A factoid is defined as something that is said to be true because it has appeared in print.)

  • John Bernard Books

    This is why Trump will win in Nov. He said he will declare the cartels terrorist groups seize their assets and use their monies to pay for the wall.
    grandma is befuddled…..

  • WUSRPH

    “Ingraham, who supports Trump, asked him why, at his Phoenix rally Wednesday night, he didn’t use the low-key tone that he had used in his remarks earlier in the day in Mexico after meeting with President Enrique Peña Nieto. “We had this unbelievably energized crowd,” Trump replied. “And if I would’ve used the tone that I used in Mexico, I think everybody would’ve fallen asleep.”

    He just cannot control himself….Show him a rally audience and he will demagogue.

  • WUSRPH

    Now that Trump has made it clear that he really doesn’t want any Hispanic votes with his speech on Wednesday, let’s see how badly he can offend African-Americans with his performance in Detroit over the weekend. Of course, he won’t have a packed audience of Trumptarians to play too so he may be a little more controlled…..But he’s sure to tell the pastor how bad things are for the poor mistreated Blacks and how Der Leader is going to save you.

    • John Bernard Books

      Actually it only sounded that way to a closed mind….of a democrat

  • John Bernard Books

    Who will be the first dem to claim this idea as their’s?
    “To fund construction of a new U.S. border wall, Donald Trump and senior advisers are considering various ideas, including the use of assets seized from drug cartels and others in the illicit drug trade.”
    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/exclusive-trump-camp-mulls-using-seized-cartel-assets-pay-wall/

    This is the kind of out of the box thinking you will get with Trump….brilliant.

  • John Bernard Books

    Democrat federal employees protecting Hillary…
    “Though it was not their primary mission, FBI agents who investigated Hillary Clinton’s email collected significant evidence suggesting she and her team violated federal record-keeping laws, including persisting to use a private Blackberry and server to conduct State Department business after being warned they posed legal and security risks, government sources tell Circa.The evidence was compelling enough to convince FBI Director James Comey that the Clinton team had not complied with record-keeping laws and to cause at least one witness to raise their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during an investigative interview, the sources said.”
    http://circa.com/politics/accountability/fbis-hillary-clinton-email-probe-found-evidence-of-effort-to-evade-federal-records-law

    Dems are losing power and they will stop at nothing to keep it, including ignoring our laws and violating our laws.

  • John Bernard Books

    If you haven’t lost respect for the pope this will do it…
    “The Pope took his green agenda to a new level by supplementing Jesus’ call to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the sick with his own call for recycling, carpooling and conserving electricity.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769605/Turn-lights-share-lifts-Pope-Francis-calls-global-warning-sin-issues-advice-Christians-fix-environment.html#ixzz4J6jD3yxl

    Sorry but I can’t find car pooling in the 10 commandments…..

  • John Bernard Books

    Bored state workers outnumber producers….
    “Federal, state and local government employed 22,213,000 people in August, while the manufacturing sector employed 12,281,000.”
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/government-workers-now-outnumber-manufacturing-workers-9932000

    If you have had to deal with a bored state worker, you know we could reduce all bored state workers by 25% with no drop in output.

  • WUSRPH

    A humorous view of The Donald’s position on immigration from a friend of mine:

    Besides,
    I’ve said for many months now that the Donald marries immigrants because
    everybody knows they do jobs we won’t.

    • John Johnson

      Funny. A good one.

  • My biggest problem with all of the talk around immigration is that very few actually think about the practicalities of it. What is realistically possible versus what is just pure fantasy.

    Let’s look at the realities for a moment…
    – It is estimated that there are anywhere between 8 million and 15 million illegal immigrants in the US (or aliens, undocumented workers, or whatever term one prefers. It’s all the same)

    – Of these 8m -15m illegal immigrants probably only about 60%-65% are from countries south of the border and of those, Mexicans probably makes up 50% or better. The remaining 35%-40% of illegal immigrants are made up of Asians, Europeans, Pacific Islanders, Australians, etc.

    – I believe that the current commonly used count is 11m illegal immigrants. Who is going to round up all these people? Who is going to pay the cost of rounding them up and deporting them? How are we going to make certain that we aren’t deporting US citizens? How are we going to transport them? What if their home countries won’t take them back?

    – The Wall. How exactly do we force Mexico to pay for this? Are we willing to go to war to do this? Then there are the logistics of building a wall that long. Erica pointed out the obvious problems of how it is impossible along the Rio Grande, but there are also mountain ranges and inhospitable desert terrain from El Paso west to San Diego. How long is it going to take to build this wall? Decades? And once built how is it going to be monitored? And where will that money come from?

    Every person who is all rah rah about Trump and his wall and round em up rhetoric are like deer in the headlights when asked these questions if they bother to actually think about them rather than blow them off as most do.

    The path to apply for work visas needs to be streamlined and simplified. The path to citizenship also needs to be streamlined. Once that is accomplished we need to create a way for those immigrants who entered the US illegally and have been here for years a way to come forward and have a path to legal residency and citizenship if they choose.

    I know that the above will actually take some work. And that it’s not easily condensed into some slogan or chant. But I am willing to bet that it is cheaper to do than rounding up people, deporting them and building a wall.

    • John Bernard Books

      Dems are simply not smart enough to understand the issues such as illegal immigration. This is what we want stopped….
      The Texas Department of Health advertises for illegals to come here and have their anchor babies while giving them tax dollars.
      “Live in Texas. WIC clients usually receive services in the county where they live. U.S. citizenship is not a requirement for eligibility.”
      Thats right you don’t have to be a citizen……and this beaut
      “WIC refers clients to a variety of health and social services agencies and programs. WIC staff can help clients find these services. Some examples are:

      Medicaid
      Food Stamps
      Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
      Child health insurance
      Family planning
      Migrant health services
      Prenatal care
      Texas Health Steps (EPSDT)
      Medical and dental services
      Early Childhood Intervention (ECI)
      The School Lunch / Breakfast Summer Lunch Program
      Food Pantries
      Literacy Services
      Job Banks
      Housing Services
      Parenting Classes
      Drug and alcohol abuse programs
      Child care
      Child support enforcement”
      http://dshs.texas.gov/wichd/gi/eligible.shtm

      Its vote buying by dems using our tax dollars.

      • John Johnson

        You don’t seem to be getting many retorts when you quote the actual words the Feds use to advertise the expensive, tax payer funded give-a-ways to those here illegally. They all pay their way, dontcha know.

        It is reported that it only costs us about $20K taxpayer dollars to bring each Syrian refugee over here. This doesn’t take into consideration the expense of housing, feeding and supplying them with healthcare once here. Think they are paying their Ocare premiums. We are a stupid lot to allow this to happen. Our grandchildren are going to hate us…maybe as much as I hate Obama and the damage he and his appointees like Hillary have foisted on this country.

        • John Bernard Books

          Sadly dems cannot argue facts only made up strawman issues.

        • Shelly H.

          First off, I and most regulars here have blocked JBB. Second, are you implying that Syrian refugees, who are here legally, will never be self-supporting tax-paying residents of the US? That once here they will always be government supported? Where is the proof of that? Where is the proof that all illegal immigrants are being supported by government programs? If not all what percentage? If you’re going to make these claims cough up the facts and figures to support them.

          • John Johnson

            Here’s one; how many more do you want?

            http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees

          • Shelly H.

            For a so-called non partisan site they sure do lean right on immigration issues. I’m still researching the sources they use to read their conclusions and so far it looks as if they may be cherry picking data.

          • John Johnson

            Oh, Shelly, I just linked that one. Just Google it. There is all sorts of info on the expense.

    • John Johnson

      The majority of Trump supporters know that a solid wall will never be built; we know that Mexico is not, at least directly, going to pay for any portion of one. We know that 11 million are not going to be rounded up and bused south.

      What we do know is that Hillary represents more of the same. Divide what Trump promises by two and we still get change we want. If a wall or other technical devices are used along our border and paid for by the Feds, we can put the $1B of Texan’s money back to better use; if we quit dangling carrots in the form of jobs and birth certificates and benefits, they will quit coming; if we don’t want to round them up all at once, then do it systematically over a period of time when they apply for any number of things and cannot present proof of citizenship. Decide then if they meet the criteria for being allowed to stay.

      • Shelly H.

        Really? Where is this majority? Nearly every poll disputes your claims.

        The majority of outliers like yourself that aren’t the typical Trump supporters?

        • John Johnson

          Look, Shelly..at some point commonsense comes into play. Trump has moderated his stances on several issues the last several weeks and he has not lost support..he is, in fact, gaining ground. That would indicate that a “majority” of his supporters are staying with him. Make sense to you?

          • WUSRPH

            But when you are behind maintaining a “majority” of your existing supporters is not good enough. He has clearly lost some of the Hispanic GOP…as small of a group as it is…..He has to be picking up supporters, not just holding on to what he has….His “gains” were all within the acceptable margin of error on other polls…He still remains…on the average of the polls….about 5 points back….plus he still is behind in most of the important swing states. No one doubts that the race will get closer….It usually does…but, at this point, there is no reason for you to have any optimism other than that you so urgently feel the need to do so.

          • John Johnson

            I have gone head to head with you before on pronosticating. I am way up on you. You keep reading and repeating whatever you want to. It is lost on me.

          • WUSRPH

            Actually, I was only speaking to you only as a way to address the larger audience with a counter view to your overwhelming need to think your man still has a chance.
            In that regard, you are getting as bad as the Troll and he’s running 1 out of 6 in his predictions on who will get the most votes in presidential races. Like you, he just cannot understand why people don’t vote the way he wants them to……Maybe it has something to do with the quality of the candidates you two are backing.

            Both of you clearly want to believe that there are millions out there who are either lying to the pollsters are who have not been polled who on election day are going to flood the polling places…..Nice dream….hold onto it as long as you can.

  • John Bernard Books

    This would be funny ifn it weren’t true….

  • John Bernard Books

    Its a done deal…
    “During an interview with Bloomberg News, Democrat mega-donor George Soros openly admits that GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump will win the popular vote in a “landslide,” but says a President Hillary Clinton is already a “done deal.”
    In the interview which is now surfacing, Soros says with certainty that Trump will win the popular vote in the country, but says that won’t make him president because the electoral college vote will go for Clinton.
    When the interviewer asks if it’s a “done deal” for Clinton as president, Soros says “yes,” nodding his head. Check out the interview segment here:
    http://theamericanmirror.com/soros-trump-win-landslide-president-hillary-done-deal/

    Skewed polls, a biased media, bored state workers using government time to work for Hillary, vote buying, and voter fraud are just some of the tactics dems will employ to ensure Hillary’s coronation.

    Had enough yet?

  • John Bernard Books

    Judge admonishes dems for stretching the law
    “In an extended exchange with SEC’s lead counsel, the judge asked, “[In regards to the question troubling the court] are we trying to stretch [existing] securities laws [to apply them] to this case?”
    The judge concluded, saying he thought the SEC was trying to place “a very large square peg into a round hole.””
    http://www.empowertexans.com/features/federal-court-suspicious-of-sec-claims-in-paxton-case/

    How sad dems ignore the law when it comes to Hillary but try to fit “a very large square peg into a round hole” when it comes to Gen Paxton…..imagine that.

  • John Johnson

    Geez…never thought I see it! The most liberal major newspaper in the U.S. is now pounding on the Clinton’s about their cover-up and failure to come clean. Two of their major advisors have publically stated that Bill and Hillary have always attempted to hide the truth, with Hillary being the biggest culprit.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-was-right-about-the-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-heres-why-it exists/2016/09/02/4a5e0fba-6879-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html?wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1

    • WUSRPH

      If you think the Washington Post is “the most liberal major newspaper in the US”, it is clear that you read few newspapers.

      • John Johnson

        A typical retort from a guy who was a political spinmeister. Who cares if the WaPo is not the “most” liberal? Are they not one of the most? Address what the piece says, Professor, and who is saying it…who is being quoted. These are not radical conservatives that you charge are painting a skewed pictures with absolutely no validity…it is the WaPo, Gergen and Stepanopolus.

        • WUSRPH

          I didn’t deny the stories….but the question still is do you want a not-so-great but qualified woman for president or a potential authoritarian who is totally unqualified?
          I choose Hillary. You can stay with Der Leader.

          • John Johnson

            There you go again. You don’t address the issue the article addresses. When I have posted similar questions about her past, you have jumped all over it as unfounded, right wing bullshit. “If there was any there, there, she would have been prosecuted.” You are a one-sided obfuscator who made your living doing the same for decades. I don’t think you have much objectivity whatsoever. You say demonstrative things when on the attack, and crawfish when confronted with facts that don’t suit you. Admit it. Be honest with yourself and the rest of us for once.

          • WUSRPH

            I think you are talking about someone else…I have never said anything like “If there was any thing there…” Others certainly have, but not me. In fact, when you bring up such stuff I most often have not bothered to comment on the alleged evidence…..Guess why? ‘Cuz it makes no difference in how I will vote. Bad to her staff, likely to try to duck unpleasantness or whatever…..She is better than Trump.

          • John Johnson

            Yeah…OK. Hahaha. How’s someone who is so caveilier when lying about exposing the U.S. secrets to hacking, the misplacement or destruction laptops and cellphones, and the past history of this same stuff still so appealing to you? While Trump is embellishing about accomplishments, Hillary is possibly lying about past moves that has affected the entire country, and you think she is still a better choice? It blows my mind.

          • WUSRPH

            She’s a better choice for many reasons……but the first and most important one is that she IS NOT TRUMP.

  • WUSRPH

    With 66 days to go, this is the way the projections have it:
    5-38…..72.2% chance that Clinton will win….27.7% Trump
    Popular vote: 47.7% Clinton, 43.1% Trump, 7.9% Johnson (4.6 point
    lead)
    Electoral votes: 316.5 Clinton, 221.1 Trump, .4 Johnson
    Huff-post combined polls:
    2-way race: Clinton 48%, Trump 41% (7 point lead)
    3-way race: Clinton 42%, Trump 37% (5 point lead)
    Favorable/Unfavorable:
    Clinton 41% Favorable 55% Unfavorable Rate: -14
    Trump 36% Favorable 59% Unfavorable Rate: -23

  • John Bernard Books

    What makes dems turn into an exhibitionists on the internet?
    “As a cyber-psychologist, I believe that Weiner’s behavior fits in with a growing trend: the powerful, sometimes overwhelming temptations that the online world offers up to exhibitionists. Cyberspace is an environment where you can have a much harder time controlling impulses, whether online shopping, gaming or oversharing with a total stranger.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/internet-online-exhibitionist-anthony-weiner-psychology-mental-214201#ixzz4J9oSfT9c

    Its overcompensating usually for a tiny dick ie Weiner or a tiny brain ie WASSUP……

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/gszuuzv

    Pew Research takes a look at the different way Trump and Clinton supporters view the world and how the voters view them. (Remember, I said earlier that the difference was that Clinton supporters, while recognizing there are problems to be solved, still believe that America is the greatest country while Trump voters are more negative on America today.)

  • WUSRPH

    From accounts of Trump’s continuing difficulty with using a teleprompter I understand that he did not come out against AMNESTY in his speech on Wednesday…Instead, he apparently said there will be no AMNITY for illegal aliens…..That’s not surprising since he clearly does not intend to be nice to them.

  • John Bernard Books

    Speaking of worldview dems are not know for their positive outlook…….instead they are know for their “the sky is falling” view. “if we can drag republicans down to our level, we win.”

  • John Bernard Books

    Grandma can’t remember…
    “Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she couldn’t recall key details and events related to classified information procedures, according to notes the bureau released Friday of its July interview with the Democratic presidential nominee, along with a report on its investigation into her private email server.”
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/

    Do you believe her……if so tell us why. We could use a good chuckle.

    • John Johnson

      They should waterboard her to get to the truth. Do Bill while they are at it, too.

      • WUSRPH

        It is easy to advocate a hideous torture for someone when you are safe and sound on your patio with a drink in your hand. Nice that America lets you say such things.

        • John Johnson

          I’m just tickled pink that you do. I also appreciate the brevity of your response.

  • John Bernard Books

    How many phones have you destroyed with a hammer….
    “The FBI said in a report that the aide, Justin Cooper, recalled “two instances where he destroyed Clinton’s old mobile phones by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.””
    http://www.businessinsider.com/how-hillary-clinton-aide-destroyed-phones-2016-9

    What is she hiding?

    • John Johnson

      What isn’t she hiding? Has the American public ever gotten the truth from her?

  • Sacagewea
  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/h9vtcfq

     In a year with probably the two most unpopular major candidates in history the poor Libertarians can’t poll more than 8% and this guy goes and blames Trump on them! (Particularly on Ron Paul.) Talk about kicking somebody when they are down! Actually, he makes a pretty good case for some Libertarians being the source of much of Trump’s rhetoric.

  • John Bernard Books

    Can Trump free the slaves?
    “The audience gave him a standing ovation.”
    http://www.allenbwest.com/michellejesse/whoa-media-blacks-just-happened-trump-detroit

    In Detroit no less….

  • John Bernard Books

    Will the media be allowed to “question” Hillary?
    “But closer quarters are no guarantee of a new level of access. “The times she’ll go back and schmooze will be few and far between,” predicted one longtime Clinton ally. “She’ll send other people back there, instead.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-reporters-press-227700#ixzz4JHgxNJqf

    What is she hiding?

  • John Bernard Books

    Do we know anyone like this?
    “One of the things that always attracted me to the party were the ideals of equality, fighting for the little guy and our openness to differing opinions, but lately I have seen my party take a turn that makes me uncomfortable. Somewhere along the way we stopped fighting for the little guy and became the party of the smug, educated elites who look down on those with less education and deem them unable or unworthy of being able to make personal decisions for their own lives.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikki-johnsonhuston-esq/the-culture-of-the-smug-w_b_11537306.html

    I call them pedants but they are really nothing more than smug white liberals.

  • BCinBCS

    This is OT from the border wall but it has relevance to Texas:

    Three of the world’s largest insurance companies have pronounced climate change as the “mother of all risks” and demanded that the G20 stop subsidizing fossil fuels.

    “Warning that climate change amounts to the “mother of all risks,” three of the world’s biggest insurance companies this week are demanding that G20 countries stop bankrolling the fossil fuels industry.

    Multi-national insurance giants Aviva, Aegon, and Amlin, which together manage $1.2tn in assets, released a statement Tuesday calling on the leaders of the world’s biggest economies to commit to ending coal, oil, and gas subsidies within four years.

    “Climate change in particular represents the mother of all risks—to business and to society as a whole. And that risk is magnified by the way in which fossil fuel subsidies distort the energy market,” said Aviva CEO Mark Wilson. “These subsidies are simply unsustainable.”

    According to a recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), fossil fuel companies receive an estimated $5.3tn a year in global subsidies—a figure that included, as the IMF put it, the “real costs” associated with damage to the environment and human health that are foisted on populations but not paid by polluters.

    This is going to affect Texas one way or the other.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/29/mother-all-risks-insurance-giants-call-g20-stop-bankrolling-fossil-fuels

    • John Bernard Books

      compared to waste and fraud in the federal government and its “entitlement programs” a drop in the bucket.
      “mother of all risks to humans” is socialism.
      “President Nicolás Maduro was chased at a routine political event by a crowd of angry protesters banging on pots and yelling that they were hungry, just days after thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets to call for his ouster, local news media reported on Saturday.”
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/world/americas/venezuelan-president-is-chased-by-angry-protesters.html

      People are starving in democrat socialist run countries.

      • BCinBCS

        JBB wrote: “compared to waste and fraud in the federal government and its “entitlement programs” a drop in the bucket.” So, are you implying that subsidies should continue since they are so comparatively small?

        “”mother of all risks to humans” is socialism. JBB, this makes absolutely no sense. An environmental risk has nothing to do with socialism.

        “People are starving in democrat socialist run countries.” You should learn – no, you should have already learned – the difference between Democrat and democrat.

        • John Bernard Books

          there is nneo….if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…..its probably a duck.

          • BCinBCS

            You say that there is no difference between Democrat and democrat?
            You say that there is no difference between Democratic and democratic?

            How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you don’t know something that simple?

          • John Bernard Books

            You probably think the US is a democracy….how stupid is that?

    • WUSRPH

      I have only one question for the DENIERS:

      What if you are wrong?

    • José

      Not totally off topic. Global climate change might well trigger human migration across national borders for a variety of reasons.

      • WUSRPH

        It certainly has had the effect of triggering migrations in the past….and, other than the last Great Ice Age, we haven’t seen anything like the likely degree of changes we are going to see from this cycle of Climate Change……

      • BCinBCS

        Ah yes, the theory of unintended consequences. And, I wonder what other consequences that we haven’t foreseen await us?

  • John Bernard Books

    recently…a bunch.

  • Sacagewea

    Another data point that confirms “voter fraud” is a GOP lie:

    http://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12774066/voter-id-laws-racist

  • WUSRPH

    You can play the game of dead people and another person for almost anyone…….Did you know that the army officer who was in the theater box with Lincoln when Lincoln was shot later “committed suicide” (sic)? What did he know? Why was he killed?

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems are hungry to bring socialism to America
    “President Nicolás Maduro was chased at a routine political event by a crowd of angry protesters banging on pots and yelling that they were hungry, just days after thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets to call for his ouster, local news media reported on Saturday.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/world/americas/venezuelan-president-is-chased-by-angry-protesters.html

    Why…..

    • BCinBCS

      Great job, JBB. You showed your lack of understanding about this topic twice. Care to try for the trifecta?

      • John Bernard Books

        Actually I understood what I wrote…..you not so much.

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/j9oh52v

     
    For you poll readers, 5-38 has produced a primer on how to read the polls. It may be useful to all but The Troll who won’t believe any polls but the ones he makes up.

    • John Johnson

      Polls don’t reflect the intent of those who don’t/won’t participate. Times they are a changing, Professor. Just hide and watch.

      • WUSRPH

        But pollsters take into account the possibility of those who “don’t/won’t participate”……It is all in the formulas. But, as usual, you have this overwhelming need to find some ray of hope. As I said earlier….Hold on to it for as long as you can….right up to 7 p.m. on election night…..it will make life easier.

        • John Johnson

          Please find where I have linked any of my comments to polls. I don’t put much store in them. You quoted poll numbers in every race you got wrong. You bought into the b.s. Your horse lost the races. Just admit it, and we can move on.

          • WUSRPH

            You keep quoting me as predicting races….but, except for the Davis race in which I was correct, I have not been doing so…..You need to go back and check my comments….(which you can do, unlike for yours)…..but, as becomes clearer every minute, you have this need to dream.

          • John Johnson

            You and your fellow expert Burka picked Brimer and Shelton over Davis in back to back Sen Dist 10 races. So were the pollsters. Don’t lie; just fess up. All the oldtimers here know I am telling the truth. Can you ever admit that you are wrong? Do you have any real friends? No one likes a person who not only acts like they are smarter than everyone else, but cannot make themselves admit when they are wrong either. That’s you, Professor. That’s you.

          • WUSRPH

            You keep saying I picked Brimer and Shelton over Davis….but, if you checked, you would find that you are equating what Burka said as being what I supposedly was saying while, the truth is, that If I said anything about those races, the most I ever did was report what others were saying. I, in fact, made it clear in one post that I was unqualified to make a judgment in that Senate district since I did not know enough about it…..You need to talk to someone about these memory problems you are having.

            I admit it when I am wrong….just did in adding to an earlier post….but not when I am not…

          • John Johnson

            Right….I guess we could move on to the death knell you were predicting were crude prices hit bottom. You were quoting all the pundants then, too…even though most were probably on Big Oil’s payroll in some shape, form or fashion. Erica did get that one right. Needed to point that out since she has a terrible record since joining us here.

          • WUSRPH

            Again you are remembering what you want to remember. If you check—and you can with my posts, but not yours—you will find that I at that time I said I was worried about how bad it might get but hoped it would not…..because, even I recognized, the change in our economy since the 1980s. I also said that the impact would not fully show up for a year to 18 months. I was correct in that…..it is why Texas’ job growth, instead of leading the nation, is now one of the slowest in the country. But, in retrospect I probably was a little too worried since the worst impact has been geographically limited. Of course, that is not that comforting to the cities, counties and particularly the school districts that have had their tax base disappear out from under their local economies.

          • John Johnson

            Erica and I both poo-poo’d your doom and gloom predictions and debated at length what to expect. We were right; you were wrong. It went so far that when it was reported that consumers were saving or servicing debt with fuel savings instead of going out and spending it, you and others you love to quote were telling us how this was going to sink us. I remember asking since when people getting out of debt was a bad thing. Our whole house of cards economy is built on this driving factor…we have to keep begging, borrowing and printing money in order to avoid a melt down. You guys want to keep kicking the can. Our grandchildren are going to hate us. BTW, you have any. You don’t act like you do.

          • WUSRPH

            Again, you remember what you remember. Savings instead of spending did (and does) lengthen a decline or slow down an uptake. The decline in consumer spending was a primary cause for the slow growth of the national economy since 2008–although consumer spending is now almost back to normal since the consumer index is rising…..But that cannot be happening if we live in the world of doom and gloom you and Trump envision.

          • John Johnson

            Where are we today? Did we have a big recession because of the money going into consumers’ pockets instead of big oil’s? How about our servicing personal debt? Has that hurt us? Hell no, it hasn’t…but you said it would. Many lost jobs, but even in Houston the real estate and job markets have not gone south as you predicted. No more on this with you…you are just as I describe you.

          • WUSRPH

            Texas had a dramatic change in our growth rate…We have a substantial under performing sales tax…and we have quite a number of local governments, especially school districts, facing deficits. Those are serious effects. We are fortunate that it did not turn out worse……and I am glad for that. But, again, you are overstating what I said would happen. Read I for yourself, above. But why bother, you will remember it the way you want no matter what.

          • John Johnson

            A crisis? You mean like, having a vet tell you that your big mule has a cancerous tumor in his leg and it needs to be removed, but that he will be incapacitated and unable to pull a plow for a year or so while he recovers. You ask for options and are told that you can give him some radiation and try some holistic remedies which may or may not kill the cancer cells, but will allow you to keep working him. In 2008/9, we decided on the radiation and quack therapy instead of going all in, saving our country and getting it well. We decided to go the experimental route so we would not suffer along with our mule. Go ahead and borrow money

          • WUSRPH

            Your method would create an economic crisis that would make the Great Recession look like a period of unmatched growth….but you want the country to suffer like you did after 9-11 and the collapse of your business. Fortunately, not even the GOP would let Trump or you create such a crisis. It was a shame that all you worked for was suddenly threatened—and then destroyed by the mergers of the airlines…..The events clearly shaped how you view the world today….

          • John Johnson

            Let me make this clear, Professor..my “method” would not “create an economic crisis”. It was already created by greed, corruption and lack of oversight. We are talking about a reaction to the already created mess.

            I did not create 9/11, but I did suffer, and I did recover.

            Bailing out homeowners is one thing; how can one blame them for the mess? But they got punished, while the perpetrators got, not only bailed out, but rewarded.

            Some businesses should have been allowed to die; some should have gone to jail. Our capitalistic system was not allowed to work as designed, and, at some point, someone will pay for it. It just won’t be the ones who criminally caused it, the ones who protected them, or the ones were around when it happened.

            Our grandchildren are going to hate us.

          • WUSRPH

            “Our capitalistic system was not allowed to work as designed”…..How true…It was not allowed to produce a world-wide collapse of the financial system or another Depression, or worse. What happened was bad enough, but if the Congress–led by a Republican president—had not acted the situation could have been much worse.

            What most overlook is just how bad the situation in 2008-2009 could have been if the Congress (and, I must admit the George W. Bush Administration) had not acted in the days just before Obama took office and had he not continued and expanded those steps in the first months of his term.

            Let us take a moment to look at the world that COULD HAVE BEEN without the emergency “Rescue” and “Bail-out” in October of 2008 when our entire financial system was on the verge of collapse.

            If you can remember back that far—as most do not—you would find situation where the majority of our nation’s and the worlds’ major banks and investment firms were on the verge of collapse as their debts overwhelmed their value of their assists. Their collapse would have, among just a few minor things:

            —Totally frozen the personal and business accounts of several hundred million depositors including
            those with deposits in the hundreds of branches of those banks AND in the many smaller banks whose accounts are linked and interlocked with those of the major “too big to fail” banks. (In turn this would have had a similar effect on deposits in those accounts by probably millions of us who think we are “safe”
            because we put our funds into credit unions—without realizing that most of those unions are interlinked with the banks so that the collapse of the banks would have also blocked us from accessing those accounts aw well.)

            –Totally frozen the accounts of millions of more individuals, businesses, governmental entities,
            retirement funds and every other imaginable kind of investor in their stock, bond, financial paper and other investments—depriving them of most of their
            access and making it impossible for them to meet their own obligations (including retirement payments) and destroying the value of millions who had
            invested in those firms and the banks.

            — Make virtually all checks not processed and paid before the collapse to pay bills, salaries, advances,
            rewards invalid making what cash you had in your wallet all the cash you would have for some time to come. In turn, leaving hundreds of millions of
            individuals, businesses, institutions and government entitles with no cash and no access to cash to pay bills, employees, customers, mortgages or even to
            purchase the most basic food and necessities.

            —While by the sheer magnitude of the collapse simultaneously overwhelming the ability of the FDIC
            and the Federal Reserve to halt the collapse by implementing their guarantees—systems that were not designed or ever intended to be able to handle more than a few collapses at a time and certainly not a system-wide collapse as could have occurred in this case. Their failure would have forced the Federal Government to implement a “Bank Holiday” as FDR did in 1932–closing all banks and financial institutions until emergency steps could be taken. ¨

            All of which would have certainly produced mass panic among the public, businesses and institutions
            resulting in closings, layoffs and sheer panic over how will we survive.

            Of course, it is easy to say: “This would not have happened. It would not have been allowed. Something would have been done….”

            In fact, something was done….The U.S. Congress ACTED…and that is why it did not happen. ©

          • John Johnson

            Would you please quit preaching. I’m not buying it. There were things that could, and should have been done, to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. What we got was a plan devised by big bank and Wall Street connected “advisors” to protect first and foremost the wealth of themselves and those in government, to the detriment of the rest of us and generations to follow. They even gave themselves bonuses…and they were approved by our government. No one went to jail. Our debt is sprinting toward the end of its chain, but the market is doing OK, so everyone is happy.

            You are a company line man if there ever was one. Ingrained in you, I’m thinking. I abhor it. There are way too many of you on the government dole.

          • WUSRPH

            You are “not buying it” because it did not happen….which you refuse to accept was only because the government did act. Maybe we needed to stand by and let the world go to hell. Then you would have been satisfied.

            As it was TRILLIONS of dollars of wealth were wiped out around the world and millions or people lost all they had……And the world was plunged into the Great Recession but that apparently was not enough punishment to satisfy you.

          • John Johnson

            Do you not understand that there was choice of action? Of course they “acted”, but in their own self interest, as you would obviously would have advised them to do…and probably did in some manner in years past. You are “one of them.”

          • WUSRPH

            Of course, there were choices but there was NO CHOICE for action that did not include some sort of bail-out and rescue of the financial institutions. That was the core of what had to be done to stave off a total collapse of the financial system.

            Even then some firms were allowed to go under—which you completely seem to have forgotten—taking billions of dollars of stockholder equity with them (including a few thousand dollars of mine.) BUT that could not be allowed for the majority if we were to have a functioning economy. This was not “in their own self interest” but in the interest of the nation and the world as a whole.

            No one who understood anything about the world financial system and the dominant role American institutions play in it could have—with any sort of a sound mind—consider letting the whole system collapse, as you apparently would have preferred. The results both for the US and its people and the world were too disastrous to contemplate allowing that to occur.

            Other actions were taken later….such as Dodd-Franks whose reserve requirements will help insure that the same thing does not happen again. It is not a perfect act. None ever is in the real world the rest of us have to inhabit.

            It would have been better if something like a new Glass-Steagalll could have been passed but there were not the votes in the Congress to do so. Sorry, about that, but we are not yet an authoritarian nation where things like that can just be enacted by the WILL of the Donald. It still takes a majority vote in the House and up to 60 votes in the Senate. But, then you do not like to deal with reality. It is so much easier to wrap yourself in the robe of purity and sneer at those who actually have to do the job. It makes you feel so superior.

            What you wanted, however, did not happen—the drawing and quartering of the major malefactors. It would have been better if more of them than the handful who were prosecuted had had criminal charges filed against them in addition to the many billions they have had to pay in fines and penalties. That would have satisfied your need for blood….and probably been for the good at the same time. But that nasty word “reality” raised its evil head again.

          • John Johnson

            Stop it, damnit! You obfuscate more than anyone I know. Oh…but you are a retired professional. I almost forgot.

            Sure every choice meant pain and suffering…for everyone. My position is, and always will be, that the choices made sucked. More should been allowed to die and go away. You also seem to think that we had to bail the culprits out at the level we did. Horseshit. People lost homes and asshole advisors to Bush and Obama, and the bankers and brokers, held on to massive net worth and even got bonuses. You can’t square that we me not matter how you try and wrap it up. You don’t have any grandkids, do you? Any nieces and nephews? If so, they are going to hate you. I don’t blame them. You are guilty as hell.

          • WUSRPH

            http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/three-reasons-not-to-panic-about-oil-prices/

             

            In case you are interested in the reality of what was said, here is the link to Erica’s original story and the comments all of us made.

          • John Johnson

            Yeah, I looked it over, but the discussion carried over for months afterwards. Ever dire prediction piece that came down the pike was offered up by you as some sort of proof that we needed to be digging foxholes and storing up food. Guess you’ve forgotten.

          • WUSRPH

            No I haven’t….any dire predictions were solely limited to the impact on the state budget…..there was no digging foxholes or storing food….except when it comes to state spending.

          • John Johnson

            Let’s move on. You are Mr. Wonderful and admitting anything less is way beyond a pedant’s ability. We need you running the country. In fact, why aren’t you? You have all the answers, always pick winners, know what others are thinking, and know your way around in the government cesspool.

          • WUSRPH

            Back on the list.

          • John Johnson

            BCinBCS, if you are still around, please ask Mr. Wonderful to leave me on his “list” this time. Tell him to quit peeking. Tell him I want the ability to offer criticism of his wordy, predictable gov-speak posts without having to put up with his predictable retorts. That has worked well with Pearl, and I’m hoping Kelly will also block me soon.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, I respect your opinions and would be very unhappy if you did not comment even though I almost (almost) always disagree with them.

            On a lighter note, after reading the comments that you, Shelly and WUSRPH exchange on classified information, the question hit me: Will Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton be your WPE? (Decisions, decisions.)

          • WUSRPH

            “He is like the heretics ‘whose last defense,’ as Jerome says, ‘is to start spewing out a serpent’s venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are
            about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished.’”
            Leo X

          • John Johnson

            “Do not be bullied out of your commonsense by the specialist; two to one he is a pedant.”
            Oliver Wendell Holmes

          • WUSRPH

            “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain – and most fools do.

            Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”

            Benjamin Franklin

          • John Johnson

            Yep, this is one a pedant would post and ties right into my Holmes quote.

            Disagreeing with a “specialist” by criticizing, condemning and complaining, will have him calling you hard headed and ignorant. Did you ever know Oliver Wendell Holmes?

  • John Johnson

    Build a wall??? Go ahead. According to those on the frontline in San Diego, it won’t make any difference. Take a look at this. It seems that Obama is the biggest problem. He is the worst President ever.
    http://www.kusi.com/Clip/12667034/special-report-border-crisis-reality-check#.V7zWGHVf40J.facebook

    • WUSRPH

      That’s because we have only built a super fence so far. Trump is going to give us a REAL WALL….he keeps telling us so…and, of course, he would not lie to us….You just have to get serious about the kind of wall and all our problems will be solved….(For some reason that did not seem to work out to well with the Great Wall of China….The Mongols got thru anyway.)

      • John Johnson

        Hey, Pedant. Educate yourself before you respond by watching the link.

        • WUSRPH

          But Donald is going to take care of all the other problems, too……”On my first day in office….(Poof)…They are all gone!”…

          • John Johnson

            He exaggerates. Hillary lies. I can tell the difference. You can’t. Sad.

          • WUSRPH

            So, when he says he is going to build THE WALL….that we can all be assured of it…That it is going to happen….and that Mexico is going to pay for it….and, he knows, as you suggest, that none of that is true, that’s an exaggeration, not a lie? Sounds like a lie to me.

          • John Johnson

            Oh, I think he will add to the existing “fence”, and that indirectly Mexico is going to pay for it through onerous “penalties” if they don’t play ball.

          • WUSRPH

            Then he is LYING…when he says that he is going to build “a big, beautiful tall WALL”…..

          • John Johnson

            I just call it exaggerating…like you do on occasion.

          • John Bernard Books

            90% of illegals apprehended are released if they say, “I plan to vote for dems.”

          • Shelly H.

            Talk about splitting hairs. I don’t think anyone here has said that Hillary doesn’t lie. What has been said is that much of what is said or attributed to her are lies. Politicians all lie at some point or another. Whether it is exaggerating, omission, telling only part of the truth, etc. It all boils down to lying, either knowingly or unknowingly.

            I doubt Trump even realizes when he lies vs when he’s truthful. The man can’t even discern fact from fiction. Yet, somehow, you are able to tell when he is exaggerating vs lying. You should take that skill out on the talk show circuit. You could make a mint telling people when someone is lying, just exaggeration or being truthful.

          • John Johnson

            Hillary is a confirmed liar. Not just little white ones, but biggies that have to do with national security.

            Stick to giving a retort on the cost to get Syrian refugees here and then the ongoing expense for housing, feeding and medical care. You disappeared on that one.

          • Shelly H.

            Sorry, but I’ve been a bit busy with a family crisis. I don’t recall that you added anything worth responding to, other than a retort of go google some more.

            Those “lies” about national security seem to be in the eye of the beholder rather than truly being an issue of national security. The only thing that seems to change is the reasoning behind the accusations rather than the facts of what actually happened. Or moving the goal posts. Anything is acceptable as long as it “proves” that Hillary willfully and knowingly mislead the congress.

            The Russian hacking into various election sites, the Democratic Party, the Pentagon, State Department, etc isn’t a national security issue to you people. That’s scary stuff right there. The fact that these same state supported Russian hackers have also altered and manufactured much of what Julian the rapist Assange releases through Wikileaks doesn’t bother you people either. If Trump wins it will be because the Russian government has interfered with our elections.

          • WUSRPH

            Shelly, as is more than clear by now, he does not care what the evidence is….His hate is so great that nothing makes any difference….

          • Shelly H.

            BTW here is some info you might find interesting from a former Naval intelligence officer named Jim Wright. This was in response to a Trump tweet. And yet you think that a twit like Trump is fit to be POTUS. The tweet not only shows a clear lack of understanding by Trump of what entails classified status of documents, but is a bald faced lie based on his ignorance. So not only is the man an idiot but one that lies. No where is Sec Clinton quoted as saying what he claims in his tweet.

            Trumps Tweet –

            Lyin’ Hillary Clinton told the FBI that she did not know the “C” markings on documents stood for CLASSIFIED. How can this be happening?

            Response by Jim Wright –

            “C” does not mean “Classified”

            Classified government documents are not marked “Classified.” Classified doesn’t mean anything other than as a general statement regarding controlled information.

            Classified documents are marked at one of three levels, Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. Those classification levels may be further restricted to specific audiences within their classification level by caveats — that is a codeword after the classification. Example: Top Secret SPAGHETTI. Only people read into SPAGHETTI can access the information. If they’re not, they can’t even if they have a Top Secret clearance.

            Classified documents are not marked with a “C.”

            Documents are marked CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, OR TOP SECRET and optionally caveated with a codeword and/or other restrictions.

            “C” is a PARAGRAPH marking for “Confidential.”

            Documents may contain more than one level of classified information (but no higher than the overall document classification. That is, A Top Secret document might contain Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential information. A Confidential document can contain only confidential information). Each paragraph of a classified document is marked with a letter (C, S, or TS) to indicate its level of classification inside the overall document.

            C is a paragraph marking for confidential.

            Confidential is the lowest level of controlled or classified information. Confidential is not Secret (S) or Top Secret (TS). Confidential material is typically not classified in and of itself, but is controlled because if combined with other specific information may give away schedules, capabilities, operations, or intentions.

            For example: A ship’s logistics report is confidential. Now, how many cans of navy beans and how many cases of frozen pork chops are taken onboard isn’t classified in and of itself, but a sudden onload of stores might indicate the fleet is preparing to deploy. The type and amount of that material might give hints as to where the ship is going and how long it plans on staying. For example: There’s nothing classified about Malarone, a common drug used to prevent malaria. A ship out of Norfolk taking on a six month supply of antimalarial medications wouldn’t tell me, a former intel officer, exactly where the ships are going, but it sure does narrow the possibilities. Combine that with other preparations — such as what types of pre-deployment training exercises the ship is conducting — and I can make a pretty good guess. This is why those reports are confidential.

            This is what I used to do for a living.

            Gaining access to a piece of confidential information might tell you something. Then again, it probably won’t — not without knowing what you’re looking for. Not without having all the other pieces of the puzzle. For example: Navy ships operating routinely in southern waters, the Caribbean say, always carry antimalarial drugs. So knowing a ship operating out of Jacksonville Navy Base or Key West or Gulfport, Mississippi, took on those stores, even though that information is contained in a confidential logistics reports, tells you nothing — not without additional information.

            Remember, it turned out we had all the information necessary to predict 9-11. We knew the hijackers were in the country. We knew some of them were taking pilot training — and not concerned about landing the aircraft. We knew they were shady. We knew they were talking. We knew it all. But we never put all those little confidential pieces together. Not until it was way too late. That’s the nature of intelligence work. It’s easy to predict the past. The present, the future, that’s a whole different ball game.

            Should confidential information have ended up on a private server? No.

            And the State Department should have done a much better job of managing their information. But while something marked (C) is controlled information, yes, it isn’t some vital ultra top secret that would destroy America if it got out. Confidential is literally at the level of how many cans of beans a ship took on.

            What Americans seem to be missing here is this: this situation would never have existed in the first goddamned place if Congress and the various agencies tasked with supporting Cabinet Secretaries had done their jobs by providing regulation, funding, and the proper communications support and security. They didn’t. In fact when asked to provide that support by the White House for Secretary Clinton, they refused.

            C does not mean “Classified.”

            But Trump, yeah, he knows what he’s talking about.

          • John Johnson

            Yeah, he probably needs a course on what’s what…but to condemn him for dropping the hammer on Clinton for her caveilier attitude toward any and all State Dept documents is the issue. Regardless of the fact a document is marked with a lowly “C” for “Confidential”, who in their right mind thinks it’s OK for anyone other than approved personnel to have access to it? Why don’t they just do away with the “C” if it is so insignificant? Is there a “penalty” specified for anyone mishandling “Confidential” information? Obviously not. Would you have the same nonchalant attitude towards the use of personal unsecured devices that Hillary has? How about your memory? Think you would know the difference in having two devices and over ten? Think your recall might be a little better than hers? She’s a slime ball…a lying slime ball. Birds of a feather …

          • WUSRPH

            “Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.”

            Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love (1963).

          • John Johnson

            Block me…or whatever you call it. It’s stupid. I am very specific about what I hate in my posts; you know nothing about who and what I love…but the ones I love do.

          • WUSRPH

            Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.”

            Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love (1963).

          • Shelly H.

            You obviously, did not read the entire explanation I posted or if you did either did not understand it or ignored the part about congress complicating how security measures were implemented and then removed funding for those measures. That does not absolve her but it goes a long way to ameliorating why it happened.

            It’s fascinating how you extend understanding and grace to an alleged rapist, con man, and liar that Trump continues to prove himself to be, yet will believe every hateful thing about Hillary even when they’ve been proven to be untrue or pulled completely out of context.

          • John Johnson

            I read every word of your post.

            I am so tired of these long draw out excuses from you people. Do commonsense and practical knowledge have no chair at the table where you formulate this goofy retorts?

            What does the word “confidential” mean to you? Here’s what the dictionary states:

            1. intended to be kept secret: “confidential information”

            2. entrusted with private or restricted information.

            Stop it with the nonsense. The woman is guilty of gross negligence at a minimum.

          • donuthin2

            Crap. Ya’ll don’t understand. This is no place for facts. It screws up the thinking of too many. It is always a mystery to me that those who claim to be analytical, open minded and objective are all too often quite the opposite. Anyone who is analytical at all would decide that while Clinton has her faults, she is clearly the one who is best qualified on all fronts to be our next president. Latching on to Trump is a little like going to Vegas and betting the whole bundle and hoping against hope that it will work out. As bad as Vegas is, it is probably better odds than Trump.

          • José

            Yeah, that Trump screw up made me laugh. So typical…he doesn’t know what he’s talking about but blusters and bullies his way around his wealth of ignorance nonetheless. The evaluation from the naval officer above sounds right. The one thing I might add is that a great many documents are overclassified today. It’s easier to guess high rather than be sorry later.

            I also spent a number of years working with classified information with the approval of our nation’s government, following an incredibly thorough clearance process, so I have a sound basis for passing judgment. Handling classified material is awfully tricky and occasionally people make mistakes. Sometimes it’s totally unintentional, and sometimes it’s a result of willful carelessness. Clinton’s actions clearly fall into the second category and she rightfully deserves criticism. But what is the appropriate penalty? The nearest example I can think of was a guy who worked for me. Like Clinton he intentionally subverted the approved process and accidentally took material home, thing marked way above Confidential. He did not report the infraction immediately. His punishment was a week suspension without pay and a letter in his file. No fine, no jail time, and he didn’t even lose his accesses or his job. In no way were Clinton’s transgressions worse than his. Contrast that with Gen. Petraeus, who intentionally gave highly classified material to someone not approved to see it, and then lied about it. Now there’s a case where you can argue that someone got off lightly because of politics. But of course the right wingers are silent. Hypocrites.

          • John Bernard Books

            How soon the pedants forget. Remember when “the chosen one” had all the answers….
            Is it a sign of old age or “willful forgetfulness”……how many times can Hillary say I don’t recall” before someone on the dem side calls calf rope?

          • John Johnson

            Where does he say that? What is he doing differently from every other past candidate? You tell the masses what they want to hear knowing that it takes building a consensus in congress to actually get anything done, or controlling both houses and holding a 2am vote. White House lack of transparency has never been worse; Wall Street has not had oversight increased and laws changed; we are strung out all over the Middle East, and, and… but you choose to pound on Trump and his promises. It’s telling, Mr. Professional Spinmeister.

      • BCinBCS

        I have been stating for as long as Trump has been proposing a wall along the U.S. – Mexico border that as soon as Trump builds a twenty foot tall wall, the sale of twenty-one foot ladders will explode in Mexico.

        In that light, this juxtaposition of booths was spotted at the Oregon State Fair:
        .

        • WUSRPH

          As I said, you got to get serious about the WALL……just a fence or even a wall won’t do it…It has to be a complete system of barriers and methods of killing those who try to cross to have any real effect. There must be a few folks still alive who designed the East German border (which was much, much more than the Berlin Wall) around to guide us in our task.

      • John Johnson

        Did anyone notice that, as usual, the Professor skips right over the gist of the link (that 9 out of 10 illegals caught entering the country are allowed to stay, after telling Border Patrol that they are escaping persecution, are turned loose and allow to stay) and goes off in another direction with his retort. This is a tactic professional spinmeisters use. He is very good at it.

  • WUSRPH

    You all be sure to watch ND defeat Texas tonight….See, I lied. I do make predictions after all.

    • WUSRPH

      I got that one wrong. Texas may actually “be back”….good game otherwise.

      • John Johnson

        You have gotten a handful of predictions wrong here on BB. You are the only one that doesn’t remember them. Telling.

  • John Bernard Books

    In 2008 the dems deliberately crashed the market so Obama would win the election. The economy still hasn’t recovered.
    Now dems are so desperate to win they are spreading this rumor…
    “The official cautioned that the intelligence community is not saying it has “definitive proof” of such tampering, or any Russian plans to do so. “But even the hint of something impacting the security of our election system would be of significant concern,” the official said. “It’s the key to our democracy, that people have confidence in the election system.””
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-community-investigating-covert-russian-influence-operations-in-the-united-states/2016/09/04/aec27fa0-7156-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html

    Dems started by accusing Trump of aiding Russia in exposing the DNC emails…..that didn’t stick so now they are accusng Russia of influencing our elections with no “definitive proof.”
    Look for much more desperation from the power hungry democrats as they lose power, credibility, and this election.

    • BCinBCS

      Your ability to swallow bullshit and then pass it along astounds me.
      You truly need a software upgrade.

      • John Bernard Books

        “Your ability to swallow bullshit and then pass it along astounds me”
        I didn’t vote for Obama…..you did.

  • John Bernard Books

    Most commenters here do what they are told, think as they are told…..why? Because they are dems…watch

  • Sacagewea

    Enjoying the holiday? Thank the labor movement.

    • John Bernard Books

      Working….malingering is anti-American

  • John Bernard Books

    Democrats love their holidays…..the bored state workers get over 20 paid holidays a year.
    “States like Wisconsin and Illinois (see above) have been trying to break the corrupt bargain between government unions and politicians, and it isn’t easy even in right-leaning states. Witness Texas, where Republican lawmakers are trying to pass a bill to end automatic withholding of union dues. The obstacle could be other Republicans.”
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-union-showdown-1431125157

    Thats right Joe Straus and his dems friends want you to pay union dues even if you don’t want to…..thats just un-American.

  • WUSRPH

    I knew someone would find a name for the U.S. electoral process for 2016.

    “Electile Dysfunction”: the inability to become aroused over the
    choices for President put forward by either party in the 2016 election year.
    (updated and recycled from 2012)

    • BCinBCS

      Winner, winner; chicken dinner!

  • WUSRPH

    Far-right activist, author Phyllis Schlafly dies at 92

    What’s that song the Munchkins sing in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy’s house falls on the women with the red shoes?

    • José

      She probably imagined being congratulated in the afterlife. I rather imagine a scolding.

      • BCinBCS

        I’m glad that you and W had those things to say about her because I was feeling bad about the fact that I was going to have to speak ill of the dead.

        • José

          It’s polite to hold one’s tongue at a time like this. Sorry. I have a real low tolerance for people who boast of being defenders of liberty and freedom, and then work tirelessly use the power of government and coercion to keep others from enjoying the same liberty and freedom.

    • Sacagewea

      Only the good die young.

      • Sacagewea

        That’s why Booksie is so old.

    • John Bernard Books

      No wonder the left hated her…
      “The Eagle Forum pushes for low taxes, a strong military and English-only education. The group is against efforts it says are pushed by radical feminists or encroach on U.S. sovereignty, such as guest-worker visas, according to its website, which describes the Equal Rights Amendment as having had a “hidden agenda of tax-funded abortions and same-sex marriages.””
      http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservative-icon-phyllis-schlafly-founder-of-eagle-forum-dies-at-92/ar-AAixDOi?OCID=ansmsnnews11

      A true conservative….

  • John Bernard Books

    Can Trump free the slaves
    “He beamed as congregants greeted him and swayed to the chords of the song “What a Mighty God We Serve.” Speaking softly, he invoked the civil rights movement and Abraham Lincoln. Donning a prayer shawl given to him by the church’s pastor, Bishop Wayne T. Jackson, Mr. Trump proclaimed, “I feel better already.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/donald-trump-black-voters-detroit.html
    If you a capitalist why vote for a democrat socialist?
    If you’re Christian why vote for a democrat atheist?”

    • BCinBCS

      OMG, JBB! Hillary Clinton coughed…Death Imminent.

      • John Bernard Books

        Ahm smarter than a robot. Unlike you I don’t always do as ahm told to…..

  • John Johnson

    Do you lemmings need me to explain this to you? Do I really need to twist your arms to get you to open your eyes to all this? Can’t you smell the stink? The Clinton’s are users and abusers. They always have been. They are evil.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bill-clintons-nearly-18-million-job-as-honorary-chancellor-of-a-for-profit-college/2016/09/05/8496db42-655b-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

    • Beerman
      • WUSRPH

        They have supported every Republican presidential candidate since 1964 but can not bring themselves to support a totally unqualified Trump. That is called having principles.

        • Beerman

          And, common sense.

      • John Johnson

        Well…yeah, they are. They are elitests. They represent the “educated, white, conservative, GWB” position. They don’t want a “crazy guy” rocking their boat. Hillary means impasse and more of the same. That is just fine with this group. You, and your covey of middle of the roader’s, seem to think things are fine. Noonan said it best; you just continue to ignore and poo-poo what she espouses. So be it. I can’t change your mind. I have never tried to. I am just telling you that I am voting for Trump…while holding my nose. I could never vote for Hillary. I think others between now and then might change their mind and join me.

        • Beerman

          “Crazy Guy” sums it up for me.

          • John Johnson

            That’s ur group’s adjective..not mine. He says what I am thinking; he is an embellish’er; he is not PC; he is a negotiator who uses exaggeration as a tool; he realizes that the mega guys are cheating the masses; he has tapped into a group of middle American’s that those of you on both ends who are very comfortable find scary. You are an old guy with money who is afraid your net worth is going to be affected; those on the other end receiving something for doing nothing are afraid that is going to go away. Quit using the fear of his hitting the nuke button as your principal opposition. You are selfish; you are comfortable; your grandchildren are going to hate you.

          • Beerman

            The nuke button is a valid concern; however, I do not agree with the fascist form of government being advocated by Trump, it would not be best for America. His political behavior has been marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood, which is absolute FASCISM.

            And, my kids and grandkids agree with me 100%. Fortunately, none of them went to Trump University and they are seasoned enough to spot a con job when they see it.

          • John Johnson

            Appreciate you opinions, as always. We continue to disagree.

          • WUSRPH

            If you have the slightest doubt about the safety of allowing Trump (or Hillary for that) to decide when to use nuclear weapons that should be enough to decide your vote by itself.
            His total lack of knowledge (he did not know what the nuclear triad was) and his willingness to even think about using them (“if we have them, why don’t we use them) plus his willingness to use threats—perhaps including nuclear ones—makes Trump an unacceptable candidate off the bat.
            It is bad enough to have someone like JJ suggesting (as he has) that we should start dropping them on groups of terrorists in the Middle East…..but a thousand times worse when a candidate for president even hints that he might do it….
            And don’t tell me it is would be “just a negotiating tactic from a tough negotiator” or any of that other c……We might think we know that, but we cannot be sure the other guys will……
            We came close enough to nuclear destruction on a night in 1983 because Reagan’s “tough talk” made the Soviets paranoid. And they were much more sophisticated and able to judge a “threat” than others may be..

          • Beerman

            Very valid points. Can you image Hitler, with his narcissistic personality disorder, having access to today’s USA nuclear arsenal? The thought is horrific……..

          • WUSRPH

            We spent what in today’s dollars is probably close to a trillion dollars during WW II developing the atomic bomb just because of that fear. Billions and billons were spent in the following years until we finally had so many nuclear weapons that we literally ran out of possible targets to hit in the Soviet Union. When you are down to small towns which are on the target list just because you have an extra bomb or two to drop you have gone way beyond “overkill”. I supported deterrence as a strategy then. I do now. But there are limits.

      • BCinBCS

        Good catch Beerman. First, the Dallas Morning News won’t endorse Trump and second, while I was reading Texas Monthly’s coverage of the Texas football scene, I found this at the bottom of the article:

        Recent polls have shown Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s lead in Texas sliding considerably, but the Washington Post‘s new poll of all of the states shows something we never expected to see this election cycle: a 50-50 split here in Texas. “Texas splits about evenly between Clinton and Trump in the new poll,” the Post writes in the data-heavy article. The Post actually has Clinton one point ahead of Trump. If the poll results hold, it would be the first time the Lone Star State went blue since Texans chose Jimmy Carter in 1976…

        It looks like Erica’s post last month asking “Is Donald Trump Turning Texas Purple?” is coming true.

        • John Johnson

          This cannot be denied. My Baylor grad retired dentist and his wife, who were left ranch land and $ starting out before they accumulated more wealth, with a son who left town for DC and NY as a Cruz operative, almost came out of their pews when I said I was voting for Trump. Those that have it are afraid of losing it…people just like my friends, and those on the very opposite end of the spectrum are, too. Both groups are afraid of losing wealth or benefits. Admit it.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, there are many reasons that I will be casting my vote for Hillary Clinton in November. They range from my desire to see the nature of SCOTUS changed to my hope that a better economic stimulus than “trickle-down” will be instituted. They also include my fear of the damage that a Trump Presidency will bring to this country. Nowhere on my major list of fears of Trump is that I might lose my accumulated wealth.

          • WUSRPH

            He’s running out of reasons to explain why people won’t follow him over the cliff of hope and support Trump. I suspect we will see some really weird ones before the election.

  • John Bernard Books
  • John Bernard Books

    Was Bernie threatened?
    ““Look, I think—you know, we know how politics works in the United States. Whoever—whatever political party gets into government is going to merge with the bureaucracy pretty damn fast. It will be in a position where it has some levers in its hand. And Bernie Sanders was independent candidate trying to get the nomination trough the Democratic Party and if you ask me he did get the nomination, but he was threatened to drop out.””
    http://anonhq.com/wikileaks-founder-just-revealed-sanders-really-dropped/

  • John Bernard Books

    How Prez Obama corrupted our Judicial system…
    “When Obama entered the Oval Office, liberal judges controlled just one of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fifty-five successful presidential nominations later, liberal majorities now control nine of those appeals benches, or 70 percent.”
    http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/04/how-liberal-judges-took-control-of-70-percent-of-us-appeals-courts/

    Its called legislating from the bench…..

    • BCinBCS

      And it’s not called “legislating from the bench” (your description) when conservative judges predominate the courts during Republican administrations?
      Hypocrite !

      • Jed

        or for decades after …

  • John Bernard Books

    Grandma can’t remember…
    ““The first time I heard it I thought it, wow! And I heard Bernie Nussbaum talking extremely very loudly. To Hillary. And basically said, ‘For Christ’s sake, Hillary. All you have to say is you don’t recall. You don’t remember anything. Nobody can argue with that.’””
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/05/kathleen-willey-overheard-white-house-staff-teaching-hillary-trademark-dont-recall-defense/

    She’s an expert at lying…..and not remembering.

  • John Bernard Books

    Hillary tell the truth? I know I was stunned too.
    “Forget them all. The most disturbing aspect about the FBI dump may not be fresh evidence of another Clinton lie. The most disturbing thing about Mrs. Clinton’s continuing email drama may be where she’s telling the truth.”
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/even-worse-than-clintons-emails-1473116518

    Dem voters expect their politicians to lie and cheat. If they happen to steal on the side their voters look the other way as they believe end results justify the means . You may ask how does one gain this perspective?
    Erica wrote about this recently:
    “Specifically, he argues, the left prioritizes caring; the right, by contrast, emphasizes values including personal responsibility and rule of law. This disjunct would explain why conservatives are so unsympathetic to concerns about microaggressions and calls for safe spaces, and why, in contrast to far left college students, they would frame their own feelings as matters of manly, principled grievances.”
    http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/the-grievance-lobby/

    The left isn’t caring and perceives themselves as victims so anything and everything is acceptable if they feel like they’re “getting even”, including ignoring/violating our laws.
    “the right, by contrast, emphasizes values including personal responsibility and rule of law.”

    The results….. this election. Rightly it should have been Ted Cruz a strict constitutionalist vs Hillary the elite left establishment candidate. But as we all know dems crossed over and gave us Trump.

  • John Johnson

    Glenn Kessler, the WaPo reporter who hands out Pinocchio’s for lies told about Hillary just posted another today about her being fired from her Watergate job. Here’s a question I posed to him via email:

    “If I said that Hillary was a habitual liar, how many Pinocchio’s would you assign to that statement? Would you say that she just obfuscates a bit, or that she gave “misstatements” because her memory is foggy, or because she did not understand the question? Let’s address her lies and not just the ones told about her. What say you?”

    • donuthin2

      And if you asked the same questions about Trump, what do you suppose the number would be. Oh, sorry I forgot, they are just exaggerations.

      • John Johnson

        Well, a lie is a lie, but in my mind there are different classifications of lies. Her lies about the emails fall into the needs to go to jail one.

        • BCinBCS

          JJ, I will admit that I haven’t deeply researched the subject, but I’ve looked into it – I’ve taken a bite of the icing and cake, but not a full slice – and in that bite I found this (somewhat long) article by Kevin Drum which links to specifics in the FBI report that I had, until now, only heard generally:

          Have you read the entire FBI report on their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices? No? Well, I have, because that’s the kind of professional I am. And I’m going to provide you with all the most interesting excerpts.

          The report starts off with a whole bunch of technical detail about how the Clinton email server was set up and managed, and is basically uninteresting except to nerds. As everyone knows, Hillary’s email was originally hosted on a

          personal server in her home (referred to as the “Pagliano Server”) and was later transferred to a commercial hosting service, Platte River Networks (the “PRN Server”). We’ll pick up the action on page 7:

          Page 7: At the time of the FBI’s acquisition of the Pagliano Server, Williams & Connolly did not advise the US Government […] that Clinton’s clintonemail.com e-mails had been migrated to the successor PRN Server remaining at Equinix. The FBI’s subsequent investigation identified this additional equipment and revealed the e-mail migration.

          This strikes me as bad. Hillary’s lawyers gave the FBI the old Pagliano Server when they asked for it, but didn’t tell them that everything had been migrated to PRN. Why not?

          Page 8: [Huma] Abedin recalled that at the start of Clinton’s tenure, State advised personal e-mail accounts could not be linked to State mobile devices and, as a result, Clinton decided to use a personal device in order to avoid carrying multiple devices.

          In other words, Hillary could get a State-approved device, but couldn’t receive her personal email on it. Likewise, she could use a personal device, but couldn’t get State email on it. The only way to get both was to carry two physical devices. She considered this inconvenient, and decided to keep on using her personal BlackBerry for everything. This is exactly what she’s been saying all along.

          Page 8: FBI investigation identified 13 total mobile devices […] which potentially were used to send e-mails […] eight of which she used during her tenure as Secretary of State.

          This has become a big talking point on the right for some reason. Hillary didn’t have one device for convenience, she had 13! This is ridiculous. Over time, she had 13 devices, but the report makes it clear that she always had just one device at a time.

          Page 9: According to Abedin, it was not uncommon for Clinton to use a new BlackBerry for a few days and then immediately switch it out for an older version with which she was more familiar. Clinton states that when her BlackBerry device malfunctioned, her aides would assist her in obtaining a new BlackBerry, and, after moving to a new device, her old SIM cards were disposed of by her aides.

          I’m only including this because, WTF? How often did Hillary’s BlackBerries malfunction? If she had eight in four years, it means they each lasted about six months. Why were they so fragile? Did they just buy a new BlackBerry every time there was some kind of bug they couldn’t figure out how to resolve?

          Page 11: On January 23, 2009, Clinton contacted former Secretary of State Colin Powell via e-mail to inquire about his use of a BlackBerry while he was Secretary of State (January 2001 to January 2005). In his e-mail reply, Powell warned Clinton that if it became “public” that Clinton had a BlackBerry, and she used it to “do business,” her e-mails could become “official record[s] and subject to the law.” Powell further advised Clinton, “Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”

          This is important. First, it makes clear that Hillary conversed with Colin Powell two days after becoming Secretary of State, not “a year later,” as Powell has claimed. Second, Powell essentially told her that he had just gone ahead and broken the law by “not using systems that captured the data.” Hillary, by contrast, chose instead to retain everything as the law required.

          Page 11: While State policy during Clinton’s tenure required that “day-to-day operations [at State] be conducted on [an authorized information system],” according to the REDACTED the Bureau of Information Security Management, REDACTED there was no restriction on the use of personal e-mail accounts for official business. […] In 2011, a notice to all State employees was sent on Clinton’s behalf, which recommended employees avoid conducting State business from personal e-mail accounts due to information security concerns.

          This makes it clear that although State “recommended” that employees not use personal accounts, there was no rule prohibiting it. And apparently personal accounts were very widely used.

          Page 12: State Diplomatic Security Service (DS) instructed Clinton that because her office was in a SCIF, the use of mobile devices in her office was prohibited. Interviews of three former DS agents revealed Clinton stored her personal BlackBerry in a desk drawer in DS “Post 1,” which was located within

          the SCIF on Mahogany Row. State personnel were not authorized to bring their mobile devices into Post 1, as it was located within the SCIF.

          I’m only including this because it’s gotten some attention on the right. This paragraph says that Hillary always checked in her BlackBerry when she came into the office, as she was required to do, but checked it into Post 1. Apparently this was the wrong thing to do. But if it was, surely this is the fault of DS, not Hillary, who plainly had no incentive to store her BlackBerry in the wrong place.

          Page 13: Thirteen individuals, consisting of State senior-level employees, work-related advisors, and State executive administrative staff, maintained direct e-mail contact with Clinton.

          That’s not very many. It’s not as if potentially sensitive information was flying around to hundreds of people.

          Page 14: Heather Samuelson, an attorney working with [Cheryl] Mills, undertook a review to identify work-related e-mails, while Kendall and Mills oversaw the process. […] Clinton was not consulted on specific e-mails in order to determine if they were work-related.

          This is how Hillary’s work-related emails were separated from her personal emails after State asked for them. It’s only relevant because it makes clear that Hillary herself had no input into the selection process. She just gave the order to produce the emails requested by State. Apparently she wasn’t very concerned that there would be anything embarrassing in there.

          This is nothing new. FBI director James Comey said as much months ago about emails the FBI had recovered: “We found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.”

          Pages 18-19: According to Mills, in December 2014, Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her e-mails older than 60 days. […] On March 2, 2015, The New York Times (NYT) published an article titled “Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules.” […] In his interviews with the FBI, REDACTED [a PRN techie] indicated that sometime between March 25-31, 2015, he realized he did not make the e-mail retention policy changes to Clinton’s clintonemail.com e-mail account that Mills had requested in December 2014. […] He believed he had an “oh shit” moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton’s e-mails.

          This explains why data was removed from the PRN server after the NYT article and after the Benghazi committee had subpoenaed Hillary’s emails. It had nothing to do with anyone around Hillary Clinton. An IT guy at PRN realized one day that he’d forgotten about the retention order and went ahead and implemented it.

          The report makes clear that Cheryl Mills sent an email, which the PRN techie received, telling PRN about the preservation request from the Benghazi committee. The techie said he knew it meant he shouldn’t disturb the Clinton server, but apparently got confused and didn’t realize this meant he shouldn’t touch the old archives or the backups.

          Page 20: When asked of her knowledge regarding TOP SECRET, SECRET, and CONFIDENTIAL classification levels of USG information, Clinton responded that she did not pay attention to the “level” of classification and took all classified information seriously.

          For some reason there are people guffawing at this, but I don’t know why. The plainest reading is not that Hillary had no idea what various classification levels meant, but that she treated all classified information seriously no matter what level it was at.

          Page 22: The FBI interviewed multiple officials who authored and/or contributed to e-mails, the content of which has since been determined to contain classified information. USG employees responsible for initiating classified e-mail chains include State Civil Service employees, Foreign Service employees, Senior Executive Service employees, Presidential employees, and non-State elected officials.

          I can’t quite tell if the report suggests that every classified email they recovered was initiated by someone else, but it seems like it. Basically, other people sent stuff to Hillary, and she trusted that these folks knew what they were doing. She didn’t initiate any email exchanges herself that included classified information.

          Page 23: During FBI interviews, State employees explained the context for why classified material REDACTED was sent and provided reasons to explain why they did not believe information in the e-mails was classified. […] Authors of the e-mails stated that they used their best judgment in drafting the messages and that it was common

          practice at State to carefully word e-mails on UNCLASSIFIED networks so as to avoid sensitive details or “talk around” REDACTED classified information.

          This whole section is a description of common practices at State. Basically, most people the FBI talked to used private email accounts all the time; did their best to keep classified information out of these channels; and didn’t believe that any of the emails they sent included classified information. Other classification authorities have disagreed, as we all know by now, and the entire discussion gives you a taste of how subjective the classification process is. Basically, we have lots of experienced people who disagree about whether various things really ought to be classified.

          Page 25: On the morning of June 17, 2011, Clinton asked [Jake] Sullivan to check on the status of talking points she was supposed to have received. Sullivan responded that the secure fax was malfunctioning but was in the process of being fixed. Clinton instructed Sullivan that if the secure fax could not be fixed, he should “turn [the talking points] into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” State uses the term “non-paper” to refer to a document which is authorized for distribution to a foreign government wihout explicit attribution to the U.S. government and without classified information.

          This provides an explanation for the “nonpaper” thing that got so much attention on Fox News a while back. It’s nothing nefarious. It’s standard jargon at the State Department for turning a classified document into an unclassified document and removing all the headers. This incident shows not negligence, but a rather strict adherence to the rules.

          Page 27: FBI investigation and forensic analysis did not find evidence confirming that Clinton e-mail server systems were compromised by cyber means.

          This section goes on for pages and pages, but this is really the only sentence you need. It could be that Hillary’s email server was hacked. Anything is possible. But despite tons of forensic analysis, the FBI found no evidence of it. This doesn’t mean that Hillary should have used a private server, and it doesn’t mean her server used best security practices. She shouldn’t have, and it didn’t. Nonetheless, there’s no reason to think her server was ever hacked other than “don’t be an idiot, of course it was.”

          Oddly, the FBI never really addresses the issue of whether Hillary violated federal record retention rules. They obviously believe that she should have used a State email account for work-related business, but that’s about it. I suppose they decided it was a non-issue because Hillary did, in fact, retain all her emails and did, in fact, turn them over quickly when State requested them.

          There’s also virtually no discussion of FOIA. What little there is suggests that Hillary’s only concern was that her personal emails not be subjected to FOIA simply because they were held on the same server as her work emails.

          If you read the entire report, you’ll find bits and pieces that might show poor judgment on Hillary’s part. The initial decision to use one email device is the obvious one, something that Hillary has acknowledged repeatedly. Another—maybe—is her staff’s view of what was safe to send over unclassified email. But this is very fuzzy. It could be that her staff knew exactly what it was doing, and it’s the subsequent classification authorities who are wrong. This is something that it’s impossible to judge since none of us will ever see the emails in question.

          That said, this report is pretty much an almost complete exoneration of Hillary Clinton. She wasn’t prohibited from using a personal device or a personal email account, and others at state did it routinely. She’s told the truth all along about why she did it. Colin Powell did indeed advise her about using personal email shortly after she took office, but she chose to follow the rules rather than skirt them, as Powell did. She didn’t take her BlackBerry into her office. She communicated with only a very select group of 13 people. She took no part in deciding which emails were personal before handing them over to State. She had nothing to do with erasing information on the PRN server. That was a screw-up on PRN’s end. She and her staff all believed at the time that they were careful not to conduct sensitive conversations over unclassified email systems. And there’s no evidence that her server was ever hacked.

          There’s remarkably little here. If you nonetheless believe that it’s enough to disqualify Hillary from the presidency, that’s fine. I have no quarrel with you. But if the FBI is to be believed, it’s all pretty small beer.

  • John Bernard Books

    If anything should wake up dem voters its the WH’s cozy relationship with terrorists.
    “Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson — whose job it is to protect America from terrorists — spoke at the annual gathering of an Islamic group the Department of Justice considered a terrorist front on Saturday, where he heaped praise and unearned legitimacy on his dubious host.”
    http://counterjihad.com/homeland-security-chief-speaks-hamas-fronts-confab-shares-stage-holocaust-denier-muslim-brotherhood-leader

    Hillary’s main squeeze Huma has family ties to the Muslim Brootherhood and Hillary wants her to run the WH?

    • Gunslinger

      Dude, did you post this before 5am today?

      • Sacagewea

        ADHD or bipolar.

      • John Bernard Books

        MeNTrump don’t need 12 hours sleep
        “About 20% of the population sleep six hours or less per night. High achievers like Jay Leno, Martha Stewart sleep for only 4 to 5 hours.
        http://www.sleeptracks.com/series/too-much/

        I’m guessing most low energy dems need 12 or more…

        • Gunslinger

          “MeNTrump”? HA! Give me a break.
          You know who you remind me of? Those insane fans of athletes or movie stars who lie about being their grandmother or their voice coach or something so they can appear to have close personal ties to that celebrity. But they’re crazy. And they’re usually stalkers too.

          It’s like when Connie Chung or someone cries to Entertainment Tonight about how some crazy stalker fan from Burbank, CA keeps leaving her letters telling her how he’s going to “cut the sin” out of her for not accepting his marriage proposals? That’s you, Charlie! Connie Chung is never going to love you. Never. Neither will Dan. Or Ted. Donald neither. Don’t send them any more letters. And certainly don’t go trying to “cut the sin” out of anyone.

  • José

    DMN grows a pair. About time. Good for them.

  • José

    Trump brags about how he’s going to renegotiate or even abandon treaties and other international agreements. OK, then. A Mexican senator now wants to renegotiate the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. You know, the one that formally established the US-Mexican border, with Texas and a few other states on the northern side. Doesn’t sound any more harebrained than Trump’s rants.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/mexico-senator-proposes-taking-back-land-from-the-us-if-donald-trump-becomes-president-a7228596.html

    • WUSRPH

      We shouldn’t mind renegotiating it since we never lived up to in the first place…..Ask the Tejanos who lost their lands to the likes of Mr. King and company about the sections in the treaty in which the US promised to protect their land rights.

      • José

        Well, there’s a conservative case to be made for Texas to switch teams. Anyone who has spent much time south of the Rio is well aware that much of day-to-day life is largely unregulated.

  • WUSRPH

    DMN endorses Clinton:
    “Not recommended a Democrat for president since BEFORE World War II”.
    (From The Hill)

    • donuthin2

      Will any major Texas News Paper endorse Trump?

      • José

        He’s oh-fer-two so far as I can tell. Not sure which
        HRC is sure winning the endorsement race in a runaway. She’s ahead in about every category, including former members of Bush administrations.

        • dave in texas

          The Statesman endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004, the latter of which resulted in a couple of days of protests outside the building. I can’t remember what they did in 2008 and 2012. I know they endorse positions on ballot measures; they were in favor of the recent initiative that compelled Uber and Lyft to follow long-established regulations.

          • WUSRPH

            But they announced a new policy within the last year of no longer endorsing candidates. Kind of a chicken act….apparently based more on the amount of time it took to do the interviews and reach a decision than on anything else. In doing so they forfeited any claim to playing a leadership role in the community…….

          • BCinBCS

            So, they can’t be bothered to spend a little time to gather the facts about candidates. Sounds like the electorate, in general. Sad.

          • dave in texas

            Hmm. I missed that, but it doesn’t surprise me. The paper’s a shell of what it used to be. Selling their printing press was a really bad sign. I suspect that before too long, it’ll go the way of the Seattle paper and only publish 3-4 days a week.

          • WUSRPH

            They have, in fact, run polls which questioned how people would feel about a less than 7-day per week paper. I don’t know what difference it would make since they “go to bed” at about 8 p.m. now which means that anything that happens after that gets left out of the paper until a day or two later. I wonder how many readers understood why their daily paper on Monday morning did not even have the score of the UT game.
            I’ve read at least one (if not more) daily print newspapers virtually every day of my life since I was able to read–and even worked for one—and it makes me more than sad to see the state of the print media today.

          • dave in texas

            Oh, me too. I still have it delivered to my house every day, but that’s almost as much due to force of habit as anything.

          • Jed

            i tried a couple years back to re-subscribe to AAS, basically to expose my kids to a newspaper.

            it was so poor, i couldn’t even find anything in it show my kids. i mean, even the comics are lame.

            i very quickly switched to the NYTimes. and then back to nothing.

          • Beerman

            The Statesman’s editorial/viewpoints section has gone to the “dogs” during the past year. Very weak, especially during a Presidential election year….very sad.

          • José

            Bush? Seriously? TWICE?
            I’m gobsmacked.

          • dave in texas

            I know, right? I can understand the first time; he hadn’t yet made it manifestly obvious that he was in way over his head, and he was a favorite son and all that. Despite the city’s reputation, the Statesman has always been center or a bit center-right. But that second time was really inexcusable.

          • Jed

            the AAS has long since ceased to be a viable news source.

            the austin chronicle is a better newspaper by far. it isn’t even close. i get more local news from one article each week there than i have gotten in the sum total of all my attempts to read the AAS.

        • John Johnson

          This is a surprise to you? Mainstream elitests (big money), and old school Texas Repub’s (Bush clan) hate Trump cause he calls them what they are..user’s and abusers who like things just like they are. Change scares the hell out of this group; Trump is all about change. The major newspapers are all about pleasing big money. End of story.

          • WUSRPH

            You are getting to be more of a radical right populist every day…..Big this…Big that…..

          • John Johnson

            Teddy understood it. Where would we be today without his Square Deal? Seriously. Where would we be? See any parallel’s today?

  • Sacagewea
    • John Bernard Books

      Do you remember when Trump was being interviewed by the FBI and the Atty Gen stepped in and made it almost go away…….

    • WUSRPH

      Why then is Hillary called crooked and Trump not…..because the GOP/right wing learned this lesson many years ago:

      If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people
      will eventually come to believe it.

      Joseph Goebbels

      • Beerman

        Another old saying, “If you throw enough bull-manure up on the wall, eventually some of it is going to stick.”

      • Beerman

        Wow, almost word for word:

        “If you tell a story enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

        Art of the Deal…DJT

    • John Johnson

      And then there are all those Hillary lies and “I can’t remember’s”. Maybe she took a round to the head while under fire in Kosovo and it was never reported. Maybe Wikileaks will have something on this shortly.

  • WUSRPH

    Remember how The Troll talked so much about “principles” during the primaries and how he and Cruz had them and Trump did not……How long did it take him to eat his “principles” and start shilling for Trump? 20 minutes?

    • John Bernard Books

      When did having principles become a dem trait?

  • WUSRPH

    The United States is the strongest military power in the world…It already has the most sophisticated aircraft, tanks and other equipment. No other country comes close to our abilities, as is demonstrated every day. But The Donald says he is going to make us even stronger…and is going to lift the limits on the defense budget to accomplish that goal. We already spend more than virtually all the nations of the world combined….(There may be questions about “how” we spend it, but not about the fact that we do)……Ronald Reagan doubled the national debt in a effort to get the Soviets to spend themselves into bankruptcy to match us (which they effectively did leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union)….How much bigger does Trump want to make the debt? Who is he trying to outspend?

    https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/

    • John Bernard Books

      I’m truly amazed at the ignorance displayed by dems….
      “The U.S. military is shedding so many troops and weapons it is only “marginally able” to defend the nation and falls short of the Obama administration’s national security strategy, according to a new report by The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday.”
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/us-military-decimated-under-obama-only-marginally-/

      A military led by an incompetent Commander in Chief is like a rudderless ship.

      • John Johnson

        Scavenging parts to keep fighters in the air. Million dollar pilots sitting on their butts while maintenance people are overworked and burning out. Let’s spend $60K+ on each Syrian refugee for travel, housing, food and medical care while vets cry for help and pilots play bridge in their ready rooms. Totally insane.

        • WUSRPH

          Thank the Congress. Obama has asked for the funding….The GOP will not provide it.

    • WUSRPH

      As usual, the Troll cites a two-year old story from a biased source. But what else is to be expected from him. By the way, any cuts in the military are the result of the decision by the GOP controlled Congress to duck a long-term budget solution by rather to rely on “sequestration:” The Obama Administration has repeatedly asked the GOP controlled Congress to lift these limits, but it has declined to act.

      • Beerman

        Cuts were caused by actions of the Republican controlled “Super Committee” in Congress not being able to reach an agreement:

        Main articles: Budget Control Act of 2011 and Budget sequestration in 2013
        In 2011, sequestration was used in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-25) as a tool in federal budget control. This 2011 act authorized an increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the following ten years. This total included $1.2 trillion in spending cuts identified specifically in the legislation, with an additional $1.2 trillion in cuts that were to be determined by a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives known as the “Super Committee” or officially as the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. The Super Committee failed to reach an agreement. In that event, a trigger mechanism in the bill was activated to implement across-the-board reductions in the rate of increase in spending known as “sequestration”.

        The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-155) requires the president to submit a report to Congress on a potential sequestration which may be triggered by the failure of the “Super Committee” to propose and for Congress to enact, a plan to reduce the U.S. Federal Budget by $1.2 trillion as required by the Budget Control Act.[15] The report – which was issued September 14, 2012, and was close to 400 pages long – provided the warning that “sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security… and core government functions”.

        The start of the sequestration was delayed from January 2, 2013 to March 1, 2013 by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was passed by both houses of Congress on January 1, 2013 as a partial resolution to the fiscal cliff crisis. The bill also lowered the sequestration cap for 2014 to offset the two-month delay in 2013. Also, for 2013 only, certain “security” funding such as homeland security and international affairs were included in the sequestration cut in order to lessen the cuts to defense.

        In December 2013, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 increased the sequestration caps for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 by $45 billion and $18 billion, respectively, in return for extending the imposition of the cuts to mandatory spending into 2022 and 2023, and miscellaneous savings elsewhere in the budget.

        • BCinBCS

          Beerman, now that’s a nice slice of the cake.

        • John Bernard Books

          Who own’s the federal debt? pre-Regan about 2%. Reagan 9.54%, Bush 41 8.33%, Bush 43 20% . Last 3 republicans 38%
          Clinton 9.73 and Prez Obama a whopping 50% or 60% for the last two dems.

          Dems have decimated our military while driving the nation debt to $19,500,000,000.00 with entitlements to the 47%ers.

      • John Bernard Books

        Obama decimated the military, and is an incompetent commander in chief and you want to equivocate about the date of the story?

      • BCinBCS

        W, concerning the reason for the small military cut-backs due to sequestration: JBB would never know this because, like a child, he is always sneaking a taste of the cake’s icing when it comes to learning about a subject rather that delving into the entire cake.

        • WUSRPH

          His approach to all subjects is totally dependent on his pre-existing ideology (if you can call his thinking that sophisticated)…..As such, he takes a simplistic approach to any subject.

          • BCinBCS

            Remember, W, he’s simply an answer-bot vacuuming RW talking points and rebroadcasting them without analysis or concern.

        • John Bernard Books

          I deal in facts. Dems want to destroy the military. I served and as a vet I find most of democrat policies to be anti-American and a threat to America.

      • John Johnson

        You’re peeking again. I thought you had blocked JBB. You are really something, Professor.

        • John Bernard Books

          you mean he lied?

          • John Johnson

            Well, I’d call it that, but he won’t. His buddies won’t. He simply forgot that he had said he was no longer going to read what you posted.

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems love to lie, its in their genes…..but one fact they can’t avoid….Obama’s time is up. Time to say bye bye…..

  • WUSRPH

    It ain’t perfect and needs some tinkering with…but the ACA is accomplishing its primary goal:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/americas-uninsured-rate-hits-historic-low.html

    • BCinBCS

      I’ve been trying to get that fact known for months and months. It’s amazing how false RW talking points are so hard to counter. People like Frank Luntz are geniuses at taking a tiny bit of truth and spinning a huge web of lies. It gets tiring trying to constantly correct those lies.

      • WUSRPH

        The truth is always trying to catch up with the lie. Unfortunately, today it often cannot.

        2 Timothy 4:4 “They will turn their ears away from the
        truth and turn aside to myths.”

        “A lie will travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its boots.”

        Attributed to everybody from Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain to Thomas Jefferson.

        • John Bernard Books

          Question of the day, can dems not lie?

          • dave in texas

            Go away. The adults are trying to have a conversation.

  • WUSRPH

    Obama did a brave, but wasted act today–he nominated a Muslim to a federal court bench….Of course, we have a “no religious test” provision in the Constitution and most of us like to honor George Washington’s statement that:

    “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

    But the nomination is certainly DOA.

  • John Bernard Books

    I’m shocked…..

  • WUSRPH

    Well, we finally got a few details on Trump’s economic development plan—apparently it calls for a military buildup almost equal, if not greater, than the one under Ronald Reagan that helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    Of course, ala the usual with Trump, nothing anywhere near specific on how he is going to finance this massive increase in troops and equipment. Nor any suggestion of just what he is going to do with all those extra soldiers, Marines and sailors…..especially since there is no country in the world with a military anywhere near equal to that of the former Soviet Union….and we are already spending more on the military than the next seven nations COMBINED.

    The buildup he has in mind is many times over in size what would be required to “defeat ISIS”, even if we do it with our own troops by invading Syria and going back into Iraq. One has to wonder what he would do with such a massive force after killing off all of those involved with ISIS…..including, as he has suggested, their wives, children and families.

    Maybe it will be part of his anti-crime plan for which he has yet to reveal any details. He could be thinking of the old idea floated by George Wallace, the last demagogue to run for president, who pledged to put an armed solider on every block in America if necessary. Of course, that would require the repeal of the posse comitatus act which has been a cornerstone of American life since 1978 but everything is possible if you have the Will of Trump.

    Or maybe he has some other future enemies in mind—like Iran maybe. But that would seem not to fit with his repeated charge that it is Hillary who wants to invade everybody.

    • WUSRPH

      No one asked, but I will describe the difference between a militarist and a military man for you based on my readings and study of military history:

      A true military man—a student of warfare who often wears the uniform of his country—is probably the last man who wants to go to war. He knows too much about war to casually suggest that “war is inevitable”.

      A militarist on the other hand—who is most often a civilian, often in politics, who has never worn a uniform—is much more willing to kill others—or, more accurately—employ military men to kill them for him to fulfill his distorted dreams of glory and honor or to establish some idea of his strength and masculinity.

      A military man FEELS the pain of the deaths that will result from war—and especially the pain of the deaths that may have resulted from his actions, his commands, his ideas. That is why he, like Collin Powell in Iraq, is the last man to say “Go” when others argue for
      war.

      A militarist, on the other hand, will talk about deaths and “the honor” of those who had died…but in his heart feels nothing…because
      it is cold to the effects of his fixation with force as an easy answer to the world’s problems.

      • WUSRPH

        You are correct that the latest poll shows that “those who are currently serving or who have served” in the military favor Trump by 19 points over Clinton. A few points, however,

        First, the group is a small segment of the electorate—and growing smaller every day as the WWII and Korean vets pass away. Even Trump in his speech today pointed out that the active military is substantially smaller than it was in 1991.

        Second, the poll did not reveal how many were “active” military and how many fell into that group of former service personal who are also “white males without a college education” who support Trump for other reasons than just his stand on military and veterans issues. It is impossible to say just what his or her strength with the “active” military is without at least a breakdown of the just over 3500 “current or former” polled. However, I suspect he would still come out ahead in the actives if they were broken out.

        Third, the 19 points that Trump leads by is actually one point less than the percentage of the same groups who supported Romney over Obama. (Obama trailed Romney by 20 points among this group. Clinton now trails by 19.) As such, it does not show any particular strength by Trump but rather the GOP’s existing lead in this group.

        Fourth, active duty military have a fairly poor record of voting. Many professional officers, in fact, deliberately do not vote in order not to appear to be partisan when they have taken oaths to support whomever is commander-in-chief. President Eisenhower, for example, said the first vote he had cast in his life was the one he cast in 1952 for himself as a candidate for president. That “tradition” still exists among many officers.

        P.S. Funny that you are citing a poll when you were so adamant the other day that you did not believe in them.

        • John Johnson

          I have cited a liberal poll, Pedant. Would also add that how many of these people vote is moot to the conversation. They trust him more than her. Of course, they are all uneducated dumbasses according to you. For a smart man, you sure post some stupid stuff.

      • John Johnson

        Here’s what those putting it on the line think. This is households. Others show the gap between Trump and Clinton at 20%. You and Beerman need to study up. Also…please pass this on to Shelly. She seem to think I was lying to her earlier today.

        http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-trump-leads-clinton-among-military-households-n632106

        • WUSRPH

          I dealt with that subject yesterday, see right below this. As I noted, the figure in the poll is 19% and that is actually less than Romney got against Obama. It tells you nothing but that that is about the normal spread when it comes to military and ex-military support for a GOP candidate against a Democrat.

    • WUSRPH

      Trump was very careful to limit the details of his plan—and thus allow it to be costed….but let’s take a quick look at what he says he wants to do for the Navy and some costs.

      Trump says he wants to raise the active fleet from the current 226 ships to 350 or 124 new ships. He doesn’t say how many of which type, but let’s look at a few possibilities and what they cost, at current prices:

      The Navy recently introduced a new class of Destroyers, named for the late Admiral Zumwalt. If Trump wants to build more of them they currently have been costed at $3.96 billion EACH, but the price could come down with a larger production run.

      Trump did call for upgrading the radar system on the existing Aegis Cruisers. There are 22 active and 4 laid up. The estimated cost of the upgrade, which the Navy has already been exploring, is $222 million each. If all 26 are upgraded that is $5.772 billion.

      The Navy would like to get back to 12 big carriers (it now has 10). The new Gerald R. Ford Class costs only $10.4 billion EACH not counting supplying and manpower costs or new airplanes to fly off of them.

      The Navy would also like to add to its fleet of Virginia Class attack submarines which can be had for a mere $2.68 billion EACH.

      It would also like to replace the existing Ohio Class Fleet Ballistic Missile subs with new ones. It wants 12 ships in what it calls the Columbia Class at an estimated total cost of $100 billion.

      And there would probably have to be more Amphibious ships and Helicopter Carriers to handle the extra Marines Trump is proposing plus replenishment ships, tankers and the various support vessels.
      As you can see, depending on just what kinds of ships and how many of each, we are talking serious dollars here…….not counting the on-going year-to-year costs to supply and man these new vessels…are the “cost overruns” that affect every such program…But that’s apparently fine with Trump.

  • WUSRPH

    Speaking of Trump’s declared willingness to kill all the wives, children and families of ISIS fighters (in violation of both US and International Law), every time he says something like that I am reminded of the political wisdom of a former world leader who was faced with he considered an intractable enemy.

    “The application of force alone, without support based on a spiritual concept, can never bring about the destruction of an idea or arrest the propagation of it, unless one is ready and able to ruthlessly to exterminate the last upholders of that idea even to a man, and also wipe out any tradition which it may tend to leave behind.”

    It certainly reminds me of what Trump is suggesting.

    • WUSRPH

      For the one and half of you who could not guess, the speaker is Adolf Hitler.

      • John Johnson

        At some point the dog is going to turn on the cat that keeps kicking his ass, if he wants to keep coming into the dog’s yard to do it.

        Give them their homeland to do with as they will. They continue to murder and torture each other. Let them do it. We cannot reverse centuries of this type of stuff. Why do we try? Why do we sacrifice our young over there?

        Move out. Move everyone out and bring them home. Issue a warning of what to expect if they venture into our country and attempt to do harm. Make sure everyone knows. Cover the Middle East with flyers dropped from the air. Then, if they ignore the warning, give them a small taste. No one respects a paper tiger. We are a paper tiger; we are led by multi-nationals who get rich from oil price roller coaster rides and weapons sales. We are an ignorant lot. The young Americans who have lost their lives in Vietnam and the Middle East are heroes for doing what was asked of them. The hell if it is, it was all for nothing. Absolutely nothing. Their lives were wasted. My 97 year old, 20 yr vet will tell you the same thing. In WWII, we had a goal and we used everything at our disposal to end it victoriously. The entire string of “wars” since then have been unnecessary and foolish as the “history” you like to quote so much tells us.

        • WUSRPH

          “Fortress America”….It never worked in the past and it certainly won’t work in the world of today. But dream on about a time that never existed……But I suggest that when you are advocating the mass murder of perhaps millions that you should stop referring to yourself as a Christian.

          • John Johnson

            Gargle, rinse, repeat. Gargle, rinse, repeat. We have had this discussion umpteen times before. No saint on this end, Professor. Thus far, you have me pegged as a heathen, racist, mysoginistic, unsophisticated, under educated, insulting prick. I will no longer deny any of them from you. I simply do not care what you think.

          • WUSRPH

            You included a few that I would not….but left out one or two.

          • WUSRPH

            “No man is an island….”
            And it applies to countries and continents, too.

  • WUSRPH

    Sorry for posting so much today….I guess I was kind of unloading before I leave the country for three weeks on Saturday. I will probably check in on you folks by way of the internet one of two times during my trip to England. I suspect the Troll will get even more offensive as the election gets closer while JJ frantically looks for someone who agrees with his reason for supporting Trump. I know I will not be that missed….In fact, it will probably be a worthwhile break for the blog.

    • John Bernard Books

      I promise we will not miss you.

      • John Johnson

        Pedantry.

    • John Johnson

      Oh, I would imagine they will just shut BB down when they know you aren’t around. Just follow the polling while you are away. Who knows what’s going to happen?

  • John Bernard Books

    Will Trump have to debate the moderators too?
    “The first presidential forum is in the books.
    Hillary Clinton was a total disaster and spent a good 15 minutes trying to explain her email scandal.
    Obviously, trying to explain that is an impossible task.
    Donald Trump was solid. A couple answers that weren’t great but there is no question he did better than Hillary.”
    http://www.youngcons.com/conservative-andrew-wilkow-sums-up-presidential-forum-with-one-perfect-tweet/

    Matt Lauer is bought and paid for by the Clintons….

  • John Bernard Books

    “Do you know who I am”
    ‘”Hopes for a positive G20 summit crumbled today as President Obama blurted to Russia’s Vladimir Putin at a joint press appearance, “Everyone here thinks you’re a jackass.”
    The press corps appeared stunned by the uncharacteristic outburst from Mr. Obama, who then unleashed a ten-minute tirade at the stone-faced Russian President.”
    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/g20-ends-abruptly-as-obama-calls-putin-a-jackass

    wow that told him……

    • John Johnson

      Wow. Hadn’t seen this. Mr. Diplomacy! Sounds like he had Putin shaking in his boots. He is the worst President ever.

    • BCinBCS

      JBB, there you go – licking only the icing again.

      You reposted: ‘”Hopes for a positive G20 summit crumbled today as President Obama blurted to Russia’s Vladimir Putin at a joint press appearance, “Everyone here thinks you’re a jackass.”

      But with a little deeper cut into the cake we find: “On 6 September 2016, the New Yorker web site reprised a 2013 satire by humorist Andy Borowitz in which he imagined a G20 summit of world leaders abruptly broken up by President Obama’s telling Russian leader Vladimir Putin that everyone else thinks he’s a “jackass.” – Snopes

      • John Bernard Books

        It was satire…..yeah I know it is hard to fool a “smart dem”

  • John Bernard Books

    facts those pesky facts…
    ““If you go, ‘Why don’t you like Hillary?’ they’ll go, ‘She lied about her e-mails. What else is she going to lie about?’” Schumer said of Americans who don’t support the Democratic presidential nominee. “People get one fact and that’s what they latch onto about a candidate.””
    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2016/09/07/comedian-amy-schumer-hillary-haters-arent-informed

    Bless her heart….

  • John Bernard Books

    Yes I know they are pedants
    “California State University Los Angeles recently rolled out segregated housing for black students.”
    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28906/

    Now you understand how a pedant views diversity….

  • John Bernard Books

    Do dems lie about everything? Remember when dems said FBI Director was a registered republican? Well he wasn’t @ 6.45 he admitted to not being a registered republican.

    • BCinBCS

      He was a registered Republican until he became Director of the FBI, at which time he dropped party affiliation.

      Keep vacuuming and blindly posting, answer-bot.

      • John Bernard Books

        so why were you dems saying he was a loyal rep if he isn’t….oh wait it was a lie.

  • WUSRPH

    A thought for the day that explains much of Trump’s appeal:

    “Fear leads to circle the wagons, to shut down, to see the world increasingly as “us versus them. ”Fear leads to grasping what we have ever more tightly, because it was so painstakingly acquired and, given the increasingly mysterious and threatening future we face, because it could all so easily be lost. Fear is natural, primordial. It is fight or flight. Fear colors every perception; turns every proposal that may test our comfort zone of understanding into a threat and makes our politics ever more partisan and rigid.”

    Charles Lawton

  • Sacagewea

    Briefly unblocked the Trumpsters to assess for change.

    Booksie thinks Andy Borowitz is a journalist.

    JJ has posted an emoji of the Brazilian flag in a comment about Trump and the military. What’s that all about?

    • John Bernard Books

      It was satire doofus….yeah I know it is hard to fool a “smart dem.”

    • Sacagewea

      Satire is supposed to be funny.

      And JJ is still depressed . . .

  • WUSRPH

    One good effect of Ted Cruz’s run for the presidency (other than that he did not win) is it–and the speech at the GOP National Convention—may have finally freed Texas’ senior US Senator John Cornyn to do what he wants without looking over his shoulder to see what Trump is doing. For much of Cruz’s term in the Senate Cornyn seemed to be playing “follow the leader” with Cruz as if he was afraid to get to far away from Cruz’s position because of a fear that it would hurt him with the TeaParty GOP primary voters. But, now that Cruz’s run fizzled out and he refused to endorse Trump, Cornyn seems to be willing to say and do things that differ from Cruz….even including yesterday’s statement that he will not endorse Cruz if he runs in the 2018 primary…..

    • José

      Cruz and Rubio both ought to expect some chilly receptions back in the US Senate. Some of those folks understand that there’s more to the job than using it as a campaign office.

  • WUSRPH

    Anybody have any reaction to last night’s “National Security” show—-other than that the “moderator” flunked by being “too objective” and letting false statements go unchallenged and how disturbing it is that Trump thinks so highly of Vladimir Putin? We Americans with our democratic (little d) principles should be just a little concerned by a candidate who appears to admire the way an authoritarian like Putin rules.

    • John Johnson

      Since you have never sold squat, it is probably a foreign concept to you that it might be advantageous to compliment a major adversary as opposed to pounding on them. Russia is broke. China is rich. Mexico has is weak.

      He lays the groundwork for talks with Putin on genial terms. He lets the Chinese know that we know they have gotten rich off of us and the jobs we’ve shipped out of here. Hardball. He holds a hardline with Mexico because they don’t have any hold cards.

      I can see it; you and your “we like things like they are” group are oblivious to it. You think career politicians and their bi-political, multi-national money sources are going to make needed radical change?

      With Clinton, I know what I get; with Trump, I’m optimistic. I’m taking the chance on Trump. I’m not afraid of him; I am scared all to hell thinking about another decade of the path are on.

      • WUSRPH

        I think that, if anyone is going to make any real changes, it is going to be someone just like Hillary who knows the system, knows the problems and, having gotten to the top, no longer has any reason to accept them.

        In 1968 a acquaintance of mine—an ultra liberal—told me he was going to vote for Richard Nixon for just that kind of a reason……Nixon, he speculated, could make deals with the Soviets (as he did) and open the door to China (as he did) basically because he was Nixon—the known commie hunter and right wing terror. That protected him from the wrath of his own party who would have crucified Hubert Humphrey as “selling us out to the Reds” if Humphrey, the liberal, had been elected and tried to do the same things Nixon did,. My friend turned out to be exactly right about all of that.

        I see the situation today as being similar when he comes to such things as reducing the role of big money in politics (which you claim you want to do) and reforming the system….It is Hillary and the Democrats who want to repel Citizens United—not Trump and the GOP. Bernie and his friends who will insist and push her to “reform” things. She has already shown that she can move her position to reflect pubic pressure……and it is that feature that makes it more likely that she will do some of the things you want that Trump will be unable to sell to what he claims is his party.

        • BCinBCS

          Good analysis.

        • John Johnson

          Come on…she says what she is forced to say to get votes. She is going to do exactly what she promised Wall Street and other mega donors to her campaign and foundation what she promised…or maybe she will just say screw your, I already have your money…what are you going to do about it. Either way, she is not getting my vote. She is the type person I dislike the most.

      • WUSRPH

        As usual, you again falsely attribute beliefs to people you disagree with….No one who has read my posts can say—without lying—that I “like things like they are”. I have repeatedly spoken about the serious problems this country has and the need to solve them. I, however, do not view the US as a “cesspool” as you have described did….I still believe that this is the greatest country in the world–bar none. It is more than sad that you do not.

        • John Johnson

          First off all, I said the government is a cesspool, not the country. Secondly, you have no what would transpire so quit with the “certainly be’s.

          • WUSRPH

            Based on his statements, his behavior and his approach to life I CERTAINLY have reason to be concerned about what a Trump presidency would bring…..But, unlike you, I’m not willing to take the chance that I am that wrong…

    • WUSRPH

      As usual, you are making assumptions about what others have done during their lives based on nothing but your imagination. And, also as usual, you are wrong. I have been involved in sales in both the public and private sector and, although I do not rate it as my greatest skill, if you think selling a program that costs millions of dollars or negotiating a bill that has a potential to cause billions in spending or even selling a skeptical electorate on a candidate takes less skill than convincing some airline purchasing agent to buy your peanuts, you are more than wrong. However, you would never understand because it is outside your immediate circumstances by which you judge everything and everyone.

      As to Putin, it has not been the policy of the United States for many years now to praise an authoritarian leader who fixes elections, suppresses opposition and invades his neighbors, killing many thousands in the process. We don’t find those actions—or the person responsible for them–to be praiseworthy and deserving our public admiration. You and The Donald may not find him to be just another “good old boy” but, fortunately, most of the people of the US disagree with you.

      • Beerman

        Trump and Putin deserve each other…they have much in common…both have a narcissistic personality disorder!

        • John Johnson

          As opposed to habitual lying with lives on the line. Do you think that old man who took notes of Hillary’s comments upon the arrival of his son’s body is lying, or is Hillary? I watched this old fella quietly explain why he took the notes and actually show the little spiral notebook he wrote in. Did you see it? He was not a yeller and screamer like the other man’s mother. He was an old man wanting to get it right when he got back home and was asked what happened. She lied. She offhandedly called him a liar. Pull your head out.

          • Beerman

            ???? What has that got to do with Trump/Putin’s narcissistic personality disorders????

          • John Johnson

            Quit pulling a Professor on me. Answer my question is as posed.

  • John Bernard Books

    Why was grandma wearing an ear piece during last night’s presidential forum??
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3467153/posts

    • BCinBCS

      JBB, as Shelly H. has written many times: “The internet is your friend”. You should learn to use the search engine portions.

      From Snopes concerning Hillary wearing an earpiece:

      Although this photograph was frequently shared as a “high-res” image showing Clinton wearing an earpiece, it’s actually a cropped version of an image taken by news photographer Brendan Smialowski. Smialowski’s image has been cropped to show only Clinton’s face (and then blown up back to size), revealing what looks like a small light inside Clinton’s ear. However, this “object” can’t be seen in other photographs of the candidate from the same event. [snip] The “earpiece” photograph most likely captured a light source temporarily reflecting on Clinton’s ear.

      Snopes showed many photographs showing that she was not wearing an earpiece.

      Keep vacuuming, JBB.

      • WUSRPH

        Now, now….don’t confuse him with what really happened. He’s much happier when he can imagine things….That way they turn out the way he wants them.

        • BCinBCS

          I kid him about being a robot vacuuming RW talking points and conspiracies and then reposting them but no robot with his error rate would be allowed out of the laboratory.

  • John Bernard Books

    This is a democrat State Rep that WASSUP defends as a shining example:
    “In April, a Harris County judge ordered Reynolds to pay $504,000 to a former client, Nancy Ann Calloway, because he failed to pass along her share of a $250,000 settlement stemming from a car crash that killed Calloway’s daughter. The 55-year-old flight attendant said she had earmarked some of that money for her daughter’s tombstone.
    In his filings, Reynolds listed $580,000 in assets against more than $1.3 million in liabilities, including the debt to Calloway. He also listed $3,000 in unpaid Houston-area tolls and $15,000 in fines owed to the Texas Ethics Commissions for failing to file financial disclosure forms.
    Reynolds was convicted of barratry last year in Montgomery County after jurors agreed he paid a middleman to approach recent accident victims within 30 days of accidents, which Texas law forbids in an effort to fight fraud and keep mourning relatives from being swarmed by personal injury lawyers.
    http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/news/article/State-Rep-Ron-Reynolds-files-for-bankruptcy-9208564.php

    Business as usual for dems….

  • WUSRPH

    I expect JJ would tell you it was because I had “a little tin box”.

    • Beerman

      I would expect that he has a few “coffee cans” buried somewhere too!

  • Shelly H.

    Really? Active military are required to be apolitical. The military swear an oath to defend the constitution. Not the President, Congress, SCOTUS, the States, the citizens. Plenty of retired, and discharged former military personnel have weighed in on both sides, they can do that since they are considered civilians at that point an not military. So I would question your sources for those statements.

    • WUSRPH

      He was referring to a poll. I analyzed it above.

  • WUSRPH

    Actually, I inherited some small amount and decided to enjoy it……

    • John Johnson

      Well, then…you probably won’t need the pension anyway. If you have grandkids, they will need whatever you’ve got left. They will hate you anyway…especially, as most pedant’s do…you hard bound all your epistles, like the reams you have posted here. You might want to consider a bonfire.

      • WUSRPH

        Put a couple of those words to describe you back onto the list.

        • John Johnson

          “Did try and sell myself”??? Hahaha. That is rich. Did you save it all up for these last few years here? Geeez.

          • WUSRPH

            As you clearly understood I meant I would not sell my honor and my integrity….words and concepts foreign to Trump.

          • John Johnson

            Gotcha…any comments on Hillary and Bill’s history of “honor and integrity”? How can anyone, unless a locked-in, died-in-the-wool professional spinmeister, mention Trump’s Achiles heels and leave her’s in the box?

            As one, who has experienced a political boss is being skewered with his moral missteps and blatant flauting of the law knows, you can never say, “You are right, but…”.
            By definition of your job, you obfuscate and simply return the volley without coming clean. You continue on that same path. It’s ingrained. Somehow, you think it’s honorable. I don’t. Miles of words stacked on top of a pile of crap, never completely covers up the smell. You just don’t get that. That pedestal you have built for yourself just doesn’t look that high to me.

          • WUSRPH

            Bill and Hillary’s “honor and integrity”…..Equal or superior to Trump’s…….3 marriages, untold mistresses, bad business practices, 4 bankruptcies leaving others to hold the bag for millions and millions, unpaid bills, flagrant lies about himself and his opponents…and on and one.
            Then when you start adding his megalomania, his total unpreparedness for the job and the authoritarian danger he represents to our system of government, you wind up saying: No choice but Hillary even with any and all of her defects. Simple.

          • John Johnson

            Once again, I simply ask you to ackowledge her specific shortcomings, as you do Trump’s, and you cannot bring yourself to do it. They are there, with more info coming every day. Has anyone brought up the $18M Bill got for simply getting Hillary to put the for-profit “university” scammers at the table with real educators? You are so much a spinmeister.

          • WUSRPH

            I recognize her shortcomings…but, as I have told you before, they do not add up to enough to make me want to risk the fate of this nation in the hands of a Donald Trump. Simple.

          • John Johnson

            Recognize her shortcomings? What are they? Can you make yourself state them?

          • WUSRPH

            Why bother….you will quadruple them in your mind anyway.

          • John Johnson

            Spinmeister 101 stuff…or maybe 2nd period playground.

  • WUSRPH

    Trump likes the Russians so much he is running a video on Russian TV in which he attacks the policies of his own country. I guess he wants the friendly Russian hackers to vote for him.

  • WUSRPH

    Based on JJ’s theory that Trump’s kissing up to Russia is part of a plan to make it easier to work with Putin after he gets elected, how are his constant attacks on China going to help when it comes to getting them to do more to reign in North Korea? China, because of its location and the fact that it is the largest trading partner, etc. with North Korea, is the only one who can put enough pressure on them….it has been reluctant to do so because it is afraid of a collapsed—nuclear armed–nation on its doorstep. But, I am sure that The Donald can find a way…..

  • WUSRPH

    I guess you don’t have to kiss Putin like Trump does in order to negotiate with Russia…Kerry seems to have done just fine without praising how efficient of a tyrant he is.