The Real Cause of the Flint Crisis
The shocking crisis in Flint—where state cost-cutting mandates led to lead-tainted water that has poisoned thousands of children—has become a metaphor for American political dysfunction. Yet it should also be a reminder of how much Americans’ health and well-being depend on effective public policies. Rather than see Flint as another case of government failure, reinforcing distrust and cynicism, Americans should instead see it as a call to action. Using the power of government, American society once solved problems like those now plaguing Flint and too many other communities. And it could do so again, if it overcame the widespread amnesia about the enormous benefits of active, responsive government.
It’s easy to forget today, but cleaning up municipal water supplies was the greatest public-health triumph of the 20th century. The economists David Cutler and Grant Miller have estimated that approximately half of the dramatic decline in mortality between 1900 and 1936—a period in which life expectancy increased from less than 50 years to more than 60—was due just to improved municipal water systems. The infant mortality rate fell by more than 80 percent. These public health measures helped lay the cornerstone of a capable system of government that could boost America’s rising economy by tackling problems that markets alone would not.
Between the first and last decades of the 20th century, visionary leaders from both parties—often working with an engaged corporate elite—crafted America’s distinctive and remarkably successful “mixed economy” of public and private initiative. These leaders recognized that private businesses, for all their vital contributions to prosperity, frequently failed to protect health and safety or make the long-term investments in public goods necessary for sustained growth. They recognized that private businesses sometimes produced public “bads”—dangerous and deceptive products, polluted air and water, distorted and captured polices—if doing so would also produce profits. As much as they saw competitive markets as essential, they believed that the strong thumb of government needed to assist and counterbalance the nimble fingers of the market (as the political economist Charles Lindblom would later describe this mixed model). The meteoric improvements in health, education, and living standards that defined “the American century” did not just happen. They were made possible by energetic government.
Reducing the toll of lead was a crucial, if belated, part of this transformation. In the middle of the 20th century, lead in gas and paint were a hidden poison that undermined the potential of millions of Americans. At the time, most American children were routinely exposed to lead levels far higher than those in Flint. Then as now, the worst affected were disproportionately poor and black, because levels were so dangerously high in the congested streets and aging buildings of inner cities.
Fortunately, the scientific community fostered by America’s mixed economy conclusively demonstrated lead’s catastrophic impact on developing brains. This knowledge came along with heightened awareness of the need for the robust use of public authority to combat this threat: from regulations on lead in gasoline and paint to the regular monitoring of toxic chemicals in soil and water. Starting in the 1970s, a bipartisan coalition that included Republican presidents Nixon and Ford rapidly increased the capacity of government to address these challenges. The federal government forged the path, overcoming powerful lobbies defending business as usual. Over corporate opposition, the EPA began steps to phase out lead in gasoline in 1973. Over corporate opposition, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned lead paint in 1978. Efforts to remove lead from existing buildings and soil intensified. For 40 years, federal, state and local governments worked in tandem to get lead out of the water, air, and soil.
Such quiet efforts typically attract little fanfare. But they had a revolutionary impact on public health. The Center for Disease Control estimates that almost 90 percent of American children aged 1-5 had lead levels above 10 micrograms per deciliter in the late 1970s. Today, less than 1 percent do. The improvements were greatest for poor and minority children (who had by far the highest rates to begin with). This decline translates into markedly higher IQs, increased economic potential, and, quite likely, considerably lower rates of crime and teenage pregnancy. (Lead poisoning reduces impulse control as well as cognitive functioning). It feels callous to reduce the protection of young brains to an economic calculation, but the economic benefits have surely been staggering: By one careful estimate, they add up to $260 billion per year.
Yet progress on this front—and so many others essential to public health—has stalled. The United States once led the world in life expectancy and height. Americans now die younger and are significantly shorter than citizens in most of western and northern Europe. Despite historic progress, lead poisoning remains a scourge. As science continues to evolve, researchers have increasingly concluded that the 10 micrograms per deciliter threshold is too high and that, in fact, levels half that can cause very serious damage. Many cities continue to have elevated levels of lead in their water—in some, considerably higher levels than those in Flint. Evidence suggests that expenditures on lead abatement would provide benefits far in excess of costs: a dollar spent reducing the hazards of lead paint has been estimated to save at least $17 and perhaps much more in the long-run. Yet federal money for such effortsis drying up in the relentless downward push on domestic discretionary spending.
It is tempting to search for a single villain in the Flint crisis: the austerity measures of state Republicans and especially Governor Rick Snyder, the weakness of local protections, the missteps of the EPA. But the reality is that these threats to public health and social well-being are at work across the United States, and they have much deeper roots. Figuring out where responsiveness broke down, punishing those responsible, and fixing systems of accountability are all imperative. But that won’t solve the deeper problem—America’s retreat from an effective mixed economy.
Begin with the plummeting investment in the physical underpinnings of communities, the roads, bridges, water systems, and other public goods that make the places where people live and work safe, livable, and productive. American infrastructure once used to be the envy of the world and a major source of Americans’ improved living standards. But in an era of government-bashing, it has been allowed to crumble, risking health, safety, and economic success. A similar process has played out with federal investment in R&D, so vital to technological progress as well as economic growth, as well as in the kinds of basic health research that promoted lead-abatement, reductions in tobacco use, new drugs and treatments, and other measures that have made lives longer and healthier.
Meanwhile, federal health and safety rules have eroded. Regulations are ever more outdated, the agencies that enforce them ever more under-manned and cross-pressured by the blandishments of corporate lobbies, with their enticing revolving door. In retrospect, the dying gasp of America’s long, successful tradition of bipartisan problem-solving was the 1990 update of the Clean Air Act—legislation that has, since its inception in the 1970s, added an estimated one to two years to American life expectancy. Yet rather then recognizing these extraordinary achievements of a mixed economy, our conversations typically celebrate markets and denigrate government. Today, conservative politicians relentlessly attack government as a parasitical threat to liberty, while many on the left deride it as corrupt or fail to make a positive case for it at all.
The tragedy of all this is that America needs an effective mixed economy at least as much as it ever has. The threat of climate change and challenges of a complex, interdependent knowledge economy make an effective public sector vital—not just for future economic growth but for the future of our planet. Tearing down the mixed economy may be good for particular businesses (just as failing to regulate lead was good for the gas, auto, and construction industries). But it is bad for the economy overall. It is always hard to get corporations to recognize the need for broad, growth-promoting policies that may not immediately or directly help them. When those corporations and their political allies are denigrating what remains of government’s capacities, the challenge is even harder.
Just as in Flint, no easy solution to this larger governing crisis exists. The path forward will be long and rocky. It will require determined, steady efforts to make government work better, which in turn will require political reforms that reduce the stalemate and government incapacity that so defines our present era. No less important, it will require leaders willing to take the right lesson from Flint: The lead in Flint’s water—and in the bloodstreams of its children— is not a reason to distrust and dismantle government. It’s a reason to rebuild a government that has the capacity and independence needed to safeguard the health and well-being of American citizens.
Two thousand years ago, the Romans created a self-funded global network of 10,000 kilometres of roads stretching north−south from Hibernia through Rome to Damascus.ReplyDelete
The Romans utilised investment talents stretching back to the first civilisations in the Near East. From then to the 21st century, except for rare periods of enlightenment, an economic darkness descended on Europe....
This is from an amazing paper on funding infrastructure that allocates the value and cost to the users.
The author makes the case for funding infrastructure through the appropriate allocation of costs to the users.ReplyDelete
From his findings, we can draw two vital conclusions:
• The claim that a shortage of funds constrains investment in
transport is spurious. The perception that there is a shortage springs from a philosophy of taxation that is at variance with economic reality.
• Subsidies from taxpayers are not needed. If people paid for the services they received at the locations they occupied, capital-intensive projects could be self-funding.
He focuses on transportation but the principal can be applied to most all infrastructure projects. Simply stated, those that benefit at any direct level, pay for it in fees or land taxes applied to the real value created by the project.
If a new interchange is added to a highway, the value of the land surrounding the interchange is dramatically increased and should be assessed taxes based on that value appreciation, rather than be a political payoff to the owners that influenced the selection site of the construction.
Wheels of FortuneDelete
Self-funding Infrastructure and
the Free Market Case for a Land Tax
"If a new interchange is added to a highway, the value of the land surrounding the interchange is dramatically increased and should be assessed taxes based on that value appreciation, rather than be a political payoff to the owners that influenced the selection site of the construction."ReplyDelete
Veell, not so fast. If some business is actually built on said land the value increases. Until that time, not really.
You would be taxing the poor corn farmer - who likely had nothing to do with the siting of the project, and might have been against it - out of business for a project everybody else uses.
If and when something is actually built on said land and it is producing an income, then tax it.
If the poor corn farmer sells some acres to a city slicker on speculation, then his profit is already taxed now.Delete
When the speculation sale has actually occurred, then a higher tax on the land is reasonable.
I can think of interchanges out this way that are just.....interchanges. No businesses having ever grown up around them.
The land value increases. It is money in the bank. If the farmer wants to deed the land for farming in perpetuity, we can talk.ReplyDelete
I didn’t think so.ReplyDelete
You have a place in Government.ReplyDelete
You could also lien the property with a tax that need not be paid until it is sold. Infrastructure is necessary and should be paid for by the users or property owners who benefit from the value-added.ReplyDelete
FOR THE RECORDReplyDelete
The following important events in the history of Idaho affected political boundaries, record keeping, and family movements.
1803: The area that became State of Idaho was part of the Louisiana Purchase.
1805: Lewis and Clark Expedition passes through.
1809: First fur trading post built by David Thompson
1820: Fort Boise established.
1834: Fort Hall trading post was founded on the Snake River near the site of present-day Pocatello. During the 1840's and 1850's it became a major way station for those who passed through Idaho over the Oregon Trail.
1846: Oregon Treaty settled boundary.
1848: Idaho became part of the Oregon Territory.
16 July 1855: Through the Treaty of Hell Gate the Salish and Kutenai (Kootenai) Indians ceded their lands.
1859: Idaho became part of the Washington Territory.
1860: The Mormon community of Franklin in Cache Valley became the first permanent white settlement in Idaho.
1860-1863: Gold discoveries in the river valleys of northern Idaho attracted temporary settlement.
1860-1880s: A series of Indian conflicts continued until the Indians were assigned to reservations.
1861: Lewiston became first incorporated town.
1863: Nez Perce Indians ceded land.
29 January 1863: 224 Shoshone Indians were massacred when they were attacked by the U.S. army while they were camped at confluence of Bear River and Beaver (now Battle) Creek.
3 March 1863: The Idaho Territory was created out of the Washington and Dakota Territories. In 1864, the Montana Territory was cut away from the Idaho Territory. In 1868, a small part of Idaho Territory was transferred to the new Wyoming Territory.
1865-1868: Indian Campaigns
June-October 1877: Nez Perce Indians went to war with the United States. The war ended when federal troops captured Chief Joseph and evacuated the Indians to a reservation in Oklahoma.
1880's: Mining booms in the north and the coming of the railroads to the south brought new settlers.
1887: The Bannock Indians ceded land.
3 July 1890: Idaho became a state.
1895: The Bannock Indians left Fort Hall Reservation to hunt in Wyoming under the provisions of the 1868 treaty. The cavalry overtook them and escorted them back to the reservation.
1900-1910: Reclamation projects brought another wave of settlement to the former desert lands of southern Idaho.
Ethic cleaning and the largesse of slaughter and land theft, yet there is an objection to paying for the increase of value of land benefitting from a highway interchange?ReplyDelete
All we need to do is fund all those shovel ready jobs.
Wake me up when that happens.
The sanctity of land ownership, does it have a lesser standing than say, art work?ReplyDelete
CASE IN POINT:
Nazi plunder refers to art theft and other items stolen as a result of the organized looting of European countries during the time of the Third Reich by agents acting on behalf of the ruling Nazi Party of Germany.
Plundering occurred from 1933 until the end of World War II, particularly by military units known as the Kunstschutz, although most plunder was acquired during the war. In addition to gold, silver and currency, cultural items of great significance were stolen, including paintings, ceramics, books, and religious treasures. Although most of these items were recovered by agents of the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program (MFAA), affectionately referred to as the Monuments Men, on behalf of the Allies immediately following the war, many are still missing. There is an international effort under way to identify Nazi plunder that still remains unaccounted for, with the aim of ultimately returning the items to the rightful owners, their families or their respective countries.
Were the Indians less plundered than European Jews? There will be a reckoning for benefitting from stolen art and recompense to the victims of the theft or their descendants.
I am sure you agree.
The Jews of the arab world and of europe lost land holdings repeatedly over the last 1400 years.Delete
The Indians were less plundered than the Jews, both the European and Arab occupied lands.
But in the end in don't matter, Deuce you should pack up and move back to the lands you can honestly call your own.
Plundering occurred from 1933 until the end of World War II, particularly by military units known as the KunstschutzReplyDelete
29 January 1863: 224 Shoshone Indians were massacred when they were attacked by the U.S. army while they were camped at confluence of Bear River and Beaver (now Battle) Creek.
The three rules of political bureaucracies.
1. Do whatever it takes to keep your job.
2. Do whatever it takes to expand the bureaucracy.
3. Don't invest in the necessary until you are forced to by something like Flint.
4. If you are unable to execute rules 2 and 3, see Rule 1.Delete
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder took to Twitter Monday to defend himself against accusations that he mishandled the Flint water crisis, after both Democratic presidential candidates called for his resignation in Sunday night’s debate.ReplyDelete
This was never about money. This was a failure of government at all levels that could be described as a massive error of bureaucracy.
— Governor Rick Snyder (@onetoughnerd) March 7, 2016
It was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first call for Snyder’s resignation, joining Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who had already done so.
Terrifying: Increases in Real Per Capita Federal Spending Over The Past 35 YearsReplyDelete
Government spending crowds out private investment and the "debt overhang" inevitably used to pay for open-ended government spending reduces future economic growth. At least in the 21st century, neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has shown the slightest interest in actually reining in government spending.Delete
They've got slightly different reasons for keeping the cash flowing, but it will absolutely end with the same result: a broke-down and bruised body politic with a rotten future.
They're all Dicks.
Clinton actually made some head-way. '09 would've been GFC mop-up, bailouts, and what-not.Delete
Consumer spending, which accounts for 60 per cent of GDP, fell to its lowest since 2011 in the fourth quarter, having never picked up convincingly from the first sales-tax hike.
Yoshiki Shinke, chief economist at Dai-ichi Life Research Institute, fears "another lost decade" if Japan fails to boost growth now.
"If the planned sales tax next year dampens the economy again, it could hurt people's sentiment and strengthen their sense of abandoning hope."
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts
Hugh Fitzgerald: Was Forced Conversion to Islam Really “Historically Rare” in India?
March 7, 2016 1:02 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald 22 Comments
Here is an exchange between Todd Caldecott and Max Rodenbeck in the Letters Column of The New York Review of Books, on the latter’s claim (in a previously-published review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Heretic: Why Islam Needs A Reformation) that the Muslim practice of forced conversion was “historically rare” and “revived only recently by ultra-extremist groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria or ISIS in Iraq.” Caldecott provides, by way of answer, an impressively horrifying list of just some of the recorded instances of mass murder of Hindus in India and the mass destruction of Hindu temples and libraries:
“For example, in the thirteenth century, Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji destroyed the ancient university of Nalanda, killing all the Buddhist monks and nuns, taking literally three months to burn every single book in the university’s library. Imagine if ISIS or al-Qaeda killed everyone on campus at Harvard or Yale, and burned all the lecture halls, libraries, churches, synagogues, and cultural institutions: such was the untold impact on India, in almost every part of India, for a thousand years.
Similar examples of forced conversions and brutality can be found during the reigns of Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (1436–1469 AD), Ilyas Shah (1339–1379 AD), Babur (1483–1530 AD), and Sher Shah Suri (1486–1545 AD), all of whom destroyed temples, killed non-Muslims, and forced the conversion of entire communities. Even during the so-called sulah-i-kul (“peace with all”) initiated by Mughal Emperor Akbar (1542–1605 AD), his son Shah Jahan, known for his supposed monument to love, had almost a hundred temples destroyed in the ancient city of Varanasi alone. Jahan’s son Aurangzeb brought an end to any pretense of this institutionalized peace, and went on a rampage, killing Hindus, destroying temples, and placing severe restrictions on already impoverished Hindu cultural institutions.
Caldecott concludes: “Hopefully, in light of this evidence, Mr. Rodenbeck can reevaluate his claim that the forced conversion in Islam is a ‘historically rare practice.'”
In his reply, Rodenbeck concedes the point at once:Delete
“Regarding forced conversion and Islam, it is far from my intent to whitewash a long and mixed record. I stand corrected in my injudicious use of the word “rare.” There are indeed numerous instances of forced conversion to Islam…
But then he goes on to insist, backtracking from his backtracking, that in the case of India, the large number of Hindus who remained testify to an absence of “forced conversions.” What they testify to, in fact, is not to Muslim mildness but to the following:
•The Hindu population of India was very large, the number of Muslim invaders comparatively very small. Conversion of such numbers took time; what impresses is not how few Hindus became Muslims but how many. There are now 840 million Hindus in historic India (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) – lands once almost entirely Hindu (with a small admixture of Buddhists). And there are now 502 million Muslims in historic India (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh), where at the beginning of the eighth century there were none. Caldecott thinks the more telling figure is that of the 502 million Muslims; Rodenbeck would have us be impressed that the Muslims left so many Hindus alive, which he thinks shows the “absence of forced conversions” rather than being simple testimony to the size of the task.
•The definition of “forced conversion” ought to include not only conversion at the point of a sword or a scimitar, but all those conversions by Hindus in India to avoid the jizyah and the host of other disabilities imposed on those Hindus who were allowed to live as a matter of policy. But why were those Hindus allowed to live? Not out of the goodness of Muslim rulers’ hearts, as Rodenbeck implies, but in order to have enough people to continue paying the jizyah, on which the Muslim state relied.
•Rodenbeck seems to think that the survival of any non-Muslims under Muslim rule, no matter how few, testifies to Muslim mildness. He swerves from his his discussion of India to the East Indies (present-day Indonesia), where he claims – correctly –that on the island of Bali, 85% of the 4 million Balinese are Hindus. But that is the only island, out of hundreds, where the Hindus held out. Surely more meaningful is the fact that Hindus now constitute less than 2%, and Buddhists 0.8%, of the overall population of Indonesia (now 260 million) that, before the Muslim traders arrived, was 100% Hindu and Buddhist.
•K. S. Lal and other historians, both Indian and Western, have calculated that more than 80 million Hindus were killed by Muslims during 250 years of Mughal rule in much of India. Rodenbeck does not address this issue of genocide at all. Perhaps, since those tens of millions of Hindus were not subjected to “forced conversion,” he may think these figures are not relevant to the discussion — after all, they were quite dead.
That figure of 80 million Hindus that I have used - I did not realize until now that was just "during the 250 years of Mughal rule in much of India". So the true figures are undoubtedly much higher. And we are 'just' talking Hindus....
Nor did I know that the Island of Bali was mostly Hindu. I certainly wish them well.
"First we show the Poles, then everybody else."Delete
Newly elected councilman to the Hamtramck, Michigan City Council.
Stop moslem immigration to the USA now !
Hillary To Lose FBI Primary
That Hillary is whistling past her political graveyard -- and worse -- is seen in the immunity granted to Bryan Pagliano, the IT guy who set up Hillary’s server in her house. He knows the hows and whys and intended purposes and was likely privy to revealing and criminally damning conversations. As the Daily Caller reported:
Judge Andrew Napolitano says Hillary Clinton “should be terrified” her IT technician, Bryan Pagliano, was granted immunity by a federal judge.
In an interview on Fox Business’ “Varney & Co” on Thursday, Napolitano said that because Pagliano was granted immunity, the Justice Department is “going to seek indictment” of either Clinton or one of her subordinates…
“Hillary should be terrified and I’ll tell you why,” Napolitano said. If Clinton gave Pagliano her “personal Secretary of State password” then “we have an indictment for misconduct in office as well as espionage.”
Clinton “should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity. Now, what does granted immunity mean? Only a federal judge can grant immunity. A federal judge will only grant immunity if a sitting jury is ready to hear testimony from the immunized person. So we know a couple of things. We know the recommendation we were waiting for from the FBI to the Justice Department has already made its way from the FBI to the Justice Department”…
“We know FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors are working in tandem,” Napolitano added. “We know that they went through this lengthy process of interviewing Mr. Pagliano and finding out what he knows and deciding it’s so valuable they need him to say it to a grand jury and the only way he can say it to a grand jury is if they promise not prosecute him and hence he gets immunity and we also know they’re going to seek indictment because they would not be immunizing him and thereby inducing him to spill his guts, unless they wanted to indict someone.
I am voting FBI in the FBI primary......and am hoping Hillary to lose big time.Delete
Joy Joy Joy
I hope Huma is forced by similar methods to spill her guts.Delete
I'd love it !
Her husband's a Weiner.Delete
While Clinton is out of the question for him, Jim Webb indicated he might be inclined to support Trump. There is some early speculative talk that Webb might be a possible candidate to be Trump's running mate, or that he could play some role in Trump's cabinet.ReplyDelete
"The reason Donald Trump is getting so much support right now is not because of racists," he said. "It's because people are seeing him as the only one who has the courage to step forward and say we've got to clean the stables of the government, we've got to make it work."
"With Donald Trump, you're either going to get something very good or very bad," he added. "But with Hillary Clinton were going to get more of the same thing. Do you want the same thing?"
Hell no, too.Delete
remember dubya - things can get worse!Delete
that's all you got??Delete
Ash, you are so right !Delete
After 'W' we got The Big Zero and now the Mideast is total chaos.
By the way, the Iranians are testing their big missiles again.
Mome, I am no fan of Clinton, not at all, but Trump is looking worse still.Delete
see my post below Mome, but his plan to deport all the illegal aliens, ban Muslims, kill terrorists family, and build a big big wall are just a small sample of the off the wall, impractical, illegal, and impossible things he has said he would do.Delete
Last Night, Sanders explained his plan for free tuition at all public colleges and universities. He also expressed his desire for every human being to have healthcare. He was very polite to the host and the audience. I believe his desires are sincere, but his funding notions are just not realistic. Clinton, on the other hand, carried a look of distain for the host. She was borderline rude and talked down to everyone. I do not think the woman has an honest bone in her body. I think she has lied so much over the years that she doesn't know the difference between lying and telling the truth. Narcissistic Psychopath.ReplyDelete
Deuce is obsessed with the European Jews..ReplyDelete
Deuce ☂Mon Mar 07, 10:29:00 PM EST
The sanctity of land ownership, does it have a lesser standing than say, art work?
Were the Indians less plundered than European Jews? There will be a reckoning for benefitting from stolen art and recompense to the victims of the theft or their descendants.
I am sure you agree.
Deuce, can you tally up the amount of lands/business/material wealth the European Jews lost to the plunder by the Europeans over 1400 years?
The numerous expulsions of whole communities? The extra taxes, the theft of enterprises and entire cities?
Sure the indians of the Americas got a raw deal, but at last look they did not create or build cities, permanent structors (aside from some indian burial mounds), create wealth or enterprises the "european" invaders took over....
But it is interesting how you excuse the theft, enslavement and murder by the Arabs of the middle east, ignoring their historic crimes against humanity....
The very fact that the arabs today occupy 899/900th of the middle east and have almost wiped out every other native people? Says a lot...
Of which you ignore...
March 8, 2016ReplyDelete
What Bryan Pagliano will sing about
By Thomas Lifson
Move over, John Dean. You have some competition on the way to become the most famous witness against a powerful politician, aka “rat.” Bryan Pagliano has been given immunity from prosecution in order to overcome his invocation of Fifth Amendments protections against self-incrimination for his work on Hillary Clinton’s email server. But just what does he have to say?
Jed Babbin makes some very knowledgeable guesses in the American Spectator:
Pagliano must have had direction from Clinton — and her top staffers — to set the email system up the way he did. Because he was paid by Clinton — in addition to his State Department salary — he had to be suspicious of the whole matter. He may be able to testify that Clinton told him she wanted a system that would enable her to use it for all her government emails. He would have had to have known that a substantial portion of them had to, going forward, contain classified information.
Pagliano may also be able to testify as to instructions he received from Clinton and her top staffers — Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan — on how to maintain the system. He should also be able to testify on the relationship Clinton and her staff had with Platte River Networks, a company Clinton hired to help maintain it (which had no security clearance to do so). (snip)
The next step for the FBI and the Justice Department would be to interview Abedin, Mills, and Sullivan to see if they’re willing to testify against Clinton (remember Susan MacDougal?) or go to jail in order to protect her. All three are believed to have copied classified information from the Secured Protocols Network (“SIPRNET”) and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Collection Networks (“JWICS”) — the classified information networks the government maintains — to open emails on Clinton’s system at her direction.
They are also believed to have illegally shared passwords to SIPRNET and JWICS in furtherance of her directions. Each of them could be looking at a long jail term.
My guess is that Huma, who has dedicated her life to ingratiating herself with Hillary and who comes from a family dedicated to the Long Jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood, will go to jail rather than testify. Cheryl Mills has very long history with Clinton and may also clam up. That leaves Sullivan, and I have no insight into his stance. But if Pagliano offers evidence that he violated the law, and if the FBI forensic team has recovered the deleted emails and tech steps taken with them, the evidence against him could be sufficient to dangle a long prison term before him as the alternative to spilling his guts.
I agree with Jonathan F. Keiler and Daniel John Sobieski that the odds are that we will see an FBI effort to prosecute Hillary, and that all political calculations about the election may have to be thrown out, even if the DoJ and Obama decline to prosecute. Babbin also sees:
I am not yet so cynical as to believe that FBI Director James Comey and his team won’t demand that Clinton and her aides be indicted. It may come down to them threatening to resign loudly if those indictments aren’t forthcoming.
I hope to live to see the day when Hillary and Huma are both in klink.Delete
tell me Bob, what is 'bad' about the email stuff other than gotcha politics? Was there some moral depravity involved? subversion of the US government maybe?Delete
What Clinton did was a violation of the law.
What part of that do you not understand?
jay walking is against the law, so is smoking pot...Delete
Well you see Ash other countries may have been reading our Top Secret stuff. The first guy to do so was, IIRC, that Cuiccifer (?) fellow, an unemployed bus driver in Romania, who started posting the stuff on the Internet.Delete
Further there is a category even above Top Secret the name of which I can't recall, but has to do with identities and locations of undercover folk working for us.
I don't know if anyone has claimed that anyone died over it. Nor do I know who would want to make the claim.
Moral depravity ?
MOME Tue Mar 08, 08:44:00 AM EST
Subversion of the US Government ?
Well if allowing our Top Secret stuff to float around among the spy agencies and hackers of the world, like Guccifer, isn't subversion of the US Government I am uncertain what would be.
Giving out the launch codes to our nuclear deterrence perhaps ?
Blowing up the White House ?
...tell me Bob, what is 'bad' about the email stuff...
Who knows? That's the point.
Now, I'm not saying anything will come of it. She ought to be able to delay any actions by the FBI until at least the election. And if she wins you can forget about it after than. However, the whole affair highlights everything we know about Clinton. She is a privileged elitist who at all times purposely tries to cover her public trail and has no compunction in lying about it. Her excuses, as we've seen on other occasions, everyone is doing it or I leave that up to 'my people' or the State Department as if she wasn't the State Department.
When I say who knows...
- Who knows if her server was compromised? Heck, many government departments, including the WH, Pentagon, IRS, Homeland Security and others have been hacked in the last couple of years and Clinton's server was less secure.
- Who knows what was in all the 33,000 documents she attempted to delete because she judged they were personal?
- Who knows what info was contained in the e-mails the State Department has refused to release because they are too sensitive?
- What about the 104 now classified documents that Clinton personally initiated? She says they weren't classified when she sent them out as they only got classified after which is true MENSA logic. She was the SOS for god's sake and knew the rules and what would be classified information.
- Who knows how the FBI's investigation into whether passwords were share between Clinton and her aides, a clear violation of procedures and depending on the security clearances of those aides possibly a violation of law.
I haven't been really following this little soap opera but those are things I picked up in passing. Bob's probably got others to add to the list.
Is this a major violation of the law? Who knows? Will she be punished or even reprimanded for it doubtful. But, it is a reflection of the woman and how she works.
If not a violation of the law it reflects her ignorance or, and this is what I believe, her arrogance. If it comes down to national security vs her defensive nature in trying to cover up anything that might torpedo her political run or simply might cause her inconvenience, you can forget about national security.
- Who knows how the current investigation
Further there is a category even above Top Secret the name of which I can't recall...
It's called 'The Real Scary Stuff'.
"The reason Donald Trump is getting so much support right now is not because of racists," he said. "It's because people are seeing him as the only one who has the courage to step forward and say we've got to clean the stables of the government, we've got to make it work."
Assuming Trump is the nominee, I don't believe those who will eventually vote for him want to make this government 'work' again, they want to tear it down and start over. They are the middle class and they have seen this country go to hell for the past 40 years, that is, it has gone to hell for 'them'.
As noted in the lead stream, the infrastructure in this country has gone to pot over that time. Compared to so-called developing countries like China our infrastructure, roads, rail, airports look and are third world. And the costs associated with that decay are tremendous and affect the little guy the most. We have water systems on the east coast that are well over a century old being held together by duct tape and bubble gum. Trillions of gallons of water have been lost in the US and it will take an estimated $1 trillion to fix those systems.
We have been burning our seed corn for decades and the costs to every American is huuuuuge. And that is just one of the issues affecting the typical middle class voter.
Globalism is killing the American worker. It may, as predicted, increase overall trade, but the benefits of that trade have been reserved for a chosen few. Workers have suffered as good paying manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas or to Mexico.
At the same time, there has been a cultural revolution in this country and many older members of the working class don't recognize the country they grew up in any more. Whether it is the inability for the current administration to utter the words 'radical Islam' or the dolts populating our centers of learning or a hundred other things, the Trump voter views these changes with dismay and now disgust.
And lord knows the recession hasn't helped. They see good paying jobs disappear and be replaced by part time burger flippers. They see the government actions to address this, more welfare or upping the minimum wage to levels that guarantee they will still live in poverty. They see bailouts to major corporations but not to the American public. Then they see the same corporations turn around and move more jobs out of the country. They see big banks get bailed out because they were 'too big to fail' and then turn into even bigger banks that are 'too bigger to fail'. Then, they see these same banks soak up the free money provided by the FED and use it to do the same things that got us into the mess in the first place. They have seen corporate profits skyrocket at the same time that real wages move at a glacial pace. They have seen all the gains over the past 15 years move to the top 1% while they take it in the ass.
They see the bipartisan effort (see this year's budget) to drive the country further into debt continuing to progress towards eliminating all discretionary spending in favor of F-35s and more welfare, nothing that materially improves the public good. They merely offer us bread and circuses. Even our wars accomplish nothing but drive us further into debt and make the same guys richer.
It's just not working.
People don't like Trump. They like the idea of Trump.
The people who vote for Trump might as well wear their Guy Fawkes masks while doing so. Trump and Sanders are signs of the time. Neither will likely become president and even if they did it is unlikely they would change much with so much allied against them. But they are the first warning shot that the American people are not only fed up but that they may be willing to do something about it.
"But they are the first warning shot that the American people are not only fed up but that they may be willing to do something about it."Delete
Well, Jefferson did say The Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of martyrs every 20 years or so.
For myself I have my doots that storming Washington,D.C. or fighting in the streets will improve things much.
We'd probably end up with guillotines all over the landscape and I don't like the thought of it.
It doesn't have to be a revolution in the sense you are talking about.
A few (maybe more)elections based on the 'throw all the bums out' meme could go a long way towards changing the status quo in D.C. I fear the public might lack the stamina to make it happen though.
The Trump phenomenon reminds me of the Rob Ford Toronto Mayor debacle but on a much larger scale with much more at stake. I remember Ford running and shaking my head at all the support he was getting. He ran a 'stop the gravy train' campaign against the establishment but he had a long history in city council as being a gad fly and a boor but many folk supported him with the thought that 'he'd shake things up' much like we are seeing with Trump now. Rob Ford flamed out in spectacular fashion and that was just city politics. With Trump things could get really bad if he acts as he says he will. The POTUS has a lot of power and there are all kinds of scenarios where you could see Trump responding with force if his bluff is called. That bit about killing terrorists and their families, ordering the military, who will obey because, as he says, he would be their leader, to commit war crimes. Heck, he doubled down with his exhortation to fight like they fight - do we really want the US military to fight like them - beheading people and posting choregraphed videos of it? The guy is nuts and I think the American people are fooling themselves if they think he won't act as he says he will.Delete
AshTue Mar 08, 11:15:00 AM ESTReplyDelete
jay walking is against the law, so is smoking pot...
So is treason, so is giving our classified information to the enemy...
What is your point?
When the Sec of State, IGNORES the las, sets up a PRIVATE server and uses it to communicate top secret and classified intel?
Are you really this stupid in real life?
Pot smoking and Jay walking?
Ash, no offense, but you seem to be really retarded.
I've got no dog in this hunt WiO. I'm just curious as to what Bob, and you, see that is so bad about the email situation. It doesn't appear as if she was purposely passing secret intel to foreign powers nor does it appear that security was breached on that email server. It does appear that classified material did pass through it and the security apparatus is not pleased about the potential for a data breach but to claim she was treasonous seems to be a bit of a stretch. I would be surprised that if she were ever to be convicted for letting classified emails go through her email server that it would result, as Bob so desperately hopes, in her going to the 'klink'. If she were to be indicted in the near future that would make for an interesting political scenario.Delete
It is treason as her server was hacked by the russians.Delete
Donald Trump is winning the same voters, in the same places, as George Wallace.ReplyDelete
It's pure Racism.
Those people have proven not to have a single "policy bone" in their bodies.
He says good things about Planned Parenthood - no problemo.
He voices support for Universal, Govt. Paid Healthcare. - that's fine.
He's a fraud when it comes to religion - well, aren't they all?
Four bankruptcies - who cares?
What's left? Pure Race Hatred. Saw it with George Wallace, and seeing it now.
So Trump is getting Democrat voters?Delete
Simple explanations are so simple.
Palestinian assailant killed an American tourist and wounded at least 10 other victims in a stabbing spree that began in southern Tel Aviv's Jaffa Port, in the third attack within a number of hours on Tuesday evening.ReplyDelete
Deuce do you value this American LESS than the Liberty crew members? Are you outraged at the Palestinians?
When France surrendered to Germany on 22 Jun 1940, those who resented Germany occupation and the Vichy government formed cells that collectively were named the French Resistance. Some groups were violent in nature, aiming to hurt or kill the German occupiers; these were called maquis.... "During the summer of 1941 the civilian population's resistance to our occupation forces intensified perceptibly in every theater of war, with sabotage incidents and attacks on Germany security troops and installations", German Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel recalled the reports that came to his desk during the war. "[A]cts of sabotage became horrifying frequent in France and even in Belgium." The counter the resistance movement, German forces employed a policy to rule by iron fist, including later retribution operations against innocent civilians. The SS also tortured many suspected resistance group members, with them ending up either dead or in a concentration camp. Rarely, entire villages would be razed as deterrence to future acts of sabotage; such was the fate of the village of Oradour-sur-Glane. Adolf Hitler insisted that such draconian measures were necessary to deter the would-be "terrorists", otherwise the situation in France would become out of control. Despite the risks, many fighters continued to wield British-supplied weapons to fight.Delete
Such is occupation.Delete
There's nothing complicated about racism.ReplyDelete
It's very . . . . . . simple.
The idea that it is only racists voting for Trump is simple.
Like Bob's assumption that all the violence in the US s due to immigrants, the idea that if we could just eliminate all the racists in the US, there wouldn't be plenty of other problems for these people to worry about is simple.
Trump appeals to a broad spectrum of the US populace it appears, and ya, WiO, some democrats too I am sure. Racists may support Trump but not all Trump supporters are racist by any means.Delete
" the idea that if we could just eliminate all the racists in the US, there wouldn't be plenty of other problems for these people to worry about is simple."Delete
Nice Straw Man
No, I take it back, it's an idiot eff'n straw man.
In fact, I would wager Trump is getting a lot of support from people who simply don't like any of the other options - Clinton in particular.Delete
Donald Trump is a buffoon.ReplyDelete
Blow smoke up your own ass if you wish, but you're not blowing it up mine.
There is no reason other than pure racism to vote for such a clownish candidate.
There were, what, 16 or 17 Republican Candidates? Governors, Senators, . . . .
Trump got those Republican voters right from jump street with his "Mexicans are Murderers, Rapists, and Drug Dealers schtick.
Racism is your go to argument for everything that's wrong with the US. It's your number 42.
Suck it up. Everyone s a racist or bigot to some degree. On at least post, you admitted you were a racist.
The only ones that don't recognize that fact are the self-delusional, the hypocrites, or Dem politicians.
I repeat, to argue that racism is the only reason any of these people will vote for Trump is just plain simple.
No, I take that back, it's idiotic eff'n simple.
"to argue that racism is the only reason any of these people will vote for Trump"Delete
You just can't help yourself, can you?
Ef you and your "Number 42." I never said that racism was the "only" (or even, main) problem in the U.S.
I Am saying that racism is the main reason people are voting for Trump.
66% of Trump voters believe that Obama is a Muslim, and is Not an American citizen.
19% of Trump supporters, according to Pew, think the Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake.
galpn2 wrote Tue Mar 08, 03:21:00 PM EST:Delete
"There is no reason other than pure racism to vote for such a clownish candidate."
galpn2 wrote Tue Mar 08, 03:21:00 PM EST:
"There is no reason other than pure racism to vote for such a clownish candidate."
Nixon erased a few minutes of tape and was forced from office.ReplyDelete
Hillary deleted 33 THOUSAND emails, but we have her word that they were mostly about yoga and stuff, and were ALL "Personal," honest.
Give us a break, Ash Tuesday !
An interesting point Doug. Is there any talk of obstruction of justice in Clinton's regard? That is, in part, what they were chasing Nixon for isn't it?Delete
It would seem that deleting all those emails that were supposed to remain in the custody of the State Dept is a clear violation of the law.Delete
...another problem with having her own server - only she and her trolls had custody and ability to eliminate whatever they wanted out of the co-mingled pile.
DUMP THE MITT !ReplyDelete
Trip Gabriel @tripgabriel
Trump adviser says if he comes to Cleveland w lead and establishment tries to deny him, his delegates 'will burn the place down.'
3:13 PM - 3 Mar 2016
Mitt Romney's team is starting to drop hints about the end game for taking on Donald TrumpReplyDelete
Mitt has a team?
"Like Bob's assumption that all the violence in the US s due to immigrants, the idea that if we could just eliminate all the racists in the US, there wouldn't be plenty of other problems for these people to worry about is simple."ReplyDelete
Hey there just what the fuck is this, Quirk ?
I've never said anything remotely like that. I'd just go, if asked, with the FBI statistics.
"ALL violence in the US is due to immigrants" - Fuck it, I've said anything like that at all.
Where do you come up with some of your shit ?
It's like me saying "Like Quirt's assumption that all violence in the USA is due to transvestites" or some similar shit.
Have you, seriously, have you been drinking today Quirk ?
If so stay off the roads !
By the way I just read that 61% of The American People, not just Republicans, are against any more immigration AT ALL !
I'm a laid back moderate in comparison. I just want to stop moslem immigration. And, of course have the Mexicans do it legally.
I have a passport, I may even use it one of these days. I will present it at the border of whatever country I enter - including Canada these days - and I will not overstay my invite.
I expect others coming here to do exactly the same.
March 8, 2016
Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country
By Rick Moran
Compared to previous polls on the subject of immigration, this survey commissioned by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney shows a markedly negative attitude by Americans toward all immigration – not just illegal.
Sixty-one percent of Americans in the survey believe that "continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States."
Why do I single out moslems ?Delete
Because of their 'belief' system, obviously. And their insistence on it. After a certain number the trouble begins. Let us spare ourselves.
Hindu dead from moslems
I like a nice peaceful democratic society, that's what I like. I like the separation of church and state. I like that the government cannot establish a religion.
They don't like the things I like. Violence comes of it. I think any sane person would feel the same.
There is no separation of 'church and state' in Islam.Delete
The two go hand in hand, are in fact one.
Those nasty “nativists” may be in the majority these daysDelete
posted at 4:31 pm on March 8, 2016 by Jazz Shaw
Immigration is a big topic this election cycle, particularly on the GOP side of the aisle. Whether you’re talking about protecting the borders from illegal fence jumpers or concerned over domestic job security, the fast and easy response from the media is that you must be a “nativist” if you support any sort of restrictions. But how in touch are the media mavens and high office seekers with the average Joe on the street? One new poll highlighted at Bloomberg this week indicates that Americans are far less sanguine about traditional attitudes when it comes to rolling out the welcome mat. (Bloomberg News)
Sixty-one percent of Americans agree that “continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States,” according to a new poll commissioned by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney that revealed pessimism across a wide range of issues.
The degree of concern is remarkable considering that the question was about all immigration, including the legal kind. Even Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said he supports legal immigration into the U.S.
A.T. Kearney gave Bloomberg Businessweek an exclusive first look at the results of the survey, which covers 2,590 respondents and is part of an America@250 study that’s intended to gauge the nation’s direction with 10 years to go before its 250th birthday. The study, which will be posted online later this month, was conducted last October and November by NPD Group.
The knee-jerk reaction will no doubt be to blame this all on Donald Trump, but are we really going to give him credit for that much influence? This may be yet another case where the business mogul was simply one of the first ones to publicly stand up and say something a lot of other people were already thinking. The fact is that our immigration policies, both in terms of legal immigration and border control against illegals, is in bad shape and worthy of scrutiny.
The illegal immigration question is supposed to be a given for conservatives. Unlike Democrats, who want to treat “undocumented immigrants” like misunderstood Americans in Waiting, controlling our borders and rejecting those who choose to break the law has long been a basic plank in the GOP platform. (How you solve the challenge is a question still up for debate.)
But what about legal immigration?.....
I don't want a country of a billion people. I don't want a country of 500 million people....
It's going to take a pretty big wall.
In sports news here, University of Idaho Vandals got voted out of the Sunbelt Conference yesterday, and we were one of the founding teams.ReplyDelete
Options now are:
1) Join the Big Sky Conference
2) Try to make some independent schedule
I think it's time to go Big Sky again.
Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why
et us now address the greatest American mystery at the moment: what motivates the supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump?
I call it a “mystery” because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump’s fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but “blue-collar” is one they persistently overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted to “engage” a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with this imaginary person’s responses to his questions.
When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable of powering a movement like Trump’s, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
Trump himself provides rather excellent evidence for this finding. The man is an insult clown who has systematically gone down the list of American ethnic groups and offended them each in turn...
All this stuff is so insane, so wildly outrageous, that the commentariat has deemed it to be the entirety of the Trump campaign. Trump appears to be a racist, so racism must be what motivates his armies of followers...Stories marveling at the stupidity of Trump voters are published nearly every day. Articles that accuse Trump’s followers of being bigots have appeared by the hundreds, if not the thousands. Conservatives have written them; liberals have written them; impartial professionals have written them...The Trump movement is a one-note phenomenon, a vast surge of race-hate. Its partisans are not only incomprehensible, they are not really worth comprehending...
Or so it seems...
Or so we’re told. Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years. But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called left-wing.
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy...
Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the government would “start competitive bidding in the drug industry.” (“We don’t competitively bid!” he marveled – another true fact, a legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists...
All this surprised me because, for all the articles about Trump I had read in recent months, I didn’t recall trade coming up very often. Trump is supposed to be on a one-note crusade for whiteness. Could it be that all this trade stuff is a key to understanding the Trump phenomenon?
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic power brokers, what they call “free trade” is something so obviously good and noble it doesn’t require explanation or inquiry or even thought...
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There’s a video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico and that they’re all going to lose their jobs...
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to “stay competitive” and “the extremely price-sensitive marketplace.” A worker shouts “Fuck you!” at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can “share” his “information”. His information about all of them losing their jobs...
Now, I have no special reason to doubt the suspicion that Donald Trump is a racist. Either he is one, or (as the comedian John Oliver puts it) he is pretending to be one, which amounts to the same thing.
But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington’s free-market consensus have brought the rest of America...
What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who’s dipped a toe outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. As Trump says, “we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World.”
Trump’s words articulate the populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will be required to take seriously its demented ideas.
Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trumpism is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.
By Thomas Frank in the Guardian
The 25 year Trend That Gave Us Donald Trump
Trump’s popularity is a direct result of a tsunami of economic and cultural globalism that has flooded the shores of America over the last 25 years. The overwhelming pace of this change has upended both the country and the relationship that working-class voters have with both political parties, but especially the GOP.
As with most movements, a single event turns into a catalyst. In this case, a supertanker full of gasoline has crashed into a smoldering country. Today, we are witnessing an eruption in three stages. I’ll discuss each...
The Impact of Economic Globalismm...
The Impact of Cultural Globalism...
The Great Recession and the Corporate Bailouts...
This article from Bruce Hayes printed in RealClearPolitics mirrors the Guardian article shown above in describing key macro events that have lead to Trump.
Yeah, all them small business guys from Montgomery, Al. just got killed by "free trade."ReplyDelete
Gimmee a fucking break. Their daddies voted for George Wallace, and they're voting for Donald Trump.
And, 1/5th of them believe The Emancipation Proclamation was a "mistake."Delete
Ask them if they'd pay another $4,000.00 for their wife's Toyota if it was guaranteed "made in the Detroit."Delete
A small mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Hillary's pandering is annoying.
Early on in her campaign she couldn't be bothered addressing issues. She was content in the assumption that her getting the nomination and eventually the presidency was inevitable and simply a matter of time. It wasn't until Sanders started gaining that she was forced to engage.
Initially, all she talked about was her experience at different levels of government. Taking credit for positive moves by her husband and Obama and disavowing them when they weren't so popular.
A look at her latest ads tell the tale. Hillary wasn't talking about income inequality until Bernie brought it up. She wasn't talking about drug company pricing or about companies moving jobs out of the country until Trump put the issues on the table. She denounces the situation in Flint, easy to do especially when it is blamed on a Republican governor, but what will she do on all these issues once she becomes president?
It will be interesting to see how things go in the general.
Not only is Hillary struggling to move left of Sanders, she's also struggling to move left of Trump.
Clinton +9 over Trump
Strikes in SyriaReplyDelete
Attack, fighter, ground attack and remotely piloted aircraft conducted seven strikes in Syria:
-- Near Ayn Isa, a strike destroyed an ISIL booby-trapped house.
-- Near Dayr Az Zawr, two strikes struck a large ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL gas and oil separation plant modular refinery and destroyed an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Mar’a, four strikes struck three ISIL tactical units and an ISIL facility and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL heavy machine gun position and an ISIL building.
Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery conducted 17 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:
-- Near Baghdadi, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL weapons cache, an ISIL staging area and an ISIL rocket position.
-- Near Beiji, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun position.
-- Near Fallujah, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb.
-- Near Habbaniya, a strike destroyed an ISIL tunnel.
-- Near Haditha, a strike destroyed an ISIL supply cache.
-- Near Kisik, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL assembly area.
-- Near Mosul, three strikes struck two ISIL headquarters and destroyed an ISIL assembly area.
-- Near Qayyarah, a strike struck an ISIL-used bridge.
-- Near Ramadi, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL mortar position and two ISIL supply caches.
-- Near Sinjar, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Sultan Abdallah, three strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL vehicles and an ISIL artillery piece.
-- Near Waleed, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL supply cache.
RCP National Averages:
RCP National Averages
Crazy, c r a z e e e.....Delete
Islamic State: An invincible force?ReplyDelete
By Hassan Hassan & Michael Weiss
Authors of ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror
8 March 2016
In June 2014, so-called Islamic State (IS) took over the Iraqi city of Mosul. Within weeks, the organisation had swept through large swathes in Iraq and Syria, seizing a territory the size of the United Kingdom.
The territory IS controls has shrunk in the two years since a US-led multinational coalition launched an air campaign on its positions, first in Iraq and then Syria.
The coalition has managed to push IS out of the Iraqi cities of Tikrit and Ramadi, as well as an ever-increasing stretch of Syrian-Turkish borderland.
Enemies of the "caliphate", backed by (mostly) US fighter jets, are now bivouacked 50km (30 miles) from the IS "capital" of Raqqa, in northern Syria.
Yet IS' hold on its most valuable strategic terrain, the areas seized either in or before 2014, is still uncontested.
It is entrenched in Mosul and Raqqa and the Sunni Arab tribal heartland of the Euphrates river valley, which stretches from eastern Syria to western Iraq.
While it has lost much of the northern Syrian borderland, IS has also expanded into areas hitherto resistant to it, such as the Damascus suburbs and parts of the Aleppo countryside......
Watching Clinton. That’s all I have to say about that.ReplyDelete
Watched Trump. He was masterful with the press. Trump comes off as the boss. He will destroy Clinton.
He is back to a 20 point spread between men voting for him and women voting for him.
Surely, he's not stupid enough to think talking about his junk in a nationally televised debate would help him with that demographic.
He wasn't the one that brought the topic up. It was Rubio, tonight's big loser.Delete
He brought it up at the last debate. He could have let Rubio's previous comments go but he didn't.
And you were bragging about the length of your ring fingers just the other day, and we know that means !Delete
Sanders got whomped in Mississippi (what would you expect); however, he is doing great in Michigan especially considering that RCP had him down by more than 20% to Hillary going in.
He might even win but there is a long way to go. Parts of Detroit and Flint still ahve to be counted.
Trump, from the sound of those old clips, has been the same disgusting braggart that we see and hear today.Delete
That gets old pretty fast.
Might make a good Pres though, who knows.
And you were bragging...
If the demographics were different here I would probably more circumspect in discussing my attributes.
If it wasn't for all the Dem insiders and honchos voting as superdelagates, Bernie might have been able to make a race of it.
The classiest, most luxurious victory speech of the campaign thus farDelete
posted at 10:14 pm on March 8, 2016 by Jazz Shaw
After a knockout victory in Mississippi and what appears to be at least a TKO in Michigan, Donald Trump took to the stage in Jupiter, Florida for his latest victory speech. Keeping with his new habit, he treated it as a press conference again, delivering remarks followed by questions from the press. (Strategically stationed behind some of his cheering supporters.) Before he even showed up, though, you could tell that everyone was in for a particularly luxurious event by the display on the flag draped stage. Check it out.
Yep, that’s Trump Champagne, cases of Trump vodka, flats of Trump water and a pile of Grade A Trump Steaks. (A careful examination by the press indicated that the steaks were mysteriously labeled “Bush Brothers.” They also sell steaks in the area.) It was a well attended soiree.
As you’ll see, Trump’s speech starts out with another bid for reconcilliation, talking about how he hopes that the party will “embrace” his victories and focus on the long game. He even gets in some some nice words about Speaker Paul Ryan. After that, though, he can’t resist a few digs at “Little Marco” and “Lying Ted Cruz” along with any others who have wronged him.
There’s nothing much more for it but to get to the video. Credit where credit is due, despite all the negative ads and social media bombardment, Trump’s people delivered a couple more big wins for him and it’s difficult to argue that his momentum has stalled.
Video of Trump Victory Speech
Goodness Gracious Sakes Alive I'm reading that Sanders is ahead of Clinton in Michigan with over half the vote counted !ReplyDelete
I was listening to some old audio clips of Trump for the ago on the Glenn Beck Radio Show today - he sounded then exactly like he does today. All about winning winning winning.....though in fact he's had a lot of projects fail, some big time, eight at least were mentioned.
There's a sickness about all this amassing gold. They say money can't buy happiness, you can't take it with you, etc. but for Trump he really seems to think that a pile of gold, thousands of times more than anyone would ever need, does indeed make happy. But where's the fly fishing in all this ?
Clinton may lose the FBI primary and the political general election, too. :)
With 63% counted Sanders is ahead by 3.2% in Michigan....ReplyDelete
Drudge has a great take down picture of Rubio up right now.ReplyDelete
The incredible shrinking campaign.....
Just heard on CNN, one of their field reporters in Michigan said that a Clinton campaign official told him they had misunderstood the public and the level of angst over trade, jobs, and the auto bailout.
Meaning that they did not fine tune their message of the moment to the public's immediate desires and not that people are beginning to figure out Hillary is a shit, or something ?Delete
She came out against Fracking in Ohio!Delete
Hillary is just a shitty stump speaker. If you hear her talk on Fox or CNN she actually sounds pretty good, you know, her presentation I mean (even if you discount what she is actually saying). However, in every stump speech I have seen her give she comes across as a lecturing shrew. She speaks in sound bites like Rubio and it just doesn't sound natural. It all seems canned. It's rare she smiles.
The asked the who do you trust question here and it came out Bernie 81%, Hillary 19%. People just don't trust her to tell the truth.
Heh, Michigan called for Sanders at RCP.ReplyDelete
Cruz is ahead of Trump by about 7% with 16% or so counted. This is from south Idaho, an hour's time difference. What Hispanics we have are in south Idaho mostly. The Republicans down there are pretty conservative folks.
Cruz got the KKK/Nazi vote.Delete
And the numerous militias Idaho is known for, as well as, the sports outfitters and guides.
LIVE FROM ONE OF MY HAWAIIAN RESORTS:ReplyDelete
""Every single person who has attacked me has gone down," Trump said at one of his Florida resorts. He was flanked by tables packed with his retail products, including steaks, bottled water and wine, and defended his business record more thoroughly than he outlined his policy proposals for the country."
Send requests for chilled Wahine Juice toDelete
"Sanders got whomped in Mississippi (what would you expect)"ReplyDelete
Yeah, given the "gene" pool, as evidenced by Rufus.
Buy Doug's Wahine Juice !ReplyDelete
Great on Trump Steaks on the grate.
No problemo, Ash:ReplyDelete
The State Department's Freedom of Information Act reviewers found plenty of cases where releasing the emails in uncensored form today, more than three years after Clinton left office, would pose diplomatic or national security concerns.
Many were written by advisers and experts, and then forwarded to Clinton by one of three close aides: Cheryl Mills, her chief of staff; Jake Sullivan, her director of policy planning; and Huma Abedin, her longtime personal assistant. All three remain in Clinton's inner circle.
Officials describe Sullivan at the center of the most sensitive chain, concerning CIA drone strikes. These were the "top secret" emails the department would not make public even in heavily censored form.
Other messages show top aides working around the restrictions.
In February 2010, Abedin writes to Clinton about a scheduled call with Ecuador's new foreign minister. Abedin says she is trying to get her boss a "call sheet," but it's classified.
In June 2011, Clinton tells Sullivan to convert talking points meant for a secure fax into "nonpaper" with "no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
Paul/Unsk is now getting beat up by Trumpeteers @ Belmont Club for having the gall to post text depicting Donald in a negative light.ReplyDelete
Wow. Tough crowd.
She came out against Fracking in Ohio!
Hey, this ain't a GOP debate. Keep it clean.
Frick frack fruck I'm plucked like a duck, yuck yuck.Delete
(said Hillary upon losing Michigan)Delete
Hillary came out fracking in Ohio, did you say ?Delete
Heavy voter turnout in Hawaii -ReplyDelete
Hawaii Votes Percent Del. (51%)
Trump 1,724 45.2 0
Cruz 1,193 31.3 0
Rubio 459 12.0 0
Kasich 380 10.0 0
Everyone must have fallen asleep all day from too much Doug's Wahine Juice.
Most were Knocked Out by 6pm, a few woke up in time to vote.Delete
Tuesday, March 8, 2016, the Hawaii Republican Party will hold Presidential Caucus voting at multiple locations statewide.
Polling places will be open from 6pm to 8pm and will be different than the normal precinct voting locations.
Back on topic:ReplyDelete
There is no evidence that lead remains in the brain one year after death.
Doug, saving cellphone kid's life:ReplyDelete