The Neocons will win in November.


"While carcass candidates dance around life-and-death issues, the familiar flock of war vultures circle coolly overhead.  Campaign promises notwithstanding, those who whisper in the ears of America’s front-runners are overwhelmingly united in further destabilizing and exploiting the Middle East.

Nation-states seeking sovereignty, independence, and equitable relationships with their neighbors may need to look to themselves for the leadership, strategy, and means to effectively resist a militaristic global tyranny.  When looking to the US, it is prudent to consider what an unidentified Irishman purportedly observed decades ago: “…You can depend on Americans to do the right thing when they have exhausted every other possibility.”  South Front


As I suspected, indeed knew in some cases, the neocons have once again succeeded in infiltrating  major US institutions in pursuit of their goal of control through universal presence in the ante-rooms of power.  In this case the institutions are the campaign staffs of ALL the remaining candidates.  (Sanders maybe not?)

I would be curious as to whether Rand Paul's staff was similarly controlled.  Perhaps it was not…

My guestimate just now, subject to future judgment as events roll out, is that Clinton's campaign will implode at some point and that Trump is likely to be the 45th president of the United States.

Will he prove biddable once in office?  Only time will tell.  pl

This entry was posted in As The Borg Turns, government, Policy, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to The Neocons will win in November.

  1. tjfxh says:

    Maybe Trump has signaled he is already in the neocon/war hawk camp:
    “Painted as anti-establishment and friendly toward Russia, Republican front-runner Donald Trump nevertheless embraced Michael Glassner as his Political Director [1]. Glassner was a senior advisor to former presidential candidates Bob Dole and John McCain, both notorious military interventionists. He was also a Regional Political Director for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) [2], a highly-influential organization with a long track record of lobbying for military invasions and aggressive sanctions against Israel’s neighbors [3].…
    “Another more ominous signal came last August, when Trump, who has frequently touted his opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, named former top US State Department official John Bolton as one of his top foreign policy advisors, stating: “He’s, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about.” Part of the Bush-Cheney regime, Bolton was a staunch advocate for military invasions of Iraq and Iran. [9]”

  2. turcopolier says:

    Don’t post things more than once. pl

  3. turcopolier says:

    IMO this article may be a bit harsh about Sanders. Does anyone actually know who his policy advisers are? pl

  4. Tyler says:

    Trump will talk to Putin. National Review, that neocon organ, hates him.
    Trump will do the right thing, I think.

  5. steve says:

    It’s reported that Sanders has hired Bill French as his foreign policy adviser.
    French works as an analyst for the Nationbal Security Network which bills itself as a “progressive” foreign policy organization.

  6. Sanders just picked Bill French, a policy analyst at the progressive National Security Network to begin assembling his national security policies. I can’t decide whether this kid looks more like a fresh out of IOBC butter bar or a fourth year ROTC cadet. The fact that Clinton has sucked up all the democratic neocons is a good thing for the Sanders team. Sanders clearly does not see foreign policy as his priority. If that means stop meddling in other people’s business, I’m for it.

  7. Valissa says:

    Given the power of neocons in the “Establishment” or the Borg or the Deep State how could it be any other way? And if it wasn’t neocons it would be some other variety of imperialism that was in tune with the current phase of Pax Americana. I do not expect a president to “change” the Establishment, as by the nature of their job they ARE or BECOME part of that Establishment. Realizing this truth is why I now vote 3rd party for president.
    I am currently reading Mike Lofgren’s new book “The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government.” I first heard of Lofgren on a Bill Moyers interview and it was Bill who urged Mike to write this book.
    Lofgren spent 30 years working in various congressional aide roles, particularly budgets and finance issues. He’s an ex-Republican who previously wrote a book criticizing the what the GOP has become.
    Here’s an article he wrote two years ago on the Deep State which is appended to his interview with Bill Moyers.
    Lofgren’s concept of the Deep State is not so different from the idea of The Borg, and it is more accessible to the general public.

  8. Walrus says:

    Trump is going to win big on Tuesday. I think that much is certain. Shortly after that, I predict Trump is going to be called into a one on one meeting with a senior Republican for what I term a “come to Jesus” meeting.
    Trump will be offered a choice; “come to Jesus” – meaning drink the kool aid and agree to accept neo conservative advice and teaching and with it, the Republican nomination, or else.
    The “or else” is what scares me. The Secret Service has been rocked by scandal in the last few years. An Islamic Iranian suicide assassin slipping across an unprotected Mexican border may sound like a Tom Clancy novel, but it would give a President Cruz or Clinton an exquisite Casus Belli. Stay safe, Donald, God protect him.

  9. Jack says:

    IMO, its going to be Trump vs Hillary in November. Both have plenty of skeletons. Hillary does not want to release transcripts of her million dollar Wall St speeches. Trump does not want to release his tax returns. Hillary has got all the lines all rehearsed. Trump does not do policy wonky. It is going to be all about mudslinging. Down in the gutter. I think it will be hilarious in a Reality TV sense.
    Hillary will have the establishment behind her. She’s ziocon central. Not only is she venal but feels very entitled. With her there is certainty. She will use the presidency to further the interests of her social circle. The neocons and financial elite.
    Trump is an enigma. Does anyone know what he really believes? His views have been completely contradictory on most issues. He used to be socially liberal and not religious. Now he says he is on the same page as the evangelists. He says now Iraq & Libya were errors. But that the Iranian deal was bad. Are these views consistent with Bolton as a foreign policy advisor? With Trump we are getting uncertainty. Is he actually going to build a wall? Is he going to not needlessly meddle in others affairs? I don’t think he’s really thought too deeply about most policy issues.
    The choice it seems is the certainty of Hillary or the uncertainty of Trump. We live in interesting times.

  10. LondonBob says:

    Trump has been a public figure for a long time, he opposed the Iraq war, intervention in Libya, supports strong relations with Russia etc. Justin Raimondo has done a good job debunking the current claims that these weren’t his positions so I won’t repeat his points.
    There has been no electoral advantage to him praising Putin, questioning MH17, stating he would be neutral on Israel-Palestine. My only concern is whether he can find enough realist foreign policy advisers and whether he can counter the institutional element. So far the neocon front ‘think tanks’ have complained he has not consulted them, whilst he has gone for advise to someone like Mike Flynn. I also think he is bullheaded and strong enough to not to allow the likes Nuland to undercut him once President.
    We shall see, but it is quite clear he is worrying all the right people.

  11. johnf says:

    Will there be any country left in the ME for the neo-cons to invade? Syria will be almost certainly wrapped up by then. No US politician will EVER reinvade Iraq. Algeria, Egypt and Morocco seem relatively stable.
    I suppose there’s Iran but all the US’s allies are so bought into trading with them post-sanctions I can’t see it. Whose left? Africa? But most Americans don’t see them as Big Bad Muslims but black.
    If it is Trump and Clinton in the presidential election, then Trump – who might change his tune if he’s elected – will surely continue on his extremely popular anti-neo-con crusade, and, as someone who boasts that he does not need sponsors, is sure to underline again and again Hillary’s sponsors, almost all of whom are zionists, and may even include Adelson. Israel and its financial hold over US politicians is probably at last going to be exposed in a US election.
    And Sanders isn’t necessarily beat yet. Clinton could sink into her own sleaze-mire. And he might yet win some primaries.

  12. Before we get to advisers during the campaign what about post-nomination VP running mate selections? This has become the sole perogative of the nominee! Tragically IMO!

  13. LondonBob says:

    Unduly harsh on Sanders and Trump. You make do with what you get, and they get a lot more right than wrong. That candidates also temporarily adjust their positions for electoral purposes is no big deal, it is just what politicians do. I am afraid the author will be waiting a long time for a flawless candidate.

  14. Bill Herschel says:

    I share this fear. Bobby Kennedy was assassinated the night he won the California primary. No need to assassinate him if there wasn’t a chance he would become President.

  15. Bill Herschel says:

    The NY Times lead editorial: “After his performance on Friday, Mr. Christie had better hope that Mr. Trump, wherever he winds up, can find a little something for his new apprentice to do.”
    Wherever he winds up…

  16. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    If you’re right that it will be Hilary and Trump in November, the latter will win by a landslide. This will be because millions of people, mainly but not exclusively folks under forty, who supported or leaned toward Bernie for the nomination will vote with their butts by sitting on them on election day. The turnout failure will in turn be a down-ticket disaster for the Democrats.

  17. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    If Sanders gets the Dem nomination I predict you’ll see the party nomenklatura pull out all the stops to install one of their own as the VP candidate. If that happens Bernie will be a lame duck from the day he’s inaugurated because he’ll have little support from his alleged party allies in Congress.
    Sanders will be turn 75 in September this year, which means if he’s elected he’d be seeking a 2nd term at age 79. If he hopes to steer the party back on a track similar to what it was during the New Deal coalition, namely that it was first and foremost an advocate for the economic interests of the lower tiers of the middle class, the blue and white collar working classes and the dispossessed, he must have a running mate who is in tune with his agenda, who is plausible “presidential timber,” and could pick up the torch if he cannot run or is perceived to be in decline. The only person that comes to my mind for filling this bill is Elizabeth Warren. If I were Bernie and found myself pushed over the top for the nomination in July, I’d accept it only on condition that the convention accept her as VP candidate.

  18. pj says:

    If the election comes to Hillary and Trump, I too believe Trump will win. When she ran against Obama, he was very respectful and polite. (What would a black man running against a white woman in America do.) Sanders has also been rather polite, trying to focus on issues and not challenging her aggressively. But, you can see Hillary closing down and almost becoming brittle when she is suddenly confronted with harsh criticism, e.g. see the recent video of a BLM protester confronting her in South Carolina. Clearly, Trump will have no scruples about challenging her aggressively on a whole host of issues that Obama/Sanders have ignored.

  19. BabelFish says:

    I stand to be corrected but, as I remember it, in the old (and maybe current) Dem party, was not Humphrey leading in delegates at the time of RFK’s assassination, due to the old ‘smoke filled room’ method of delegate selection? I say current as well due to the ‘Superdelegate’ selection process that has people like Junior Queen D. Wasserman-Shultz as a voting delegate to the Dem convention.

  20. BabelFish says:

    An interesting question! Would Christie, being used to the lead position of a governor, accept the VP nod from Trump? He’d spend years in the job once rated as ‘a warm bucket of spit’ before getting a chance to try to get nominated to run for POTUS.

  21. Mishklji says:

    Bernie or Warren as VP might fire up the base.
    Bernie can be eased out in 2020.

  22. Les says:

    We’ve been through this before with Obama and McCain in 2008, both of whom sought to paint themselves as in direct opposition to Bush’s policies or at least as independent (“maverick”). Both campaigns were loaded with economic and foreign policy advisors from the Bush and Clinton administrations.

  23. Nuff Sed says:

    If Bolton is advising Trump, then I would think the relevant question would be whether the top brass in the military will allow the crazies in the White House and at State to order the Pentagon to attack Iran – which is what try will want to do irrespective of whether it is Trump or Clinton who is at the helm.

  24. Outrage Beyond says:

    I think Christie has his eye on the Attorney General slot. If that’s the case, the odds of Christie prosecuting Madame Clinton might be favorable. Assuming Obama doesn’t pardon her on his way out the door.
    After four years as AG, Christie could run for governor in NJ again, then use that perch for a run at the white house in 2024.

  25. Jackrabbit says:

    Eyes glaze over at “Deep State” and it sounds innocuous.
    Many people will not understand the difference between “Deep State” and “Big Government”.
    “The Borg” conveys a sense of evil. This disturbing image prompts questioning.

  26. Valissa says:

    There are other elections and ballot questions in November that will still get people to the voting booth. On the presidential vote there are options other than D or R: 3rd party candidates and the write in vote. A few years back there was a big movement encouraging voters to write “None of the Above” as a write in (my husband did that one or two times). This way at least your dissent gets counted in the election statistics. Personally I encourage people to vote 3rd party instead of staying at home. Of course that candidate will not win, but it is a registered statement of dissatisfaction with the D-R establishment.

  27. Valissa says:

    IMO, no way Trump would pick Christie as a VP candidate… that’s a bridge too far 😉 What advantage would that be for Trump? Trump is a New Yorker and doesn’t need a Jersey boy on his ticket. Maybe Christie will luck out and get offered a cabinet position, perhaps the Dept of Transportation (/snark).

  28. erik says:

    I’m not one who is connected to the political/foreign policy world and I don’t have a lot of facts I can use to bolster my opinions about the roll out of a possible Trump presidency, but what I think may be going on now is Trump is playing it smart by picking certain people like Bolton as “advisers”.
    Trump has to know that he will need all the neocon warhorses on board along with the other beady eyed ideologues of the Republican party. As the likelihood of his becoming the candidate increases, he’ll need all those people, along with crossover Democratic “middle finger” voters if he’s to beat HRC in the general. To bring in neocon agitators is simply astute gamesmanship on his part. “Better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in”
    IMO, should Trump secure the presidency, he’ll have some surprises in store for those people. I don’t think he’ll have any use for people like Bolton once he’s elected and will dump them like yesterday’s newspapers. Many Democrat friends of mine express a surprising comfort that Trump will turn out to be a social policy liberal and otherwise a pragmatist and they dislike HRC as a DINO.
    Trump will be beholden to none of the Right Wing establishment and he knows they face a Hobsons choice come election time. Who else can they vote for after all?
    Things could be interesting this November. Of course this all goes to the maddening effect Trump has had on the right, who all fear he’s a Trojan Horse who probably holds most career politicos in contempt.

  29. Jackrabbit says:

    Yesterday (Friday), the NY Times had two articles on its front page that were telling. The neocon establishment is doing everything possible to derail his candidacy.
    The first, it the important rightmost column, highlighted Rubio’s performance at the debate. He is NOT robotic! He is challenging Trump!
    The second, just to the left of the first, was a hit piece on Trump. It related how Trump companies hired foreign workers.
    It was also striking to see Rubio take Trump to task at the debate for Trump’s declining to support Israel unconditionally. (Trump had essentially said that although he is very pro-Israel, he wanted to retain some independence so as allow for the possibility of negotiating peace).
    For people in key positions, the Borg demands unconditional surrender to their agenda. That Trump wants a strong military; attacks “Radical Islamic Terr0rism” and wants a moratorium on accepting Syrian immigrants; and is pro-Israel is not enough for the Borg. Nuanced positions leave too much to chance.

  30. hemeantwell says:

    “The only person that comes to my mind for filling this bill is Elizabeth Warren.”
    Agreed. I’m hoping that Warren might set up speculation on a Sanders-Warren ticket by following Christie’s example.

  31. Jackrabbit says:

    Yesterday RT had a segment about VOTEPACT:
    By joining with other disaffected voters who might not vote at all, voters can force the inclusion of third parties into the Presidential debates, prompting a real debate and for other voters to see third-parties as a viable choice.
    One possibility thatt was mentioned that might arise from the VOTEPACT strategy is a “unity ticket” of principled left and right third-party candidates. I had actually suggested something similar in the 2012 election. A “unity ticket” would get the attention necessary to be viable and would highlight the differences with the establishment ‘duopoly’ party.

  32. optimax says:

    The American Conservative grades the candidates on foreign policy, with the highest grades given for non-intervention. Sanders is rated overall best with a B, Trump and Kasich C, Clinton and Cruz D, Rubio and Carson F.
    TAC does point out that candidates become more hawkish once elected. In an interview while running for his first term, W said he didn’t believe in nation building and Obama ramped up drone strikes has militarily and covertly supported regime change in Libya and Ukraine.
    The Democratic is entrenched in its support of Hillary and the RNC is trying to figure out a strategy for defeating Trump and installing Rubio. Both the DNC and RNC are Borg institutions.
    Heard a few minutes of Trump and Rubio yelling at each other in the debate and sounding like the trash on the Jerry Springer Show. Pictured both men wearing diapers.

  33. It should be remembered that we’re in the season when the denizens of “think tanks”, university professors, former defense establishment bureaucrats, and retired military and naval officers are busily shopping themselves to various candidates in hopes of finding “the grail”; which is a position of influence at State, DoD, Treasury, or the NSC. It appears to me that the tactic involves signing on as a designated “policy advisor” with the aim of parlaying that into an appointment when the advisee gets elected. There appears to be a definite advantage to picking the right one and to having been there from the beginning.
    Trump is concentrating on getting the nomination and may be laying down a smoke screen with contradictory statements on foreign policy and announcements about policy advisors. I would say that Rubio and Clinton seem to be the ones most tied in to the neo-con web and, not a coincidence, the most bellicose.

  34. Chris Chuba says:

    1. It is inevitable that Trump will have some neocon advisors, the question remains will he have any voices of realism and sanity whispering into his ear. If he does then I believe he has enough critical thinking skills to listen to them. Only time will tell as his advisors become publicly known and as he makes appointments. Don’t forget, he is famous for ‘firing people’ so even if he naively selects a few bad people I think he has the courage to get rid of bad apples.
    2. I am optimistic about Trump’s critical thinking skills by comparing how all of the foreign policy novices in this race reacted to the neocon establishment. In this race you had Christie, Carson, and Trump with zero real exposure to foreign policy experience. If you look how their positions evolved and look at their websites, you can easily see how Carson and Christie drank the Kool aid and adopted the language of ‘American Exceptionalism, indespensible leadership, vacuums, traditional enemies …’ uncritically while Trump kept his independence.
    3. I am hoping that Russia’s progress in Syria will FINALLY be what used to be called a ‘teachable moment’; not for the neocons, because they are beyond hope, but it will certainly reinforce Trump’s analysis of the situation and help any voices of sanity that he may have in a Trump administration.

  35. Tyler says:

    Trump is one tweet away from having the largest private army in the United States. His death would not be received…lightly.

  36. turcopolier says:

    IMO Trump would be wise to run with someone like Martinez of New Mexico or Brian Sandoval of Nevada. pl

  37. MRW says:

    “Trump has to know that he will need . . . than outside pissing in.”
    I agree with you. The same argument was advanced by a claimed Trump insider about Trump’s call to, or calling on, Sheldon Adelson. It wasn’t for money. The insider said that Trump was locking up Adelson so that Adelson would think twice about investing in financing his opposition. Adelson hasn’t put his money behind any Republican candidate so far.

  38. Valissa says:

    Maybe that is true in your social circles, but not in mine. I try to avoid talking politics with my many liberal friends who are firmly ensconced in the Democratic Tribe because they have a hard time accepting/understanding that I have stepped outside the normal MSM political bubble and all it’s trivial political arguments, perspectives and allegiances.
    But when I use the term Deep State to explain why things haven’t really changed since Obama that works best in my experience. I avoid the phrase “big government” with liberals as that’s too much of a dog whistle for them. When I use the term Deep State I observed those listening to find that an understandable explanation of a bureaucratic “evil.”
    Have you tried the various terms out on your friends in your neck of the US? I am curious which is the most effective terminology in your social world.

  39. Jack says:

    IMO, the divide among our fellow citizens is growing and fracturing on narrow identity groups. The duopoly has become fully captured by neocon/R2P and oligarchic interests using the power of the state to dominate. The Borg rules all national institutions. All careerists have to become Borgistas to advance. We are seeing the steady evisceration of all comity in DC and the rule of law for the elites.
    The Democrats are not really a national party when one looks at the number of state houses and legislatures they control. They are the party of the coastal population centers. On the federal level there is not a whole lot of difference between the parties as both pursue policies that grow the scale and scope of government. None of our founding generation would get elected today.
    I think as the Borgistas continue with policies of military dominance and interventions the rest of the world is coming to the conclusion that they have to resist US hegemony as they see US politics go off the rails. Another factor is that as government intervenes more and more in our economy to protect oligarchic interests under the rubric of regulation and theories that there are no costs to unbridled government spending, we are seeing a steady decline in the living standards of the median household. This angst is finding oulets in blaming some group or another. I feel we run the risk of a deeply fractured society and the many unintended consequences. One consequence that we’re already seeing is steady growth in the repressive powers of the state.

  40. Babak Makkinejad says:

    If he runs with Bernie, he would be unstoppable.

  41. ISL says:

    Dear Colonel, Opinion on Stanley McChrystal (ret.) for VP?

  42. Tyler,
    It comes back to the fact that ‘the Borg’ is stupid, alike in the United States and Britain.
    In the ‘old days’, élites here used to have some sense of the inadvisability of, as it were, ‘pushing their luck’. No longer, it seems.
    Excerpts from a new biography of Blair, dealing with his immigration policy, have just appeared on the ‘MailOnline’ site.
    (See .)

  43. Valissa says:

    Best suggestions for a Trump VP I’ve heard so far. He needs someone from the West to balance his East Coast persona.
    Looks like he’s being pragmatic on the VP issue…
    Donald Trump on VP pick: We need a political insider
    Who would be Donald Trump’s vice president? He still won’t say — but the GOP front-runner divulged Wednesday that it would likely be an insider in contrast with his outsider status.
    “I do want somebody that’s political, because I want to get lots of great legislation we all want passed,” Trump said Wednesday in a Q&A at Regent University. “We’re going to probably choose somebody that’s somewhat political.”
    … Trump said the “main quality” he would seek in a running mate would be someone who could be a “great president” if something were to happen to require that person to step in — but after that, it’s about balancing his political outsider status.
    “I’d want someone who could help me with governing,” Trump said. “You want somebody that can help you with legislation, getting it through.”
    Sounds very sensible to me.

  44. hans says:

    For what it’s worth, I’ve been active in the Minnesota DFL for 50+ years and have never, not even in 1968’s dust-up with McCarthy and Humphrey, seen the like of the Clintonites; smug, entitled, dismissive, condescending, and capped off by an unthinking determination to needlessly make enemies.
    People who refuse to join her religion are heretics and won’t be forgiven. Ever. And I hear much the same from friends in Wisconsin. If this mindset is prevalent among Hillary’s advocates nation-wide (and I strongly suspect it is from talking to people in Florida, Ohio, and California) she’s heading for an electoral disaster that’ll drag the down-ticket candidates over the cliff with her.
    To put it mildly, she’s not quick-witted, is lost without her few bullet points, has no sense of humor, and what she thinks is her “record of accomplishments” is a string of disasters Trump will gleefully and mercilessly pound her with from hell to breakfast. Come October the only interest will be Trump’s cabinet – Cristy as Atty. General? Bolton as SecDef? Jesse Ventura as Sec State? Pass the popcorn.

  45. turcopolier says:

    Too strong a personality. Trump could make him SECDEF or CJCS. Flynn may be DNI. pl

  46. Rex says:

    Martinez and her cabinet are probably too tainted with scandal for a national election. Her top aid is under federal investigation in campaign finance area. Her Secretary of State (R) resigned when charged with fraud and was convicted. Her Secretary of Education (R)is plagued by scandals in the top of the organization, including improper credentials and collusion with the biggest school system in the state to hire a bail jumper into a top position ($160k/year), who was later arrested in the state he fled. A new probe into Martinez’ gutting of the state’s mental health system, alleging fraud and installation of an out-of-state firm (campaign donor?) proves increasingly embarrassing. The NM AG has cleared all but 2 of the original mental health firms of any fraud. Many of those in need of mental health care were devastated.

  47. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Women generally lack a sense of humor – you cannot take that against HRC.

  48. The Beaver says:

    Robert Kagan is asking his “audience” to vote for Hilary:
    which caused some to elaborate:
    1.”The neoconservatives were originally moderate liberal critics of the Democratic Party, who objected to its leftward turn in the 1960s and 1970s and began their exodus from the broader Democratic Party around the McGovern campaign. Most of them are deeply enmeshed in the conservative movement now and have views about the role of government indistinguishable from those of other conservatives.”
    2. “The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising. In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, wrote that the fledgling neoconservatives represented “something of a swing group between the two major parties.” He was right. The neoconservatives had their home in the Democratic Party in the 1960s. Then they marched rightward, in reaction to the rise of the adversary culture inside the Democratic Party. George McGovern’s run for the presidency in 1972, followed by the Jimmy Carter presidency, sent them into the arms of Ronald Reagan and the GOP.”
    Victoria Nuland is sure to get more power should HRC be teh next POTUS – we don’t know about Fred and his wife Kimberley. For sure Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Feltman will have their say.

  49. cynic says:

    Here’s an article which amusingly explains the electoral process, and how the hubris of both party machines is creating its own nemesis.

  50. cynic says:

    I raised that suggestion on Breitbart, but the supporters of neither man liked it.

  51. mbrenner says:

    Christie may be commuting between a federal prison and a state prison

  52. Nancy K says:

    I try to avoid talking politics with my friends who are Republican because they also have a “hard time accepting/understanding”. I use terms like Duck Dynasty Nation and reality TV president and laughing stock of the world, but these terms realistic as they may be don’t seem to go over to well. I have found that just telling my friends that I really don’t wish to discuss politics or religion with them works best for me and for our relationship.

  53. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    FWIW, yesterday the WSJ had a piece saying that Sandoval had removed himself for consideration for the open SCOTUS seat. He was reportedly being vetted for it. I can think of two possible reasons for the withdrawal: 1) As you suggest he may have his eyes on the VP nomination or a high position in a Republican administration. 2) However It’s possible that some skeleton was rattling the closet door that he’d much prefer to keep out of sight, in which case he’d likely not be interested in the VP nomination either.

  54. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    No. Just no.

  55. optimax says:

    You know the wrong women. I find your comment unsubstantiated by my experience.

  56. Valissa says:

    Understood! I wish I could simply say I don’t want to discuss certain subjects and pull it off. My personal rule is that I will not bring up a political topic with either my liberal/Dem friends or my Republican family members, but if they bring up the topic I will make a small attempt to get them thinking outside their normal boxes. Sometimes I take the “historian” role and try to explain the bigger picture and put current events in context. I try to keep a sense of humor about it, and respect the differences of opinion and I think that helps. Also, being an ex-liberal/Dem and now solid independent makes it easier for Republicans and I to have limited political conversations than it used to. I grew up in rural Republican upstate NY, live in mostly liberal MA and own property in NC so can play the political chameleon as needed.

  57. McGee says:

    This is unbelievable, but I think that Sanders does have a chance of defeating a Trump candidacy, and that Clinton has none. Trump will eat her alive. A stunning conclusion which I never would have come to a few months ago. Can’t believe I’m making it even now. Will be interested to hear if anyone else here agrees.

  58. Dubhaltach says:

    Will there be any country left in the ME for the neo-cons to invade?
    Israel – but only as a tutorial to show those softies how it should be done.

  59. Jackrabbit says:

    I find that both Republicans and Democrats have an insular view. Each see the other as evil and respond to their respective buzzwords. Both accept criticism of their party if they think you are like-minded but get very defensive if they think your sympathies lie elsewhere. Neither think much about macro issues like “duopoly” or “imperialism”.
    Both respond to “what’s it mean to me?” explanations, especially when the description is put in economic terms.
    I get cognitive dissonance, denial, pointing fingers, then the assertion that they will look into certain aspects of our conversation. I take that to mean that they want to see what well-known Party hacks/partisans think about it before making up their mind.
    And this leads to an important point: FEW ACTUALLY THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Sad.
    As for Borg/’Deep State’ – many are already familiar with ‘Deep State’. I haven’t used ‘Borg’ much but when I have it usually gets a reaction.

  60. turcopolier says:

    “Borg” has a deep, rich, mahogany roux kind of flavor on the tongue. “Deep State” has too much the ring of a FP star article written by some dweeb Borgista. pl

  61. Kooshy says:

    IMO, and with my last 40 years experience, observing, participating and contributing to US presidential elections (till the swift boating). who ever becomes front runner of either party (like BHO in 08 or ) will be invited to annual AIPAC convention (I forgot but I think is in late spring?), which he or she will have to attend if wants to survive the race. In that convene, to after he or she publicly and in that forum and in that evening makes allegiance to security of Israel equal to, if not more prior, to that of the country he or she is running to become president of (USA), she or he will politely be invited to attend a private meeting in upper floor with the real bosses( owners) of this country. He or she will be asked politely who to select for VP ( Biden) SOS ( Hilarious ) and the Chef de village of staff ( preferably some one with Israeli dual citizenship like Rahm Emanuel) end of story, after that you can choose whoever you want is all good.

  62. steve says:

    It is well into the primary season. Trump has yet to make public the identity of his foreign policy advisers, other than John Bolton. Whatever you think about Trump on foreign policy is largely a projection of what you are projecting on him. He hasn’t really expressed consistent opinions on anything , other than whatever he does will be great.

  63. Fred says:

    A very good point to remember when trying to persuade people.

  64. different clue says:

    ex-PFC Chuck,
    Perhaps he just didn’t want to be involved in any of the Obama vs. Senate nastiness at all regarding the Supreme Court.

  65. Fred says:

    Sirhan Sirhan as an assassin motived by domestic US political concerns? That’s a conspiracy theory to far.

  66. Fred says:

    If we are bringing out the generals then he should consider Dempsey for a cabinet post; at the very least to head the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee with direction to clean house.

  67. Jack says:

    Yes, Trump is the only Republican candidate currently in the race that can defeat Hillary. It won’t be going toe to toe on policy details. It will be all about visual verbal slingshots. Like “low energy”, “choke artist”, etc. He’s already talked about her needing an extra long potty break during a debate. It will be theatre at a Reality TV level. Very comedic!
    I also agree that Sanders would be more competitive again’t Trump compared to Hillary. Sanders can’t win the nomination though losing heavily among Boomers and blacks. While the Millenials support him overwhelmingly they don’t vote enough to make it matter. Of course the party establishment is completely in Hillary’s corner. So she’s got all the super delegates.

  68. Tyler says:

    I imagine Jim Webb would be Trump’s running mate.

  69. Fred says:

    I think a couple of quotes from that article explain the appeal of Trump and the incapability of the establishment in stoping the voters.
    “Least of all did either of them question whether the immigrants would have any effect on the lives of the … working class. (Nine years later, a report … found that 23 … workers had been displaced for every 100 foreign-born workers employed here.)” “As so often, the Prime Minister had deployed an empty promise to defuse a problem he had no idea how to solve.”
    If you recall the recent post by Dr. Brenner about evading destiny I would say the he could write in a similar vein about the denial of declining power of the establishment wing of both parties and their main support blocks. They are in denial about the declining power over their own voters and are desperate to avoid the reality of that change in power and influence.

  70. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Consider yourself fortunate.

  71. Norbert M Salamon says:

    Being Canadian, my preference would be a social Democrat, for such stands for the “people” primarily. Else Mr. Trump, for I and most Canadians have a strong aversion to ICBM-s flying over our sovereign country; for the rest represent the Borg, aka. War-mongers and Israel Firsters.

  72. ked says:

    I found this article to be a taste of what we will see being thrown at Trump.
    His lifestyle, his marriages, business scams, the mob, the Arabs & a lot more will be thrown onto the wall – some will stick. Some will be true.
    His supporters are capable of abandoning him too… one trick ponies can wear thin for those with a short attention span.
    A “distressed minority” of avg citizens, who find him transcenently offensive, may tilt toward the Hill.
    Then there’s the man himself. His wild dynamic may indeed present us with the spectacle of a presidential candidate having a breakdown in public.
    It is such a crazy cycle, it may even turn bland in the final 3 weeks.
    A Unified Theory of Trump

  73. robt willmann says:

    Today, 27 February, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie introduced Donald Trump at a rally in Bentonville, Arkansas, a long way south of New Jersey. Trump then gave a speech that was televised in full. It was interesting that Christie was down in Arkansas with him.
    Trump used even stronger language against the various “trade deals” that have been passed and the talk of “free trade” that has become a false god. The existing ones, such as NAFTA and GATT with its World Trade Organization (WTO), and the ones pending in Congress, including the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), have in them the “dispute resolution tribunals”. These are courts superior to the U.S. federal and state courts in which claimed violations of the trade agreements are heard. They operate in secret with secret evidence, and the judges are appointed, some by the president of the U.S. Trump has yet to talk about these secret courts and how bad they are, but of course the easy point to get across to the public in a political campaign is how the trade agreements have destroyed U.S. jobs.
    Trump talked about the meeting at a Carrier Air Conditioning plant in the U.S. at which employees were told the plant was closing, and referred to the fact that some of it was captured on a cellular phone, the video of which is here–
    Trump is a member of the “Establishment”, and so has gotten a whole lot of free television time. As Senator Rand Paul correctly observed, if the TV networks had given him a lot of free air time, he would have been doing better in the primaries. But Trump is not in tight with the national political operators from the last 20 years, through whom the trade deals have been passed into law, beginning with NAFTA in 1994. The group in the Establishment Trump is a threat to are the “globalists”, who are using “free trade” agreements to establish organizations with a “legal basis”, independent of nation-states, as a way to enrich themselves, and also as a step toward a type of world commonwealth government.
    Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of the South Carolina Democratic Primary. She is a globalist, as both NAFTA and GATT were passed when Bill Clinton was president. Rahm Emanuel worked in the Clinton White House at that time and was involved in getting NAFTA passed.
    Strobe Talbott, a Clinton friend, is a pusher of global governance, has referred to himself as a citizen of the world, is president of the Brookings Institution, and was the founding director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. “In December 2011 Mr. Talbott was named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as chair of the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board”–
    If his age would not get in the way, I think he would be considered to be appointed Secretary of State if Hillary is elected.

  74. Valissa says:

    LOL… I agree! Personally I much prefer the flavor of Borg meme which you so brilliantly coined and developed here at SST 🙂
    The Deep State meme is more readily understood by “muggles” because of it’s poli-sci flavor and because it’s had more press

  75. Valissa says:

    Enjoyed the link, thanks!
    Now for some more electoral amusement…

  76. BB says:

    I don’t get the support for Sanders. Yes, he’s my second pick after Sanders, but that’s only because Rand Paul dropped out. I could never support a guy who says we need to support the jihadist rebels to overthrow a secular government, where women can walk around in jeans and live a Western lifestyle.

  77. BB says:

    The late Christopher Hitchens and others have made this point and I have a read a few articles discussing the scientific (evolutionary/genetic) reasons for this. Here’s one I found:

  78. Babak Makkinejad says:

    My late German friend & I arrived at this insight while in graduate school. Which this research conforms.
    My friend would have been very pleased.

  79. J says:

    Trump has a lot of some very powerful types worried when he says if elected he intends to audit the Fed. Something the Congress has not been able to do even though it was the Congress who created the Fed with their 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Remember how long the late President Kennedy remained in office after he took U.S. currency off the Federal Reserve Note and put it back on a U.S. Treasury Note.
    Just saying……

  80. drpuck says:

    National election result maps sort out the concentrations of: red-purple-blue at the county, and, precinct level.
    I’m in Cleveland, Ohio. Ohio election maps present a microcosm of the national maps. The urban areas reflect many solid blue precincts, but the overall map is very red because of all the solid red rural and small town precincts. There is much legislative battling here at the state level between rural Republicans and cosmopolitan Democrats.
    Gerrymanders reflect this also, as their import is to collect red or blue together to create non-competitive districts and also reduce the political voice of non-white groups.
    maps and analysis:

  81. drpuck says:

    I find your point congruent with my sense.
    If one tracks–from comment threads–a sample of Trump’s supporters, very quickly it becomes clear that Trump is sticky paper for any and all projections. How fortunate this is for his candidacy!
    I have read supporters of an isolationist bent arguing, just as fierce advocates of sprinkling tactical nukes over Iran argue, that once elected President, Trump will dial himself to the supporter’s imagined exact sweet spot.
    (My personal feeling is that, possibly, both Trump and HRC share a distaste for throwing young American men and women into the mid-east wood chipper.)

  82. different clue says:

    A VP Christie would try to make his Vice Presidency consequential in the way that Dick Cheney tried (and succeeded). Would a President Trump allow a VP Christie get away with re-creating the “Fourth Branch” of government that Cheney created?

  83. different clue says:

    If women have no sense of humor, how is it that Lilly Tomlin, Lucille Ball, etc. could be so funny?

  84. different clue says:

    Even if Sanders “can’t win” the nomination, I hope he and his movement keep grinding along till the Convention Floor Count is over and done with. It would be interesting to see just how large or small Sanders’ supporter base ends up being.

  85. different clue says:

    Sanders has also accepted the concept of “Russian aggression” in Ukraine. I wonder whether he really understands his own viewpoints here or whether he has just accepted the common Borg wisdom because he has been so focused on domestic American affairs that he has never been educated out of a basic ignorance of foreign affairs. His rejection of Kissinger as a source of wisdom and guidance gives one hope for some soundness of instinct on Sanders’ part.
    If the Sanders campaign has anyone tasked with reading this and other blogs to find out what various groups of people are thinking about things, one hopes those intelligence-gatherers can convince high-level Sanders people and perhaps Sanders himself to devote several days to a straight-through reading of this blog, especially the various foreign-affairs topic-blocks. One hopes that such intelligence-gatherers would also prepare for Sanders a whole group of separate parallel experts to consult about things. Such as professor Steven Cohen for Russian and former-Soviet-space affairs.

  86. Jack says:

    Hillary having a taste for non-intervention?
    I think her record as Senator and SoS contradicts that. From the Balkans to Iraq, she was always a cheerleader. And under her watch at State – Ukraine, Libya and Syria. She’ll happily send American youth into the wood-chipper if it satisfies her agenda.
    IMO, she epitomizes the most perfect Borgista. A disdain for those not in her elite circles and a conviction free lust for power. Bill & Hillary mastered the art of triangulation and deception more than any national political operatives. All my opinion of course.

  87. rjj says:

    most of them were not that funny.
    almost all had male writers.
    the only one of the “etceteras” who wrote her own material was Edna Everedge.

  88. Cee says:

    Batshit crazy comes to mind.

  89. steve says:

    I believe a Warren endorsement would be one of the few things that would give pause to the MSM narrative of the inevitability of Hillary. For awhile.

  90. steve says:

    I would agree that Sanders has a greater chance of defeating Trump than Hillary. One factor would be Trump’s debating/rhetorical style which imho would fall far flatter against Sanders than against Hillary, who would be his perfect foil.
    Sanders just wouldn’t engage Trump on Trump’s terms. Hillary would try and would lose. Just like Rubio’s recent middle-schoolish effort to mimic and mock Trump’s tweets.

  91. optimax says:

    Tina Faye and Amy Pohler were writers besides actors on SNL and their following shows. Carol Burnett wrote some of her material and improvised as fast as the men. Women’s humor isn’t as cruel as some men’s humor; in fact, I don’t think dropping a rock on someones head is funny– maybe I’m just more in touch with my feminine side. Yin Yang the wicked witch is dead.

  92. Tel says:

    Does anyone actually know who his policy advisers are?

    There’s a Politico article listing:
    * Lawrence J. Korb (Center for American Progress)
    * Bill French (National Security Network)
    * Lawrence Wilkerson (independent and critic of Iraq war
    Mind you, Bernie still thinks that Climate Change represents foreign policy.

  93. MRW says:

    “Something the Congress has not been able to do even though it was the Congress who created the Fed with their 1913 Federal Reserve Act.”
    Complete bullshit. You’ve been reading too much G. Edward Griffin (author of the “The Creature of Jekyll Island”), who has failed to do the most elementary research. And the Kennedy story is an urban legend. Get a dollar bill out of your pocket right now. Who are the officers of the signatures on it? The Federal Reserve is the Nation’s banker. Only the United States Government, the US Treasury, and its officers can authorize the issuance of US dollars, no matter which government department slaps their name on it. And the Federal Reserve is a government entity, no matter what you’ve been told.
    Notice of the Internal and external audits the Federal Reserve performs…and has done for decades. But Ron Paul, being a doctor, doesn’t understand this, and doesn’t understand the technicalities of how a central bank (god knows it’s taken me years to understand them). Neither does his son.
    Then there’s this piece of nonsense.
    “House passes bill to audit Federal Reserve” Sept 17, 2014
    “Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen has objected to the auditing proposal. At a February House Financial Services Committee hearing, Yellen said that while the Federal Reserve ‘should be transparent,’ such a measure would be ‘interfering with the independence of monetary policy, by bringing political pressures to bear on the committee’s judgment.’”
    Damn right. But do you understand what Yellen’s complaint is about? Why she’s right?
    “Auditing the Federal Reserve is a frightening idea. Here’s why”
    To All:
    This ex-Fed economist explains why you don’t want an elected political party controlling the country’s central bank. This goddam Congress doesn’t understand that it is its constitutional duty is to do FISCAL POLICY—which means provide for the general welfare of the country, of *all* of its citizens, not just the wealthiest or most powerful—not muck about with monetary policy it has no understanding of. Moreover, Congress as its behavior for the past three and a half decades has shown d.o.e.s.n’t e.v.e.n k.n.o.w the difference between monetary and fiscal policy. So it has abdicated its primary duty ==> fiscal policy, and that is why we are still in recession, and why voter anger is understandably sky-high.
    The idiocy of the House of Representatives controlling the nation’s central bank is no different than a neighborhood homeowners’ association having dominion and control over how a local bank handles its payments. The homeowners’ association job is to take care of the homeowners’ welfare and security, and protect their property interests into the future, not dictate who and who not in the neighborhood can get a loan, the terms of their collateral, and how much interest they should be charged.

  94. MRW says:

    “Mind you, Bernie still thinks that Climate Change represents foreign policy.”
    Astute observation.

  95. MRW says:

    To quote myself: “And the Federal Reserve is a government entity, no matter what you’ve been told.”
    Just to complete my thought and to clarify a long-held and inaccurate theory–what others might call conspiratorial–about the Federal Reserve:
    The only reason why member banks have to buy *non-voting and non-tradable* shares in the District Federal Reserve worth 6% of their *initial* working capital is because The People were terrified of (Russian) socialism in 1913. A tightly controlled ’private/public partnership’ was instituted at the local bank level to appease them. This is what they are actually referring to when people claim that the Federal Reserve is a “private organization” even though they don’t have a clue what they are talking about.
    Senator Robert Owen, the head of the Senate banking committee (forget its formal name) discovered this during a month of hearings in October 1913 involving over 500 witnesses from all over the country and for which there are over 3600 pages of testimony. You can download this three-part testimony from if you have a university or uni alumni account.
    This was amply reported by C.W. Barron, the legendary managing editor of the Wall Street Journal in 1914 when he published a series of essays about the making of the The Federal Reserve Act, only digitized by Google five years ago and not available in any library before then. You had to know the book existed and know its title in order to see or get a copy from the Library of Congress. But who knew? Barron is considered the father of financial business writing because he insisted that all business articles and reports be based on quoted and sourced financial data.

  96. LondonBob says:

    John Bolton isn’t advising Trump, I assume he just threw his name out there at random.
    An inadvertently pro Trump ad being put out. Trump has a Jewish son in law, many Jewish friends, he merely wants a balanced approach in the Middle East and this is what he gets. Again with the Putin and Russia obsession too!
    As for Trump being biddable Roger Stone assures us he isn’t, good enough for me.

  97. rjj says:

    Roger Stone? Another Hieronymus Bosch action figure?

  98. MRW says:

    Dead positive that Bernie hasn’t seen this published last Thursday in the scientific standard bearer, the weekly NATURE Journal:
    Global warming ‘hiatus’ debate flares up again — Researchers now argue that slowdown in warming was real.
    This is particularly significant because of who the authors are, major pro-Climate Change scientists who refused to admit any of this before 2015. But satellite records are showing much different results than the climate models since the satellite record began in 1979, and someone fiddled with the official historical record.
    From the article:
    Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real2.
    “There is this mismatch between what the [108] climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”
    Fyfe’s study — which was co-authored by Michael Mann of “hockey stick” curve fame — contradicts a study (June 2015) by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists claiming there was no global warming hiatus. Karl claimed there’s been a slight warming instead, producing the “hottest year on record” claims we’ve been besieged with for the past three years.
    That NOAA study became highly controversial and set off an uproar last June when its author, Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, took it upon himself to change NOAA’s historical record—the gold standard used globally for research—during the 20th C. Karl is in charge of producing, and protecting, the government’s historical dataset.
    Karl cooled the past temperatures which warmed the recent 2000-2014 period, and wiped out the “the pause” or “hiatus.” The alarmists screamed, See, this is proof that we’re all going to fry, and one of those alarmists is Bernie Sanders. Remember the Climategate emails in 2009? They were all about “hiding the decline.” Meaning hiding the decline in global warming since around 1998. World scientists are pissed, and Congress has opened an investigation into what Karl did.
    If you’re interested in finding out what Karl did, these are two good links:
    By former dept chair of the highly respected Georgia Tech Environmental Studies dept, Judith Curry; she is a former Global Warming titan who challenged the evidence after Climategate.
    Wünderkind Czech theoretical physicist, Luboš Motl, who can describe it easier for non-scientists.

  99. different clue says:

    It’s bad for science when any scientists behave badly. It leads people to doubt the work of other scientists and the science of the field those scientists are working on. So one hopes any such changes that were made are forcibly reversed and the data-changing scientists are removed from positions of being able to impose retro-changes again on the data.
    As a mere layman, I still find myself wondering . . . “what hiatus anyway?” A hiatus on land-measured temperatures? What about heat going into parts of the ocean where a lot of water at or near the surface can absorb and hold a lot of heat? Where does the heat go and what does it do if/when it re-emerges back to the surface and re-enters the air?
    Meanwhile, several times more glaciers and icefields are melting then not melting, and very few are de-melting and re-forming and growing back. And some permafrost is still thawing.
    It takes a lot of fresh heat to melt that much ice and thaw that much permafrost. If global warming has stopped, then the ice-melt and the permafrost-thaw should stop melting and thawing in mid-melt and mid-thaw. If we enter a longish period of global recooling then the ice formations should begin to grow back and the thawed permafrost should begin to refreeze. If that happens, many scientists will be embarrassed, but such embarrassment is a small price to pay for the onset of some global recooling back to
    levels of a few decades ago.

  100. MRW says:

    BTW, J, I want to apologize for coming across as a complete jackass appearing to denigrate you. I didn’t mean to. My animus was directed against the 20-year onslaught of completely off-the-wall Fed fantasies that never go away. Compound that by using these Fed fantasies to concoct macroeconomic theories that would return the US to the crippling panics of the 19th C., misbegotten beliefs in a gold standard restoring the glory of America which is bullshit on steroids, and a basic failure of these book writers to learn how the Federal Reserve works on an operational level.

  101. MRW says:

    @different clue,
    “As a mere layman, I still find myself wondering . . . ‘what hiatus anyway?’”
    The “hiatus”–meaning no global warming–was a subject in the latest IPCC AR5 WG1 Report (Chapter 9), published in 2013, I think. The IPCC said it had been going on for 15 years at that point. The MSM failed to report it adequately. That’s why you don’t know about it. But the chickens are coming home to roost because Mother Nature is not cooperating.
    What about heat going into parts of the ocean where a lot of water at or near the surface can absorb and hold a lot of heat?
    The sun warms the oceans, not the atmosphere. (You can do a mini-experiment yourself. Put 10 heaters in your bathroom, turn them on broil ;-), and see if your full lukewarm tub warms after 12 hours. Or, since you exhale 40,000 PPM of CO2 every three seconds, put your mouth inside a 3/4 cup of cold coffee, blow on it hard, and see if you can warm it.) But the sun only really warms the top few mm of the sea surface. Oceans are 70% of the earth’s surface, and miles deep in places.
    The Pacific Ocean is so huge that a 180-degree school protractor symbolizes its shape along the equator. The right side is Peru. The left side is Indonesia. Trade winds ordinarily carry this warmed surface water from Peru (initially cold water) to Indonesia. The warm surface water sloshes up to Indonesia 6 ft higher than Peru. It thens tucks under and forms part of undercurrents that will warm the top 300 meters of the ocean that are dissipated in all directions from Indonesia.
    When the trade winds reverse for a bunch of reasons too complicated to go into here, the warm water is carried back to Peru as something called a Kelvin Wave and produces an El Nino. The warm water outside Peru warms the climate and brings rain to the western coast of North America, (but drought to Australia). There is also a reversal called a La Nina in this ENSO cycle, which brings drought to areas of North America carried by the wind. None of this was understood when Hansen made his outrageous claims about earth burning up in the 21st C before the Senate in 1988, and Hansen has since made the point that they never considered ENSO in their models.
    The heat along the equator is dissipated by evaporation…why when you step out of a hot shower in the summer months your body surface temperature feels instantly cooled. That evaporated heat causes precipitation higher up, creates clouds (which scientists can’t yet model because they can’t nail down how clouds are formed) and brings rain. ( The upper atmosphere and carries the cooler air to space with the help of CO2. Water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant greenhouse gas, 95% H20 vs 4% CO2 of total greenhouse gases.
    glaciers and icefields are melting then not melting
    It takes approximately 95 cubic miles of melted ice water to raise ocean sea levels 1 mm globally. This is a simple mathematical conversion. I don’t want to hog this thread with this discussion, so I will just say that the majority of environmental (climate) scientists don’t know math to save their lives, have no hard science training, are taught in the political science and social science depts in universities, and think models represent reality.
    Climate Science is the **ONLY SCIENCE** that does not use absolute (real) temperatures in its models. They use anomalies, which means the difference between the real temperature today and a modeled baseline for a specific age range, usually 1950-1980. The problem is that the “modeled baseline for a specific age range” was estimated. It is not based on real temperatures because we don’t have the records, the data. So they made it up; they guessed at it from a hodgepodge of whatever records they did find. See it here:
    Scroll to the bottom to see how to convert the numbers. They are anomalies! Not actual temperatures! That’s why you see dramatic charts with scary rises predicting all kinds of bullshit decades out. They’re measuring 1/100 degree C. changes. Look at the Y-axis on the left side of any climate change chart. The thermometers they throw into the ocean can’t measure 1/100 of a degree. Neither can your ordinary mercury thermometer.

  102. MRW says:

    BTW, that NASA GISS ‘GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index’ link, the .txt one, contains the new ERSST v4 1880-12/2015 data that Thomas Karl constructed. He calls it “homogeneity adjustment.” No shit, sherlock. He adjusted it to fit the models.

  103. different clue says:

    This all deserves careful study to be sure. Meanwhile the ice formations are melting and shrinking and permafrost is thawing here and there. That would appear to be a real-world fact. It takes new fresh heat to melt ice which had not melted for several thousand years previous. Where is this heat coming from? I think its coming from the artificial entrapment of more sunlight-energy-degraded-to-heat than before under the cover of more skydumped carbon than before.
    But if this is all a liberal hoax which I and others have been taken in by, then the global warming skeptics have a huge contrarian investment opportunity spread before them. If millions of people either avoid the coasts or begin moving away from the coast in fear of a rising ocean, asset prices in those coastal zones will fall and keep falling. Eventually people will see that the ocean has failed to rise, storms have failed to get worse and reach deeper inland, etc.; and all those people or their descendants will start coming back. If the skeptics buy all the cheap land and assets they can along the coasts in the meantime, they will be in position to make vast profits when people start returning and prices go back up.
    Perhaps enterprising investment-fund owner-manager wannabes should figure out how to create a Climate Skeptic Fund. People who are skeptical of Manmade Global Warming could invest their money into that fund which would then buy land and properties all over coastal Florida (especially the Greater Miami area), coastal and near coastal land in Louisiana/ New Orleans, etc. As I say, a contrarian investing opportunity if industrial man is not one-way warming the global. And if the skeptics are right, they and their money could have the last laugh on people like me who think the MMGW theory is robust and predictive.

  104. MRW says:

    @different clue.
    The PDO (currently positive) and the AMO will be going negative by 2020. Together. So I guess we wait to see what happens. The prediction is cold based on the last time it happened. This pattern was not made public until 1999. Which I suspect is why Michael Mann, in the interest of saving his reputation, has his name attached to this latest paper by Fyfe. When Karl, et al, came out, Mann said See it proves that fossil fuels are the culprit. Now, he has reversed himself.

  105. Imagine says:

    Google eminent grease Eric Schmidt is funding a stealth Big Data team called “The Groundwork” to make Clinton president. It fits in under Chicago’s “” team, a Hebrew word indicating good can triumph over evil if you use your free will:
    spoken by God to Cain. Weep for the irony.
    Separately, other research indicates that the Google search engine has at least the theoretical capability to swing election results:
    so Trump has the mouth, but Clinton has the machine.

  106. Imagine says:

    Mr. Trump was a J.D. growing up. Thus he was packed off to the New York Military Academy–basically all-year-long boot camp for teenagers (see movie “Taps”)–for his formative years. He learned there if you love someone, you scream in their face until they get it right. So I would guess he thinks he understands how the military works.
    I believe the real Army teaches tolerance and respect, not intolerance and disrespect. Profound understanding of what’s going on is going to be key.

  107. different clue says:

    If we have enough worldwide temperature datasets to correlate with a few complete PDO cycles back into the past ( now that we know enough to know that there is such a thing as the PDO), we can see whether present and future PDO temperature sets in Eastern North America are the same for each swing of the cycle as what they were a few decades ago . . . . or whether they are higher or lower on average then for the corresponding parts of the PDO in past PDO cycles.
    My feeling is that if the global is warming, “this” and the next and the next-after-that “warm phase” of the PDO cycle should be warmer than past ones were. And the “cold phase” of this and the next cycles should be not-as-cold as the last ones were. But that is just for Eastern North America. I haven’t read enough to know what is happening anywhere else in the world correlating with the PDO cycles.
    And of course there are different cycles all interacting and overlapping. The PDO, the ADO, the ENSO, and others which are there even if we don’t know about them yet.
    If we go into a net cooling, the glaciers, ice-fields, and permafrost should regain their former size and extent no matter what the data-gatherers SAY that the numbers say. And if we remain in a net warmup, the glaciers, ice-fields, permafrost should continue net-melting and net-thawing right along. That is something we will be able to really see, one way or the other.
    Meanwhile, ocean acidation moves right ahead too, as we keep skydumping more CO2. It would be good to get the atmosphere-load of CO2 back to early industrial revolution levels to reverse that problem as well.

Comments are closed.