The Six Stages of Denial (Thanks to Michael Mann)

melting ice

The purpose of this post is to provide some science to back the standard set of climate change denial arguments that have been used by those who question climate science.

1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
Humans release roughly 29B tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. Vegetation and oceans absorb only 57%. Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15M years.

CO2_Emissions_Levels_Knorr

2. Even if CO2 is increasing, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.

There are ten indicators of a warming planet

  • Land surface air temperatures. This may be the least reliable data because of a number of local affects that could influence the accuracy of the instruments.

Anderson12Fig1 surface temps

  • Sea surface temperature. Lots of data going back to 1850 with the most recent decade as the warmest

ocean heat content

  • Air temperature over the oceans.

marine1

  • Lower Troposphere temperature. Measured by satellites for 50 years. Every decade since 2000 is warmer than the previous one.

troposheric

  • Ocean Heat Content – 90% of the heat from climate change is being absorbed the by the ocean which is causing the sea levels to rise.

ocean_heat_content #2

  • Sea Level Rise.

Sea-Level-1

  • Specific Humidity

humidchart

  • Glacier retreat – now 25 consecutive years of net loss of glacier ice.

glacierbalance

  • Northern hemisphere snow cover.

nhsnowcover

  • Arctic sea ice

ArcticSeaIceMinimumCoverage


3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.

EOS_ChapmanDavis2010

This graph, though a little wonky, demonstrates that we have already exceeded the limits that could be attributed to natural variability. Basically all of the warming details listed above require some other source of warming besides natural causes.

4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.

evidence_CO2
Here’s another example of the human fingerprint. We are producing more CO2 than the earth can consume. The result is that the concentration of that gas in the atmosphere is going up dramatically.

5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth’s climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.

brook_impacts

The impacts of climate change are making things worse for biodiversity.

6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it , and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

The most immediate and available technical solution is to stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and replace fossil fuels with non-polluting alternatives. If we simply stopped pumping oil today, we would have a change to avoid tumbling over into an irrecoverable greenhouse condition.  The problem with other technical solutions is that there is little that can be done to prevent widespread destruction and political instability that will result from rising sea levels. The acidification of the oceans will kill much of the current sea life. The impacts of that can only be imagined. We will eventually run out of oil. The risk is by then are that the greenhouse effect will be self-sustaining.

42 Responses to “The Six Stages of Denial (Thanks to Michael Mann)”

  1. Keith says:

    Back to income inequality (what ever that means)

    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/clinton-misuses-stat-on-ceo-pay/

    4 to 1 ceo’s to average worker. Please use this ratio when having discussions or posting comments in the future.

    Again the lefts misuse of the 1% category in there hate filled, envy driven, divisive politics is simply misplaced.

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:

    4 to 1 ceo’s to average worker. Please use this ratio when having discussions or posting comments in the future.

    Again the lefts misuse of the 1% category in there hate filled, envy driven, divisive politics is simply misplaced.

    Happy to see you using factcheck.org. I think they are a great organization along with politifact.com.

    What the factcheck article said was that Clinton’s data is accurate as long as she said, CEOs at “top” American firms rather than average American CEO.

    I will also make sure to use that distinction going forward.

    Four other comments.

    1. I LOVE facts. So let’s please continue to hold each other accountable for accurately presenting and using facts.

    2. My concern about the 1% or more accurately the .01% DOES NOT include those making $216K/year (average CEO pay). Those making $216K/year are not part of the 1%. The lower bound of the 1% is around $325K, so please don’t conflate these issues. The lower bound of the .01% is around $10M/year. Just as a reminder, my concern is those who use their income to buy political influence. You probably have to get into the 10’s or 100’s of millions a year in salary to find those who can afford to spend the kind of money that can buy that sort of influence. Those are also the ones most tempted to cut corners in order to get these big pay days.

    3. As long as we are attempting to lay some ground rules for how we discuss things, let me add another one. Let’s try to differentiate between misusing a fact and making up a fact. In my mind, making up a fact is a much greater sin. Here’s a link to a recent David Brooks column where he provides some examples of some made-up Republican immigration facts which few of the current candidates seem willing to challenge.

    4. In the spirit of #1, your use of 4 to 1 is also inaccurate, as described by factcheck.org. Here is the specific quote.

    Drilling down, the mean wage for the 21,550 chief executives at “management of companies and enterprises” was $216,100. The ratio for these executives is closer to 4.5-to-1 if considering average pay. (We were not able to exclude chief executive pay from the BLS data on all workers; if we could, the disparity between chief executive pay and that of all other workers would likely be larger.)

    In other words it’s not 4 to 1 or even 4.5 to 1 but something bigger that can’t be accurately determined from the BLS number. That’s because the BLS “worker” number includes CEO pay. From the BLS perspective, they are workers too.

    I won’t take your bait regarding the “hate filled, envy driven, divisive politics”, but only remind you that your failure to read the factcheck.org article closely is another example of confirmation bias. You took an accurate description from factcheck.org and filtered out the parts that didn’t agree with your larger belief that income inequality is an “invented” issue.

  3. Keith says:

    No I didn’t. I read that and didn’t dismiss it. Also the part of CEO pay that is t knowable is also true of the work force in general. They also get stock options, cars, country clubs etc. stock options and other compensation is probably great for a CEO/owner but should be.

    My over riding point was the warfare on ceo’s if not properly placed.

    So the avg of the largest is $10 million. Avg salary of a top NBA player? To actor in Hollywood? Top singer? Top anything?

    You filtered correctly above as you stated your problem is with those who use their wealth to influence policy… You admit they those with that wealth are a handful of people and it’s not “CEO’s” or top earning CEO’s.

    Now open you mind further. Let’s say we have Bernie’s or the progressives Way. Do you actually think some handful of folks won’t have undue influence. It will never be eliminated and you “fairness” will never be achieved… You’re simple dreaming.

  4. Keith says:

    An interesting commentary I read. Also a study was done, by a college professor no less, that found the same thing.

    Somewhat reminiscent of drug dealers peddling dope, colleges lure financially unsophisticated teenagers into borrowing money to “invest” in their future, pushing the demand for higher education up relative to the supply, which then leads to both higher prices and artificially large college enrollments. This produces, on the one hand, ever larger amounts of student indebtedness on the one hand, and on the other, too many college graduates, leading to the age of the college-educated bartender, taxi driver, janitor, and retail clerk, all struggling to pay their debts

    Second, in large part as a consequence of the above, high college costs have turned off lower-income students, and the proportion of recent college graduates from the lowest quartile of the income distribution is smaller today than in 1970, when loan programs were in their infancy.

    Sent from my iPhonSo. 1) Government take over has skewed the college market increasing cost on everyone (supply and demand) 2) Increased the number of college grads with near worthless degrees reduceing the income level of new college grads (supply and demand) 3) Just another bubble created by liberals who never think through – or take responsiblity for the pain and suffering they cause. The housing bubble, now the college loan bubble, and Obamacare spread pain and misery. There are a few that do make out…and they are trotted out as examples of “success” while the majority of everyone is worse off because liberals do not undertand basic economics or think they can out smart economic laws.

    So one can argue the “unfairness” you see, the deck being stacked against the less equal, is cause by the government trying to help but ultimately doing just the opposite.

  5. Keith says:

    How on earth can anyone still be supporting Hillary?

    She has 1,800 classified email on her private server.
    Her explains room of nothing was marked classified when I received it
    Or sent it… So assuming she really didn’t instruct other to cut and paste as a way of avoiding the marking it begs a very obvious observation. She stupid and can’t be trusted as president, or any other job for that matter, to handle serious information. How can she after 1,800 what later were classified, being generous, and not know what the information was. Worst still to keep doing it. Let’s never forget she is a lawyer and she ISNT stupid. She knows what she’s reading and knows what should be classified and what shouldn’t be. If she doesn’t then no other conclusion can be reached, that she is stupid. We both know that’s not true.

  6. Jeff Beamsley says:

    No I didn’t. I read that and didn’t dismiss it. Also the part of CEO pay that is t knowable is also true of the work force in general. They also get stock options, cars, country clubs etc. stock options and other compensation is probably great for a CEO/owner but should be.

    First part of motivated reasoning. Attack the data. I believe BLS numbers are coming from IRS data, so much of the compensation that you are referencing IS actually in the numbers. The data that the BLS is getting, though, is de-identified and associated with the company. As you suggest, the “extra” compensation is only going to make the gap between the CEO and worker larger. As far as “fairness” (another moral foundation), we’ll get into that later.

    My over riding point was the warfare on ceo’s if not properly placed.

    So the avg of the largest is $10 million. Avg salary of a top NBA player? To actor in Hollywood? Top singer? Top anything?

    Two parts here. We’ll deal with whether CEO’s have earned their money later.

    The second part compares CEO pay to other high earning individuals like NBA players.

    This is basically a red herring argument that I’ve responded to before. I don’t have any problem with those who earn a lot of money. I do have a problem when wealthy individuals and corporations use their money to warp the system to their benefit by buying political influence.

    The NBA is a meritocracy. Those who play well get paid well because a lot of people enjoy the show. Coaches who win get paid better than coaches who lose. Owners that win make more money than owners that lose. The reason the players get paid well is because they have a strong union and have been able to use their bargaining power to construct a compensation package that let’s them share in wealth that their talent has helped create. If every worker had the same bargaining power that NBA players have, we would not have the unprecedented income inequality that we have today.

    You filtered correctly above as you stated your problem is with those who use their wealth to influence policy… You admit they those with that wealth are a handful of people and it’s not “CEO’s” or top earning CEO’s.

    I guess this depends on your definition of “handful”. If handful means thousands, then perhaps we are OK.

    Now open you mind further. Let’s say we have Bernie’s or the progressives Way. Do you actually think some handful of folks won’t have undue influence. It will never be eliminated and you “fairness” will never be achieved… You’re simple dreaming.

    You’ve used this argument before too. The system will always be biased, so there is no reason to change it.

    I have no problem with the system being biased, as long as that bias benefits the largest number of people. We HAVE had a middle class biased system in the past. The ONLY reason we DON’T have a middle class biased system today is because of the money that has been invested to ARTIFICIALLY bias the system in favor of the wealthy.

    So now let’s get to fairness.

    I’ve spent a lot of time in the past posts digging through this subject. I have no problem with those to work hard, play by the rules, get lucky, and make a lot of money. I DO have a problem with those who use their wealth and influence to bias the game in their favor. That’s not fair.

    So let’s put in place rules that prevent banks from getting too big to fail. Let’s put rules in place that eliminate the carried interest subsidy that taxpayers currently provide some investors. Let’s make sure that those who are SPECULATING not only are able to enjoy the rewards when they succeed, but are responsible to cover their losses when they fail. Let’s make sure that corporations are competing fairly in the market rather than fixing prices and suppressing competition. Let’s make sure that CEO’s can’t manipulate their own stock values in order to maximize their compensation. Let’s stop asking tax payers to subsidize huge CEO compensation by providing corporations a tax break for their executive comp plans. Let’s give stock holders the same sort of leverage in the US that they have in Australia to break up crony boards who are in the pockets of their CEO’s. I have no problem with CEO’s who share in the success of their companies, but let’s make sure that they aren’t doing that by shipping jobs overseas, busting unions, polluting their sites, abandoning communities or holding them ransom for big tax breaks.

    Let’s make sure that Pharma companies are not able to hold patient populations ransom for life saving drugs.

    Let’s make sure that cable companies offer the same competitive rates and services in this country that they do everywhere else in the world.

    Let’s provide voters a real look at who funds our political system and why.

    Let’s stop forcing our children to mortgage their future in order to get a decent education.

    Let’s reform a healthcare system that still has too many people one medical emergency away from bankruptcy.

    Let’s finally admit that we have failing to deliver on the American Dream and figure out how to fix that.

    The success of Bernie and Trump are based on a fundamental rage over the realization that the game is fixed, those who have money have power, and they are not interested in sharing.

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Anecdotal recollection of a study doesn’t qualify as a fact. If you would like to discuss this study, please provide a link to it or an article referencing it, so I can read it too.

  8. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Clearly confirmation bias regarding Hillary’s emails.

    No one has been able to prove that she violated any confidentiality rules. Instead, there is an internal squabble between the State Department, the FBI, and the NSA as they determine what emails can be released and which can’t.

    Until someone proves that she broke the law, this is all just politics.

    As far as who is going to vote for her, it is people who find MUCH more to dislike about ALL of the Republican candidates.

    Elections are about choices.

    This fall we will have another set of imperfect choices.

    But given the polls so far, it appears either Democratic candidate is going to be able to beat whomever the Republicans elect. In part that’s because the Republican candidates are so far out the mainstream that they frighten most everyone who isn’t an ideological right-winger.

    Fortunately, the ideological right wing is a minority in this country.

    You ask how anyone can seriously support Hillary because of how she handled her email?

    How can anyone seriously support Republican candidates who promise to deport 12M undocumented workers? Or build a wall to keep Mexican immigrants out, when more are voluntarily leaving this country than coming in?

    I could go on, but there is no need.

    In the absence of a smoking gun, Hillary will survive this email scandal because in comparison the Republican alternatives are orders of magnitude worse. When a Democratic Socialist is polling higher than the leading Republican candidates, it isn’t because vast swaths of the country have suddenly decided that they don’t mind the word “socialist”. It’s because they HAVE decided that they would rather have a socialist in office than any of the Republican alternatives.

  9. Keith says:

    Not confirmation bias on my part about Hillarys emails but rather particianship on yours!!!! So partician you missed my point which was quite simple.

    These are facts –
    Fact 1,800 emails were mishandled. Classified either before or after they landed on her server. It doesn’t matter.

    Fact – She knows what classified information looks like. Some so classified they can’t even release them now.

    Fact – she knew she was mishandling classified information because she knows what classified information is.

    Fact – she continued to receive classified information on her server.

    Fact – she broke the law by handling classified information on her server and doing nothing about it. People are in jail for this as I type this.

    Fact – the only reason she wouldn’t be guilty is if she were stupid.

    Fact – she’s not wise but she isnt stupid.

  10. Keith says:

    As to your imagration example. It’s interesting to note you can’t even type the word “illegal,” rather you used immigrant. Really makes it hard to carry on this conversation with you when the facts are not facts.

    I do not support rounding up 12 million illegals and sending them home. This isn’t going to happen and everyone knows this. At the same time a majority don’t view them as immagrimt as you do. They are illegals. What most don’t know is the issue for democrats is about one thing. Voting. If republicans have you everything on the issue except the right to vote, there would be no agreement. I know this for a fact as I’ve been told this by a U.S. senator…

    I’d before everything kasich and Rubio are for. Will never get to vote in the end. I would build the wall or somehow control the border. I’m guessing here but this is what Trump would settle for also.

    But you sir can’t even carry on the conversation because the language hasn’t been changed yet full from illegal. Just like gay marriage had to be established first before that change could be made.

    Facts.

  11. Keith says:

    And the American Dream is not dead. Why are you so gloomy? Has Obama wrecked to dream that much? Spare me the obvious answers we both don’t need them again.

  12. Keith says:

    you want to talk about inequality? Read below. This I will agree with. And you want to give government MORE power.

    By PEGGY NOONAN
    Feb. 25, 2016 8:02 p.m. ET
    497 COMMENTS
    We’re in a funny moment. Those who do politics for a living, some of them quite brilliant, are struggling to comprehend the central fact Republican primary race, while regular people have already absorbed what has happened and is happening. Journalists and politicos have been sharing schemes for how Marco parlays a victory out of winning nowhere, or Ted roars back, or Kasich has to finish second in Ohio. But in my experience any nonpolitical person on the street, when asked who will win, not only knows but gets a look as if you’re teasing him. Trump, they say.

    I had such a conversation again Tuesday with a friend who repairs shoes in a shop on Lexington Avenue. Jimmy asked me, conversationally, what was going to happen. I deflected and asked who he thinks is going to win. “Troomp!” He’s a very nice man, an elderly, old-school Italian-American, but I saw impatience flick across his face: Aren’t you supposed to know these things?

    In America now only normal people are capable of seeing the obvious.

    Advertisement

    But actually that’s been true for a while, and is how we got in the position we’re in.

    Last October I wrote of the five stages of Trump, based on the Kübler-Ross stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Most of the professionals I know are stuck somewhere between four and five.

    But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.

    There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

    The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

    I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.

    They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.

    Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

    One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and western Europe is immigration. It is THE issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

    It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump.

    Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.

    If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

    Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.

    It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

    The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.

    Mr. Trump came from that.

    Similarly in Europe, citizens on the ground in member nations came to see the EU apparatus as a racket—an elite that operated in splendid isolation, looking after its own while looking down on the people.

    In Germany the incident that tipped public opinion against the Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy happened on New Year’s Eve in the public square of Cologne. Packs of men said to be recent migrants groped and molested groups of young women. It was called a clash of cultures, and it was that, but it was also wholly predictable if any policy maker had cared to think about it. And it was not the protected who were the victims—not a daughter of EU officials or members of the Bundestag. It was middle- and working-class girls—the unprotected, who didn’t even immediately protest what had happened to them. They must have understood that in the general scheme of things they’re nobodies.

    What marks this political moment, in Europe and the U.S., is the rise of the unprotected. It is the rise of people who don’t have all that much against those who’ve been given many blessings and seem to believe they have them not because they’re fortunate but because they’re better.

    You see the dynamic in many spheres. In Hollywood, as we still call it, where they make our rough culture, they are careful to protect their own children from its ill effects. In places with failing schools, they choose not to help them through the school liberation movement—charter schools, choice, etc.—because they fear to go up against the most reactionary professional group in America, the teachers unions. They let the public schools flounder. But their children go to the best private schools.

    This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens.

    And a country really can’t continue this way.

    In wise governments the top is attentive to the realities of the lives of normal people, and careful about their anxieties. That’s more or less how America used to be. There didn’t seem to be so much distance between the top and the bottom.

    Now is seems the attitude of the top half is: You’re on your own. Get with the program, little racist.

    Social philosophers are always saying the underclass must re-moralize. Maybe it is the overclass that must re-moralize.

    I don’t know if the protected see how serious this moment is, or their role in it.

  13. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Not surprised that you like Peggy Noonan’s opinions.

    Also not surprised that one of Ronald Reagan’s speechwriters would continue to suggest that government is the problem.

    Also not surprising that she uses an incident in Germany with primarily a Muslim-based immigrant population to suggest that there are (or will be) similar problems with a primarily Latino immigrant population in this country. She has to resort to this simplistic “apples and oranges” comparison, because there ARE NO similar incidents in this country that she can refer to. Even though we’re had a population of undocumented workers in this country for hundreds of years.

    Finally, not surprised at the claim that those “unprotected” are not only aware of the problems, but the problem has been ignored by the “protected” political class for purely self-serving purposes.

    All of this is self-serving hooey intended to promote some revisionist history about Reagan and government. Reagan was the last president to sign an immigration reform bill in 1986. It offered both amnesty and a path to citizenship. During a presidential debate in 1984 he said, “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.”

    He recognized, as anyone who looks at the facts, that immigrants strengthen this country, not weaken it. The reason why we don’t have the problems that we’ve seen in Germany is because we DO give any child born in this country citizenship. European countries don’t do that. As a result, they have created a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers who have only known their host country but will never have a say in how that country moves forward.

    The worst part of about it is that she perpetuates conservative myths regarding immigration (I’ll probably post something on that in my conservative myth series).

    Impact on labor markets – in 2013 the CBO studies the economic effects of legally admitting hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers. The conclusion was that the significant boost to the economy would ultimately raise wages .5%. Illegal immigrants are now primarily filling low wage jobs which in fact support higher wage jobs filled by US citizens. The waiter in NYC needs illegal immigrants washing the dishes and helping cook. The farmer needs illegal immigrant field workers. The packing plant staff need illegal immigrant line workers. NAFTA did see some manufacturing jobs move to mexico, but that was NOT the result of illegal immigration. It was entirely legal trade deals paid for by wealthy corporations. NAFTA, btw, did also include a requirement that Mexico eliminate their tariffs on US produce. The resulting export boom for US farmers of US subsidized corn put Mexican farmers out of business. They had no choice but to leave their farms and see work in the fields of their US competitors.

    Financial costs – That same CBO report said that legalizing the current illegal immigrants in this country would reduce US deficits $175B in the first 10 years and $700B in the second decade.

    Crime – Illegal immigrants are less likely to be arrested than current citizens. As the illegal immigrant population increases in any particular region, the crime rate actually goes down.

    Sense that the rule of law was collapsing – That is the result of false claims by conservative politicians playing off people’s fears. Illegal immigration in this country is now largely Asian rather than Latin American. As David Brooks observed, the likely effect of building a wall on our southern border would be to reduce the OUTFLOW of illegal immigrants returning home. Without a wall, the outflow currently exceeds the inflow.

    I do agree that there is a problem between the “protected” and the “unprotected”, but Noonan jumped the tracks when she dragged out that old Reagan scapegoat of the “government”.

    The “protected” are those who have used the wealth and power to create a cozy relationship with the government and every other significant social institution in this country. The “unprotected” are finally waking up to the fact that the game at every level is rigged to benefit those who have the power, rather than those who have the talent, ambition, and votes.

    Noonan tries to blame government for this failure to properly protect those that it is supposed to serve.

    On this I AGREE.

    Government is SUPPOSED to protect the little guy against the big guy.

    Government is FAILING to do its job because too many of those who are supposed to be representing us, are instead representing those who are providing them campaign funding and a promise of employment after their time in office is done.

    I agree that we don’t need more of the “crony capitalism” government of Reagan, Bush, and to some degree Clinton.

    We DO need MORE of the government who is going to “protect” the little guy rather than the big guy.

  14. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW, used “Illegal” in the previous post.

    Hope you feel better.

    I don’t see any difference between undocumented worker and illegal immigrant, but that is really style versus substance. Both descriptions are factually accurate. So please don’t claim otherwise.

    I do not support rounding up 12 million illegals and sending them home. This isn’t going to happen and everyone knows this.

    This “everyone knows” stuff is delusional. Trump and Cruz support mass deportation. Rubio doesn’t. If you don’t support mass deportation, the logical thing to do is not support Trump and Cruz. One of the reasons that people will support Hillary is because she does not support mass deportation.

    At the same time a majority don’t view them as immagrimt as you do. They are illegals. What most don’t know is the issue for democrats is about one thing. Voting. If republicans have you everything on the issue except the right to vote, there would be no agreement. I know this for a fact as I’ve been told this by a U.S. senator…

    Sorry, but no “facts” in this statement. If you have some survey from a reputable organization to support these claims, please post it and we can discuss. This reflects your opinion which is fine. Claiming some Senator told you something is not a fact, though it is certainly interesting.

    I’d before everything kasich and Rubio are for. Will never get to vote in the end. I would build the wall or somehow control the border. I’m guessing here but this is what Trump would settle for also.

    Please define what you mean by “control the border” and then please post something that suggests that the border isn’t already under control. I have posted data which support the fact that illegal Mexican immigration through our southern border is at net zero. There are as many illegal immigrants leaving (voluntarily or forcefully), as are coming. Obama has deported a record number of illegal immigrants during his term.

    But you sir can’t even carry on the conversation because the language hasn’t been changed yet full from illegal. Just like gay marriage had to be established first before that change could be made.

    Obviously I don’t have a problem using the word “illegal”. I prefer the word “undocumented”, but clearly you’ve got a problem with that.

    Yes language does have power, but because of free speech, I can use whatever language I choose.

    So I will continue to use “undocumented” and I’m happy for what little influence my use of “gay marriage” has had in getting those laws change.

    The claim that the use of these words is somehow responsible for a larger change in the electorate regarding either of these issues is a fact that you have failed to prove.

  15. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I guess we need to revisit the definition of “FACT”. The definition is “a thing that is indisputably the case.”

    Within the context of this blog, we have agreed to rely on independent unbiased sources to validate things either of us claim are facts. So let’s apply this rule to your claims.

    Fact 1,800 emails were mishandled. Classified either before or after they landed on her server. It doesn’t matter.

    There is an ongoing investigation regarding these emails. None of those investigations has produced any documents supporting your claim. If you have evidence that any of these investigations has produced the conclusions you claim, please post it. Otherwise this is not a fact. It is only a conjecture on your part. Claiming that it is a fact, is your opinion driven by your political position. That’s the definition of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

    Fact – She knows what classified information looks like. Some so classified they can’t even release them now.

    What she knew or didn’t know is certainly a key part of the investigation, but one that remains unproven. Please post something that proves this claim and we can discuss it. Instead what you are doing is extrapolating a dispute between the State Department, the Clinton campaign, and the inspector generals office. The State Department wants to release emails that IG says should be classified.

    Fact – she knew she was mishandling classified information because she knows what classified information is.

    See above. Until someone can prove that she was intentionally mishandling classified information, you cannot state this as fact. It is simply your opinion and reflects your own political bias.

    Fact – she continued to receive classified information on her server.

    Her claim is that she never received any email that was marked as classified. You are saying that she should have known that some of the email that was not marked classified should have been marked classified. No investigation has yet proven that she received an email that was marked classified. No investigation has yet proven that she should have known that some of the email that she received should have been marked classified. Also I’m not sure that receiving “mismarked” email is a crime. Also I’m not sure that someone is required by law to treat something as classified just because it looks like it should be classified.

    Until you have something that supports either of your claims, which depend on various definitions of the word “classified”, you don’t have a fact. You only have an opinion.

    Fact – she broke the law by handling classified information on her server and doing nothing about it. People are in jail for this as I type this.

    If she did break a law, then someone should indict her and she should have a chance to defend herself. If there are people in jail for this now, please post some details of their cases and we can discuss how similar or different they are to this case. Until she is indicted, your claim that she has broken the law is your opinion. It is not a fact.

    Fact – the only reason she wouldn’t be guilty is if she were stupid.

    Fact – she’s not wise but she isnt stupid.

    Obviously these last two are not facts.

    Guilt is something that has to be proven in our system of justice. Without proof, the presumption is that you are innocent. She could be innocent because ultimately there is no proof. So clearly your claim is not only a fact, it is a false claim. She is currently innocent under the law until proven otherwise. You may not like it, but that’s the way our system works.

    As far as her wisdom or stupidity, those are opinions not facts. You are welcome to your opinions, but you are not welcome to characterize them as facts.

  16. Jeff Beamsley says:

    As I’ve said before, I think that Hillary made a terrible choice in opting for a private email server. It was arrogant and short-sighted. Even if she is indicted and convicted of a felony, there is nothing in our constitution that prevents her from running for President.

    So the discussion that this particular choice disqualifies her from running is wrong. She clearly isn’t going to get your vote, but I’m not sure she would have got it even before this email scandal came out.

    It is also patently obvious that all of the known information that could possibly damage her is already out there. There may be additional discoveries as these investigations progress, but I suspect the worst is already out there.

    If this assumption proves true, and she does get the nomination, then the american people will have a choice.

    You may not like that choice, but the constitution doesn’t promise you a choice that you like. It only promises you one vote.

    You may choose to use that vote based on who you trust most.

    A lot of people will likely do that.

    But a lot of people are going to trust Hillary not to deport immigrants more than they will trust ANY Republican.

    A lot more people are going to trust Hillary to support basic civil rights and criminal reform than will trust ANY Republican.

    A lot more people are going to trust Hillary to take substantive action on climate change and environmental protection that will trust ANY Republican.

    I could go on, but the fact is that Democrats have a demographic majority in this country. Democrats win in elections with big turnouts.

    This election has all of the earmarks of a big turnout because the differences between the parties are so stark. Republicans have again managed to upset every segment of the Obama coalition. They have upset women with their assault on choice. They have upset of the professional class with their assault on science. They have upset immigrants by demonizing them. They have upset young people by opposing gay marriage and college loan relief. They have upset union members by their continued assault on unions. They have upset poor people with their threats to repeal obamacare.

    Republicans are going to end up running an extreme candidate who will only make the choice easier for those in the middle. Many may not like Hillary, but they will be voting against the Republican party rather than for Hillary.

    If that happens, the Dems will likely take back the senate.

    The real question will then be raised. Can the Republican party survive now that the angry trumpsters have all identified themselves as only loosely affiliated with the core Republican platform?

    That same question was asked when Obama crushed John McCain.

    The difference was that Obama tried to make peace with Republicans and sought some sort of middle ground in order to make progress.

    Hillary has spent too much time in Washington to try that. She will have no problem confronting Republican obstructionism through exactly the same playbook that Obama used in his last term. She will have the added benefit of a more friendly SCOTUS and a fracturing Republican party.

    If the court provides her more leeway on executive orders, then she has some real leverage.

    If she can play the Trumpists off against the tea party and the old establishment, she could easily forge a coalition in the house that she could work with. That’s because there is going to be a lot of jockeying to see who is going to be able to leverage this new constituency that Trump created.

    That would play to her strength of being a political operative rather than an ideologue.

    It certainly would be an interesting turn of events.

  17. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Sanders and Trump are rising largely because they are amplifying the voices of constituencies that have usually been outshouted in fights for their party’s nomination. For Trump, that key constituency is working-class Republicans; for Sanders, it’s the Millennial generation. By demonstrating—and crystallizing—these groups’ electoral clout, each man is signaling a lasting internal power shift in the party he is seeking to lead.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/trump-blue-collar-sanders-millenials/463206/

    Both groups have been underserved by their parties. Blue color Republicans feel that the party has been mislead by the white collar establishment. Millenials feel that they have the demographic cloud to refocus the Democratic party on issues that they care most about like college education debt.

    Both groups are objecting to the fact that the American Dream is no longer within their grasp.

    “The American Dream is dead” Donald Trump.

    “The American Dream is a nightmare” Bernie Sanders.

    If you feel that these people are mistaken, please feel free to post something that supports your point of view.

    These people, however, are voting with their feet and obviously their passion is supporting a populist uprising in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

  18. Keith says:

    At times like this it’s difficult to respond to you.

    Reagan and the Bush’s and “to some extent Clinton’s” croney capitalism. TO SOME EXTENT???? And no mention of Obama. Jeff you are not a serious commentator.

    You can find the spec of soil on a nats wing for GW but can’t even open your eyes and glance for a moment at Hillarys emails and make some sort of comment other than there’s nothing there until the FBI says there is. Have you not read even one of the emails that’s was released?

    It really makes it hard to respond to anything you’ve mentioned above.

  19. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Reagan and the Bush’s and “to some extent Clinton’s” croney capitalism. TO SOME EXTENT???? And no mention of Obama. Jeff you are not a serious commentator.

    Trying to remain in the realm of facts.

    If that makes it difficult to respond to, I guess you’re just going to have to work on that.

    I don’t really care whether or not you feel I’m a serious commentator. I just like writing about things that interest me. With regard to Obama’s record regarding crony capitalism, no less that David Brooks whom I believe is highly regarded as a “serious commentator”, wrote a whole column on the subject and happens to agree with me.

    Many of the traits of character and leadership that Obama possesses, and that maybe we have taken too much for granted, have suddenly gone missing or are in short supply.

    The first and most important of these is basic integrity. The Obama administration has been remarkably scandal-free. Think of the way Iran-contra or the Lewinsky scandals swallowed years from Reagan and Clinton.

    If you think that we’ve both missed some big scandal or some obvious example of Obama paying off his major supporters please post it.

    As far as Hillary is concern, I’ve already said it was arrogant and short-sighted. I’m not going to call it illegal until someone with better understanding of the law around handling of classified documents indicts her. This is one of those situations where there is a lot of smoke, but no fire.

    GW started a war on false pretenses. That one act cost our country between $4t-$6T and killed 500,000 people. Dick Cheney said we would be welcomed as liberators. GW said “mission accomplished”. GW said that we didn’t torture and we didn’t spy on our own citizens. GW was buddies with Ken Lay and then denied it when Enron collapsed. GW presided over the largest real estate bubble in history the nearly collapsed the world financial system. I could go on, but it is going to take a while before we get to the “spec of soil on a nats wing”.

    Obama’s biggest lie according to you? “If you like your insurance carrier, you can keep it”. How many people did that lie kill? How much money did that cost taxpayers? What financial crisis did that cause?

    I’m asking you to respond with facts to support your claims. I’ve also encouraged you to hold me to that same standard.

    Sorry if that’s hard for you.

  20. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW – Let’s keep this simple and start with something that should be easy to find, if it is indeed there.

    You said – she broke the law by handling classified information on her server and doing nothing about it. People are in jail for this as I type this.

    I asked that you post an article that details one of these convictions so that we could compare it with what Hillary has done.

    Please post details about the cases that you were referencing.

  21. Keith says:

    Here’s one example – Chaney didn’t make a false claim about being created as liberators… He was simply wrong. Iraq was a war Hilliary voted for and was as hawkish as anyone. Are you going to hold her accountable? She was wrong also.

    You’re simply going to have to grow up and quit spinning about Bush collapsing the economy with a housing bubble. It simply isn’t so…. That was a long time in the making and we all caused it including anyone who took a sub prime loan. I asked you to go see the movie the big short. WE ALL did it.

    Obama pimped the bond holders in the auto bail out. Tell me again how the unions got shares of the new companies but the bond holders didn’t. That’s croney capitalism. Care to discuss the investment in bankrupt solar companies? Stay on point Jeff, you said croney capitalism… Not scandal.

    As to compare to Hilliary general Patraus. There are thousands more.

    Note – See anyone in jail for mishandling information.

    You are not ignorent (and that is a fact😄) don’t act like it

  22. Keith says:

    You say the American Dream is dead and it’s certainly your right.

    Here’s and out take from Watren Buffets most recent annual letter to shareholders

    * * * * * * * * * * * *
    It’s an election year, and candidates can’t stop speaking about our country’s problems (which, of course, only they can solve). As a result of this negative drumbeat, many Americans now believe that their children will not live as well as they themselves do.
    That view is dead wrong: The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.
    American GDP per capita is now about $56,000. As I mentioned last year that ‘ in real terms ‘ is a staggering six times the amount in 1930, the year I was born, a leap far beyond the wildest dreams of my parents or their contemporaries. U.S. citizens are not intrinsically more intelligent today, nor do they work harder than did Americans in 1930. Rather, they work far more efficiently and thereby produce far more. This all-powerful trend is certain to continue: America’s economic magic remains alive and well.
    Some commentators bemoan our current 2% per year growth in real GDP ‘ and, yes, we would all like to see a higher rate. But let’s do some simple math using the much-lamented 2% figure. That rate, we will see, delivers astounding gains.
    7
    America’s population is growing about .8% per year (.5% from births minus deaths and .3% from net migration). Thus 2% of overall growth produces about 1.2% of per capita growth. That may not sound impressive. But in a single generation of, say, 25 years, that rate of growth leads to a gain of 34.4% in real GDP per capita. (Compounding’s effects produce the excess over the percentage that would result by simply multiplying 25 x 1.2%.) In turn, that 34.4% gain will produce a staggering $19,000 increase in real GDP per capita for the next generation. Were that to be distributed equally, the gain would be $76,000 annually for a family of four. Today’s politicians need not shed tears for tomorrow’s children.
    Indeed, most of today’s children are doing well. All families in my upper middle-class neighborhood regularly enjoy a living standard better than that achieved by John D. Rockefeller Sr. at the time of my birth. His unparalleled fortune couldn’t buy what we now take for granted, whether the field is ‘ to name just a few ‘ transportation, entertainment, communication or medical services. Rockefeller certainly had power and fame; he could not, however, live as well as my neighbors now do.
    Though the pie to be shared by the next generation will be far larger than today’s, how it will be divided will remain fiercely contentious. Just as is now the case, there will be struggles for the increased output of goods and services between those people in their productive years and retirees, between the healthy and the infirm, between the inheritors and the Horatio Algers, between investors and workers and, in particular, between those with talents that are valued highly by the marketplace and the equally decent hard-working Americans who lack the skills the market prizes. Clashes of that sort have forever been with us ‘ and will forever continue. Congress will be the battlefield; money and votes will be the weapons. Lobbying will remain a growth industry.
    The good news, however, is that even members of the ‘losing’ sides will almost certainly enjoy ‘ as they should ‘ far more goods and services in the future than they have in the past. The quality of their increased bounty will also dramatically improve. Nothing rivals the market system in producing what people want ‘ nor, even more so, in delivering what people don’t yet know they want. My parents, when young, could not envision a television set, nor did I, in my 50s, think I needed a personal computer. Both products, once people saw what they could do, quickly revolutionized their lives. I now spend ten hours a week playing bridge online. And, as I write this letter, ‘search’ is invaluable to me. (I’m not ready for Tinder, however.)
    For 240 years it’s been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. America’s golden goose of commerce and innovation will continue to lay more and larger eggs. America’s social security promises will be honored and perhaps made more generous. And, yes, America’s kids will live far better than their parents did.

  23. Keith says:

    If Hillary you are fine not being concerned about hillaries emails because she hasn’t been charged shouldn’t you be fine with GW and Wall Street. No one was charged.

  24. Keith says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/29/the-state-department-concludes-there-is-top-secret-material-in-hillary-clintons-email-correspondence-from-her-time-as-secretary-of-state/

    Im quite certain you trust the Washington post?

    Fact… She deleted 31,000 emails. What gave her the right to determine which should be deleted. This in itself is mishandling ….

  25. Keith says:

    I’m not post this accusations as a means to beat up Hillary as I’m NOT casting the first stone as I’m unable. However does any of this matter? How much is true? How much more is there???

    If you’re under 50 you really need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!

    When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

    Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

    Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

    Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

    Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

    Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

    Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

    Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

    She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

    She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

    After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

    Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for ‘lying under oath’ to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

    Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

    After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

    What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?

    Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

    But to her loyal fans (supporters) – I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?”

  26. Keith says:

    And not that I’m counting but Obama said much more then if you like your doctor you can keep it. He also said amoung many many others things, if you like your plan you can keep it. There will not be a tax. Oops John Roberts had to make it a tax to find it legal. There wouldn’t be a mandate. Shovel ready jobs. The Boston police acted stupidly. Etc etc etc.

    Jeff if your going to use the word Christian then you simply can not be biased. You can certainly have options and thoughts and you should fight for them. But you simply can not be dishonest by calling things out one way for one side but not the other.

  27. Keith says:

    https://23980.api-03.com/serve?action=click&publisher_id=23980&site_id=2787&ref_id=CD42385p8c9caf0e-49ba-4714-b526-576ebd0410ab___198912___251236___wANKH1J2IBUO282RGFS1J7HI&sub_publisher=CD42385&sub_site=8c9caf0e-49ba-4714-b526-576ebd0410ab

    Here they are, city by city. Thieves , greedy unrepentant thieves! They are what’s wrong with our society!!!! Tax them before you throw them in jail though.

    Forgive my sarcasm Jeff

  28. Keith says:

    Jeff,
    Here’s how media bias works.

    Trump and David Duke are making news.

    How about Hillary saying kind words or endorsing the last remaining KKK member in the House of Representatives Senator Bryd?

  29. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Here’s one example – Chaney didn’t make a false claim about being created as liberators… He was simply wrong. Iraq was a war Hilliary voted for and was as hawkish as anyone. Are you going to hold her accountable? She was wrong also.

    and

    And not that I’m counting but Obama said much more then if you like your doctor you can keep it. He also said amoung many many others things, if you like your plan you can keep it. There will not be a tax. Oops John Roberts had to make it a tax to find it legal. There wouldn’t be a mandate. Shovel ready jobs. The Boston police acted stupidly. Etc etc etc.

    You ignored the difference.

    Chaney used his lies to start a war. You give him a break because you assume he was sincere when he said we were going to be treated as liberators. Then you turn right around and say that everything that Obama has said that turned out not to be 100% true was a calculated lie of the same gravity as the ones in the Bush administration. You also choose to ignore the obvious FACT that no one has gone to jail on Obama’s watch for actions of his administration. Sorry but they are simply not equivalent. They are representative of political bias (your’s and mine). The difference is that there are other “unbiased” people like David Brooks who share my view. I think you are going to be seriously challenged to find other “unbiased” people who are going to support your view of Chaney.

    BTW I DO hold Hillary accountable for her vote on the Iraq war and will likely vote for Bernie in the Michigan primary.

    In the fall election, however, there are no Republicans who even come close and I think even you would forgive me for not voting for Trump.

    BTW, you continue to be obsessed with Hillary and her email. The FBI is going to wrap up their investigation soon and are not going to indict anyone.

    I asked you for examples of the “thousands” who are in jail for actions similar to Hillary.

    You gave me Petraeus. He did not go to jail. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information which he gave to his mistress who was also his biographer.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-david-petraeus-avoided-felony-charges-and-possible-prison-time/2016/01/25/d77628dc-bfab-11e5-83d4-42e3bceea902_story.html

    Please pick another case from the “thousands” that you say exist and we can discuss this further.

    I will not do your work for you.

    You also have the auto bailout WAY wrong – but that’s not surprising.

    GM was bankrupt. That’s why the stock holders were wiped out. They owned the company. The company debts ($173B) were larger than its assets ($83B). So the value of their stock would was essentially their part of the $9B loss. In other words, nothing. The unions and the bond holders and the banks all had claims on the assets (debts) that would have to be resolved by a court. That’s how bankruptcy works.

    That would mean either restructuring or liquidating the company. The plan to restructure the company started well before Obama took office. Here are the details if you are interested what really happened.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2013/10/30/how-general-motors-was-really-saved-the-untold-true-story-of-the-most-important-bankruptcy-in-u-s-history/#68a032275acc

    Why Obama gets to claim credit for this is because it was his majority won by his 2008 election that passed the government loan to make it possible for GM to restructure and rebound spectacularly. Republicans including Mitt Romney said that the government shouldn’t get involved and should allow GM to be liquidated. That probably cost him the 2012 election. That’s the real story, rather than the warped one you’ve tried to tell.

  30. Jeff Beamsley says:

    OK, I like Warren Buffett too. So we can both agree that the future is bright for the American economy and specifically “America’s social security promises will be honored and perhaps made more generous.”? That would be real progress for you.

    Warren doesn’t say much here about social and economic mobility, and how mobility in this country compares with that in other countries.

    He only says that the lifestyle of everyone here has improved because among other things, technology is basically affordable for everyone.

    I’ve already posted LOTS of stuff supporting the position that economic mobility is decreasing in this country.

    You haven’t yet posted anything to refute that.

  31. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I have not suggested that GW be tried for war crimes, though I suspect a case could be made. Not sure what would be gained. His policies and his legacy have been pretty much abandoned by his own party. If Hillary wins the Presidency and the Dems retake the Senate, the Republican party is likely to collapse. Historians will likely blame the Bush administration for sowing the seeds of that destruction.

    I also agreed with Obama’s decision not to prosecute Wall Street leaders. First, he needed them on board to save the economy. Second, the corruption was so widespread, I’m not sure where such an investigation would start or end. It could certainly extend to Greenspan would would be very dangerous for the independence of the Fed.

    BTW, Hillary’s private email server pales in comparison to the damage done to the country by GW and Wall Street. So please don’t even attempt to put them in the same category.

  32. Jeff Beamsley says:

    This was an article from January 29th. So there have likely been some updates since then.

    What you neglected to mention was that the FBI claims that they have recovered the deleted emails.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/23/442797133/fbi-investigators-recover-clinton-emails-thought-to-have-been-deleted

    If she violated any law by deleting any emails, the FBI should be able to easily determine that.

    I don’t believe that there is any requirement for her to retain her personal emails. If there is such a requirement, please post something to support that claim.

    She also retained a law firm to review the emails on her server before she turned them over to the State Department.

    I don’t know how many of the 31K emails that were deleted were done by her and how many were deleted by her lawyers.

    Bottom line is that the FBI is going to wrap up their investigation in the near future. They have had the full cooperation from Clinton and her team. They also gave immunity to the guy who setup and ran the email service for her. Doesn’t appear that there is going to be any “Watergate” type coverup here.

    My other prediction is that it won’t matter to you at all what the FBI says.

    So much for facts.

  33. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Regarding the slam piece that you have posted – if this was something that you authored, please post the sources for your claims.

    If this was something that someone else created, please post the author so we can determine how much of this to pay attention to.

    Here are just a couple of examples of how scurrilous these claims are.

    After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

    Politifact rates this one “mostly false”

    Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

    Politifact weighed in on this one too agreeing that the investigations failed to find anything on which to indict Bill or Hillary.

    What you don’t appear to recognize is that those inclined to vote for Hillary have already lived through eight years of these sorts of attacks on Obama. Those that are old enough remember the same attacks on Clinton. These sorts of things are only going to remind voters why they need to go to the polls.

  34. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Not sure how often I need to remind you that I agree that Obama lied about how Obamacare was going to affect some of those who enrolled.

    It was the lie of the year for Politifact in 2013, but Obama took responsibility and apologized for misleading the American people.

    How many people died as a result of that lie?

    How many people lost their jobs or lost their homes as a result of that lie?

    Did Bush ever apologize for invading Iraq on false pretenses? The best he could do is blame it on the intelligence community, but that completely ignores his responsibility since there where plenty of people telling him that the data was bad.

    Did Bush apologize to the american people because he helped deregulate the banks and believed that the financial system could manage itself? The best he could come up with was that he was sorry it was happening, but he never took responsibility.

    Scooter Libbey went to jail for protecting Dick Chaney after Dick deliberately outed a CIA agent in retaliation for an op-ed that her husband authored. That op-ed refuted the administrations claim that Saddam was trying to purchase nuclear weapons material. Just another example, BTW, of the data out there before the invasion suggesting that Saddam did not have WMD’s. Did Dick ever apologize for lying about his role in destroying the careers of three people?

    The lies of the Bush administration cost the Republicans the White House the House and the Senate. Those lies gave Obama the rare congressional majority that he needed to pass healthcare reform.

    The country will have an opportunity to hold the Democrats accountable for whatever shortcomings they feel the Obama administration had. If Hillary gets elected, I think you can put the “Obama lied” stuff to bed.

  35. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Here they are, city by city. Thieves , greedy unrepentant thieves! They are what’s wrong with our society!!!! Tax them before you throw them in jail though.

    Forgive my sarcasm Jeff

    Not sure what this is. Not going to click on a link where the source isn’t clear.

  36. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Trump made news because he claimed that he never knew David Dukes and as a result couldn’t comment on the endorsement he just received from him.

    Politifact rated this “pants on fire”.

    If it was liberal media bias, why was the reporting dominated by attacks on Trump from other Republicans?

    Robert Byrd on the other hand repudiated his youthful involvement with the KKK and called it one of his deepest regrets.

    Hillary was not alone in saying kind things about Robert Byrd on his death.

    So please don’t conflate Robert Byrd with David Duke.

    The only media bias here is the right wing one that would suggest that Hillary’s actions are somehow hypocritical – particularly when Trump was being bashed across the political spectrum.

  37. Keith says:

    Jeff,
    We’re not getting and where here as you are merely repeating the company line. So much so you can’t even read what I’m writing.

    I didn’t defend Chaney. You said he lied when he said we’d be greeted as libaraters. I merely said he didn’t lie as he was predicting what would happen. He was wrong that’s different then a lie.

    If you are concerned about lies then you certainly can’t vote for Hillary in the fall.

    And by the way congratulations on helping Bernie to a win in Michigan. I was actually proud of my home state for voting for anyone other then her. There is no question she is simply the worst of the worst.

  38. Keith says:

    http://madworldnews.com/lead-anti-trump-protester-past/

    So going forward you will name George Soras along with the Koch brothers every time you mention people trying to buy elections.

    Why is protest mostly only used by the left? That’s an honest question.

  39. Keith says:

    Jeff,
    You write about inequality and point to the rich as rigging the game. The game is played by two sides and your view of a one sided game is simply ignorant. You view go t as the keeper or defender of fairness and purity. Nothing could be father from the truth. It’s simply the other side of the coin. Spiritual wickedness is found in humans. We are all sinners. Sinners sin. That’s why we need a savior. The rich or the 1% you believe to be corrupt of arrived there by accident of birth are no different then those in government. I found the below article interesting as I thought of you the whole time while reading.

    BY DAVID LIGHTMAN

    ST. LOUIS
    The people who spend two bucks for chili at the Courtesy Diner at Laclede Station Road can’t fathom why anyone would pay Hillary Clinton $225,000 to make a speech.

    Nor can they understand why the U.S. Senate is taking a 17-day break for Easter after spending much of their time last week fuming over the Supreme Court vacancy. Somehow, people all over America are saying loudly and clearly this election year, Washington and its enablers – the media, the political pros and Wall Street – don’t understand us.

    That’s why, all over this slice of middle America, exasperated people got up before dawn on a cold, 37-degree morning recently to spend four hours in a line so long that from its end people couldn’t even see the Peabody Opera House, where they would hear Donald Trump. And it wasn’t just Trump. In the next two days, other folks nearby lined up to hear the outsider talk from Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Bernie Sanders, Ind.-Vt.

    They share the same grievance. In 2016 America, the deepest divide is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s not even between conservatives and liberals. It’s between Us and Them – the people versus The Establishment.

    ADVERTISING

    inRead invented by Teads

    MORNING CONSULT NATIONAL TRACKING POLL: TOPLINES
    In dozens of interviews, in a cross section of the country, the sentiments were the same.

    “They’re political bureaucrats who would like to control the people,” said Sandy Garber, a St. Charles real estate agent, when asked to define the establishment.

    John Hackmann, a Fairview Heights, Ill., retiree, labeled it a “Washington cartel.”

    “They just let the government do whatever they want,” said Jim Walker, an Arnold, Mo., businessman.

    What is the establishment? Nationally, eight in 10 people told a McClatchy-Morning Consult poll this month it includes members of Congress. Similar numbers cited the Democratic and Republican parties, political donors, Wall Street bankers and the mainstream media.

    71% Percentage of people who see the nation on the wrong track, according to a new McClatchy-Morning Consult poll.
    They split on whether Trump, a billionaire real estate developer who’s thrived in the New York business world, was part of the establishment, but seven in 10 said Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton was.

    In essence, the establishment lives and thrives in a small world that lives and works in New York and Washington, on Wall Street, in Big Media, and in Politics, connected by the high-speed Acela corridor and often by mutual self interest.

    Many, perhaps most, do care deeply about the common good though they are anything but common themselves. They hire each other and each other’s children. They huddle at the same white tie and black tie dinners. And, they sometimes attend each other’s weddings.

    Eleven years ago, for instance, Trump got married for the third time. The over-the-top Palm Beach wedding in 2005 was a who’s who of elites, including Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    Access is this group’s common currency. Wall Street spends millions to open doors to the top levels of the government that regulates it. Politicos bend over to get access to the money that keeps them in office. The media cut deals to get access to decision makers needed to feed ratings and circulation, even if sometimes at the cost of objectivity.

    “It’s a collection of people who live in Washington, D.C., and don’t care about the rest of the world,” said Hackmann. And, he noted, “They all have jobs.”

    THE DC-NY AXIS

    “The establishment is anybody with big money who can get to the Congressmen and lobbyists,” said Judy Surak, a nurse from Clemson, South Carolina.

    All over South Carolina, ask the people reveling in the music at Greenville Heritage Main Street Fridays, or starting their day with homemade onion sausage at Lizard’s Thicket on Two Notch Road in Columbia to define the establishment, and they usually echo Surak.

    They often add a gentle qualifier: They don’t want to blow up the political system. They just want it to be more responsive, to work better.

    “The country’s long-term problems have to be fixed within the system we have,” said Mark Cruise, a Columbia executive.

    PEOPLE ARE JUST TIRED OF THE USUAL POLITICIANS.
    Jennifer Johnston, a Kiawah Island, S.C., nurse
    .

    The most wary tend to be better educated, higher earning, older voters, according to the national poll. They tend to see establishment figures easing in and out of lucrative, comfortable jobs, climbing ladders to success that seem unavailable to the rank and file who populate South Carolina’s office cubicles.

    Of 78 members of Congress who left after the 2010 elections, four out of five found work with lobbying firms or clients, state or federal governments or political action committees.

    One of Bill Clinton’s former White House spokesmen hosts an influential network Sunday talk show. NBC hires Chelsea Clinton as a “special correspondent,” paying her a reported $600,000 annually, far above the typical pay for a reporter with no journalistic experience.

    The ties are intricate and deep. Five Treasury secretaries in the past three presidential administrations have either headed big Wall Street firms, or became top executives after leaving their jobs.

    Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court has at least one Ivy League degree. Every president elected since 1988 is an Ivy Leaguer. So are Clinton and Trump.

    Even among Republican presidential candidates who insist they’re running against the establishment, establishment ties have served them well.

    Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, promotes himself as a maverick, but has two Ivy League degrees and worked in state and federal governments before being elected. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio was a congressman for 18 years, then was a senior executive at Lehman Brothers’ investment banking division. Trump’s company is building a luxury hotel five blocks from the White House.

    Somehow, many see Trump through a different lens.

    “He has all he ever wanted. He doesn’t have to bother with this,” explained Elaine Verma, a Kiawah Island court reporter. “He just has the best interests of the United States at heart.”

    WALL STREET and BIG MONEY

    Outside St. Louis in St. Clair County Illinois, people are far removed from Wall Street or Fifth Avenue. They want to know the conditions of their commute on Interstate 64. Or the streets of downtown Belleville, virtually empty by 6 p.m., so there’s easy parking if you want to run in for carry out at the St. Louis Bread Company on Main Street.

    Trying to fathom the stratospheric sums lobbyists and corporations spend to ingratiate themselves with Washington decision-makers is akin to learning a foreign language.

    People here understand this much: “Everybody’s got somebody from Wall Street paying for them,” said David Vail, an O’Fallon, Ill., retiree.

    Corporate and other interests retained 11,465 registered lobbyists last year, spending $3.2 billion, roughly the same amount the United States pledged to poor countries to cope with global warming. To voters, the big money is emblematic of an impenetrable system they have no chance of influencing, let alone understanding.

    WALL STREET AND WASHINGTON ARE ONE AND THE SAME.
    Kevin Sheridan, a journeyman millwright from Fairview Heights, Ill.

    That’s why many cheer when Sanders complains that no one was punished harshly for the financial meltdowns of 2008. His lament touches directly what distresses people about the New York-to-Washington axis. People lost their jobs and homes in that recession. The nation teetered on the brink of an historic financial meltdown. Banks and institutional investors had let the mortgage market run amok.

    “No senior banker tried for crash-related frauds,” said Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate at Public Citizen and former Senate Banking Committee chief of investigations.

    Goldman Sachs, a major Wall Street and Washington player, did agree in 2010 to pay $550 million and change its business practices in order to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges it had misled investors in mortgage dealings as the housing market began to wobble. The company neither admitted nor denied the allegations.

    In January, the company also agreed in principle to a $5 billion settlement that resolved both actual and potential civil claims by the Justice Department, New York and Illinois attorneys general and others “relating to the firm’s securitization, underwriting and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities from 2005 to 2007.”

    Sanders was livid, saying the latest agreement “should make it clear to everyone that the business model on Wall Street is a fraud,” a product of the financial world’s revolving door to Washington.

    Clinton was paid $675,000 for three Goldman Sachs speeches behind closed doors in the years after she left her job as secretary of state in 2013. She demanded transcripts be kept, and so far refuses to release them publicly.

    Andrew Williams, Goldman Sachs spokesman, explained, “Clinton spoke at conferences that we hosted for clients. We host literally hundreds of conferences around the world and continually search for fascinating speakers.” Such speeches are commonplace, he said, and singling out Clinton’s talk is “misleading.”

    THERE IS AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY BUILT ON PROVIDING SPEAKERS FOR CONFERENCES, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW. HIGHLIGHTING THIS SPEECH IN ISOLATION IS MISLEADING.
    Andrew Williams, Goldman Sachs spokesman

    None of this convinces Tronda Minnie, a building service worker from Alton, Ill., that Clinton – or for that matter much of official Washington – can break these ties.

    “I’m for Sanders all the way,” Minnie said. “Where’s (Clinton’s) money coming from?”

    GOVERNMENT’S CLOISTERED WORLD

    Much of the influence industry’s goal is to get a slice of the $4 trillion federal budget.

    “They make these deals, and they profit somehow,” said Richard Shinkle, a pipeline builder from Columbia, Mo.

    “All of them just take money from lobbyists and use it the way they want,” added Ron Lowe, an entertainment theme worker from O’Fallon, Mo.

    In recent years, the budget has become ever more a prize for the establishment insiders, removed even from most members of Congress. The last four annual budget plans have been negotiated by a handful of leaders, including former House Speaker John Boehner, then presented to the rank-and-file as a done deal.

    Conservatives have tried hard to have more clout.

    In 2013, for example, about 20 members of Congress met in the basement of the Tortilla Coast restaurant down the street from the Capitol, where the grilled chicken quesadilla costs $9.95, and a steak burrito with the housemade sauce costs $11.95. Their goal: use the budget leverage to end or at least dilute the Affordable Care Act.

    They lost. The establishment prevailed.

    It’s all part of a shadowy system that, to the people in suburban St. Louis, seems open and approachable only to the well-entrenched and well-heeled.

    Once elected to the Congress, for example, members basically have lifetime employment regardless of elections. In 2014, for example, 95 percent of the members of the House of Representatives won re-election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    A key reason for the insider edge? Money. The average incumbent running in 2012, the last year when full figures were available, raised $1.6 million for the campaign. The average challenger: $268,000.

    It’s an incestuous system, voters say, that’s hard to crack. “The real access causing changes in laws is what big money buys,” explained Vail, the O’Fallon retiree.

    Whoever wins the White House will find the same establishment chiseled into the Washington fabric as firmly as the monuments that dot its landscape.

    Two-thirds of the Senate doesn’t face re-election this year. History says at least 85 percent, and probably many more, House of Representatives members will return. The lobbyists won’t suddenly close their practices. “This isn’t about one person,” said Steven Reinisch, a Missouri investment adviser. “This is about the whole, big picture.”

    David Lightman: 202-383-6101, @lightmandavid

  40. Jeff Beamsley says:

    You write about inequality and point to the rich as rigging the game. The game is played by two sides and your view of a one sided game is simply ignorant. You view go t as the keeper or defender of fairness and purity. Nothing could be father from the truth. It’s simply the other side of the coin. Spiritual wickedness is found in humans. We are all sinners. Sinners sin. That’s why we need a savior. The rich or the 1% you believe to be corrupt of arrived there by accident of birth are no different then those in government. I found the below article interesting as I thought of you the whole time while reading.

    You are still WAY too invested in what David Lightman says is a false equivalence.

    The rich HAVE rigged the game. That’s what Lightman says too.

    The government is doing the bidding of the rich. That is the fault of the Republicans and the Democrats. Ultimately it is the fault of the voters to put more power into the hands of Republicans over the past 40 years or so, but that’s just my opinion.

    I have never said this was a one-sided game. What I HAVE said is that Republicans since Reagan systematically biased the marketplace to benefit the rich. That’s not to say that the Democrats haven’t done their part to feed at the trough of the wealthy, but at least they managed to raise taxes on the rich and extend healthcare to another 15M people over the past 8 years. Both of those things were vigorously opposed by wealthy interests, and Obama had to buy off the insurance companies in order to get healthcare passed. There is clearly more work to do to push the pendulum back in the direction of the middle class. Whether or not this crop of Democrats can get it done is still an open question.

    My claim is that government is the ONLY entity CAPABLE of offsetting the power of private industry. Whether it does that job is up to those of us who choose to vote.

    I’ve also said that no election occurs in a vacuum. We rarely have a perfect choice. Instead we often are choosing the lesser of two evils. That will likely be the case this round too. But the choice for many of us will be fairly simple, only because Trump is SOOOOO much more “evil” than Hillary or Bernie.

  41. Keith says:

    Let be more simple for you. In what form would you like you 1%? It will always exist. I prefer it to not be in government.

Leave a Reply