Saturday morning links

Don't be played by the people making this election about personalities.
This is an economy election. It is the Workers (DJT, Bernie) vrs the Smirkers, those who "game the system" for their own benefit (HRC and the rest of the Republican primary field). Pick a side and vote.

#1 Exasperated on 2016-11-05 07:05 (Reply)

How did Bernie get to be a Worker? I did 30 sec. of googling and can't find any mention of him ever holding any kind of non-political job, even as a kid. And you know if he'd ever sold newspapers or shined shoes, he would it from the rooftops.

#1.1 BillH on 2016-11-05 10:41 (Reply)

Actually, it is my understanding that he did some manual work in his youth before running for Mayor. Agreed that he has been at the public trough for his adult life.
But that is not the reference, in this case. Rather it is that as a Presidential candidate, he initially pushed back, on behalf of Main Street, against the Skimmers in the Davos caste, Wall Street, K Street and their minions.

#1.1.1 Exasperated on 2016-11-05 11:16 (Reply)

Roger.

#1.1.1.1 BillH on 2016-11-05 13:30 (Reply)

I believe he was an organizer for some social justice groups while at the U. of Chicago. I remember someone who went to school with him showing pix of him being arrested.

#1.1.1.2 jma on 2016-11-05 15:07 (Reply)

Gusty Winds said...
And they know damn well that much of his battle against entrenched elites is the same as Bernie's. His fight for the working middle class much the same as Bernie's. Trump's working middle class are miners and steel workers, Bernie's faculty and students. Trump's fight against voter fraud and Clinton corruption is where they split. Bernie is now part of the corruption. Engulfed by it. Stockholm syndrome perhaps.
Fen said...
Actually, there is a huge group of Bernie supporters on Trump's reddit page rooting for him. They understand that this election is about the People Vs the Political Class. They experienced firsthand how the Establishment Party (E) rigged their primaries to select Hillary.

Good to have them on board. They have given us useful tips.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=1128198735431760521

#1.1.1.3 FromtheAlthousebolg on 2016-11-06 07:23 (Reply)

"Is there a conservative case for voting for Clinton" Absolutely not! The Frum quote from the article "[Clinton] is a patriot. She will uphold the sovereignty and independence of the United States. She will defend allies. She will execute the laws with reasonable impartiality. . . .She will not outright defy legality altogether. Above all, she can govern herself; the first indispensable qualification for governing others." Frum is delusional or on drugs or both. Clinton has frequently bypassed the laws for her own benefit. And, a conservative would never think it is just fine and dandy to kill a baby the day of it's birth and call it justified. Passing state secrets.......

#2 JC on 2016-11-05 07:10 (Reply)

JC: "Is there a conservative case for voting for Clinton" Absolutely not!

The election has been cast as between normal and not normal. As such, the conservative choice would be for normal, even if that normal will move the country to the political left, even if Clinton is not quite the incrementalist she appears to be.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-05 10:47 (Reply)

And obviously, non-deplorable, reasonable people like us take it as a given that the Clintons are normal.

#2.1.1 Z and A Chriel on 2016-11-05 12:06 (Reply)

Sorry, I do not consider the Clinton's normal by any measure. Perhaps I come from an area that has morals and follow laws. If you consider the Clinton's to have normal behavior I'm glad you aren't making my life decisions for me.

#2.1.1.1 JC on 2016-11-05 12:33 (Reply)

"If you consider the Clinton's to have normal behavior I'm glad you aren't making my life decisions for me."

Ah, but we will be when the Clintons are in the White House.

#2.1.1.1.1 Z and A Chriel on 2016-11-05 13:11 (Reply)

JC: I do not consider the Clinton's normal by any measure. Perhaps I come from an area that has morals and follow laws.

There is no evidence of illegality, other than Bill Clinton's attempt to hide his infidelities. Nor is there evidence they have more than the usual moral peccadillos. In any case, we were referring to modes of thought.

For instance, Trump has said Saudi Arabia should acquire a nuclear weapon and that the U.S. shouldn't meet its treaty obligations with regards to NATO. These are not "normal" political positions. The latter would constitute breaking America's promises, while the latter would just be insane.

#2.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-11-05 14:22 (Reply)

Zachie-baby, the Rosenbergs were executed for deeds ten times less offensive than what the Clintons have managed.

#2.1.1.1.2.1 jma on 2016-11-05 15:11 (Reply)

"Zachie-baby"?

(We'll take it from here, Zachriel)

Ooooh... misopedia!

(No need to thank us.)

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Z and A Chriel on 2016-11-05 17:23 (Reply)

jma: the Rosenbergs were executed for deeds ten times less offensive than what the Clintons have managed.

That's just silly. The Rosenbergs were executed for purposefully giving atom bomb technology to the Soviets. Discussing classified information by email, most of it at the lowest level of classification, is hardly the same thing.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-11-06 10:44 (Reply)

sex addict "therapy".

sounds like a vacation. let's focus on ME! because my problems don't come from ME! it's everyone else!
So let's reward them by spoiling ME!

#3 fjord on 2016-11-05 07:19 (Reply)

Re: IRS and Clinton Foundation

Whatever. At this point I have almost no faith in the honesty of our bureaucracy - especially under this administration.

#4 mudbug on 2016-11-05 09:00 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Stockman: Sell everything.

Notably, Stockman points to political dysfunction; the inability of the Congress to meet the obligations inherent in raising the debt ceiling, and the probable refusal to consider fiscal stimulus, turning a cyclical recession into a panic.

#5 Zachriel on 2016-11-05 10:39 (Reply)

"the inability of the Congress to meet the obligations inherent in raising the debt ceiling"

What about the inability of congress to create a budget? Or the inability to budget and spend only what revenues they actually receive? IMHO if the Congress fails to meet the obligations inherent in raising the debt ceiling THAT will be the first, however painful, step in making America great again.

#5.1 SweetPea on 2016-11-05 13:23 (Reply)

SweetPea: What about the inability of congress to create a budget?

While that indicates poor management, a continuing resolution at least keeps the government open for business. Not raising the debt ceiling would cause a default on U.S. obligations.

SweetPea: IMHO if the Congress fails to meet the obligations inherent in raising the debt ceiling THAT will be the first, however painful, step in making America great again.

No. The difference is that is would be the first ever default in U.S. history, a broken promise to creditors, and would plunge the world economy into chaos.

#5.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-05 14:25 (Reply)

A default is inevitable, thanks to Obama. We will not and can not pay back the $20 trillion we already borrowed. Once interest rates regress to the mean we will not and can not even pay the interest on the debt we already have incurred. We are hooked on debt and we can not and will not stop borrowing and spending more than we take in from taxes. Those three things ARE true and have been true for almost 8 years now.

The only difference between our position today and actual default is we own the printing presses and still have credit. If it were not for these two things we would have to admit default today and last year and the year before, etc. Obama has killed us we are now just awaiting the coroner/Grim Reaper to pronounce as dead (broke) and in default.

#5.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-11-05 21:50 (Reply)

SweetPea: A default is inevitable

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. U.S. debt is denominated in U.S. dollars, which means the U.S. can only default if they choose to do so.

#5.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-06 10:46 (Reply)

"the U.S. can only default if they choose to do so."

I think that was a punt. I assume you would agree that if we cannot make the interest payments (without printing money) that is a defacto default. I assume you would agree that if we cannot pay our debts and/or fund our necessary government functions because no one will loan us money that would also be a default.

However if what you are saying is that as long as we control the printing press we will never default I have to believe you are naive. OR perhaps you were the economic advisor to the German Emperor Wilhelm II during the Weimar Republic and history has taught you nothing.

#5.1.1.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-11-06 13:45 (Reply)

SweetPea: I think that was a punt.

No. The U.S. can't default on the debt unless it chooses to do so.

SweetPea: I assume you would agree that if we cannot make the interest payments (without printing money) that is a defacto default.

But that's the point. The U.S. can print dollars. And no, that would not be a credit default.

If the debt were denominated in Euros or Yen, then the U.S. would have to find a way to earn Euros or Yen to meet its obligations. But the U.S. debt is denominated in U.S. dollars, meaning the U.S. can always meet its legal obligations.

Now, you might argue that the currency could become debased, and that is certainly possible, but at this time, U.S. securities are in very high demand even after years of near zero returns. Nonetheless, the U.S. can't default on its debt as long as it doesn't choose to do so.

It's actually quite the opposite of what you say, for if the U.S. were to voluntarily default, such as by not raising the debt ceiling, then the currency would become debased immediately as everyone rushed to sell U.S. securities of very uncertain value.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-06 13:57 (Reply)

That was actually funny, I assume you have no education or knowledge in economics. You do not know what you do not know. You danced and side stepped and pretty much made a lot of foolish statements. You need to consult with someone who has studied economics and get your shit straight.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-11-07 00:21 (Reply)

SweetPea: You danced and side stepped and pretty much made a lot of foolish statements.

You might want to actually make an argument rather than spinning. The question raised is whether the U.S. can be forced into default when the debt is denominated in U.S. currency.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-07 06:31 (Reply)

Sell everything and turn the sold stuff into US dollars???? Which will be worth what exactly after the election?

Me, I'll trust the management of almost any publicly traded corporation to preserve their value much, much, more, than I trust the US government to preserve the value of the dollar.

#5.2 Fred Z on 2016-11-06 08:27 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Endless Scandal: That's What a Hillary Presidency Would Look Like ... If Hillary Clinton wins Tuesday, she’ll head into office under the cloud of two major FBI investigations, including one that’s reportedly “likely” to lead to an indictment.

Fox anchor Bret Baier on Clinton ‘indictment’ story: ‘It was a mistake, and for that I’m sorry’

Ho, hum.

#6 Zachriel on 2016-11-05 10:54 (Reply)

re Endless Scandal: That's What a Hillary Presidency Would Look Like

Scandal is just background noise to the Clintons.

Like water off a duck's back.

#7 feeblemind on 2016-11-05 11:23 (Reply)

I agree that the sense of shame that normal people might feel is something that NEITHER Clinton feels. But that is not the point. I disagree with Buchanan. What Hillary did in her pay-for-play scheme is the issue, the email scandal was only to cover up the evidence of the pay-for-play. Buchanan is wrong in his assertion that this is only potentially worse than Watergate. Watergate was a minor burglary. Hillary and her minions did more than that with the hired thugs sent to Trump rallies. The pay-for-play scheme is far and away the biggest scandal in the last 100 years. Teapot Dome? Amateur night. Watergate? Small potatoes.

Zach gets paid to tell you that I am wrong. So he/they will be by soon to tell you that Comey didn't find evidence to file charges, thus this isn't a story. The reason Comey didn't file charges is that Hillary destroyed evidence (which we will see when the files from Weiner's computer are analyzed) and that makes this far more disturbing than Watergate.

#7.1 Dangerous Dean on 2016-11-05 11:47 (Reply)

Dangerous Dean: Zach gets paid to tell you that I am wrong.

Our opinions are our own, freely given.

Dangerous Dean: The reason Comey didn't file charges is that Hillary destroyed evidence (which we will see when the files from Weiner's computer are analyzed)

And you know this how exactly?

truthiness, the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.

#7.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-05 12:22 (Reply)

Dangerous Dan is clearly one of those many deplorable people that HRC talks about all the time.

We don't think his kind understand the subtle nuances of "truthiness." It might be easier to explain this complex idea with another, similar word they use over at the Clinton Foundation:

"honestiness, the quality of seeming or being felt to be honest, even if not necessarily true."

#7.1.1.1 Z and A Chriel on 2016-11-05 13:20 (Reply)

classic Alinsky tactic. Ignore the real argument you can't win. Pick something esoteric that doesn't matter to the argument and muddy the waters with that.

It is good that you aren't being paid. Hillary and Soros wouldn't be getting their blood money worth.

#7.1.1.2 Dangerous Dean on 2016-11-05 17:24 (Reply)

Dangerous Dean: Ignore the real argument you can't win.

You said, "What Hillary did in her pay-for-play scheme is the issue." You argued "The reason Comey didn't file charges is that Hillary destroyed evidence (which we will see when the files from Weiner's computer are analyzed) and that makes this far more disturbing than Watergate."

So, our question stands. How do you know what is on Weiner's computer and how it relates to the investigation? Or are you just making stuff up that feels true?

truthiness, the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.

#7.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-06 10:48 (Reply)

Our country has never seen this level of corruption. It started with Obama ruling unlawfully by decree and Congress doing nothing about it. But now it is clear that the Obama administration, and especially the Justice Department and the IRS, are totally corrupt. Plus add in the unconstitutional Obamacare destroying our health care system. And we know the Clinton have taken hundreds of millions of dollars in payoffs and compromised our national security and sovereignty, and despite that are quite possibly about to take control of our country, in part through fraud and deceit.

#7.1.2 Jim on 2016-11-05 21:17 (Reply)

Jim: Our country has never seen this level of corruption. It started with Obama ruling unlawfully by decree and Congress doing nothing about it.

All presidents use executive orders. They are subject to judicial review, and can be changed by succeeding presidents.

#7.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-06 10:50 (Reply)

Z: All presidents use executive orders.

At least since George Washington. Before that, not so much.

#7.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-06 12:09 (Reply)

Hillary is not normal. Same old, same old, yes, boy howdy, you said a mouthful. But not normal.

#8 Sam L. on 2016-11-05 11:24 (Reply)

Maybe "normal" is a pol spreading their legs for Wall Street, the multinational megacorps, Big Ag, Big Pharma....................all the Special Interests, anyone but the working stiffs.

#8.1 Anonymous on 2016-11-05 12:05 (Reply)

Anonymous: Maybe "normal" is a pol spreading their legs for Wall Street, the multinational megacorps

Leaving aside your misogyny; yes, the nexus of money and power is normal, indeed, inevitable in many respects. The Clintons came to realize this in the aftermath of the Nixon Administration, and have played the system to advance what they consider the benefit of the American people. An argument can be made that, having wallowed in corruption for so long that they have lost sight of their ideals. However, Clinton has been steadfast in her defense of families and children, so the question isn't whether she has lost sight of her goals, but whether she is too damaged to be successful.

#8.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-05 12:18 (Reply)

Oooh... misogyny!

You guys are good.

We wish we'd thought of that one!
Still, we can always resort to those other two three trusty stand-by slurs: deplorable, homophobe, Islamophobe - say, how about Hispanophobe?

#8.1.1.1 Z and A Chriel on 2016-11-05 13:33 (Reply)

Normal is selling out the country, so that does leave out Trump.

#8.1.2 Exasperated on 2016-11-05 12:23 (Reply)

Donald J. Trump said: he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen, essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state.

#8.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-05 12:29 (Reply)

Wrong. It's clear from what Trump said that he would not be surprised if the Russians had hacked her unsecured server (with the cryptic domain name of "clintonemail.com") and if they had he would welcome it if they released all those deleted emails the FBI didn't have. To believe this in any way is an encouragement to conduct cyber espionage against the former Secretary of State is ludicrous. First, her unapproved email server was no longer operational so it couldn't be hacked and second, if her server was operational, those emails, at the time, were thought to be deleted so how could they be retrieved by anybody? But then, the left has mastered the skill of selling idiocy to people who are too lazy to think about what they say.

#8.1.2.1.1 mudbug on 2016-11-05 12:57 (Reply)

mudbug: if they had he would welcome it if they released all those deleted emails the FBI didn't have.

That alone is sanctioning espionage against the U.S., as well as interference in U.S. elections. In addition, he said they would be rewarded by the press. That is clearly encouragement.

#8.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-05 14:27 (Reply)

Suppose you could argue not to take anything Trump says seriously, because he doesn't know what he is saying.

#8.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-05 14:30 (Reply)

"interference in U.S. elections"

Exactly!

We all know the correct way for foreign states to interfere in our elections is to make substantial donations to the Clinton Foundation.

(Oops! Were we supposed to say that? Our bad.)

#8.1.2.1.1.1.2 Z and A Chriel on 2016-11-05 17:28 (Reply)

Conmgress should not raise the debt ceiling, but reduce the spending Bills. A Fiscal Stimulus...no.

#9 Sam L. on 2016-11-05 11:27 (Reply)

Conservative case for voting Hillary? Only if you consider cutting your throat good therapy.

Invade Canada? I do love Don Surber's columns. I commented on that one.

#10 Sam L. on 2016-11-05 11:32 (Reply)

"Trump will invade Canada?"

Take it from me up here in the Ottawa Valley, Madeline Ashby is a clueless Torontonian.

Pay her no mind.

#10.1 JJM on 2016-11-05 13:27 (Reply)

"Trump will invade Canada?"

-----------------------------------------

If Trump wins the election, Canada will be building a wall so quickly to keep out the progressives and American illegals looking for another nest it will make your head spin. And Canada enforces their immigration laws, unlike the U.S. So it will be an interesting situation.

#10.1.1 Jim on 2016-11-05 21:24 (Reply)

An Aussie take on our election:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/no-schmoop-for-you-donald/news-story/e5f830aff992851be401aabac76675f7

#11 Sam L. on 2016-11-05 11:38 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Hillary's Watergate

Or not.

But if it feels true ...

#12 Zachriel on 2016-11-06 20:26 (Reply)

"The question raised is whether the U.S. can be forced into default when the debt is denominated in U.S. currency."

Well yes you are 100% correct. As long as we can print money we do not have to acknowledge the defacto default until it takes a wheelbarrow of U.S. currency to buy a loaf of bread. IMHO YOUR interpretation of what a U.S. default is not compared with my interpretation of what a U.S. default IS... Is a distinction without a difference.

It reminds me of the movie with Walter Matthau where his wife actually catches him in bed with another woman. He denies her accusations of cheating as he calmly gets dressed and leaves the room and drives home with her still insisting he was cheating on her and him still denying it. This seems to be YOUR answer to the obvious economic disaster that is our national debt; i.e. to keep denying it and telling us all that we are not seeing what we are seeing. Have you no shame?

#13 SweetPea on 2016-11-07 12:14 (Reply)

SweetPea: As long as we can print money we do not have to acknowledge the defacto default until it takes a wheelbarrow of U.S. currency to buy a loaf of bread.

That's not default. The image of the wheelbarrow full of cash is from Weimar Germany which was required to pay reparations in hard currency, gold or equivalent. That is not the situation the U.S. faces.

SweetPea: IMHO YOUR interpretation of what a U.S. default is not compared with my interpretation of what a U.S. default IS... Is a distinction without a difference.

Default has a specific meaning. Default means to fail to meet a legal obligation to repay. As U.S. creditors have agreed to accept U.S. dollars as repayment, the U.S. will never face an involuntary default.

SweetPea: This seems to be YOUR answer to the obvious economic disaster that is our national debt

That's a different claim. By your reckoning, failing to meet required payments would be no different than continuing to muddle along. In fact, default would lead to immediate global economic chaos.

#13.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-07 12:32 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, November 5. 2016

Saturday morning links