Buying and borrowing to be president

We are watching a big test of whether money and power can buy elections. The obvious is Donald Trump. Can a man w/o political experience buy an election with money & celebrity? On the Democratic side we have Hillary Clinton. She is a very poor candidate, yet she remains the front runner, called inevitable. Can a woman become president borrowing on her husband’s organization and influence?

I dislike both Trump and Hillary. I don't trust either of them and both are nasty, putting themselves up by putting others down. They are also similar in WHO they attack. Both Trump and Hillary attack Republicans. Neither can accept criticism and both have a power base separate from their immediate political campaign. But the thing that unites Hilliary and Donald is that they both feel entitled to the nomination and ultimately the presidency.

We should declare a plague on both their campaigns.

Posted by Christine & John at August 23, 2015 9:35 AM
Comments
Comment #397748

What an odd article. C&J, your own partisanship blinds you to the problem. Like most Democrats, Hillary Clinton opposes the Citizens United decision and the way money is “buying and borrowing” the presidency. She has called for its repeal, and gone so far as to call it a litmus test for future Supreme Court nominations.

Trump openly states his money buys politicians, and he considers himself a person who cannot be bought. While Trump blames politicians for being bought, he ignores his own moral culpability in buying politicians in the first place.

Trump can fund his campaign to any level he wants. Hillary Clinton has raised $60 million and favors reform.

Jeb Bush has raised over $100 million. Four billionaires have given Cruz $36 billion. Other billionaires have funded Rubio, Perry, and others. The Koch brothers plan on giving $889 million to the GOP- and that is just what we know of. In other words, conservatives are the source of the problem in “buying and borrowing” the presidency. Conservative justices made the Citizens United decision, a case brought to court by conservatives in the first place. Conservatives criticized Obama for opposing Citizens United, and cheered the odious decision.

Posted by: phx8 at August 23, 2015 2:39 PM
Comment #397752

px, you’ve really come unglued on this one. Can you not see that the Clinton Foundation is the biggest corpocratic venture of the 21st century? Who do you think was the recipient of HRC’s emails? I could believe the Clinton Foundation had an assigned message routing indicator from the DOS.

I can’t recall the dems challenging citizens united when they had control of both houses.

Trump was a liberal longer than he was a conservative and readily admits to throwing money at both to grease the skids for his projects. That’s what corporations do.

Lobbyist/corpocratists have no sense of liberal or conservative.

Trump is spending peanuts during the start of the silly season but he will have to pony up some big bucks come TV advertising season. That’s when we will see if might accept some help and if he is really serious about being the nominee.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at August 23, 2015 3:19 PM
Comment #397754

Correction, Cruz received $36 million

Posted by: phx8 at August 23, 2015 3:38 PM
Comment #397756

phx8

Hillary opposes the decision, yet raises more money than others and has at her disposal the most seasoned and effective political machine in America. It is similar to Obama who first broke the spending caps while complaining about others. Watch what they do and not what they say.

Re Trump - I am no fan. Trump is more a Democrat in his behavior and donations. If he is nominated and runs against Hillary, I won’t vote at all.

Posted by: C&J at August 23, 2015 3:51 PM
Comment #397783

Roy,
The Clinton Foundation is a charity that does a lot of good works. There is not a shred of evidence that anything illegal or immoral took place with Foundation funding, or the e-mail server, for that matter. These kind of relentless attacks on Hillary Clinton are par for the course, but somehow, when it is time to produce evidence, whether it is TravelGate or Whitewater or the e-mail server or the Clinton Foundation, nothing is provided. Nothing.

I’m not invested in Hillary Clinton. I think she would make a good president. If someone else might be better, I would certainly be willing to consider them, including Biden and Sanders. However, knowing what I know about them, right now I would back HRC.

It is true, the Democrats opposed Citizens United, but did not introduce a constitutional amendment to stop it in the few months they still controlled the House in late 2009. The only really effective way to stop it is through a Supreme Court decision, and an HRC administration has already made it clear they will place a justice on the court that will overturn it.

“Lobbyist/corpocratists have no sense of liberal or conservative.”

Not really. Liberal Democrats oppose it. ‘Moderate’ Democrats quietly accept it, but not to the business/establishment/corporatist wing of the GOP embraces it. Some on the far right oppose it. This is a classic case of the wings of both party opposing the so-called ‘Middle.’

The Trump campaign is based on personality, not substance.

C&J,
I don’t think Trump is really a Democrat or Republican. He tends to embrace whatever sounds good to him at the moment. Some of his notions- we can’t really call them policies- lean left, and others lean right. He routinely advocates conspiracy theories about Global Warming and illegal immigrants, and when confronted with facts, he simply ignores them. Not good for anyone- not for conservatives, not for Republicans, not for the country or the health of the two-party system.

Here is a report of a comment I made in an earlier thread:

“That is what happens when a person goes down the conspiracy rabbit hole. It begins to seem like everyone is in on the conspiracy- economists, statisticians, investors, the Federal Reserve, pollsters, the media, and most of the world’s scientists.

Recently ADP Research reported the lowest weekly unemployment claims in 40 years. This is a separate organization with a separate number from the federal government’s numbers. So… they must be in on the conspiracy too.

Next thing you know, Donald Trump seems to make perfect sense. Never mind that his ‘policy’ positions amount to little more than notions and fantasies. Does he answer questions about specifics? No. Does he cite reliable sources? No. And why should Trump even bother? His base could not care less. It is all about what Colbert called ‘truthiness.’ It is all about that feeling in the gut that justifies almost anything; as for facts, well, they just get in the way.

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2015 11:00 AM
Comment #397784
Re Trump - I am no fan. Trump is more a Democrat in his behavior and donations. If he is nominated and runs against Hillary, I won’t vote at all.

Posted by: C&J at August 23, 2015 3:51 PM

The more I hear from C&J, the more concerned I become. There have been hundreds of thousands of Americans who have given their lives, over the history of America, to guarantee Americans the right to vote, and millions more who have served, including myself, in order to guarantee those rights. C&J, the way you feel about Trump is exactly how I and millions of conservatives felt about McCain and Romney, yet when it came time to vote, we held our noses and pulled the lever. If you believe this, then you should keep it to yourself, you simply give the left more ammunition. JMHO.

Regarding Trump being a Democrat in his “behavior and donations”; I sure there are many conservatives who could name the “behavior and donations” of the likes of Lindsey Graham, McConnell, Boehner, Christy, Romney, McCain, Bush, and many, many more.

Regarding Trump, he may get the nomination, or he may not. I consider Hillary a nasty, shrill, and foul woman; but I have no such feelings, and have not been given any reason to have the feelings, for Trump.

You accuse Trump of attacking Republicans; but isn’t that what every Republican does in every election? Republicans always run on the anti-Washington establishment ticket, and yet once they get to Washington, they ignore all the promises they made. If you are going to dislike Trump; find something that all politicians don’t do.

Regarding ph’s comments; it appears he is suffering from a series of brain farts:

Hillary Clinton opposes the Citizens United decision and the way money is “buying and borrowing” the presidency. She has called for its repeal, and gone so far as to call it a litmus test for future Supreme Court nominations.

This is a typical example of politicians saying anything to get elected. ph uses the talking points of the “Koch” brothers, but fails to speak of George Soros and his billions in support of Democrat politicians, the BLM movement,the false GW movement, and even the Wall Street protestors. ph also expresses outrage over the SCOTUS decision on financially supporting politicians; but fails to deal with their decision on abortion of which over 50% of Americans are against, or of their decision on Obamacare of which over 50% of Americans are against.

There has been enough info on the Clinton Foundation to know it is nothing more than a scam, who’s sole purpose is to pump money into the Clinton coffers. Which may very well be illegal, allowing foreign dollars to influence US elections.

Regarding Trump once being a Democrat. Like many Democrats who are now Republicans, I was once a Democrat and supported the Democratic Party; but after years of watching the direction of Democratic Party, I realized the party certainly did not represent my beliefs. So, unlike the left, I have no personal attacks on those who have changed party affiliations. But I guarantee that any Democrat who has become conservative will certainly suffer the wrath of the left.

Regarding Hillary; she’s done, stick a fork in her. Biden will be supported by Obama and once again Hillary will get thrown under the bus.

Posted by: Blaine at August 24, 2015 11:27 AM
Comment #397785

Regarding the Clinton email server: it is not Republicans who are investigating Hilary’s server and emails, it is the DIJ and the FBI. A former FBI assistant director said this morning; the FBI doesn’t investigate machines, they investigate people. If Obama is supporting Biden, and Biden is running (which more and more Democrats are calling for), it is Hillary who is being investigated.

I personally hope it is Clinton who gets the nomination; but for the life of me, I cannot understand why ph and other Democrats are attacking Trump, if Trump is so beatable? Help me to understand, but don’t come back with “we hope Trump runs”. Your anti-Trump rhetoric betrays you.

Posted by: Blaine at August 24, 2015 11:40 AM
Comment #397789

Blaine,

“Hillary Clinton opposes the Citizens United decision and the way money is “buying and borrowing” the presidency. She has called for its repeal, and gone so far as to call it a litmus test for future Supreme Court nominations.”

“This is a typical example of politicians saying anything to get elected.”

This is a good example of politicians saying the right thing, and for that, they deserve to be elected.

50% of American are pro-choice, 44% pro-life.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx

Furthermore, it is a right recognized by the SCOTUS under the Roe v Wade ruling. As for the political issue, Democrats and the GOP differ on this. It is controversial. Reasonable people can disagree. However, that is saying the same thing as ‘each woman should make her own choice.’ And no amount of awful video of tissue donation or organ donors will change that. It is a typical attempt to gross people out, and ignores the fact that tissue donation powers ALS and Alzheimer’s research, and organ donation can save lives. Most people would prefer not to watch a video of an organ donation, but most of us agree it is still a good thing.

“There has been enough info on the Clinton Foundation to know it is nothing more than a scam, who’s sole purpose is to pump money into the Clinton coffers. Which may very well be illegal, allowing foreign dollars to influence US elections.”

Prove it.

As for Trump… He is not a serious candidate. His ideas are absurd and at times, his language is insulting. In Oregon alone, there are an estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants in a state with a population of about 3 million. Furthermore, there are an additional 50,000 children born here to illegal immigrants. The practical problem of deporting that many people is virtually impossible, to say nothing of the cost, or the horrendous failure to honor our country’s immigrant past. Building a wall with Mexico would cost over $100 billion, and no, Mexico will not pay for it. The idea put out there by Trump that Mexico is sending murderers and rapists to the US is awful. It doesn’t even start to address the fact that 40% of illegal immigrants are simply students and workers who overstay their visas. Finally, the actual cost of deporting over 11 million people would cost an estimated $500 billion over 20 years. All Trump is doing is fanning the flames of nativism and bigotry.

This guy is bad news. His popularity is a national embarrassment.

As for the Global Warming conspiracy, so far 2015 is the hottest year on record by a wide margin.

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2015 1:03 PM
Comment #397794

phx8, maybe there is a conspiracy - maybe all these folks are out to get HRC, and so on - - -

About 863,000 results (0.41 seconds)
Search Results
Clinton Foundation Corruption — Hillary’s Circle of Crooks …
www.nationalreview.com/…/clinton-foundation-reeks-cr…
o
National Review
Jun 16, 2015 - In fact, the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hillary’s elaborate slush fund, includes numerous donors and even one-time board members with …
Where there’s corruption, there’s the Clinton Foundation …
www.powerlineblog.com/…/where-theres-corruption-theres-t…
o
Power Line
May 27, 2015 - This ability forms the subtext of Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer’s expose of the Clinton Foundation. If there is a corrupt government with which to …
Clinton’s Corruption | RealClearPolitics
www.realclearpolitics.com/…/clintons_corruption_1268…
o
RealClearPolitics
May 31, 2015 - The Clinton Foundation “received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments” from corporations, foreign sources and other …
Corrupt FIFA Has Clinton Foundation Ties; World Cup Host …
www.thedailybeast.com/…/corrupt-fifa-has-clinton-found…
o
The Daily Beast
May 27, 2015 - Both Bill Clinton and his family’s charity have been tied to soccer’s governing body, as well as Qatar’s disastrous World Cup bid.
Fact Check: Is The Clinton Foundation ‘The Most … - NPR
www.npr.org/…/fact-check-is-the-clinton-foundation-the-most-transpar…

NPR
Apr 27, 2015 - “What the Clinton foundation has said is that we will be kind of even more … “Corruption and the lack of transparency eats away like a cancer at …
The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation …
blogs.telegraph.co.uk › News
o
o
The Daily Telegraph
Aug 14, 2013 - An internal review of the Clinton Foundations’ workings has proved … anyone that money is disappearing, and the entire foundation is corrupt?
Clinton Foundation finds itself drawn into FIFA soccer …
www.redstate.com/2015/05/27/fifa-qatar-clinton-foundation/
o
RedState
May 27, 2015 - Clinton Foundation finds itself drawn into FIFA soccer corruption … a remarkable bunch of higher-ups in it for endemic corruption, bribery, and …
Clinton Foundation admits ‘mistakes’ with foreign donations …
www.nydailynews.com/…/clinton-foundation-admits-mistakes-f…
Daily News
Apr 27, 2015 - A top official at The Clinton Foundation admitted the charity made …Clinton Foundation admits ‘mistakes’ with foreign donations as corruption …
Clinton Foundation donors included FIFA, Qatar host …
www.washingtonpost.com/…/clinton-foundation-dono…

The Washington Post
May 27, 2015 - The soccer-related donations to the foundation came into focus as the U.S. alleged deep-rooted corruption at FIFA. The Clinton Foundation has …
Bill Clinton: Foundation has ‘strict no corruption policy …
www.msnbc.com/…/bill-clinton-defends-foundation-s-policies-4624635…
o
Jun 11, 2015 - Bloomberg’s Margaret Talev joins Thomas Roberts to examine the concerns about The Clinton Foundation’s finances and how the former …

Posted by: roy ellis at August 24, 2015 1:52 PM
Comment #397796

As soon as there is proof, just let me know.

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2015 1:59 PM
Comment #397799

ph, the vast majority of voters don’t make their decisions about a candidate based on truth or fact. They opt for perception. 99% of us don’t have access to the truth so we must use perception as a fall back.

One could believe that Jeb Bush lost his bid for the nomination by showing up at a cafe some six miles from the southern border instead of treking it on down to the border. Would of been a little uncomfortable but he could have taken a dip in the ole Rio.

My perception of HRC and related Clinton Foundation is not good, at this time.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at August 24, 2015 2:32 PM
Comment #397804
Furthermore, it is a right recognized by the SCOTUS under the Roe v Wade ruling.

ph, let me get this straight; abortion is a settled issue because it was legalized by the SCOTUS, and we have no option but accept it. And then you say the 5-4 decision, by the Supreme Court to rolled back restrictions on corporate spending in federal campaigns, which was settled by the same SCOTUS, is not to be accepted as the law? You make no sense.

How does it concern you if Trump is running on the Republican ticket? Are you voting for him? If he is so bad, won’t Hillary beat him?

Posted by: Blaine at August 24, 2015 3:24 PM
Comment #397806

Blaine, it just isn’t fair to use reason and logic on the Left.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 3:31 PM
Comment #397808

phx8

Re the Clinton Foundation - it does a lot of good things, but it is inappropriate for anyone in an official position or seeking such a position to have such a foundation. Given the nature of the donors, it certainly created the appearance of impropriety, which violated government ethics rules. And since it supplies the Clinton family with services, such as air travel, it is inappropriate for an official.

So even if we assume that the Foundation is perfect in its behaviors, it is still inappropriate for Hillary to be associated with it. It is similar to having a private server, BTW. These are things that an honest official should not do. Period.

State Department, like all government operations, has a ethics course that is mandatory for all senior employees, including Secretary of State. If Hillary answered truthfully, she could NOT pass the test at the end of the course. It specifically warns about outside connections that may have the appearance of impropriety and about the use of non-official email for official business. Hillary broke the rules. When she says that she did not, she is lying or maybe ignorant, since I doubt she ever took the mandatory course. It really could not be clearer.

Re Trump - I agree that he is neither. That is why it makes little sense for him to be a Republican candidate. My guess is that he would have gone Democratic had Hillary not been the heir apparent.

Posted by: C&J at August 24, 2015 4:08 PM
Comment #397809

Roy,
There is little reason for HRC to do anything about perception right now. The GOP presidential candidates are busy destroying their party, so HRC would be silly to get in the way of that. It does mean putting up with the usual accusations, but we all know they somehow never quite amount to anything tangible.

Blaine,
No one says a SCOTUS decision cannot be overturned. Your comment seems very confused. Traditionally, settled law and ensuing precedents develop over time; because of this, the Court becomes less and less likely to overturn decisions.

If the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v Wade, they could do so, but it would highly unlikely at this point. The Citizens United decision is only a few years old, and it overturned existing laws when the ruling came down. I think there is a good chance a Hillary Clinton nomination or two to the Supreme Court could result in overturning Citizens United.

C&J,
Trump would never have been accepted by Democrats. He was a Birther, remember?

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2015 4:28 PM
Comment #397812

Also, Trump is a Global Warming Denier. Democrats don’t do the science denial thing.

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2015 4:41 PM
Comment #397815

Conservatives don’t do the “science by consensus” thing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
Comment #397816

Conservatives do the “science by consensus” thing, only with pundits and commentators in place of actual scientists.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 24, 2015 5:59 PM
Comment #397817

Warren, There are scientist on both sides of the GW thing. Your side thinks the sky is falling, the right says it isn’t. So who do you believe????

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 24, 2015 6:04 PM
Comment #397818

Warren, you’re not very good at parroting.

We read here and elsewhere that MMGW is settled science by consensus. Is that what you believe?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 6:14 PM
Comment #397819

Here is a clear and helpful explanation of the scientific consensus on Climate Change.

“So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other’s work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

Several studies have confirmed that “…the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.”

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2015 6:29 PM
Comment #397820
There are scientist on both sides of the GW thing

Yes, there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who are concerned regarding man’s impact on climate and there are a dozen who are not. And, those dozen scientists peddle long disproven hypothesises such as Dr. Richard Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis.

Science is definitely not a democracy; we do not put the laws of nature up to a vote. However, it is foolish to place all of one’s eggs in a basket supported by only a tiny number of people who happen to either share one’s ideological bias or who have significant financial interests at stake.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 24, 2015 6:46 PM
Comment #397821

Thanks for the report phx8.

If I wanted to take the time, and put my other interests on hold, I could refute, with citations, every claim you made.

We’ve been over this ground many times and I will not make the rut any deeper.

MMGW computer models are greatly flawed.

“President Obama is the first president in 122 years, since Benjamin Harrison was in office, who has not seen a major hurricane strike the U.S. during his time in office. In a statement on its website, NOAA expressed concern that Americans might suffer from “hurricane amnesia.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/noaa-hurricane-drought-now-record-118-months

Better yet, Americans may suffer MMGW amnesia.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 6:52 PM
Comment #397822

phx8

I don’t think we are always talking about “climate deniers”.

I have accepted human induced climate change as a very high probability since the 1980s. But we might disagree a lot about the response. For example, I oppose the Kyoto Treaty because it would not work and it set up a silly precedent of redistribution to the less developed countries. After many years, we see that Kyoto was indeed silly. The signers and non-signers reduced (or not) by similar amounts. The U.S. was able to reduce emissions due to fracking.

This leads to interesting hypocrisy among many environmentalist, who tell us that there is nothing more urgent than addressing climate change and then oppose fracking and nuclear power, which promise to reduce CO2 emissions quicker than anything we can do short of shutting down our economies.

The most successful environmental treaty of all time was/is the Montreal Protocol, negotiated by the Reagan Administration. Kyoto overreached BECAUSE of Al Gore.

We also need to go after the developing countries more. Black soot, produced in China and India, among others, is a very big item, largely ignored by Kyoto, since our liberal environmentalists were often more interested in sticking to the rich world than solving the climate problem.

Then there is the cost. We assume that in 2115 the world will be much richer and technology much more advanced than it is now and we will be better able to address the problems. Just as we are more advanced than in 1915. Had we known about climate change and addressed it then, it is likely we would be very much poorer and the environment much more polluted, since we would have needed to depend on renewables available then and deforested even more.

Finally, there is a scientific consensus, but it is not monolithic and it has been changing. The hysteria of 2005 has mitigated. The idea that that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 has been shown to be just a mistake.

Posted by: C&J at August 24, 2015 7:03 PM
Comment #397824

So- scientific consensus is not the same as political consensus. The weight of scientific evidence for man-caused Global Warming is overwhelming. No national or major scientific institution anywhere in the world disputes man-caused Global Warming.

The next question is this: What do we do?

Democratic presidential candidates generally accept the existence of anthropogenic Global Warming (except a relative unknown one, Webb) and favor addressing it.

Republican presidential candidates generally reject the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming (except for another relatively unknown candidate, Pataki) and generally oppose doing anything about it.

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2015 7:13 PM
Comment #397825

Warren, 1000’s of scientist getting grants from the government to promote GW and dozens who do not get grants to debunk those who do. Like I said who do you believe?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 24, 2015 7:15 PM
Comment #397828

Rich, you cut right to the bone. Good for you.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 7:27 PM
Comment #397829

phx8

The most effective thing the U.S. has done to fight global warming has been fracking, which was not on the list of things to do. It would also be helpful to push nuclear power, also often left off the list.

Sometimes it is better to do less and watch developments.

Consider the German bet on solar. It was expensive and locked them into old technology. And yet German emissions actually increased due to their short sighted phase out of nuclear power.

Very often things do not go wrong in spite of government’s best efforts but because of them.

Posted by: C&J at August 24, 2015 7:28 PM
Comment #397830
MMGW computer models are greatly flawed.

Yes, they don’t have the ability to predict intradecadal variability caused by coupled ocean-atmosphere oscillations such as ENSO, PDO or AO. However, is the inability to predict temperature in a particular year indicative of a failure to predict a rise in temperature from one decade to the next?

Regarding hurricanes, MMGW forecasts fewer hurricanes due to increases in wind shear, but that those hurricanes that do develop will be stronger due to warmer SST. There is no way to credibly predict whether a warmer globe will impact the paths taken by hurricanes, so the lack of landfall on the US should not be taken as evidence of anything.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 24, 2015 7:55 PM
Comment #397833

Warren Porter’s last comment is typical of the GW farse; when things don’t work out as predicted, just change the formula until it fits the prediction. Porter and I have had this same conversation before. I previously told him exactly what Rich said; and if the truth be known, since Porter’s field of study works hand in hand with these GW proponents, he may very well be one who is looking for the government grants. If I was looking to gain millions in grants, I would be a pro-GW scientist.

Posted by: Blaine at August 24, 2015 8:23 PM
Comment #397834

Blaine,
“If I was looking to gain millions in grants, I would be a pro-GW scientist.”

Absolutely false. Anyone looking to do science just for money would work in the private sector, especially for companies like Exxon.

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2015 9:10 PM
Comment #397835

And the government phx8,

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 24, 2015 9:55 PM
Comment #397836

Blaine,

I assure you. Any researcher with a viable hypothesis for a natural cause for the observed increase in temperatures would roll in the research dough like never before. The institutions that write grants love it when they can fund something that is truly extraordinary.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 24, 2015 10:03 PM
Comment #397839

Jesus C&J such a vain attempt at trying to convince the reader Trump and Clinton are one and the same. These comparisons could be said about most if not all of the other repub candidates yet you choose the dem candidate for your sleight of hand.

We are watching a big test of whether money and power can buy elections.

Name one of the repub candidates that has the integrity of Sanders who is the only candidate not accepting bribes disguised as campaign donations. Wanker has his head so far up the a** of the Koch bros he can’t breath, yet you failed to mention him in this post. If it weren’t for billionaires funding the crew of 17 the repub primary would be…well… Rand Pauls.


I don’t trust either of them and both are nasty, putting themselves up by putting others down.

Didn’t you watch the “debate”? Cruz, Christie, Jeb, Fiorina, Wanker the same could be said about any of the 17 candidates.


They are also similar in WHO they attack.

Once again any of the repub candidates could replace Trump, Christie, Paul, Rubio, Jeb, Walker, they all fit the bill.

Neither can accept criticism

Shouldn’t this be none of the candidates on the repub stage can except criticism, Trump is just one of many.


both have a power base separate from their immediate political campaign.

Seems to me most of the first rung of repub challengers have billionaires and propagandist doing their bidding. The Kochs have Wanker doing their bidding. He is the most despicable of the bunch IMHO.

Trump really hasn’t a political base just the rhetoric to cloud the minds of conservatives with unoriginal blathering first put into play by the conservative media.

Clinton is in a league of her own when it comes to a political base, what with her previous attempt at the nomination. You like to make these claims that it is Bill but do you have anything factual to support this ?

But the thing that unites Hilliary and Donald is that they both feel entitled to the nomination and ultimately the presidency

Once again C&J name one of the 17 who don’t eel they are entitled. Clinton works to hard for to long to have this bogus claim made about… oh wait were it not for bogus claims what would your team have?

Donald,Yep Donald is the front runner, the best amongst the repubs! If that doesn’t that make you question your affiliation……

Posted by: j2t2 at August 24, 2015 11:43 PM
Comment #397840

j2t2

They are not one in the same but they are similar in more ways than they are different.

Re questioning my affiliation - I think Donald Trump would be disastrous and so would Hillary. No political party ever gives anybody exactly what they want. We have to buy a bundle of things and we do not get to choose beyond that. There is more in the Republican bundle that I like. I know that does not sound like enthusiasm and it is not. I do not think we should get too enthusiastic about politics and especially about politicians.

One of the things I dislike about the left is the enthusiasm it engenders for political solutions. That is exactly my criticism of Trump. He is proposing lots of political solutions to economic and societal problems.

My ideal candidate could not appeal to a broad electorate. He would say something like - The world is uncertain. I have put in place policies that seem likely in the long run to create conditions whereby people can create prosperity. On the government side, this includes support for R&D, but not direct investment in particular technologies or firms. This includes support for infrastructure, but no precise rules on who will get to use it or how. This is a political system that recognizes people as individuals and not members of groups. It would not appeal to most, but it would function better.

Posted by: C&J at August 25, 2015 6:58 AM
Comment #397841
One of the things I dislike about the left is the enthusiasm it engenders for political solutions.

This has been true of both sides for a very long time. Were the campaigns of Romney, McCain and GW Bush not packed with the promise of political solutions to our problems?

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 25, 2015 9:31 AM
Comment #397846

Warren Porter is correct; and this is the reason Donald Trump is so popular. He makes the same promises as the rest of the politicians, but for some reason, people believe him. I would credit it to his disdain for political correctness, with which most people identify. He’s not a politician and therefore has not been caught in the lies…yet.

Posted by: Blaine at August 25, 2015 3:11 PM
Comment #397850

C&J for President !!!

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at August 25, 2015 4:42 PM
Post a comment