ChrisWeigant.com

A Response: My Election Blame List

[ Posted Monday, December 5th, 2016 – 18:22 PST ]

This article was written in response to a Huffington Post article by Max Weiss, which was in turn written as a response to a Slate article. The original Slate article was titled: "So We're Still Blaming Jill Stein And James Comey, Huh?" and the Weiss response was titled: "Things I Blame For Hillary Clinton's Loss, Ranked." But the Weiss list was so far removed from my own feelings about the Clinton loss that I felt it was time to respond with my own blame list. It's been a month since the election, so hopefully enough time has passed that Democrats can discuss what went so wrong. So here is my own list of the things I blame for the 2016 election loss, ranked. And I have to quote Weiss in saying (while he was blaming Bernie Sanders): "I know this is going to piss a lot of people off, but so be it."

 

1-15. HILLARY CLINTON AND HER CAMPAIGN

Hillary Clinton was the wrong candidate for this election. She might have won in a different year, against a different opponent. Her strongest point, oddly enough, was the one thing the Democratic National Committee seemed scared to highlight -- she is a great debater, and whether facing Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump did an excellent job on the debate stage. But it just wasn't enough. So here it is, broken down.

(1) Hillary is a bad campaigner. She doesn't have anywhere near the political/people skills her husband does, and it showed throughout the entire election. Clinton is fully capable of showing her human side -- as she actually proved in a speech immediately after the election -- but she seemed incapable of presenting that authenticity to the public during the campaign. Also, imagine just for a minute if Hillary had been more forceful in responding to all of Donald Trump's tweetstorms, in real time. If she had answered back with snappy (and scathing) tweets every single time Trump tweeted something outrageous, then she would have shared all those news cycles with Trump. Is competing for the presidency via Twitter battles unseemly? Sure it is, but Trump just proved how downright effective it can be -- it is, in fact, the new "bully pulpit of the 21st century." Trump used this to his advantage, and Clinton just couldn't keep up.

(2) As the saying goes, "you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose." Hillary Clinton tried to campaign in prose. Over and over again, she refused to do proper sloganeering, instead lapsing into lawyerly talk about incremental changes she felt certain she could actually deliver. But this translates into a posture of timidity, and being unwilling to risk shooting for the moon on any particular issue. That may be a realistic way to govern, but it's not a great way to get elected. Comparing her campaign to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

(3) Because of this, Clinton's entire message could really be boiled down to a rather non-inspirational slogan: "Dream small!" Don't even dream of a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and maybe I'll be able to get something like $12 an hour. Maybe. Free college tuition for some -- not for all. Marijuana legalization needs more "study" before I can even make up my mind on whether I support it or not. Don't break up the big banks, I'll slap them on the wrist and they'll fall into line, trust me. Clinton reinforced this message of cautious baby steps every time she debated Bernie Sanders, even ridiculing Sanders for being too wildly unrealistic. Unfortunately for Clinton, this wasn't what the public was looking for this time around.

(4) If Clinton's incrementalism ever had a chance, it certainly would have been helped if she had more forcefully made the case for Barack Obama's legacy. Maybe this wouldn't have worked in any case -- maybe it was always going to be a "change" election -- but she could have made the attempt with a bit more forcefulness. Reminding voters of what America was like in 2008 when Obama got elected would have strengthened her case for tinkering around the edges.

(5) Clinton's hesitancy was most notable in her economic message. Blue-collar voters just didn't believe her when she promised to "fight every day" for their issues. Her campaign's choice to not visit states like Wisconsin over attempting to flip states like Arizona just reinforced this problem. They would have done a lot better to have adopted the Bill Clinton slogan: "It's the economy, stupid" as their central identity, but they didn't.

(6) The Clinton campaign made a big strategic choice, and it didn't work. They chose to primarily attempt to scare suburban Republican voters into switching their votes from Trump to Clinton. This is the same sort of triangulation that worked well for her husband back in the 1990s, but no matter how many tens of millions of dollars of Trump fearmongering ads they ran, it had a very limited amount of success. The Clinton campaign came off looking angry and trying to fear-monger, instead of positive and hopeful for the future.

(7) Clinton refused to release the transcripts of speeches she gave to the big Wall Street banks and hedge fund managers. This made it look like she was hiding something, which is never a good look for a politician. This also totally undermined all her promises to fight for working-class Joes, since she so obviously was telling them one thing while whistling a completely different tune to (as Bernie would say) the millionaires and billionaires. When Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, for example, very few voters believed that she was sincere in her new-found populism.

(8) This was a larger problem than just her speeches. Hillary Clinton gave rise to an unprecedented amount of distrust among even Democratic voters. When you can't even convince your own base that you are trustworthy and believable, you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone else, to put it bluntly. This was especially pronounced in the youngest voters.

(9) Which leads to a related point. Hillary Clinton just didn't excite young voters. There were a lot of people voting this year who had turned 18 since 2004 -- some of whom are now almost 30 years old -- who had never voted for anyone but Barack Obama for president. That's the level of expectation they had for presidential candidates and presidential campaigns. That's a very hard bar to clear for any candidate, but this year they all flocked to Bernie Sanders only to see Clinton tear him down as much as possible for being too idealistic and promising too much -- which were, in fact, exactly the same things Obama won on. When Sanders lost to Clinton, she had the chance to energize them with her general election campaign, but she failed to do so.

(10) Which brings me to one of the biggest disappointments of Hillary Clinton's entire campaign: her choice of Tim Kaine as her running mate. There was a lot of speculation at the time that Clinton chose Kaine because he was guaranteed never to upstage her in popularity -- she went for boring, instead of trying for some excitement. Imagine how different a Clinton/Warren ticket would have been for young voters. Clinton/Sanders was probably never going to happen, but even something like Clinton picking Sherrod Brown would have gone a long way towards building some excitement in the base (and among undecided blue-collar voters). There were many intriguing possibilities for the veep slot, any one of which might have helped Clinton increase the excitement level, but she chose the one guy seemingly guaranteed not to do so.

(11) Conversely, with voters old enough to recognize the name, Clinton's praise of Henry Kissinger was just downright bizarre. Those too young to know who he was probably weren't affected, but to those Democrats who still consider Kissinger a war criminal (at worst) or the architect of America's realpolitik foreign policy (at best), her continued praise of Kissinger was just inexplicable. Imagine a Democratic candidate in about 15 or 20 years, offering up words of praise for Dick Cheney out on the campaign trail, if you don't understand the magnitude of this error.

(12) Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" is right up there with Mitt Romney's "47 percent" statement. Obama had a similar stumble ("cling to their guns and religion") but managed to overcome it in 2008. When, oh when will Democrats learn that it is just not a good idea to insult a huge portion of the electorate? Sheesh. As Joe Bob Briggs would say: "I'm surprised I have to explain this stuff."

(13) If Team Clinton was going to appeal to voters' fears, they missed a rather large avenue to do so very effectively. If Clinton had won, liberals would have achieved a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court for the first time in roughly 40 years. That's a big deal for a lot of people. We wouldn't have to deal with the outcome of cases like Citizens United if the court was reliably liberal. This is a change that could have made the next few decades a lot better, but Clinton barely mentioned it (especially in her advertising, where it might have done some good with voters not totally enthused to vote for her).

(14) Hillary Clinton would never have had an email problem if she hadn't created her own private server. The problem wouldn't have been as acute if she had handled it differently when the media started making it a big deal. If she had just admitted: "I set up the server because I didn't want every email I ever sent to be used against me politically," then people would have at least believed the explanation. Because she refused to ever admit what was so obvious, the problem dogged her for her entire campaign, as she struggled to parse her answer into something you'd expect in a deposition.

(15) Hillary Clinton's sense of entitlement was on display in the primary campaign in the same way it was in her 2008 primary campaign. How dare any other candidate challenge her for the Democratic nomination! This sense of entitlement -- it was her nomination, and Bernie Sanders should never have even run -- was off-putting to many (even many who didn't even support Sanders). Republicans are the ones who usually respond to this "let's nominate the next one in line" thinking, not Democrats.

 

OK, there were a few others outside of the Clinton campaign who I felt should share the blame, and then at the end I'll get to those who I feel are blameless:

16. JAMES COMEY

The F.B.I. director's actions were unprecedented throughout the campaign. Even J. Edgar Hoover never interfered in elections in such blatant fashion (he favored doing so behind the scenes, to be fair). Comey's original press conference where he castigated Clinton for her email server while saying he wasn't going to recommend indictment was, again, unprecedented. First, this is really the Justice Department's decision, not Comey's; and, second, press conferences are simply not usually held unless the prosecution is going forward. That's normal F.B.I. policy, which was ignored. Third, Comey's October Surprise was possibly the biggest factor in Clinton's loss outside of her own campaign. Comey blatantly interfered in a presidential election, and he shouldn't have. Period.

17. MAINSTREAM MEDIA

The media were unfair to Hillary Clinton. But she should have been ready for it. It's pretty much a given that the media are simply not going to focus on what is important in a presidential election (see: the last 50 years or so of coverage), and are instead going to chase the shiny, shiny objects dangled in front of them. Clinton should have been ready for this onslaught, because it was inevitable.

18. THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

That really should read "...and the entire concept of superdelegates." Debbie Wasserman Schultz was obviously in the tank for Hillary from the get-go, and the machinations that happened to cut Bernie's campaign off at the knees got so bad that Debbie had to resign her position the day the Democratic National Convention kicked off. That's a stunning amount of party disunity to put on display, right at the start of the convention. Plus, Clinton locking up the lion's share of superdelegates early on just contributed to her air of inevitability, which highlighted their anti-democratic (but apparently not anti-Democratic) nature. It's time to rethink the whole superdelegate idea, folks.

19. RUSSIA AND WIKILEAKS

A large part of the D.N.C.'s problem in the general election was the exposure of all of their emails, too. This pulled the curtain back and showed how political operatives talk amongst themselves, and it wasn't pretty.

20. NO NEW ANSWERS FOR THE RUST BELT

Democrats are generally stronger on economic message than Republicans, since they support things like unions, minimum wage raises, guaranteed worker benefits (like sick pay), and equal pay (and too many other economic issues to list, in fact). But they are failing badly in coming up with an answer for what to do to help towns and communities devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Listen close to just about any Democrat, and they'll trot out their only solution: more job training. That's it. That's all they've got. But these communities have seen previous efforts at job training, and they're not impressed. What is the point in getting trained for a different career if there are no jobs in that sector where you live, after all? "Move" seems to be the Democrats' only answer to that, which just isn't good enough. Trump's answers to the problem may not work, but at least he had something new to say to them. Democrats just don't seem to, at least not so far. "Get a better education" sends two messages simultaneously: losing your job when your factory moved overseas was not only your fault, but it was your fault because you are stupid. That's not a great message to inspire these voters, to state the obvious.

21. MADELINE ALBRIGHT AND GLORIA STEINEM

Second and third place in the "worst campaign gaffe" category (after Hillary's "basket of deplorables") went to Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem, two feminist icons. Both used lines that they have used before, to absolutely horrific effect among millions of young, female voters. Albright's: "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other," and Steinem's explanation of why young women were supporting Sanders: "When you're young, you're thinking 'Where are the boys?' The boys are with Bernie," did an unbelievable amount of harm to Clinton's campaign among young voters of both sexes. Albright at least has been using that line (in generic fashion) for a long time, so she thought she could use it during the primary campaign in support of Clinton. Steinem really has no excuse -- that is just as sexist and demeaning a line as anything heard on Mad Men. She's fought her entire life for all women to be treated every bit as intelligent, serious, and influential as men -- and her only answer for Bernie's popularity is that his young female supporters have all seemingly stepped out of a "Gidget" movie? Really? Wow. Millions of young voters were repulsed by these ham-fisted attempts to shame them into supporting Clinton.

22. MISOGYNY

Yep, plenty of misogyny out there. Even among lots of Democrats. No denying it. And it certainly was more pronounced, due to Donald Trump's entire persona and history. But any woman running for president is going to face this. Breaking that glass ceiling will mean future women candidates might face less of it, there's no doubt about that, but misogyny will always be an incredibly strong headwind for the first woman president to have to overcome.

 

And finally, a few things I don't blame for Hillary Clinton's loss:

1. BERNIE SANDERS

Bernie Sanders had every right to run for the Democratic nomination, and his voters had every right to vote for him. Having a tough primary battle doesn't mean your campaign is necessarily weakened -- as Barack Obama proved, in 2008, when Hillary Clinton challenged him. It made him stronger, and he went on to win the general election. So it can be done, no matter how bruising the primary fight was. Once Bernie conceded, he campaigned for Hillary Clinton and tried to get his voters to vote for her. If he hadn't done so, perhaps he would share some blame, but that simply wasn't the case.

2. BERNIE'S MESSAGE

Bernie's message didn't "force Clinton to tack to the left," she decided to do that when it became obvious that his message was resonating better with the Democratic base. Bernie's populism was what people wanted to hear. So was his idealism, and so was his lifelong commitment to fighting for the little guy over Wall Street. If Bernie's message was so bad, then why did Clinton try to co-opt so much of it, after all?

3. JILL STEIN

Just as everyone has a right to run in the primaries, all political parties have the right to run in the general election. Ralph Nader didn't lose the election for Al Gore -- instead, Al Gore did not convince enough Nader voters that Gore was the better choice. Period. That's how elections work. Stein convinced a lot of people to vote for her. That is her right, and it is the American way. Deal with it.

3a. SUSAN SARANDON

Celebrities have rights too, and one of those is the right to advocate for -- or against -- whichever candidate you wish. Period. It's a personal decision, and anyone who says any individual should support a candidate simply because of the "D" after their name just doesn't understand the free nature of American politics -- where nobody else gets to make up your mind for you.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

142 Comments on “A Response: My Election Blame List”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    1-15 is all that matters.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    All that matters with respect to why Clinton lost, that is. Just to be clear.

    Of course, if the question is why the Democrats lost the presidency to Trump ... well, that is a whole other answer, though not at all unrelated. Heh.

    In other words, your prelude to #1 was really all that mattered.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Seriously, I would add one more and put it somewhere between the end of #15 and the beginning of #16:

    Bill Clinton

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think I'd put #20 a bit closer to the prelude to #1.

    The might have been THE reason, in a nutshell, as to why she didn't win.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As for #19, if the Russians wanted to be sure that Hillary would lose, then one might assume that they would have released the most damaging information during the primary season and not AFTER she had won. Bernie might very well have won the nomination if this information was released when he was starting to gain some momentum.

    It surprises me how little attention has been paid - publically, at least - to what the Russians did with the information they gleaned from the Democrats (that is to say, pass it on to WikiLeaks for public consumption) ... even after the election, I would have thought that Russian interference in an American presidential election would have united all Americans in their condemnation of such behavior ...

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    I would have thought that Russian interference in an American presidential election would have united all Americans in their condemnation of such behavior ...

    You are thinking that America is more important than Party. It obviously isn't.

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think it is more simple, and you've already identified it.

    Americans expect to be entertained. Hillary wasn't entertaining to her base so they stayed away in just enough numbers to cost her the election. She didn't fire people up. That just isn't who she is. For all the soul searching and gloating, any Democrat who can whip up populist emotions using the tried and trusted issues that matter to Americans:

    Democrats are generally stronger on economic message than Republicans, since they support things like unions, minimum wage raises, guaranteed worker benefits (like sick pay), and equal pay (and too many other economic issues to list, in fact).

    This is bread and butter to Bernie, Biden, Obama, etc. And a new, younger generation of Democratic politicians now have an empty stage to practice for the next two years in anticipation of the primary jostling after 2018.

    There is one area that nobody has answers to:

    But they are failing badly in coming up with an answer for what to do to help towns and communities devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs.

    Since there are no answers, you just do what Trump did and make empty promises about bringing coal back, or stopping globalization, etc. In four years time things will be worse, sadly, so Trump will be a seen as a failure at best and a BS artist and con man at worst.

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm -

    I refuse to accept that there just are no answers better than "more retraining." Where are all the liberal think tanks putting out white papers on the subject? We've got to get better than just "train for a job that doesn't exist in this county" or "move someplace else."

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, also:

    Over halfway towards out holiday pledge goal. Woo hoo!

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are better answers to this dilemma, Neil ... don't you read Tom Friedman? :)

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do we know what the pledge goal is?

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Chris:

    We are at 4.6% unemployment. When we are at or past the point of full employment then somebody who doesn't have a job either doesn't have the skills or is in the wrong place. Am I missing another explanation?

    The Republican answer is that regulations are too onerous and wages too high to pay Americans to do the jobs that Mexicans or Chinese can do cheaper. Thus remove regulations and get rid of the minimum wage.

    The Democrats have no answer other than retraining, because sometimes problems just don't have another answer, or at least one I can think of, or any liberal think tanks to the best of my knowledge.

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    There are better answers to this dilemma, Neil ... don't you read Tom Friedman? :)

    I've read some of his books, but don't follow his column. I find him a bit "Malcolm Gladwell-ish" - I can't explain it but they both turn me off because I feel they identify a problem then sensationalize.

    Is there some idea he had that is worth looking at?

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting data:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2016/06/06/the-states-with-the-best-and-worst-economies/#60b4cb305b03

    Take out Utah (very hard workers and enlightened local government) and Texas and N. Dakota (petrostates) and it looks like the election map. The successful states are Democratic-led, the losers are Republican-led.

    I think the handwringing about the state of Democratic politics is overblown. If 50,000 more people in MI, WI and PA had got out of bed and voted for Hillary and we'd be reading about the death of the Republican Party, etc.

    Demographically the Democratic Party still has the tailwinds. Minorities are hardly welcoming a Trump presidency, and they are growing as a percentage every election cycle. The young are rejecting Republicans' social policies in droves. The new-car smell of a Republican in the White House will quickly fade and congress will swing left as a counterbalance. The aging 70+ year old baby boomers who have been hogging the commanding heights of the Democratic Party will be replaced by a new wave of millennial leaders.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    My take from the Friedman article: Hillary should have run as a center-right candidate instead of a fake center-left one.

    Fair?

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Don't get stuck on the old right-left spectrum.

    It's about good, future-oriented polices and the ability to communicate.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    policies

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    I'm beginning to understand why so many people don't like Friedman.

  20. [20] 
    John M wrote:

    Chris wrote:

    I refuse to accept that there just are no answers better than "more retraining." Where are all the liberal think tanks putting out white papers on the subject? We've got to get better than just "train for a job that doesn't exist in this county" or "move someplace else."

    BUT, isn't that the ESSENCE of Capitalism??? Hasn't the same thing been going on for hundreds of years??? What about, for example, some of the silver mining towns of the old 1880's west? Towns that had maybe 50,000 people at their height, which were large economic hubs in their day for maybe 50 years? Then the mines played out. TODAY, they are ghost towns, abandoned and where NO ONE lives anymore. How are the coal mining towns of West Virginia any different today? Would anyone fight to bring back Tombstone Arizona and say to hell with Phoenix instead???

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    It's been a month since the election, so hopefully enough time has passed that Democrats can discuss what went so wrong.

    Not by all indications.. According to Democratic Party leadership, they did everything right.. :^/

    Hillary Clinton was the wrong candidate for this election.

    EXACTLY... Because this was a CHANGE/ESTABLISHMENT election and Hillary was the quintessential STATUS QUO/ESTABLISHMENT candidate...

    The Clinton campaign came off looking angry and trying to fear-monger, instead of positive and hopeful for the future.

    Hmmmmmm I believe I heard that EXACT refrain around here for the entire year leading up to the election.. :D

    12) Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" is right up there with Mitt Romney's "47 percent" statement. Obama had a similar stumble ("cling to their guns and religion") but managed to overcome it in 2008. When, oh when will Democrats learn that it is just not a good idea to insult a huge portion of the electorate? Sheesh. As Joe Bob Briggs would say: "I'm surprised I have to explain this stuff."

    Once again, we hear an echo from the past year.. :D I wonder if I'll get any credit for that.. :D heh

    Hillary Clinton would never have had an email problem if she hadn't created her own private server. The problem wouldn't have been as acute if she had handled it differently when the media started making it a big deal. If she had just admitted: "I set up the server because I didn't want every email I ever sent to be used against me politically," then people would have at least believed the explanation. Because she refused to ever admit what was so obvious, the problem dogged her for her entire campaign, as she struggled to parse her answer into something you'd expect in a deposition.

    Yup... Yup.... Yup.....

    Having brown-nosed my way so far :D let me object to a few of your claims..

    JAMES COMEY

    Everything is unprecedented until it happens. What was really unprecedented was having a Democratic Party candidate that was so mired in illegal and criminal activity.. Comey probably felt that he had a duty to the American people to make Clinton's actions known.. But he had to do it in a way that would give BOTH Partys a reason to applaud and castigate his decisions..

    What he chose was the PERFECT compromise..

    Comey did his duty and I, for one, am glad he was there, even if I didn't like many of his decisions and his reasoning.

    I am also constrained to point out that Comey's integrity was WELL ESTABLISHED here in Weigantia *BEFORE* any of this came to a head..

    Comey doesn't deserve any blame.. He deserves to be applauded and thanked...

    MEDIA

    The Lame Stream Media was VERY fair to Clinton.. Overly fair, in fact.. COMPLETELY unfair to Trump..

    When you have reporters going on record and stating that it is their duty to chuck objectivity and fairness out the window and "INSURE" Trump is not elected..... Then you know something is very VERY wrong...

    RUSSIA AND WIKILEAKS

    There has been absolutely NO VERIFIABLE facts to support the claim that Russia was behind the WikiLeaks releases..

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA

    ALL you have is a bunch of Obama officials spouting milquetoast mewings about, "oh well, we think the Russians did it.. WHo else could have??" type BS...

    WikiLeaks definitely played a role... But all WikiLeaks was do is expose the FACTS of the behind the scenes chatter... If campaign operatives complain, then maybe they shouldn't have emailed that stuff, eh?? The fault lies with the sender of the email, not with the group that exposes the email..

    MISOGYNY

    There was no misogyny or sexism... That's just an excuse... It's like accusing Trump of racism.. It's all code-words and dog-whistles... If you want to make a case and all you have is code-words and dog-whistles that depends more than anything else on the ideology of the people HEARING the code-words and dog-whistles...

    You have no case...

    Beyond these minor nitpicks... Great Commentary, CW :D

    176

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    All that matters with respect to why Clinton lost, that is. Just to be clear.

    Of course, if the question is why the Democrats lost the presidency to Trump ... well, that is a whole other answer, though not at all unrelated. Heh.

    The Democrats lost a LOT more than just the Presidency.. The "lost" the House and the Senate and a whole buttload of downstream state legislatures and governorships...

    The GOP hasn't had such a lock on Federal & State governments since the 1920s...

    It's not just Hillary that was the problem for Democrats..

    It was the entire philosophy and agenda of the Democratic Party that the American people did not like...

    Americans may like what the Democratic Party SAYS...

    But the American people have come to realize that what the Democratic Party SAYS and what the Democratic Party DOES are more often than not, two different things...

    The Democratic Party has broke faith with the American people.. And, until the DP can restore that faith, or until the GOP burns the American people more, the DP will have to be happy with being the minority Party...

    177

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    It surprises me how little attention has been paid - publically, at least - to what the Russians did with the information they gleaned from the Democrats (that is to say, pass it on to WikiLeaks for public consumption) ... even after the election, I would have thought that Russian interference in an American presidential election would have united all Americans in their condemnation of such behavior ...

    Exactly..

    If the Russians were REALLY involved, they could have done a LOT more damage than they did...

    Neil,

    You are thinking that America is more important than Party. It obviously isn't.

    Exactly...THAT is the problem that BOTH Partys have.. They put PARTY before COUNTRY...

    In four years time things will be worse, sadly, so Trump will be a seen as a failure at best and a BS artist and con man at worst.

    The problem with this prediction is that it is based on NOTHING but partisan ideology..

    It's EXACTLY the same type of prediction that the Left made when they said Trump would NEVER get the GOP nomination... It's EXACTLY the same type of prediction that the Left made when they said Trump would NEVER win the election...

    Oh sure, you can cherry pick a fact here and a fact there that supports your prediction... But when you ignore ALL the facts that DOESN'T support your prediction, you end up getting blindsided by reality...

    We saw how THAT can happen, eh??

    You MIGHT be right.. Trump might make this country into a 3rd world hellhole in 4 years.. Americans might be BEGGING for Democrats to take over..

    But you ALSO might be wrong...

    Trump might actually make America great again and win re-election in a 50-state landslide...

    YOU might actually end up voting for Trump in 2020 because your life and the lives of your family & friends are a hundred times better under President Trump..

    That's what you don't get.. The fact that you COULD be wrong...

    178

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Take out Utah (very hard workers and enlightened local government) and Texas and N. Dakota (petrostates) and it looks like the election map. The successful states are Democratic-led, the losers are Republican-led.

    And yet, the Democrat led states have emigration by the millions and the Republican led states have IMMIGRATION by the millions..

    I’m talking about an economic depression in the blue states that went for Hillary. Here is an amazing statistic. Of the 10 blue states that Hillary Clinton won by the largest percentage margins — California, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut — every single one of them lost domestic migration (excluding immigration) over the last 10 years (2004-14). Nearly 2.75 million more Americans left California and New York than entered these states.
    They are the loser states. They are all progressive. High taxes rates. High welfare benefits. Heavy regulation. Environmental extremism. Super minimum wages. Most outlaw energy drilling. The whole left-wing playbook is on display in the Hillary states. And people are leaving in droves. Day after day, they are being bled to death. So much for liberalism creating a worker’s paradise.
    Now let’s look at the 10 states that had the largest percentage vote for Donald Trump. Everyone of them — Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Idaho — was a net population gainer.
    This is part and parcel of one of the greatest internal migration waves in American history as blue states especially in the northeast are getting clobbered by their low tax, smaller government rivals in the south, southeast and mountain regions.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/4/the-blue-state-depression/

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    Demographically the Democratic Party still has the tailwinds.

    Whatever ya have to tell yerself to make it thru the day... :D

    The aging 70+ year old baby boomers who have been hogging the commanding heights of the Democratic Party will be replaced by a new wave of millennial leaders.

    Yea???

    When??

    The Democratic Party just saw an entire generation of possible leaders wiped out..

    It's going to be at least a decade to bring in new leaders..

    Until then, the Democratic Party will be the Party of 2010, 2014 and 2016.....

    179

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    With his Thursday journey to Indianapolis, Donald Trump made history as a president-elect by forging a deal to save over 1,000 jobs headed to Mexico. And he was just getting started.

    That night in Cincinnati, Trump began a “thank you” tour in front of a jubilant crowd of 15,000 people. Imagine that — any politician, let alone a president-elect, using his first appearance to thank voters instead of privately thanking donors. That’s populism for you.
    http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/trump-is-mapping-out-how-hes-going-to-put-america-first/

    This is why Hillary lost...

    Because the American people want America to be great again..

    And Hillary would not have been able to deliver...

    181

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    “There is no global anthem. No global currency. No certificate of global citizenship. We pledge allegiance to one flag, and that flag is the American flag. From now on, it is going to be: America First .?.?. Never again will any other interests come before the interest of the American people.”
    -Donald Trump

    WOW... Talk about a leg tingle!!!! :D

    "Finally, and I say this to all nations who may wish us ill, the United States of America will not tolerate attacks on our country, our possessions, or our citizens. From this day forward, whoever executes or orders such an attack, no matter who you are, no matter where you might hide, no matter how long it may take, we will come for you. I have sworn an oath before God to execute my duties as President. That I will do. To those who wish to be our friends, you will find no more faithful friend than we. To those who would be our enemies, remember that we can be faithful at that, too."
    -President John Patrick Ryan

    Real peace is not just the absence of conflict, it's the presence of justice. And tonight I come to you with a pledge to change America's policy. Never again will I allow our political self-interest to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons and to those who would use them: your day is over. We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate, and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid.
    -President James Marshall

    This guy is President John Patrick Ryan and President James Marshall all rolled into one!!!

    Gods, it's going to be a great 8 years!!! :D

    182

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    I know, I know...

    I could be setting myself up for a massive disappointment the same way I was disappointed in Obama after voting for him..

    But for now?? I have to say...

    It feels good to be so optimistic.... I haven't been able to feel this good in like 7 years.. :D

    183

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    And I have to quote Weiss in saying (while he was blaming Bernie Sanders): "I know this is going to piss a lot of people off, but so be it."

    I have always said that if you piss off BOTH sides of an issue....

    You must be doing something right... :D

    184

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    It’s fascinating to see what infuriated partisans define as “fighting dirty.” Apparently the entire Trump victory can be attributed to this moral flexibility; it couldn’t possibly reflect President Obama’s record, a national appetite for change, or Hillary Clinton’s agenda, character, and record.

    Faris’s piece is a fantastic example of the sputtering rage of the Left at this moment, convinced that Obama’s presidency was a phenomenal success, that no Republican opposition to his agenda was ever legitimate, and that an electorate that was so wise and clear-headed in 2008 and 2012 has suddenly become easily fooled.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442781/donald-trump-democrats-self-delusion-political-defeat

    No matter how you slice it, the Democratic Party, as a whole is afraid to look in the mirror and say.....

    "Maybe it's not them.. Maybe it's us.."

    Until the Democratic Party can come to their senses and accept the reality of the here and now.... They will always be the Minority Party...

    Their only hope is that the GOP royally screws up this country beyond all recognition..

    It's sad that many on the Left are hoping for that EXACT thing to happen...

    185

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    It’s fascinating to see what infuriated partisans define as “fighting dirty.” Apparently the entire Trump victory can be attributed to this moral flexibility; it couldn’t possibly reflect President Obama’s record, a national appetite for change, or Hillary Clinton’s agenda, character, and record.

    Faris’s piece is a fantastic example of the sputtering rage of the Left at this moment, convinced that Obama’s presidency was a phenomenal success, that no Republican opposition to his agenda was ever legitimate, and that an electorate that was so wise and clear-headed in 2008 and 2012 has suddenly become easily fooled.
    http://tinyurl.com/glaxro5

    No matter how you slice it, the Democratic Party, as a whole is afraid to look in the mirror and say.....

    "Maybe it's not them.. Maybe it's us.."

    Until the Democratic Party can come to their senses and accept the reality of the here and now.... They will always be the Minority Party...

    Their only hope is that the GOP royally screws up this country beyond all recognition..

    It's sad that many on the Left are hoping for that EXACT thing to happen...

    185

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Note To Admin:

    The National Review Dot Com filter is back in place...

    186

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    President John Patrick Ryan

    President James Marshall

    Well we know how to get Michale to vote D in the next election:

    Harrison Ford 2020

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    Imagine that — any politician, let alone a president-elect, using his first appearance to thank voters instead of privately thanking donors. That’s populism for you.

    Except he went to an upmarket NY restaurant and told the diners they'd all be in for a tax cut. He thanks Mnuchin (his money man) with the treasury job.

    Trump is on this tour for one reason and one reason only - he loves the adoration of the crowds.

    There were three things that got people chanting at his pre-election rallies:

    1. "Lock her up" -> The Clintons are good people
    2. Whose going to pay for it "Mexico"
    3. "Drain the swamp" -> Mnuchin, Mitch McConnell's wife for DoT, etc.

    You should have written in Harrison Ford.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    No matter how you slice it, the Democratic Party, as a whole is afraid to look in the mirror and say.....

    "Maybe it's not them.. Maybe it's us.."

    OMG are you kidding. That is all they are doing. They are writing numbered lists about all the things they did wrong. It is pathetic (sorry CW).

    Look, 50,000 people get off their behinds on 11/8 and the Democrats are lamenting not quite getting the Senate (but at least they won seats there and in the house) and the Republicans are eviscerating Trump for destroying their party.

    Everybody needs some perspective.

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Michale, for obvious reasons I'm not watching Trump strut about like Il Duce on his victory tour.

    What are the crowd chanting? What riles them up?

    Has "Four legs good, two legs bad" become "Four legs good, two legs better" yet?

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump is on this tour for one reason and one reason only - he loves the adoration of the crowds.

    That's your spin and it's understandable...

    Well we know how to get Michale to vote D in the next election:

    Harrison Ford 2020

    Don't tease me.... :D

    1. "Lock her up" -> The Clintons are good people

    Gracious winner...

    2. Whose going to pay for it "Mexico"

    campaign gimmick... Nothing more...

    3. "Drain the swamp" -> Mnuchin, Mitch McConnell's wife for DoT, etc.

    Trump is still in charge and Mnuchin and Chao will do what they are told...

    You said you wanted "experienced" people in Trump's cabinet.. Now that you get them, you STILL complain...

    Who could have predicted that..??? Oh... Wait... :D

    OMG are you kidding. That is all they are doing. They are writing numbered lists about all the things they did wrong. It is pathetic (sorry CW).

    A few are... But most are like Pelosi..

    "I don't think the people want a change of direction.."
    -Nancy Pelosi

    Most on the Left are claiming Hillary is blameless....

    That's denial, my friend..

    Pure, unadulterated, unequivocal, NotTheRiverInEgypt DENIAL....

    Everybody needs some perspective.

    Translation: We're doing fine.. We just have to deliver our message better..

    Keep on with that.. I don't mind a minority Democratic Party for the rest of my life.. :D

    187

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Now that you get them, you STILL complain...

    I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out the seeds of disappointment that any non-fanboy will look to when their "swamp fighting, Hillary-locking-up, Mexican-paid-Wall-Building" hero turns out to be the con man that it is obvious he is.

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    "I don't think the people want a change of direction.."
    -Nancy Pelosi

    Well she has a point, most people voted for Hillary after all.

    I disagree, but for very different reasons. I look to Scott Walker as the person the Democrats need to learn lessons from, not some con man who ran on a H.L. Mencken platform.

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    Most on the Left are claiming Hillary is blameless....

    Who?

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    1. "Lock her up" -> The Clintons are good people

    Gracious winner...

    2. Whose going to pay for it "Mexico"

    campaign gimmick... Nothing more...

    3. "Drain the swamp" -> Mnuchin, Mitch McConnell's wife for DoT, etc.

    Trump is still in charge and Mnuchin and Chao will do what they are told...

    The fanboy runs strong in this one.

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    Beware of the dark side of the fanboy, Michale, it can lead to rivers in Egypt.

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    Most on the Left are claiming Hillary is blameless....

    Who?

    Things I don’t blame:

    1. HILLARY HERSELF.

    She won every debate. She came up with well thought out, concrete plans to govern. She carried herself with dignity and grace, despite all the endless, misogynist shit that was hurled at her. She was nothing short of heroic.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/things-i-blame-for-hillary-clintons-loss-ranked_us_58459894e4b0496fbcb0c26d

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Beware of the dark side of the fanboy, Michale, it can lead to rivers in Egypt.

    It could..

    But, unlike the Hillary fanbois, I recognize it and will concede it.. :D

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    But, unlike the Hillary fanbois, I recognize it and will concede it.. :D

    The proof??

    I was a fanboy for Obama..... I was as excited about Obama as I was about Trump...

    But then Obama started messing up and I recognized and conceded that....

    Compare that to the Hillary fanbois who STILL can't concede that Hillary is a crappy candidate...

    I won't mention any names... But I don't have to... :D

    190

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Donald Trump is a "diplomatic rookie" who must learn not to cross Beijing on issues like trade and Taiwan, Chinese state media said Tuesday, warning America could pay dearly for his naivety.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-media-offer-stern-warning-rookie-trump-061137748.html

    How *NOT* to talk to the American people's President.....

    Trumps popularity is likely to shoot up another 10 points...

  46. [46] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    The BIG omission in this piece needs to get added.
    You mentioned the distrust and lack of enthusiasm, but it was Hillary's Wall Street coddling and warmongering that are at the heart of it.
    No, she didn't just say different things in public and in private... her actions are the problem.

    Not only was her voting record tarnished badly, but something like 65% of the campaign donations to Hillary came from the Big Money people and institutions that vehemently oppose Democratic priorities.
    Related, but deserving of special mention, warmongering is not an issue that rallies the Democratic base either. And she was gung ho as SOS and on the campaign trail.

    Hillary's record and policies were a major problem.

    Moving on...
    Given that evidence of Russian involvement was never released and the extreme convenience of having a scapegoat to distract from the content of what was released, blaming Russia, even briefly, remains a weak position.
    Hacking emails is easy and we don't know who was actually responsible.
    Throwing Wikileaks in there is just sad. it reminds me of the tale of the guy who murdered his parents asking for leniency because he's an orphan... Hillary and her team created the content that was released. Blaming WaPo for Watergate makes as much sense. Wikileaks is a publisher, and we owe them thanks for publishing truths we deserve to know about.

    Going back to the content of the leaks, it also wasn't just about how political operatives talk amongst themselves. The actions they took were deplorable.
    And, when discussing the DNC, you start with superdelegates and end with Superdelegates, but in the middle you mentioned DebbieWS... well, she and four others didn't lose their jobs at the DNC because of the anti-democratic nature of the superdelegates. Again, it was the actions they took.

    Your railing against the mainstream media is only partially valid. Mostly they were anti-Trump and, coincidentally, most of the media owners were Hillary campaign donors.
    The free publicity for Trump is undeniable, but it seriously tested the theory that there's no such thing as bad publicity because it was overwhelmingly negative.

    The mainstream media helping Hillary and attacking Bernie in the primaries is also an undeniable fact that deserves a mention if their role is being discussed.

    Hillary's campaign, and assist from the media, was decidedly anti-Trump, not pro-Hillary. You mentioned many of the examples, or lack thereof, but I'm bringing it up specifically to question your claim that Hillary was a good debater.
    Calm, cool and collected is true, but without the CONTENT that motivates voters to turn out and without authenticity and integrity, a politician is actually NOT a good debater.

    As always, I criticize because I care, and your bit on Bernie makes up for what I perceive as flaws, but except for the BIG omission I mentioned, most of this column is spot on.

    A

  47. [47] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    38

    The troll insists on perpetuating the Big Lie that the pro-Hillary establishment is the Left... when they hate the Left.

    He isn't wrong that too many of them aren't laying the blame at Hillary's feet though.

    A

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    The proof??

    Michale - you totally live in the right wing bubble. There is no chance that you will dump your orange idol.

    The proof?

    Climate science denial.

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    He isn't wrong that too many of them aren't laying the blame at Hillary's feet though.

    Careful Alice...

    You know what happens to Weigantians who state that I have a good point... That I am correct about something... :D

    192

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale - you totally live in the right wing bubble. There is no chance that you will dump your orange idol.

    Yea... I thought the same thing about Obama..

    And yet, here we are... :D

    Climate science denial.

    I just deny YOUR version of "science"...

    Your kind of science that ONLY accepts the "science" that is ideologically acceptable and ignores the REAL science that disproves your partisan agenda...

    Yep, guilty as charged..

    I deny politically correct, ideologically based "science"... The kind of "science" that insisted the earth was flat...

    You betcha!! :D

    193

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    Secretary of State John Kerry told a painful truth on Sunday, admitting that President Obama’s “red line” fiasco in Syria “cost us significantly” by leading other nations to see America as weak.

    The president had blinked at making good on his own threat. Around the globe, US allies and enemies were on notice that America might not live up to its word.

    It’s no coincidence that Russia took control of Crimea within the year, and later intervened decisively in Syria to save Assad. Nor that Iran was able to virtually dictate the terms of its nuclear deal with Team Obama.
    http://nypost.com/2016/12/05/kerry-fesses-up-about-obamas-red-line/

    Like Elections.... Cowardice has consequences...

    194

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    Point me to the seminal papers, published in respected journals, that underpin your version of climate science. Oh, and explain why temperatures are 36 degrees higher (that isn't a misprint) in the Arctic - I mean it can't be the Sun, because the sun ain't shining in the Arctic at the moment.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/17/the-north-pole-is-an-insane-36-degrees-warmer-than-normal-as-winter-descends/?utm_term=.54e21f94ed96

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    Like Elections.... Cowardice has consequences..

    Like stupidity, believing the NY Post has implications. You get things wrong.

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    Point me to the seminal papers, published in respected journals, that underpin your version of climate science.

    Any of the papers of Judith Curry, Roger A. Pielke, Richard Lindzen, David Bellamy, Lennart Bengtsson, Piers Corbyn, Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever....

    That should be enough to keep you busy for a while...

    Oh, and explain why temperatures are 36 degrees higher (that isn't a misprint) in the Arctic - I mean it can't be the Sun, because the sun ain't shining in the Arctic at the moment.

    I remember when it was 16 degrees here in Florida...

    It's called climate and it changes... Duh...

    Climate has been changing long before man was even protoplasm... Climate will be changing long after man goes the way of the dodo...

    Like stupidity, believing the NY Post has implications. You get things wrong.

    Do you have any FACTS to support that Kerry did NOT say those things??

    No, you do not...

    Your belief structure is totally and completely ideologically based...

    195

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    Your belief structure is totally and completely ideologically based...

    Allow me to clarify..

    IT APPEARS THAT your belief structure is totally and completely ideologically based...

    Better...

    196

  56. [56] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    161, 163 from yesterday... there's too much garbage thereafter so I'm following up here

    The present the mailman delivered in your analogy came in a nice box and gift wrapping, but as you admitted in comment 56 yesterday, the box was empty.

    An empty box isn't a present.
    And the mailman works for those who actually got the present so he isn't innocent.

    Bernie isn't wrong.
    Being against the trade deals written by the corrupt Free traders is not anti-trade.
    And every single one of those free trade deals was written by the same corrupt gang.

    Is it impossible for you to imagine trade deals written with input by the left?
    Wouldn't you admit they would be different?

    Are you likewise unaware that, like the other trade deals, the TPP was negotiated in secret and that public interest groups were excluded?
    If the process isn't fair and the results aren't fair, and the benefits aren't shared, the only leg you have left to stand on is trickle down economics... and the massive growth in inequality, the lower wages and the hollowing out of the middle class is undeniable proof that this ideology is bankrupt.

    I noticed you mentioned full employment a few times recently as well, but I know you know that that particular measure of employment is incomplete and ignores quite a lot of pertinent information. The types of jobs, the wages and benefits, wage growth relative to inflation, distribution of the jobs geographically and by age and race, etc.

    Obviously, the lower unemployment rate under Obama is positive, but it doesn't tell the whole story, and in fact, sweeps many negatives under the rug.
    "Full employment" is a favorite phrase of the corporatist gang often used to justify their favored policies and justify inaction on policies to address the negative concerns we've been discussing.

    Those comments were not directed at me, and were making a valid point in a different context, but I wanted to get your feel for this in the context of our discussion.

    A

    A

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is it impossible for you to imagine trade deals written with input by the left?
    Wouldn't you admit they would be different?

    No, in fact most of the parties to our trade deals are from countries with left wing governments.

    So why did they help write and then sign up for these biased-to-business trade deals?

  58. [58] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    55

    "Are you likewise unaware that"

    Sorry about that... unnecessarily and undeservedly antagonistic.

    I try to control those tendencies, but often fail.

    A

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    Any of the papers of Judith Curry, Roger A. Pielke, Richard Lindzen, David Bellamy, Lennart Bengtsson, Piers Corbyn, Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever....

    I've read them. They offer no proof beyond their opinions and don't account for the data.

    Face it, you can't disprove the real science, you just don't feel good about it so you search around in your bubble for other feelies to validate the opinions you started with.

    If you really think climate change is a hoax, you should invest in seafront property in Florida. You should be able to make a killing on it in 10 years time when the tides stop getting higher.

  60. [60] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    56

    Um, the establishment in other countries is little different than our own.
    "Left wing" is relative.

    And, that misses the point of my comment completely.
    We haven't had an economically left wing government during the writing of any of these trade deals, and exclusion of any representation from the left in America still undeniably occurred.

    A

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you have any FACTS to support that Kerry did NOT say those things??

    Do you have any proof that Kerry does?

    Trump said that he wanted to run as a Republican because their voters will believe anything and he knew from NY that Democratic voters are too smart to fall for somebody like him. He also said that he had to run because he owed Putin's henchmen a pile of money and they told him "You run, we'll rig the election with the dumb voters for you, then you pay us back - we'll tell you how in 2017".

    Glad you sold your country down the tubes for a con man?

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    We haven't had an economically left wing government during the writing of any of these trade deals, and exclusion of any representation from the left in America still undeniably occurred.

    I'm sorry but this country has been center-right to extreme-right in Western democracy terms since before I came here - in fact since before I was born.

    You may not like the trade deals, but most countries who have significantly more left wing governments than ours write and ratify these same deals.

    The tories in Britain are to the left of the Democratic Party over here in many issues (e.g. single payer healthcare, keeping the military-industrial complex under control).

    I'm struggling to see your point - are you suggesting we should be economically isolated until a sufficiently ideologically pure government is sworn in?

  63. [63] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Are you likewise unaware that"

    Sorry about that... unnecessarily and undeservedly antagonistic.

    I try to control those tendencies, but often fail.

    Please don't apologize, I'm far, far worse. You should definitely not use that as a reason to change your better behavior, but just to know not to apologize to me :)

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    If you really think climate change is a hoax, you should invest in seafront property in Florida.

    I HAVE seafront property in Florida.. More or less..

    I LIVE in seafront property in Florida.. More or less..

    And I have absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that if that property is ever destroyed by a hurricane or tsunami or tornado or whatever, that man's influence would be NOTHING....

    EVERY prediction made by the Global Warming fanatics has been WRONG...

    EVERY ONE...

    You should be able to make a killing on it in 10 years time when the tides stop getting higher.

    Oh jeeze... So-called "scientists" (ie political flunkies) have been saying the sea level is rising for years.. We should all be underwater by now...

    And yet, REAL science shows that the sea levels are actually receding...

    The arctic was supposed to be ICE FREE by now... But arctic ice caps have grown exponentially...

    Every Global Warming prediction has been WRONG...

    Every one....

    There has never been an accurate global warming prediction ever...

    I've read them. They offer no proof beyond their opinions and don't account for the data.

    Then you obviously haven't read them... They offer PLENTY of proof... CO2 concentrations have been rising steadily but the temps have not kept pace.... Obviously (to those NOT enslaved by Party dogma) something is more at work than CO2.....

    Do you have any proof that Kerry does?

    Yes, he was quoted...

    If you have ANY proof (besides your ideology) that indicates the quote is false, share it...

    But you don't, so you can't....

    Trump said that he wanted to run as a Republican because their voters will believe anything and he knew from NY that Democratic voters are too smart to fall for somebody like him. He also said that he had to run because he owed Putin's henchmen a pile of money and they told him "You run, we'll rig the election with the dumb voters for you, then you pay us back - we'll tell you how in 2017".

    Provide a link that shows those Trump quotes...

    You can't because they never happened...

    197

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    But arctic ice caps have grown exponentially...

    Wow. Bubble fanboy much?

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    Provide a link that shows those Trump quotes...

    Prove he did NOT say them.

    Stupid, isn't it.

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    CO2 concentrations have been rising steadily but the temps have not kept pace

    Only to people who willfully don't want to see what is right in front of their faces. All the global temperature records show rising temperatures.

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    Provide a link that shows those Trump quotes...
    Prove he did NOT say them.
    Stupid, isn't it.

    My proof is that you can't provide ANY link to support your claim..

    Weren't you always capping on me because I supposedly did not provide any backup???

    The NYPOST quoted Kerry as making these statements.. Kerry has not denied saying them....

    Ergo, they are fact until there is PROOF that they are false..

    Only to people who willfully don't want to see what is right in front of their faces. All the global temperature records show rising temperatures.

    Nope.. Only the temps modified and tweaked by the NOAA to "hide the decline" are rising.. The actual temps show a steady cooling.. There has been no statistically significant warming since 1996.. This is fact...

    Even if there WAS a slight warming, the CO2 concentrations have been rising dramatically..

    According to your "science" the temps should ALSO be rising dramatically..

    But the temps aren't rising at all...

    Ergo, based on SCIENCE, the human caused global warming theory is in tatters and is totally false...

    You can't win this debate.. I have science and facts on my side...

    All you have is partisan ideology...

    198

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    Humans can no more control the climate of the planet than they could control the ORBIT of the planet...

    It's THAT simple...

    199

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    I HAVE seafront property in Florida.. More or less..

    People who have seafront property don't have it "more or less". They have it.

    It worries me that Florida is in peak denial. Their problem is that much of their property values are contingent on people coming to retire and keeping the real-estate market vibrant. If people start to believe that their property prices will drop as the sea rises, and the water supply will become increasing salty, they might start going to Georgia, Arizona or somewhere else.

    When there is a lot of money at stake, and a lot of people whose livelihood depends on proving climate science is incorrect, we get the tobacco denial play all over again - sometimes they even use the same people. These people really, really want to believe the bubble story.

    I'll never convince you that the science is correct, because you don't want to be convinced. You will claim that I reject the real science, but the problem is that the institutions that accept all sorts of other science that you do accept also accept climate science.

    In your world there is mainstream science that works for physics, medicine, chemistry, technology, engineering, etc, etc, etc. Then there is climate science. Climate scientists, or at least the vast, vast majority of them, are all wrong about everything ("EVERY prediction") and are too stupid to understand, or are part of a shadowy conspiracy that has been running for 200+ years across every nation on the planet.

    That, my friend, is a bubble. And you live in it.

    Get into the Florida sandbag sales and delivery business. You might be wealthy from people whose houses aren't being encroached on but have a sea water problem that is getting just a bit worse every year ;)

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's THAT simple...

    It is that simple to you. This is the argument from personal incredulity. You can't conceive how humans can change the climate, therefore it isn't possible.

    What is we unleashed all the nuclear arsenal at once and put a huge amount of ash and dust into the air? Do you think that might have an impact on the climate?

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    I'll never convince you that the science is correct, because you don't want to be convinced.

    No, you'll never convince me because what you are trying to convince me of is that humans can control the climate of the planet..

    That's not science... That's science fiction...

    What is we unleashed all the nuclear arsenal at once and put a huge amount of ash and dust into the air? Do you think that might have an impact on the climate?

    No.. It will have an impact on the planet's weather for a couple hundred years... Maybe longer...

    But climate is measured in millinia.... aeons....

    And humans simply cannot control the planet's climate..

    It is simply not possible...

    Do you want to know the BIGGEST clue that Human Caused Global Warming is a scam??

    The ONE thing that proves beyond ANY doubt that Global Warming is a con??

    The fact that it's the UN that is behind everything...

    That right there proves to me beyond ANY doubt that Global Warming is a scam.. A con...

    Get the UN out of the picture and the so-called "science" might have some shred of credibility...

    But the UN being involved?? Well, I wouldn't believe the UN if it told me that water is wet, the sky is blue and women have secrets...

    200

  73. [73] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    61

    No, I'm not saying that at all.

    I'm saying that democracy and the concept of compromise should necessitate the inclusion of the beliefs of all Americans in policies like our trade deals.

    The corruption, corporatization and rightward lurch of the Democratic Party doesn't justify excluding the concerns of the Democratic base, or more generally the economically left views of the majority (see the polling that shows the majority in America support all of Bernie's policies for proof).

    If the opinions of the majority, which our election process excludes by design, were represented in our trade deals... if the negotiators on the US side included them, the deals would be different... and better for working class Americans.

    It seems like a self-evident truth, so I'm not sure why you seem reluctant to admit it.

    As far the strawman "significantly more leftwing governments" bit unrelated to my point goes, communism is about as far left as you can go, yet economically even the Chinese government is now dominated by money grubbing crony capitalists who emulate Wall Street in their embrace of wealth accumulation by the few, labor exploitation and environmental pollution.

    The same can be said about the vast majority of the governments on the other side of our trade deals. Left wing ideology is just as absent among their negotiators as among ours, and is not a counterbalancing factor as you claim.

    The poison of corrupted neoliberal economics, even in countries nominally but not actually left, pretty much dominates the world... Scandinavia and watered down versions in parts of Europe and a handful of other countries exist... but that is another undeniable truth.

    In any case, none of our negotiating/trading partners worry about the Americans who are losing out due to these trade deals. So, if our side doesn't care about them, and the other side doesn't care about them, the deals do not reflect their concerns.

    A

  74. [74] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    62

    OK.
    I'll try to remember to exclude you from deserved apologies.
    :)

    Any chance you can find another topic, preferably related to the column, to trash the thread with in your debates with the troll?

    I know it's fund drive time, but...

    A

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    Alice,

    Any chance you can find another topic, preferably related to the column, to trash the thread with in your debates with the troll?

    I know it's fund drive time, but...

    Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaa-mbulance.... :D

    201

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    Climate scientists, or at least the vast, vast majority of them, are all wrong about everything ("EVERY prediction")

    Give me a global warming prediction that was accurate...

    You can't because there is none..

    So-called "scientists" said that Global Warming would cause more frequent and massive hurricanes..

    There hasn't been a major hurricane strike in the US in OVER A DECADE!!

    These so-called "scientists" have been WRONG *EVERY TIME*

    And yet, you want ME to believe them!???

    Utterly ridiculous..

    Global Warming is not science, it's a political agenda...

    And I am thrilled to death that we finally have a president who recognizes Global Warming for the con that it is....

    202

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    But hay... I understand ya don't like getting beat up over the Global Warming con...

    Let's talk about the subject of the commentary..

    Do you believe that Hillary shares ANY of the blame for the Grand Nuclear Shellacking Of 2016...

    Do you disagree with any of CW's points regarding the blame??

    203

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    Any chance you can find another topic, preferably related to the column, to trash the thread with in your debates with the troll?

    Fair enough.

    But if we have to click thru ads all next year because I didn't make Michale soil his underwear daily on gun control or climate change it is all on you ;)

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone 72

    Here is how I parse your comment - correct my if I'm off track:

    1. The current trade deals don't reflect the wishes of the majority

    2. This is because the democratic system has been corrupted by money

    3. This situation holds true even in more left wing oriented countries

    4. These other countries may make more of an effort to protect their workers than we do, but understandably don't feel obliged to care much for U.S. workers

    Let me know if I'm off track.

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump does it again!!!! :D

    SoftBank Group Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Masayoshi Son said Tuesday he would invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 new jobs, following a 45-minute private meeting with President-elect Donald Trump.

    The Japanese billionaire, whose conglomerate controls Sprint Corp., announced his investment plans in the lobby of Trump Tower, though he didn’t provide details. Mr. Trump took credit for the investment, saying his November victory spurred SoftBank’s decision.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-softbank-pledges-to-invest-50-billion-in-u-s-1481053732

    Make America Great Again!!!

    204

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    First, this is really the Justice Department's decision, not Comey's;

    True...

    But since Lynch had a sit down with Bill Clinton, the DOJ had to wash their hands of any public involvement in the case...

    Comey HAD to step in.......

    Hillary?? Uber-boned....

    205

  82. [82] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Since we are having such a lively commentary on the subject at hand...

    Let me toss this out there... the past, present, and future all walk into a bar.

    It was tense....

  83. [83] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    78

    "Is it impossible for you to imagine trade deals written with input by the left?
    Wouldn't you admit they would be different?"

    Input by the left in the US.

    They are straightforward questions.

    And they are theoretical.

    Just substitute the Wall Street negotiators on the US side with US union negotiators.
    ???

    A

  84. [84] 
    neilm wrote:

    Just substitute the Wall Street negotiators on the US side with US union negotiators.???

    OK, but I've lived through that world.

    In the U.K. in the 1970's Union leaders were more powerful than the Government. The miners union could bring the country to a standstill. We had the "three day week" because the miners blocked coal getting to the electricity stations, and we used to listen to the news every day to see when the power would be turned off for our area.

    We had the miners blocking the import of Polish coal to save British miners jobs. We had the steel unions blocking the import of steel to save British steel workers jobs. We had to nationalize the car industry to protect it from better, cheaper foreign cars. Britain was known as the "sick man of Europe" - we lost our competitiveness and the cost to prop up our heavy industrial base drained the country.

    The voters reaction was Margaret Thatcher. Imagine an adult version of Paul Ryan with complete power. Square that, and you have Margaret Thatcher.

    I lived through a decade of unions being consulted on major matters for the country. Their job is to protect workers jobs. If you let them do that, destructive capitalism grinds to a halt. Protectionism runs rampant and business grinds to a halt. Investment capital goes to other countries further depleting the national income.

    The best model I've seen for the balance of capital and labor are in the Nordic countries and Germany. France has gone a bit overboard, and there is a growing backlash against e.g. the 35 hour week.

  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:

    "I'm afraid some things will get worse before they get better."

    Margaret Thatcher gave an address to the Nation on March 11, 1980. My whole family watched it together - most did. At the end my dad, who was pretty middle of the road politically, predicted that the country was going to go through pain unseen since the rationing after WW2.

    He was right. We had the miners strike. The country was ripped apart.

    Here is the whole broadcast:

    http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104325

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump does it again!!!! :D

    I'm sure it has never occurred to CEOs who want future favors to call Trump and tell him their investment was all due to him.

    You can't really be this gullible.

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    “Trump was just what people here have always been — skeptical of government, almost libertarian,” McCauley said. “He’s a West Virginia pipe dream: He’s going to undo the damage to the coal industry and bring back the jobs, and all of our kids down there in North Carolina are going to come home.”

    This is what the coal mining areas of West Virginia expect from Trump.

    To them "Make America Great Again" is bring back the coal jobs and their kids who left for better paying jobs.

    No pressure, eh!

  88. [88] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "There hasn't been a major hurricane strike in the US in OVER A DECADE!!"

    To quote Professor McGonagall from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone after Harry and Ron beat the Mountain Troll: "Five points... will be awarded to each of you.
    For sheer dumb luck."

  89. [89] 
    John M wrote:

    neilm

    On matters like climate change, it is best to give it up when trying to argue sensibly with Michale.

    There is reality, and then there is Michale's version of reality.

    Or, to quote Spock from the TOS episode I, MUDD:

    "Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD. Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly? Your ears are green."

  90. [90] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    83

    I said theoretical, not fantastical.
    We're talking America here.
    And despite your "OK", you still didn't answer the dang question.

    And I said input, not complete control.

    I was also talking about voices from the left, and just used unions as an obvious example... union membership in corporate America is down below 10%, yet Bernie's policy proposals all have well above majority support, so non-union economic leftists outnumber them many fold.
    Letting the minority of right wing economic ideologues determine our economic and trade policies just aint right.

    "The best model I've seen for the balance of capital and labor are in the Nordic countries and Germany."

    "I lived through a decade of unions being consulted on major matters for the country. Their job is to protect workers jobs. If you let them do that, destructive capitalism grinds to a halt. Protectionism runs rampant and business grinds to a halt"

    Nordic and German unions have input, and your generalizations from the UK do not hold true.

    On the other hand, complete exclusion like in the US, cannot possibly meet your definition of "the best balance between capital and labor".

    So, would I be going out on a limb to suggest that you would agree that a better balance in the US, and specifically among trade deal negotiators would lead to better, fairer results?

    -
    -
    As an aside, I lived through the unannounced power outages in CA caused by Enron and their greedy, extortive crony capitalist collaborators, and through major budget problems caused by police and prison guard unions having too much input.
    Neither was nearly as severe as in the UK... and only one qualifies as having pseudo left wing origins... but they both caused considerable chaos and pain.

    I'm also not supportive of extreme protectionism, but tempered or mitigated capitalistic destruction seems like a much more humane and moral approach.

    -
    -
    There are quite a few issues and questions I raised in recent comments that you haven't had a chance or a desire to respond to, and which I'd enjoy reading your response to, but here's one more-

    You've mentioned national wealth and in a discussion with someone else gave an example with a Company A who offshore competing against Company B who does not (or vice versa), but the economic analysis of such examples don't make a distinction between national wealth and government wealth... or specifically break out the costs to the government from lost taxes on the earnings of jobs lost (income, SS, Medicare), and direct expenses like unemployment or welfare, indirect expenses like government benefits for workers performing lower wage replacement jobs, and even the lost business taxes.
    And these figures would add up cumulatively every year if the business had otherwise remained in the country.

    The increased profits for shareholders and lost wages for unemployed workers seems to be where the math usually ends when looking at destructive capitalism.

    Am I just not finding good sources, or is this a very convenient approach in the free traders calculations?

    A

  91. [91] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    You get the government you deserve and that has never been more true than with the US 2016 elections.

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    To quote Professor McGonagall from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone after Harry and Ron beat the Mountain Troll: "Five points... will be awarded to each of you.
    For sheer dumb luck."

    Yes, that's one theory..

    But if we employ Occam's Razor, the OTHER theory, the theory that the hysterical Global Warming fanatics are wrong as they have been about everything else....

    Well, THAT theory is obviously the simpler of the two..

    On matters like climate change, it is best to give it up when trying to argue sensibly with Michale.

    There is reality, and then there is Michale's version of reality.

    No, there is fact and their is partisan agenda..

    The FACT is that the hysterical Global Warming so-called "scientists" have been WRONG on *EVERY* prediction they have every made..

    EVERY..... TIME..... *WRONG*

    Science... REAL science says that if the data doesn't prove the theory, then the theory must be wrong and must be altered to fit the data..

    The partisan agenda says that if the data doesn't fit the theory then the data must be wrong and must be altered to fit the theory..

    We are seeing the latter here, not the former...

    GT,

    Let me toss this out there... the past, present, and future all walk into a bar.

    It was tense....

    hehehehehehe Now THAT was funny... :D

    Neil,

    I'm sure it has never occurred to CEOs who want future favors to call Trump and tell him their investment was all due to him.

    You can't really be this gullible.

    Yea, I can understand why you would want to believe that. You want Trump to fail..

    But, unless you have any FACTS to support your theory, it's nothing but a partisan/ideologically based theory...

    MS,

    You get the government you deserve and that has never been more true than with the US 2016 elections.

    And, if we have a resurgence of the Reagan years???

    Then that must be what we deserve, right? :D

    205

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    JM

    Global Warming fanatics claimed that there would be more frequent and more devastating tornadoes because of human caused climate change..

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/image_thumb55.png?w=780&h=468

    Yet the FACTS clearly show that tornado count is DOWN and the trend is going down...

    Once again, the Global Warming hysterical fanatics are WRONG...

    What are you going to believe?? The FACTS??? Or your Party agenda???

    206

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    Get ready for the chill! Forecasters predict temperatures could fall 35 degrees BELOW average as a polar plunge sweeps across the country

    Forecasters say temperatures will take a massive plunge over the next few days

    Arctic winds are sweeping across the country in a massive jet stream this week

    Temperatures in some parts of the U.S. will be as much as 35 below average

    Snow's forecast in the High Plains, and also the Mississippi Valley and northeast

    Even Texas will be chilly, will Dallas expected to have its coldest day since 2015
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4006994/Polar-plunge-sweeping-country.html

    But... But... But....

    GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!

    :D

    You can't imagine how funny I find that.. :D

    209

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    But, unless you have any FACTS to support your theory, it's nothing but a partisan/ideologically based theory...

    Softbank have been raising the $100B for this investment since well before the election.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/prossermarc/2016/10/14/softbanks-new-100b-tech-fund-shows-exactly-how-its-expanding-beyond-telco/#53ab3acf4acb

    Use your common sense. Some guy doesn't walk in to a 45 minute meeting with Trump then decide on the spot to invest $50B and create 50,000 jobs on the fly. He'd be fired at the next BOSD meeting. The planning for this, the partnerships with Sovereign Wealth funds, the identification of the investments, etc. have been going on for months, if not years.

    This is a pure play to Trump's vanity. Expect more.

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    This is a pure play to Trump's vanity. Expect more.

    As long as it benefits America and Americans??

    I don't give a rat's arse what the motivations are... :D

    If this had been an Obama deal ya'all would be crowing about it just like I am...

    It's a GOOD thing for this country.. Who cares that Trump politically benefits from it...

    210

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    And I said input, not complete control.

    Can you outline the top three policies that should have been in place in the agreements and why they would have protected manufacturing jobs, coal jobs, etc.?

    The sad truth is that you can pause destructive capitalism, as Britain tried and failed in the 1970's, you can mitigate the impact as I've been recommending like they do in Germany, or you can let it run unabated as we do in this country.

    So yes, as I stated at the start of this discussion several threads ago, our leaders have the responsibility to mitigate the impact of global capitalism when they write trade deals, not just focus on the open markets aspect.

    I've also railed against the balance of capital vs. labor, particularly in this country, suggesting a simple measure (the Gini) to highlight the impact of our fiscal and open trade policies on the incomes of the general population.

    If you feel that having union leaders at the table when the deals are being crafted, fine, I have no problem with that, but what changes do you want?

    The "Workers Committees" in Germany are not mandated by free trade agreements, rather by prior left wing German governments. These committees are what mitigate the impact of any necessary destruction. However there are downsides. I work with a lot of Germans in the tech business and they lament that new innovations come primarily from West Coast companies (e.g. Google, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, Amazon, etc ) where destructive capitalism is rampant. They rail against the Workers Committees for their luddite impact on business (their words), and the lower risk profile of German companies like Siemens, SAP, etc. At the same time they love their "jobs for life", fully understanding their hypocrisy.

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    Softbank have been raising the $100B for this investment since well before the election.

    No... Softbank has been raising 100B for ANY investments....

    It was Trump's meeting that caused 50B to be invested in US jobs...

    Following a series of meetings Tuesday with business leaders, the president-elect tweeted that SoftBank will invest in the U.S. and create 50,000 new jobs. Son, CEO of the Tokyo-based telecommunications company, told reporters the funding would go to “new companies, startup companies in the United States.” The money will come from SoftBank’s previously announced $100 billion technology fund, Bloomberg News reported.

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    If this had been an Obama deal ya'all would be crowing about it just like I am...

    This deal had nothing to do with Obama, even though it happened on his watch. However if you think Trump had anything to do with it you are just as deluded as I would be if I pointed out that it was conceived, planned, and funded while Obama was President, and while basically everybody thought Hillary was going to be the next President.

    Also, what are the 50,000 new jobs at $1,000,000 a piece investment. Softbank have been working to expand beyond Telco with this fund, but they are a high tech company. This is basically a big VC fund. I would expect the lions share of the investment to go to Northern California, hardly creating jobs in the rust belt.

    Unless you know what their detailed plans are of course.

    Business leaders will be run rings around Trump - they can spot an egomaniac when they see one. They'll give him credit for every plan that was going to happen anyway. Like Carriers plan to move manufacturing to Mexico for five years while they invested in an automated plant in the U.S. (that was the $16B investment they announced - it was always planned). Those Mexican jobs were only intended to keep the business going until the new automated plan was completed. Building the new plant while keeping the current one open was a sub-optimal approach, but they got $7M as a sweetener.

    American jobs cost more than Mexican jobs.
    Mexican jobs cost more than robots.

  100. [100] 
    neilm wrote:

    Have a little read (also read between the lines) of Jim Cramer's interview with UT CEO (UT own Carrier):

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/cnbc-transcript-united-technologies-chairman-ceo-greg-hayes-on-cnbcs-mad-money-w-jim-cramer-today.html

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    This deal had nothing to do with Obama, even though it happened on his watch.

    I know that.. But if it HAD, ya'all would be crowing about it and pointing to it as an example of Obama being able to create jobs..

    In other words, you would be saying the EXACT same things I am saying, except Obama would be the object of your affections.

    Unless you know what their detailed plans are of course.

    Funny how the Left is only interested in "details" when it's the Right who is getting the credit.. :D

    Business leaders will be run rings around Trump - they can spot an egomaniac when they see one. They'll give him credit for every plan that was going to happen anyway. Like Carriers plan to move manufacturing to Mexico for five years while they invested in an automated plant in the U.S. (that was the $16B investment they announced - it was always planned). Those Mexican jobs were only intended to keep the business going until the new automated plan was completed. Building the new plant while keeping the current one open was a sub-optimal approach, but they got $7M as a sweetener.

    Whatever ya have to tell yourself to keep yer Trump hatred alive.. :D

    Love Trumps Hate... :D

    213

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    I know that.. But if it HAD, ya'all would be crowing about it and pointing to it as an example of Obama being able to create jobs..

    I don't need to crow about Obama saving 1,000 jobs. He saved the U.S. car industry. I don't see you giving him any credit for that.

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    Read the interview. The UT CEO came right out and said it. This was a PR move because of "that youtube":

    GREG HAYES: Well I think there's a little bit of bad luck involved if you will-- if I have to really be honest with you, Jim. The fact is-- when we made the announcement in Indiana and we were trying to be as humane as possible talking-- giving the employees a three year lead time on the announcement. Unfortunately and not unexpectedly, you know, someone took issue with it. They didn't like the fact that we're moving the jobs to Mexico. Everybody's seen the YouTube—

    JIM CRAMER: Right.

    GREG HAYES: --three minutes. It's unfortunate. And I think, you know, that just-- happened to get in front of Mr. Trump.

    Next time they won't give the employees three years lead time. Would you?

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    Funny how the Left is only interested in "details" when it's the Right who is getting the credit.. :D

    That is you projecting how your mind works onto the rest of the world.

    Believe it or not, there are some of us that don't believe the headlines, or even a single source - we use that amazing Google tool to see the range of thought about a subject, drill in to the underlying facts that can be verified, and determine who is making sense and who is blowing smoke.

    Trump blows a lot of smoke. You'd see that if you would:

    1. Take of your fanboy glasses
    2. Be willing to try to understand a range of viewpoints so you can adequately evaluate them
    3. Do some homework on subjects so you can ascertain the facts
    4. Be surprised if "your side" is always right

    But I have learned that you prefer your bubble "feel good" fact-light propaganda. Shame for you, reality is far more interesting.

  105. [105] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale, you've got to do better than: "every criticism of Trump is motivated only and purely by a desire to see your side win", otherwise the conversation becomes inane, pointless, and repetitious.

  106. [106] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale: do you really believe Trump had anything to do with the Softbank announcement?

    Do you really think that a $50B investment was concocted during a 45 minute chat?

    This is obvious pay-for-play. Softbank want to influence Trump, so they arranged 45 minutes one-on-one with him - the price was allowing him to pretend he had created 50,000 jobs.

    What do you think they are going to get in return?

    This is exactly what you accused the Clinton Foundation of with very tenuous evidence - here we have Trump boasting about his payoff.

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    otherwise the conversation becomes inane, pointless, and repetitious.

    and profitable for CW during the pledge drive ;)

    Michale warned us he was going on steroids. He coughed up over $300 last year to keep the site going.

    We have three choices:
    1. Put up with Michale
    2. Make sure the green line hits the goal by New Year so Michale's contribution isn't required
    3. Put up with pop up ads, etc.

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale, you've got to do better than: "every criticism of Trump is motivated only and purely by a desire to see your side win", otherwise the conversation becomes inane, pointless, and repetitious.

    Give me a REASON to give a better conversation..

    Because all I DO see is partisan bigotry here...

    Take Neil... Yes, Obama deserves credit for saving the auto industry... But yet, no one gives credit for what Trump *HAS* done...

    With Trump, ya'all get into the minituea of EVERY little detail spinning all the bad and ignoring ALL of the good..

    With Obama..

    "Obama saved the auto industry!! raaa!!!! raaa!!!! raa!!!!"

    You want a better argument from me than "partisan bigotry"...

    Give me a reason to give a better argument..

    Because all I see is nothing but partisan bigotry..

    Ya'all have made it perfectly clear that your intent is to make Trump a one-term president..

    Which is perfectly acceptable to ya'all...

    EXCEPT... Except when it's the Right saying it...

    214

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    We have three choices:
    1. Put up with Michale
    2. Make sure the green line hits the goal by New Year so Michale's contribution isn't required
    3. Put up with pop up ads, etc.

    If ya'all can guarantee me #2, I'll be happy to bow out until 20 Jan 2017.... :D Or at least keep my posting to a minimum...

    Keeping up with CW.com is a full time job here in addition to the 4 other full time jobs I have!! :D I would welcome a breather... :D

    215

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale: do you really believe Trump had anything to do with the Softbank announcement?

    I honestly believe that Trump had more to do with the announcement than ya'all are willing to give him credit for..

    This is obvious pay-for-play. Softbank want to influence Trump, so they arranged 45 minutes one-on-one with him - the price was allowing him to pretend he had created 50,000 jobs.

    And THIS is exactly why I write off most of ya'all's comments to political bigotry..

    "OBVIOUS" pay to play was what the Clinton Foundation did..

    Yet, no one here had SINGLE problem with THAT pay to play...

    Because when a person with a '-D' after their name has Pay To Play, it's perfectly acceptable...

    Balthasar, you ask why I can't give ya'all a better argument??

    It's because ya'all (NEN) don't give me anything to work with...

    What do you think they are going to get in return?

    A tidy return on an investment in the American people by providing American jobs...

    216

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    This is exactly what you accused the Clinton Foundation of with very tenuous evidence

    HUGE difference..

    Money was given DIRECTLY to Clinton..

    Is Softbank giving the money DIRECTLY to Trump??

    No..

    You are comparing apples and alligators...

    Balthasar,

    THERE is your "better argument"... Will I get any credit for it??

    Of course not..

    So I'll just stick with the partisan bigotry because it is ALWAYS applicable...

    217

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    Clinton's Pay To Play enriched the Clintons...

    Trumps alleged Pay To Play enriches America and the American people....

    The fact that many of you can't see the difference is why Hillary Clinton lost...

    218

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    TIMES PERSON OF THE YEAR
    http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump/

    Donald Trump...

    Ouch!!! That's gotta hurt!! :D

    219

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    But look at the bright side, my friends... :D

    Ya'all get to revert back to the role of government hating, military hating, stick it to "the man", loyal opposition..

    I mean, let's face it.. Supporting the government is just not a good fit for liberals.. :D

    220

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words, the response to Trump’s actions from the left has been to advocate for the status quo. They anticipated a presidency under Clinton that wouldn’t be particularly nimble. Clinton wouldn’t have wanted to wade into any situation that wasn’t prepackaged or that offered an uncertain outcome. She likely would have given a weak statement about the need to boost American manufacturing but would not have lifted a finger to save those Carrier jobs. She likely would have refused a call from Ing-wen and continued President Obama’s policy of acquiescence to America’s competitors.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/12/06/trump-traumatizes-democrats/?utm_term=.69444a27a3e6

    The Left is still repeating the exact same mistakes that cost them the election..

    Opting for the Establishment Status Quo....

    221

  116. [116] 
    neilm wrote:

    Clinton's Pay To Play enriched the Clintons...

    No, it didn't, and you know it. The Clinton Foundation was one of the top charities when it came to distributing received gifts to worthwhile causes. One of the best things about Hillary losing is that the Clinton Foundation can continue its work.

    Trump is trying to open a hotel next to the soon-to-be redeveloped Taoyuan International (Taiwan's main airport). So we can see a direct line between buttering up the Taiwanese and his business interests.

    Softbank (my friend has a close relative on the board) want to expand beyond Telco and Trump is an obvious ally to have, especially if they can work with his kids on deals. I expect this is just the start of a lot of shady business as Trump gets his return on investment for the time and money he put into the campaign.

  117. [117] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That article [114] should have ended: She likely would have refused a call from Ing-wen and continued President Reagan's policy of acquiescence to America’s competitors.

    There. Fixed it for you.

    As this NY Times article points out, the policy of not talking directly to Taiwan is not an acquiescence to China, rather, it's a way for the US to keep pursuing our own policy without sparking a war.

    Only a complete maniac (Bolton? Flynn?)or someone on Taiwan's payroll (skeletal Bob Dole?) would think that blowing that agreement up with a phone call was a good idea.

    Why do we worry about Taiwan anyway? Well, it seems that MacArthur, while he was still in charge of Japan, became an anti-communist fanatic, and went to Taiwan and (without consulting the President or any other superior) announced that the United States would defend it from the Chinese, with nuclear arms, if necessary. Truman was appalled, and fired him for it, but MacArthur had stuck us in a box: if we were to say that we wouldn't defend Taiwan after that, China would probably immediately try to take it back.

    So the agreement in 1979 was carefully worked out to prevent us from rattling sabers we'd be sorry to use, while removing an excuse from China for confrontation about the issue.

    This is reason #2435 why you don't elect an unstable, uninformed neophyte to the Oval office.

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    Opting for the Establishment Status Quo....

    You have yet to see what opting against the status quo looks like. Patience. There is a reason you don't do stupid, impulsive things that seem like a good idea at the time. That is something most of us learned in our teens, but then we weren't born with a daddy that got us out of everything we screwed up, or had doctors find convenient 'ankle spurs' on the man yet another doctor told us is 'the most fit person to be president'.

  119. [119] 
    michale wrote:

    No, it didn't, and you know it. The Clinton Foundation was one of the top charities when it came to distributing received gifts to worthwhile causes.

    Maybe... But that doesn't change the fact that Bill and Hillary were made immensely wealthy by their assosciation with the foundation..

    Using your own argument, do you think all those governments "donated" to the Clintons without expecting anything in return??

    . I expect this is just the start of a lot of shady business as Trump gets his return on investment for the time and money he put into the campaign.

    Of course you expect that.. Because Trump has a '-R' after his name and that designation is all that matters..

    Balthasar,

    She likely would have refused a call from Ing-wen and continued President Reagan's policy of acquiescence to America’s competitors.

    Actually, no...

    On the matter of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, which the Chinese have so strenuously resisted, I recall during my tenure on the Taiwan desk in 1982 that Chinese diplomats demanded that President Reagan honor President Carter’s “pledge” to terminate arms sales to Taiwan after normalization. China demanded that Reagan issue another communiqué promising to cease arms transfers to Taiwan. James Lilley, President Reagan’s top China advisor in the White House, asked President Carter about this pledge, and the former president said, “I never made such a commitment. I can tell you that I wouldn’t have made it.” Reagan then ordered that thenceforth communiqué negotiations with Beijing be grounded in the understanding that no “pledge” was ever issued and that arms sales to Taiwan would be eased off only on the understanding that China pursued a peaceful resolution of its differences with Taiwan.

    On July 14, 1982, a month before a watered-down communiqué ultimately was agreed to, President Reagan conveyed six White House commitments to Taiwan’s President Chiang Ching-kuo that did “pledge” that the United States would not agree to set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan, nor to prior consultations with the Chinese on arms sales to Taiwan, that the United States would not play any mediation role between Taiwan and Beijing, and that neither would it agree to revise the Taiwan Relations Act. Reagan also assured Taiwan that the United States would not alter its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan. Finally, Reagan pledged the “United States would not formally recognize China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.”

    The “Six Assurances” were widely publicized on Taiwan and in the United States at the time, and again were criticized widely in the media for their apparent disregard for China’s hurt feelings. But they shrewdly served notice to Beijing that China could either accept a vague declaration predicated on China’s “peaceful” approach to Taiwan, or no communiqué at all.

    Beijing relented and opted for a noncommittal communiqué. On the same day that the “August 17, 1982 communiqué” was published, President Reagan took the unusual step of issuing a short, four-paragraph confidential presidential directive, which he ordered to be initialed personally by both his new secretary of state, George Shultz, and then U.S. secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger. That directive reasoned, “In short, the U.S. willingness to reduce its arms sales to Taiwan is conditioned absolutely upon the continued commitment of China to the peaceful solution of the Taiwan-PRC differences. It should be clearly understood that the linkage between these two matters is a permanent imperative of U.S. foreign policy.”

    Until Bush, the US has NEVER formally adopted the ONE CHINA position... The US position had been up until that point that the US accepts that this is the CHINESE position..

    But it had NEVER been the US's position..

    But why let FACTS screw up such a perfect example of political bigotry...

    ROOM 222

    :D

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    What part of PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT LET THE CHINESE DICTATE WHO HE DOES AND DOES NOT TALK TO do ya'all not understand???

    Obama was happy to kow-tow and bow and grovel to any tin-plated dictator with delusions of god-hood..

    Did ya'all HONESTLY think Trump would follow that lead???

    223

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    It bears repeating..

    Reagan also assured Taiwan that the United States would not alter its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan. Finally, Reagan pledged the “United States would not formally recognize China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.”

    Taiwan is a sovereign nation..

    This is fact....

    The idea that it is part of China??

    That's delusion....

    224

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:
  123. [123] 
    neilm wrote:

    While in the U.S. we can see that the Taiwan call was dumb, in Taiwan the business community are mortified.

    The easy option (there was an excellent "Economist" article on this) for China is to punish Taiwan business interests.

    China is Taiwan's largest trading partner by a country mile and the business community already complain about unfair practices by China. I doubt the environment will get any better for them if Trump and Tsai continue to annoy them.

    Boeing's CEO raised the chance that China will punish U.S. firms in an op-ed, which is why Trump is suddenly interested in the Air Force One deal. Boeing have a $1T (yes trillion) deal with China, and this clown is running around trying to get a better deal for his hotel in Taiwan.

    If a Democrat had done this there would be a special prosecutor tout suite. Trump will get a carte blanche - "drain the swamp" my derriere.

  124. [124] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Taiwan is a sovereign nation..This is fact....
    The idea that it is part of China?? That's delusion....

    So...you didn't look at the article I linked to in post [116] at all, did you?

    But...delusion? It's a tiny island, just 110 miles from China's shore. The delusional part was the assumption that we could or should defend it in this fraternal conflict in the first place.

  125. [125] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So Trump isn't even inaugurated yet, and we're talking about possible armed conflict with China already. I'll say this: it's certainly a distraction from the role Russia played getting Trump elected. Or perhaps it's part and parcel....

  126. [126] 
    michale wrote:

    But...delusion? It's a tiny island, just 110 miles from China's shore. The delusional part was the assumption that we could or should defend it in this fraternal conflict in the first place.

    Yes, it's a delusion that Taiwan is not a sovereign and is part of China..

    The delusional part was the assumption that we could or should defend it in this fraternal conflict in the first place.

    So, throw those people to the dragon because there is nothing in it for us??

    Nice attitude.. :^/

    So Trump isn't even inaugurated yet, and we're talking about possible armed conflict with China already.

    China won't go to war over this... The ONLY advantage China has is numerical superiority that is completely negated by our technological superiority..

    The Chinese "navy" is bathtub rubber duckies compared to the US Navy...

    China will whine and cry like a little biatch and then dance to Trump's tune...

    It's morning in America...... We can hold our heads up with pride again...

    When you have something TANGIBLE to bitch about Trump, then we can talk...

    But right now, all you have is unsupported and unsubstantiated fear-mongering..

    238

  127. [127] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    all you have is unsupported and unsubstantiated fear-mongering..

    Well we certainly don't want any of that around here. Not while the Man of the Year is filling his cabinet with billionaires, generals, and right wing ideologues.

    Not only is the swamp not being drained, it's being stocked with crocs.

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    Well we certainly don't want any of that around here. Not while the Man of the Year is filling his cabinet with billionaires, generals, and right wing ideologues.

    All patriotic Americans..

    Which is why the Left has such a problem with them.. :D

    Not only is the swamp not being drained, it's being stocked with crocs.

    Like I said..

    Baseless fear-mongering...

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/07/us-markets.html

    The markets love President Trump.. :D

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    http://heatst.com/culture-wars/lena-dunham-hits-rock-bottom-with-vile-toilet-selfie/

    The quintessential Hillary supporter.... :^/

    Gee... I wonder why Hillary lost the election...

  130. [130] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh no! My favorite article on that site is "Is Alex Jones an Acid Rock Producer?" So rad, man. Like they're really rockin' the conservative point of view..

    Here's another: Are Liberal Activists Training Zoo Animals to overthrow Donald Trump? and "Yes, Women like Alpha Males"

    Click-bait.

  131. [131] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    All patriotic Americans.

    Uh Huh.

    Which is why the Left has such a problem with them.

    Nice try. John McCain is a patriotic American, and all he gets from the right is insults, because he dares to not agree with Trump on everything, including whether being subjected for five years to torture by North Vietnamese and Chinese interrogators constitutes 'heroism'.

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh no! My favorite article on that site is "Is Alex Jones an Acid Rock Producer?" So rad, man. Like they're really rockin' the conservative point of view..

    Here's another: Are Liberal Activists Training Zoo Animals to overthrow Donald Trump? and "Yes, Women like Alpha Males"

    Click-bait.

    If I was talking about articles, you would have a point..

    But I was talking about Dunham's toilet selfie, so you don't...

    Nice try. John McCain is a patriotic American, and all he gets from the right is insults, because he dares to not agree with Trump on everything, including whether being subjected for five years to torture by North Vietnamese and Chinese interrogators constitutes 'heroism'.

    Once again, you put words in Trump's mouth that he didn't say so you can make a valid argument that doesn't exist..

    Trump said that McCain wasn't a hero for being captured...

    And that is a bona-fide fact..

    Being captured doesn't make one a hero..

    Berghdahl was a captured... He is a coward and a deserter.. NOT a hero..

    247

  133. [133] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "China won't go to war over this... The ONLY advantage China has is numerical superiority that is completely negated by our technological superiority..

    The Chinese "navy" is bathtub rubber duckies compared to the US Navy...

    China will whine and cry like a little biatch and then dance to Trump's tune..."

    Michale, you are the one who is DELUSIONAL if you think China would never go to war over Taiwan.

    China WOULD, and for the exact same reasons that Russia would go to war over Ukraine, and the United States almost went to war over Cuba.

    China almost went to war over Quemoy and Matsu, two even smaller islands between Taiwan and China that Taiwan controls, in the 1950's, and China is in a vastly better miitary position now than it was back then.

    Also, technical superiority does not always negate a numerical advantage. Just ask the Russians about their time in Afghanistan. Also, China has deployed HUNDREDS of mobile anti-ship missiles across the strait from Taiwan. They would have a devastating effect on the U.S. Navy, far worse than the Japanese kamikaze attacks of WWII.

    I am just saying, it would not be the easy "cakewalk" you are making it out to be, not by a long shot.

  134. [134] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Reagan also assured Taiwan that the United States would not alter its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan. Finally, Reagan pledged the “United States would not formally recognize China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.”

    I know it's a fine difference for you to be able to grasp, but there is a difference between not recognizing sovereign control over an area, and recognizing an area as an independent nation in its own right.

    In fact, according to the statement by NIXON that established American policy:

    "The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves."

  135. [135] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Money was given DIRECTLY to Clinton..

    Is Softbank giving the money DIRECTLY to Trump??

    No..

    You are comparing apples and alligators..."

    Money going from foreign government officials and diplomats who now stay in Trump's hotel in Washington DC, goes DIRECTLY into Trump's pocket.

    Money that went to Clinton's Foundation went to a PUBLIC charity, not to a PRIVATELY held business corporation.

    Just who is lining the pockets of who now, buying influence, and comparing apples and oranges???

  136. [136] 
    John M wrote:

    Micahel wrote:

    "Maybe... But that doesn't change the fact that Bill and Hillary were made immensely wealthy by their assosciation with the foundation.."

    And you don't think that Trump and his business empire are not going to be made immensely wealthy by his association with the American Presidency??? Especially if he does not divest or rid himself of all his business holdings and remove the Trump name from ALL of them...

    "Using your own argument, do you think all those governments "donated" to the Clintons without expecting anything in return??"

    Do you think all those governments now using Trump's businesses worldwide or having to approve of his real estate developments in their respective nations, are not going to be expecting anything in return???

  137. [137] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Global Warming fanatics claimed that there would be more frequent and more devastating tornadoes because of human caused climate change.."

    Actually that claim was made about HURRICANES and not, as far as I know, about TORNADOES. In fact, from what I understand, the claim was just the opposite. That due to global warming and climate change, the intensity and frequency of Hurricanes would increase and that of tornadoes would decrease, due to hotter and wetter conditions over water and hotter and drier conditions over land. Which is EXACTLY what we have seen happen as predicted with Hurricanes over the Pacific and tornadoes over the USA.

  138. [138] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Even Texas will be chilly, will Dallas expected to have its coldest day since 2015
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4006994/Polar-plunge-sweeping-country.html

    But... But... But....

    GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!

    :D

    You can't imagine how funny I find that.. :D"

    You find it funny because you don't UNDERSTAND climate science.

    One, as has been explained many times, there is a difference between temporary LOCAL weather and overall GLOBAL climate.

    Two, more frequent and increasing extreme weather swings such as arctic cold snaps, and blizzards, or heatwaves and droughts, is again EXACTLY what has been predicted by Global Warming, as the Earth seeks a new state of equilibrium between its previous state and the new one it is changing towards.

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale, you are the one who is DELUSIONAL if you think China would never go to war over Taiwan.

    China will NEVER go to war with the US unless they are GUARANTEED to win...

    It's that simple..

    I am just saying, it would not be the easy "cakewalk" you are making it out to be, not by a long shot.

    Yea, it would..

    All the US would have to do is park the 6th and 7th Fleets off China and pound the shit out of China...

    The Chinese "Navy" couldn't do a thing to stop it..

    "The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position.

    You are absolutely correct. At the time, the United States did not challenged that the Chinese believe there is one China...

    The US, however, does not share that belief...

    Money going from foreign government officials and diplomats who now stay in Trump's hotel in Washington DC, goes DIRECTLY into Trump's pocket.

    So???

    They are paying for staying in the hotel.. In other words, they got something tangible for their payments.

    You, inadvertently, prove my point for me. The countries and governments that payed the Clinton Foundation were also paying for something tangible.. Influence and access to President Hillary Clinton..

    Unfortunately for those governments... It ain't so tangible anymore.. :D

    Actually that claim was made about HURRICANES and not, as far as I know, about TORNADOES.

    It was about both...

    http://www.livescience.com/49727-more-tornadoes-global-warming.html

    One, as has been explained many times, there is a difference between temporary LOCAL weather and overall GLOBAL climate.

    Funny how you didn't make that distinction when Obama was whining about Glaciers melting in the summer in Alaska..

    How come??

    Two, more frequent and increasing extreme weather swings such as arctic cold snaps, and blizzards, or heatwaves and droughts, is again EXACTLY what has been predicted by Global Warming, as the Earth seeks a new state of equilibrium between its previous state and the new one it is changing towards.

    So, when it's too cold, THAT's Global Warming??

    When it's too hot, THAT's Global Warming???

    Do you realize how much alike fanatical Global Warming hysterics and fanatical religion hysterics??? :D

    Every thing is god... Or global warming..

    Funny.. :D

    258

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:
  141. [141] 
    dsws wrote:

    "Basket of deplorables" wasn't supposed to refer to a huge part of the electorate. She was trying to contrast that huge part with the mere thousands of people who were overtly white-supremacist, antisemitic, and so on. But she said it wrong, as in "half of Trump supporters", because she's just that inept.

  142. [142] 
    dsws wrote:

    I refuse to accept that there just are no answers better than "more retraining."

    Goods and services are produced by the combination of natural resources, labor, capital, technology, initiative, and risk-bearing. (Technology, initiative and risk-bearing are commonly lumped in with capital, because that's how they're overtly paid for: at-risk capital is equity, stocks as contrasted with bonds, and entrepreneurs are owners. And technology is thought of as a form of intangible capital. I'll lump, hereinafter, like everyone else.) Production is becoming more capital-intensive. We can produce more goods and services with less labor. So it makes sense that a larger fraction of income is going to capital.

    What to do about it?

    Longer retirement, more time spent in college. I'm not talking about college as job training. I'm talking about college as a premium consumer good. There are plenty of people who would like to have learned more about history or the natural sciences or music or whatever, and college is a good way to do so.

    To get there, though, we need to do (at least) one of three things: 1) pay people more for the time they are working; 2) tax income from capital to subsidize college and retirement; or 3) transfer so much wealth that enough people have enough capital to live on during retirement and college.

Comments for this article are closed.