President Obama Begs America Not To Tear Up the Paris Agreement


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

President Obama, who has done more than any other President to sell American children into foreign debt slavery, has appealed to the American People not to tear up his climate “legacy”.

Remarks of President Barack Obama as Delivered

Weekly Address

The White House

August 13, 2016

Hi, everybody. One of the most urgent challenges of our time is climate change. We know that 2015 surpassed 2014 as the warmest year on record – and 2016 is on pace to be even hotter.

When I took office, I said this was something we couldn’t kick down the road any longer – that our children’s future depended on our action. So we got to work, and over the past seven-and-a-half years, we’ve made ambitious investments in clean energy, and ambitious reductions in our carbon emissions. We’ve multiplied wind power threefold. We’ve multiplied solar power more than thirtyfold. In parts of America, these clean power sources are finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. And carbon pollution from our energy sector is at its lowest level in 25 years, even as we’re continuing to grow our economy.

We’ve invested in energy efficiency, and we’re slashing carbon emissions from appliances, homes, and businesses – saving families money on their energy bills. We’re reforming how we manage federal coal resources, which supply roughly 40% of America’s coal. We’ve set the first-ever national standards limiting the amount of carbon pollution power plants can release into the sky.

We also set standards to increase the distance our cars and light trucks can go on a gallon of gas every year through 2025. And they’re working. At a time when we’ve seen auto sales surge, manufacturers are innovating and bringing new technology to market faster than expected. Over 100 cars, SUVs, and pick-up trucks on the market today already meet our vehicles standards ahead of schedule. And we’ve seen a boom in the plug-in electric vehicle market – with more models, lower battery costs, and more than 16,000 charging stations.

But we’re not done yet. In the weeks and months ahead, we’ll release a second round of fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles. We’ll take steps to meet the goal we set with Canada and Mexico to achieve 50 percent clean power across North America by 2025. And we’ll continue to protect our lands and waters so that our kids and grandkids can enjoy our most beautiful spaces for generations.

There’s still much more to do. But there’s no doubt that America has become a global leader in the fight against climate change. Last year, that leadership helped us bring nearly 200 nations together in Paris around the most ambitious agreement in history to save the one planet we’ve got. That’s not something to tear up – it’s something to build upon. And if we keep pushing, and leading the world in the right direction, there’s no doubt that, together, we can leave a better, cleaner, safer future for our children.

Thanks, everybody. Have a great weekend.


The Paris Climate agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. It has no legal force. In the words of an unnamed representative of the State Department (from the State Department website).

In terms of congressional approval, this agreement does not require submission to the Senate because of the way it is structured. The targets are not binding; the elements that are binding are consistent with already approved previous agreements. So it would not be – I mean, I don’t want to speak in a definitive way, but it’s certainly not – I would just say that it’s not required. What actions are taken or not taken is a separate question, but it’s not required.

Read more:

In my opinion, the best which America could hope for from the next President, is for the next President to ditch pointless climate virtue signalling, and for the next President to put a stop to the ongoing sale of the future prosperity of American children to foreign loan sharks.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 14, 2016 7:32 am

..I’m sure we all know, only a President Trump will stop this madness !!

Reply to  Marcus
August 14, 2016 11:22 am

Gary Johnson won’t support it either.

Reply to  Bartleby
August 14, 2016 12:36 pm

Yeah, but johnson isn’t going to win…

Reply to  Bartleby
August 15, 2016 12:26 am

Eh, Gary Johnson spends a lot of time slamming Trump and not so much slamming Hillary. When Loretta Lynch decided not to indict Hillary, Gary rushed to agree that her e-mail server was simply poor judgment, the end. If he’s taking Hillary’s side in the midst of her scandals, he’s no friend of the USA.
It’s funny that in other socialist and communist countries, they heavily redact and censor the news. Here we have scandal after scandal, one worse than the next with Hillary, and they get aired outside the mainstream press.
When she’s selling more government socialism as Venezeula collapses, it makes no sense for anyone to even take her seriously. The same folks that are putting lipstick on the Obama/Clinton foreign policy are cut from the same cloth that hailed Venezuela as an economic miracle and standard for the world just a few years ago.

Reply to  Bartleby
August 15, 2016 8:25 am

Neither is Trump.

Reply to  MarkW
August 15, 2016 6:03 pm

I don’t doubt that Mark, just pointing out another option.
Unless Johnson makes the 15% needed to get into the debates, I may have no choice but to vote Trump.
My feelings on Trump are mixed. I like his pure chutzpah. I like his honest speech. I like his policies. What I’m not sure of is his commitment and his volatility is worrisome. I have entertained the notion that Trump is a setup for Hilarity; that he’s actually trying to lose the race to her. He has been a very long time (and significant) Clinton supporter.

Reply to  Bartleby
August 15, 2016 9:38 pm

Bartleby, I entertained the same thought for some time, which is why I did not really consider him early on.
But the choice now is too stark.
The alternative too certain.
Energy policy alone, or the SCOTUS alone, demand it of me.
Besides, Trump no knows he has a real chance, and I think he wants to improve the situation in this country.
So, even if he may have been in it for a lark to begin with, he now eyes his place in history if he wins, and if nothing else, his ego will compel him to attempt greatness.
Imagine he is elected, and imagine he is a successful President, and the US economy surges.
His place in history will be cemented for all time.
One person we can be sure has thought of this is the man himself.
Put someone in an important place and position, and that person will show what they are truly made up.
We tend to rise to occasions of opportunity.
I am confident Trump will, at the very least, try for greatness, that is, success.
May we help him try.

Reply to  Marcus
August 14, 2016 12:30 pm

Well good luck with Traitor Trumpy triumphing.

Reply to  Simon
August 14, 2016 12:38 pm

No Simon, you got it backwards.
It was Hillary that turned the State Department into a pay for play racket for big money donors and foreign governments.
It is Hillary that promises an open border policy, granting amnesty to millions of illegals already here, and a 550% increase in unvettable refugees above the already too high numbers now being foisted on us.
It is Hillary that will appoint justices that will ignore the constitution.
Stop lying!

Reply to  Simon
August 14, 2016 12:53 pm

there’s no doubt that, together, we can leave a better, cleaner, safer future for our children….
And now a word from one of Obama’s children…
This guy looks to be early 20’s….so he was a teenager and grew up with Obama
…no different than Obama’s environmental policy..200 countries that do nothing….get paid

Tom Judd
Reply to  Simon
August 14, 2016 1:54 pm

Well, how right you are, Simon, about your characterization of Trump: Traitor. Why, just the other day I was chewing the cud with Vladimir and, lordy, he told me he never would’ve thought about actually reading those emails he (without great difficulty) hacked from Hillary’s unsecured server were it not for Donald’s press conference suggestion. Perhaps someone should’ve told Donald that it was an open mike…oops, I was thinking about a president there; not a presidential contender.
Anyway, Simon, all we can hope for is that Vladimir doesn’t follow Donald’s other suggestion, and that would be to, after reading them, tell the American people and the FBI what was on those destroyed emails which the American people and the FBI would otherwise be properly kept in the dark about. To suggest giving the American people and the FBI information that probably every other country on Earth knows, well, that would certainly be the character of a traitor, now wouldn’t it?

Reply to  Simon
August 14, 2016 3:02 pm

Tom Judd, LOL!
Ms. Obama 2.0 constantly projects her own faults onto her opponent. But it’s hardly fair demolishing Simon like that. Don’t be a bully, it’s not P.C. Pick on someone intelligent.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Simon
August 14, 2016 8:54 pm

Simon — Traitor Trumpy??? Can you give a reason why you use the term “Traitor” to modify “Trumpy”??? Name someone Trump has betrayed.
Traitor — A person who is not loyal to his own country, friends, etc. A person who betrays his country or a group of people by helping or supporting an enemy.
Obviously you like to snatch cool sounding words out of mid air and attach them to people irregardless of their fitness. Please explain your phrasing. I will listen politely and then reply.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Simon
August 15, 2016 9:30 pm

I do not think Simon is an American…I have never called him called Trumpy.
Sounds like the way London tabloids rename people.

Reply to  Simon
August 15, 2016 9:31 pm

Libs in the US call him Drumpf,

Reply to  Simon
August 15, 2016 11:59 pm

Sorry, should be “never heard him called Trumpy”.

Stephen Greene
Reply to  Marcus
August 15, 2016 8:56 am

Obama voted for Paris for HIS post-presidency job! Such an act may well be indictable if proven! That’s what is called Play to Pay! Play along with this known farce and get paid later. I bet the UN will pay him at least 4 mil/yr. Nice gig if you can keep a straight face long enough!

george e. smith
Reply to  Marcus
August 16, 2016 5:22 pm

Somebody should tear up every single example of that person’s deliberate scorched earth destructiveness.

August 14, 2016 7:35 am

I wish he wouldn’t but doesn’t he think he can can he just sign as an executive order? Why make an an appeal to the public, at this stage?

Reply to  rms
August 14, 2016 8:23 am

Why make an appeal now?
This is an appeal to elect Hillary Clinton because she will continue the disastrous policies the Obama administration has put in place.

Sanata Baby
Reply to  L5Rick
August 14, 2016 10:21 am

It*s red Marxism dressed up as green.

Reply to  L5Rick
August 14, 2016 11:48 am

“Why make an appeal now?”
Because he is deluded into believing that this will help his legacy as someone who ‘saved the world’ from a climate disaster. Little does he realize that in the final analysis, his climate change legacy will be one of the fool who enabled the corruption of political agendas to subvert science.

Reply to  L5Rick
August 14, 2016 12:17 pm

“Enabler in Chief”

Reply to  L5Rick
August 14, 2016 1:13 pm

He needs Clinton to protect his ‘legacy’, as if it’s dropped and he becomes the fool, his retirement earnings capability vaporises. Like everything in this sordid business, it’s ALL about the money.

Tom Judd
Reply to  L5Rick
August 14, 2016 2:00 pm

“This is an appeal to elect Hillary Clinton because she will continue the disastrous policies the Obama administration has put in place.”
It might very well be more than that. I have a suspicion this is an appeal to elect Hillary as a CYA operation. They have all the hallmarks of looking afraid.

Reply to  L5Rick
August 14, 2016 6:50 pm

Yes, Tom, that is how it looks to me too . .
And to persons who think the only ones in “establishment” politics liable to end their lives in prison, are the Clintons, or even just Dem establishment types, should Ms. Clinton not gain the big prize, please think a bit harder, or something ; )

Reply to  rms
August 14, 2016 8:40 am

Obama’s executive orders can be cancelled by the next President. These are not laws passed by congress.

Reply to  Catcracking
August 14, 2016 4:04 pm

That’s right, those EOs are paper thin with nothing behind them except time, which is why Hillary must be stopped.

Reply to  rms
August 14, 2016 1:17 pm

How about all of the manufacturing and mining union-busting over the last seven and more years?
Coal miners and auto workers are examples. If a company closes or leaves the union is gone as well.
Electrical workers unions will be gone when power units are shut down.

Reply to  Barbara
August 15, 2016 8:28 am

So it’s union busting, when a company that has been driven into bankruptcy by it’s unions, closes it’s doors?
Obama has done everything in his power to protect unions, up to and including trying to eliminate secret voting in union elections so that the union goons can terrorize the families of anyone who doesn’t support unionization.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  rms
August 14, 2016 9:26 pm

He is practicing for his post-presidential life.
Past presidents have left the political scene to give the new president unquestioned authority. O’Bummer intends to live in Washington, DC and involve himself in the political processes against all reason and tradition.
The dumbest most incompetent president we have ever had intends to keep inflicting himself on America. He has no real legacy SO HE INTENDS TO BE HIS OWN LEGACY!
His living person endlessly touting himself will be his legacy to America.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
August 15, 2016 9:27 pm

Wow, what a thought!
Is this a fact, or a prediction?
First I have heard of it, but i do not follow such things closely.
Thanks Eugene.

R. Shearer
August 14, 2016 7:44 am

Other than older diesels without emission controls and pickup trucks equipped with aftermarket “smoke stacks,” carbon emissions ceased being a problem in the U.S. a long time ago.

Reply to  R. Shearer
August 14, 2016 7:59 am

It is the only way to force people into inadequate electric cars and keep them close to home and destroy the grid. I read about even more un-realistic MPG mandates but google is hiding the details of the “great” news from those searching for details. When will the ethanol lobby wake up and realize that since they are a parasite on gasoline, they will go down with the host.

Reply to  Catcracking
August 14, 2016 8:58 am

Then there is the unintended (I pray) consequences of putting an industry outof business that is the largest contributor to the US Treasury. It is not just income taxes it is lease sale income, Royalities at circa 15% and other.
ExxonMobil alone has paid up to $30 billion/year in income tax.
In 2012, ExxonMobil’s U.S. tax expenses totaled more than $1 billion a month on average.
Over the last five years, ExxonMobil’s U.S. taxes have totaled more than $55 billion – about $16 billion more than our U.S. operating earnings during that period.
For every dollar of net earnings in the U.S. between 2008 and 2012, ExxonMobil incurred more than $1.40 in taxes to federal, state and local governments.
On a dollar-for-dollar basis, our industry’s profits are generally in line with the average of all U.S. industry. In 2012, the U.S. oil and gas industry earned on average 6.2 cents per dollar of sales – below the average of 8.6 cents per dollar of sales for “All Manufacturers.”
From 2008 through 2012, ExxonMobil distributed $145 billion (and $26 billion in 2012) to our U.S. shareholders, representing a significant transfer of income from foreign resource development into the U.S. economy, including ultimately to the U.S. Treasury.””
One half of their income is typically earned overseas as noted above. And for complete disclosure I can inform you that I have received dividends in retirement from Oil Companies as have most retirees even if they were unaware. Of course we pay taxes again on those dividends sometimes at a high rate. The governments wins again and again while we loose.
Why would they kill the golden goose for short term redistribution until the goose is dead. What then, Venezuela?

Reply to  Catcracking
August 14, 2016 9:26 am

ExxonMobil alone has paid up to $30 billion/year in income tax.
And yet, some people claim that they are subsidized. How does that work?

Reply to  Catcracking
August 14, 2016 9:38 am

They call every dollar of tax deductions a subsidy, as if all the profits belong to the government, and any that they are allowed to keep is a gift back to them.

George Tetley
Reply to  Catcracking
August 14, 2016 12:05 pm

The truth !!!!
The coal industry WAS the largest contributor to the Republican Party, Now I wonder why ?

Reply to  Catcracking
August 14, 2016 1:28 pm

Your “truth” is like Hillary’s !
There is no evidence that the coal industry is the largest contributor to the Republican Party, if you have evidence you should report it to the government.
“Corporations and Unions
The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit. For example, the owner of an incorporated “mom and pop” grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation.”

Reply to  Catcracking
August 14, 2016 7:21 pm

“Why would they kill the golden goose for short term redistribution until the goose is dead. What then, Venezuela?”
To grasp what I believe is the most logical answer to that question, I feel one needs to think in terms of comparative wealth/power, not absolute. For example, if a criminally minded (sociopath) person saw an opportunity to “get away with” a billion dollars, but the US public would have to lose four billion in the process, would they take the opportunity?
If some very high level “gangsters” (Cartel, Mafia, Crime syndicate, whatever) wanted to essentially rule the world, would they take an opportunity they thought they could pull off, if it meant much of the world (Including the US) would be made significantly poorer in the process?
Thing is, if such folks are already committing massive frauds/crimes, the collapse of the US (and the West in general) into a Venezuelan sort of mess, would leave the gang without much chance of ever being brought to justice for that stuff . . Whereas if the US Republic remained intact, they would never be truly safe in that regard . .
And hence, it seems to me that any and all organized crime types could be counted on to “see the light” if called upon by those elite ones, and a sort snow-ball effect would ensue (which would be greatly aided once the NSA universal spying program was in place) that leads to more corruption and more concomitant willingness to have that metaphorical goose die.
Then what? People with oodles of guns and tanks and planes and gold, and every form of high tech anything society has managed to produce . . in a world of desperate people. In short; Paradise for those gangsters.

Reply to  Catcracking
August 15, 2016 4:47 am

The “subsidies” generally aren’t even tax reductions. Certain geological & geophysical expenditures and intangible drilling costs can be treated as expenses and written off against current income, rather than capitalized and written off against a depleting asset.
The percentage depletion allowance might constitute a subsidy; however, it’s still just a cost recovery accounting tool and generally not available to “big oil.”

August 14, 2016 7:50 am

Because organs have become so valuable, many loan sharks are now including that as part of the security in the event of failure to pay. The Saudis referred to the US going into Iraqi as their slaves who were fighting the war for them. We could be a net exporter of body parts. Much like building on prime farmland, the final harvest.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  rishrac
August 14, 2016 4:23 pm

Isn’t Planned Parenthood already in the parts business?

August 14, 2016 7:55 am

I personally am not looking forward to driving a vehicle with a 55 mpg mileage standard (a motorcycle engine in a mini car??). And I suspect at that time (if Hillary wins) that older used vehicles are going to become extremely popular and costly caused by increased demand.

Leo Smith
Reply to  BFL
August 14, 2016 12:40 pm

Over here (UK) 55mpg is pretty common and not at all underpowered. The secret is to realise that cruising you just need power over come wind resistance. Its the starting and stopping…and light weight with an engine that is frugal at low pwer but dies the goods when asked is the way to go.
Typically that means a smaller turbocharged engine. In a lighter streamlined car.

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 14, 2016 1:10 pm

The UK has tiny roads with almost no highways, so can get away with that sort of vehicle. Here int eh US that sort of vehicle would be vastly under-powered and slow to get up to speed. You would spend most of your time in boost and thus loses your 55MPG, and have worse mileage than a large non-turbocharged vehicle.

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Your gallons are also bigger than the US gallon, so mileage isn’t directly comparable. Your 55 mpg is a fair amount more than it would be in the US. 55 mpg in the UK corresponds to a bit under 46 mpg in the US.

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 14, 2016 5:21 pm

“Your gallons are also bigger than the US gallon”,
Where’d you get that from?
A gallon is 8 pints if I recall correctly, here in Australia, England and America.
A gallon converted to metric litres is 4.55 litres.
I’m forever converting my litres to gallons to work out my MPG simply because I’m an old fart who still has trouble adjusting to Australia changing to a metric system in 1966!
I’d be mighty annoyed if I ordered a gallon of beer(8 pints) in America and got less.

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 14, 2016 5:40 pm

My apologies. I’ve just educated myself on the madness of country’s measurements of trade with others. Madness!
I certainly will get less beer!
I’ve canceled the air fares and sacked the us holiday in protest.

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 14, 2016 5:51 pm

Leigh, a US gallon is only 3.78 metric liters. You are using the Imperial gallon, 1.2 times what we have.

Bryan A
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 14, 2016 8:49 pm

Sizes have changed in the US and probably there too.
Can of tuna used to be 6 ounces, then it was cut to 5, now, I just bought 4 cans and it was 4.5 oz with 1/2 oz of water and 4oz tuna.
Half gallon (64oz) orange juice is now 59oz and still the same size carton and the gallon 128oz is now 89oz.
Half Gallon Ice Cream is now a 1-1/2qt
the quart size 32oz can of Tomato Sauce is now 29oz
Slim Fast used to be available in Six Packs of 11oz cans (66oz) now it is a 4 pack of 10oz bottles (40oz) and costs $2 more per pack.
24 can cases of soda are now 20 can cases
Coke recently released the 8 pack of 8 ounce cans (64oz) probably soon to replace their 6 pack of 12oz cans (72oz)
Unfortunately the consumable sector seems to thing people want to spend more money for less product.

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 15, 2016 4:52 am

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 15, 2016 9:24 pm

Where do you find out how badly the driver fared, David?
Did not look great…if it rolled over he would have been crushed it appeared.

george e. smith
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 16, 2016 5:44 pm

Well you have to remember the little poem:
” A pint’s a pound, the world around ! ”
This poem works in all parts of the world that participate in The World Series.
In those remaining outlying regions that don’t participate in the world series they say:
” A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter ! ”

Reply to  BFL
August 14, 2016 1:24 pm

My 3 litre turbo diesel 4wd auto Audi A6 estate (stationwagon) will do 45+ mpg when not driven excessively, but can still do >120mph if asked (not that I ask it). Mine is now 10 years old and the newer ones are even more frugal but can still perform if asked. You don’t need to fear higher/improved efficiency.

Reply to  ilma630
August 14, 2016 2:07 pm

Audi A6: “Up to 24 city / 35 highway” per EPA; not even close to 55mpg. And diesel is not gasoline, if everyone went to diesel the price per gallon would go thru the roof, put maybe that’s what Obummer has in mind. The only gas engines that get even close are hybrids but are inconvenient to “plug” in and have short mileage with present (relatively) short lived batteries. Of course if going diesel, the best would probably be the Mercedes Benz Bionic concept diesel car @2425 lb (don’t hit anything with it) and a claimed max fuel mileage of 70 mpg. I just know that EVERY red blooded American will want one of these (obviously lefty progressives and most millennial/SJW’s don’t count):

Reply to  ilma630
August 14, 2016 5:54 pm

BFL, don’t forget the sheer number of shenanigans that they are using, many of which have been posted on this very site.
The biggest is the absurd methods used to estimate electric mileage, running over 100 mpg for some. This means you can sell one electric and one pickup and come out exactly where you started.

Bryan A
Reply to  ilma630
August 14, 2016 8:59 pm

They should be forced away from posting EPA estimated mileage and be forced to post Actual Mileage.
pump 5 gallons and drive it around town and see how far you get till you run out. carry several five gallon gas cans and refill the tank and repeat 3 times then post the average as the Actual City Mileage. Repeat for Highway Mileage with the same procedure then post the average at the Highway mileage.
Start using Actual mileage under regular driving conditions.
I have a Dodge Durango and it’s on board computer indicates I get 16 – 18 mpg (while moving at 35MPH) city and 22mpg (while moving at 65MPH) highway but my average mileage per tank of fuel is 9.9 to 10 MPG

Reply to  ilma630
August 15, 2016 8:16 am

Old Honda Civics can go that fast as well. They take forever to get there though.
My daily driven large capacity engine gets there far faster, and gets worse gas mileage. I will stick to the car that get out of it’s own way. At least then I know it can do so if I am required to do so for my own personal safety.

Reply to  ilma630
August 15, 2016 8:34 am

I drive a Fiat 500 with manual transmission. I get 45 to 50mph around town, but only about 40 mph on the highway.
Aerodynamics? What’s that?

george e. smith
Reply to  ilma630
August 16, 2016 5:55 pm

Nowhere in the CAFE standards does it mention the words ” Traffic Lights ” or ” Stop Signs “.
So the claimed mileages are total fiction.
My 2 liter Subaru Impreza gets 50 + MPG at any speed from 30 MPH to 60 MPH on a flat road.
My long term average MPG is 27 MPG. My long term average (moving) speed is 14 MPH.
My car will not go 14 MPH on a flat road. At idle speed (no gas) it goes 15 MPH.

bill johnston
Reply to  BFL
August 14, 2016 4:01 pm

I guess I better get my Honda CB100 up and running. 1972 vintage!

Reply to  bill johnston
August 14, 2016 5:27 pm

“Honda CB100”
A great motorcycle!

Bryan A
Reply to  bill johnston
August 14, 2016 8:59 pm

Cute Bike

Mickey Reno
August 14, 2016 7:56 am

We’re being “Grubered” yet again. Magical thinking won’t solve the problem of low energy density. Obama and the leftist coalition still want our electricity rates to skyrocket. They want the Federal government to control the energy sector. Please don’t let that happen. I know Republican politicians haven’t always been faithful to balanced budgets, but at least they’re not actively attacking the modern economy, they’re not trying to turn America into Venezuela. Vote for Republicans, even if it hurts.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Mickey Reno
August 14, 2016 8:14 am

The elephant in the room is Trump, who could actually hurt Republicans. A recent alternative is Evan McMullin. I thought I could vote for Trump, but I can’t. He’s both dangerous, and a moron. Many Republicans are backing away from him.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 8:18 am

A not vote for Trump is pretty much like a vote for Hillary. We have little choice.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 8:30 am

That kind of illogical thinking is how we got Obama…If you don’t vote for Trump, you are voting for Hillary..How about putting your country FIRST instead of your self righteousness ! There are ONLY two choices…

Greg Woods
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 8:33 am

There is a choice: Gary Johnson, Libertarian…

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 8:35 am

That moron employs over fifty thousand people, show me where any of the moron in congress come close to that. That moron build multi story buildings, show me any other politician that does that. That moron can speaks extemporaneously for over two hours and yet if he miss speaks for five seconds the lame stream media is all over that, We should make it a requirement that all politicians speak extemporaneously and we would learn Donald is a genius compared to any politician or media person other that a few conservative talk show host. If Obama or Hillary had half the brains of Donald they would not have made a mess of the mideast. Oh by the way Donald was not my first second or third choice in the Republican race but he certainly made that bunch look like a bunch of morons. Add in the Republican elitis enlistment and their stupidity is only exceed by the Demorats, After all the Demorat are running a liar and a crook someone who should be behind bars, So far on the Demorat side we have two dead bodies and know answers why they ended up that way other than the were Demorats that opposed Hillary.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 8:41 am

McMullin might as well be working for Hillary.
He cannot possibly no way no chance no how win, but may siphon off some votes and allow Hillary to waltz in.
Trump knows CAGW is malarkey squared, and will go all out to increase energy production.
Trump is not a moron or dangerous…you are being hoodwinked by the forces of the status quo if you think that.
He is a pragmatist and will work to undo what has been wrought over the past eight years.
The never Trump voters will have only themselves to blame if Hillary gets in and tilts the SCOTUS for a generation toward revisionist justices. Which she will 100% for sure do.
And she will fling open the floodgates of legal and illegal immigration to anyone who wants to come, then give them all fat benefits which will buy them all off to be D voters forever.
She will grant amnesty to the 11-12 million illegals already here, and forget about ever having a conservative in the WH for a very long time after that happens.
Think carefully.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 8:47 am

Johnson cannot win either, no chance in hell.
The forces are lining up to protect the vested interests, and will try to convince people to vote for anyone but Trump, and every vote not for him is a vote for Hillary…make no mistake.
The Ds will all vote Hillary, and will win if the vote is split by too many going third party.
I do not know how anyone could fool themselves into thinking a third party candidate will get 270 electoral votes. Unlikely any of them will get a single one.
Recall Ross Perot, review the number from 1992 if you cannot recall what happened then…and think hard.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2016 9:01 am

Agreed. Perot ran to the right of GHW Bush, but ensured the election of Clinton. Any third party vote this cycle is a vote for Hillary Clinton, as the votes for Nader were votes for GW Bush in 2000. Hillary has enough negatives on CAGW policy to merit a vote against her for that alone, apart from the rest of her policies and personal corruption.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 8:48 am

Mark Luhman,
You hit the nail on the head.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 8:49 am

Your moronic reply Bruce ignores the Supreme Court Appointments that will result in destruction of our Constitution. American Sovereignty will end and the UN Apparatchiks will control every aspect of our life if the DEMS continue their power grab.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 8:56 am

You have to realize that a Democrat criminal President (like Obama and HRC) get immunity from Impeachment and Removal by a dishonest, ethics-challenged Democratic Party caucus in the Senate where it takes a 2/3 supermajority to remove an impeached President. That reality has allowed Obama to commit the many High Crimes of his Administration that would normally bring Removal from office.
Trump would get no such such immunity from Republicans in Congress if he commits high crimes. Hillary will commit crimes if President precisely Because she knows of her immunity from removal, just like Obama has done.
So who would make the “better” President? The one who knows they are accountable? Or the one who knows they can literally get away with murder?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:02 am

Sorry, but I no longer care. I can’t vote for someone I have no respect for. I can’t stand listening to him. Also, a vote for not-Trump isn’t a vote for Hilary. It could be viewed as a half-vote for each.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:04 am

@ Rah
“A not vote for Trump is pretty much like a vote for Hillary. We have little choice.”
More like a choice between eating a sh*t sandwich or a sh*t sandwich with cheese.
I ain’t hungry for either

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:05 am

The only way a true conservative can think that is if we have been fed so much PC garbage over the years that someone who rejects it totally sounds bad.
If that is the case, and so many have forgotten who they are, then they have won…conservatives will cut off their noses to spite their face, having been defeated by the identity politics that the Ds have created to brainwash us all.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:19 am

The elephant in the room is Trump, who could actually hurt Republicans.

Just why in gawd’s name are the lefty, liberal, troughfeeding, partisan Democrats claiming to be desperately worried and/or scared-to-death that …… “Trump could actually hurt Republicans
Just why in hell should they care. If anything, those deviously disingenuous Democrats should be tickled “pink” with Trump’s actions.
Only the “do-nothing” government “troughfeeders”, who claim to be Republicans, ….. are currently subject to the “Bejesus” being scared out of them due to their fear that Trump will be our next POTUS.
There are currently 130+ million eligible US voters who haven’t voted in the past 8 or 10+ General Elections …..that have been waiting for a POTUS Candidate like Trump to come along. The last such candidate was Ross Perot in 1992, who abruptly quit due to “threats of harm” to his family members.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 14, 2016 9:25 am

I really wonder if Bruce Cobb voted in the Republican primaries, and if so, who did he allegedly support. Trump ran against the party establishment, and handed several of their candidates their metaphoric heads. Either Bruce is a sore loser, or a Democrat.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:40 am

Anyone who does not support and vote for Trump is kidding themselves if they think they are a conservative, or a Republican…they are not, not anymore.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:43 am

Bruce, I agree with your statement that a vote for a minor party candidate is pretty much like a half vote each for Hillary and Trump. Which is pretty much like saying you don’t care which of the two wins. If you concede that it will be one of those two, that none of the minor party candidates has any chance to win, wouldn’t you rather have the bellicose and often careless Trump over the perfectly predictable and perfectly wretched Hillary? Can you imagine listening to her cackle for the next for years? In the climate change arena, Trump is much preferable. In tax policy, the economy, job, in judicial nominations, Trump is preferable. In running the bureaucracy, he will be slightly better. His “dangerous” inclinations might make some of our enemies a bit more circumspect, a little less willing to attack us. That would be good. Hillary will continue her Saul Alinsky-loving ways. Trump is a horrible candidate, in fact he was my last choice among the 17 Republican candidates. And yet, I will vote for him.
Just as important, please vote for Republicans in the down-ballot elections. Keep the Senate majority as Republicans, and keep the House Republican as well, and in your state races, as well. We have to stop this slow slide into leftist utopia, or pretty soon, we will be totally in it.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:46 am

We are one more (D) president away from the liberal de facto agencies (EPA, FWS, IRS) running completely rampant and collapsing the industries which are the backbone of our economy. Trump is the only choice and he should win if he actually talks about what Americans care about, good jobs and security.
All he has to do is accurately describe the path that this country is currently on and ask if that’s what the American people want.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 10:07 am

Well said.
I only realized I had to vote Trump when it became clear he will get the nomination.
He was my last choice too, but I saw the writing on the wall when he kept getting an even split as each candidate dropped out.
He says mean things, and speaks in a language foreign to political discourse and punditry. he speaks the language of emotional messaging, and he often does not speak well.
So we have a guy who says mean things vs. a person who is as corrupt and dirty as they come.
One will be President, no doubt about it.
In four years, there could easily be three more ultra-liberal Supreme Court justices, all young and intent on left wing judicial activism for the rest of our lives…never again in our lifetime a ruling that supports the constitution as it was written.
It is not a maybe if Hillary wins…it is a certainty.
That alone is reason enough to vote Trump.
She has stated plainly her intentions regarding raising taxes on corporations, and last week said she would raise taxes on the middle class too, and was met with raucous applause.
She has stated plainly her intent to go whole hog on green energy, and shut down the fossil fuel industry, starting with what remains of our coal production.
She will work to dismantle our energy infrastructure, and deindustrialize as fast as possible.
She will sign TPP, and we will no longer be in charge of our own country after that.
Trump will try to do all the things he has said he will do, which are all strongly conservative positions on the things that matter.
But he says mean things.
The thing is, he says them about the people that want to further weaken the US!
And what is wrong with that?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 10:13 am

I thought I could vote for Trump, but I can’t.
What do you want for dinner?
I want fish and chips.
We don’t have fish and chips.
….then I won’t eat

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 10:17 am

Re McMullin, he looked pretty this morning on (I believe it was) Meet the Press. I heard there is a movement among the ‘Never Trump’ crowd that if they can find an independent that can win something like 5 states it will throw the election into the House of Representatives and they can then elect anyone they chose. I haven’t verified this but it might become a better option than choosing between the crook and the prep school bully.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 10:41 am

You’ve taken complete leave of your senses. The GOP is dead. Long live the GOP! Trump is neither dangerous nor a moron. What he is, is the GOPe’s worse nightmare, and what middle America wants rid of. If Trump isn’t and a Democrat gets back in, you’re likely looking at a civil war within 4 years. This is probably not a good thread for WUWT….

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 11:35 am

Gary Johnson will not win one single state so it is a wasted vote.
The reason so many professional politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are against Trump is because they are afraid his people will expose them all for the corrupt thieves that they are.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 11:37 am

I see the media’s 24/7 drumbeat is having its intended effect.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 12:31 pm

Marcus, very well articulated comment. (keep up the good work!) & all the rest, you’ve said it ALL here… interesting data over at rasmussen, that seems a little too hard to believe. Trump now has 20% support among blacks (!) He’s only up 6% among whites which ordinarily spells trouble. Romney was up 22% with whites in 2012 and still lost. Johnson is drawing 9% of republicans and just 3% of democrats. So it looks like the bruces out there sitting on the fence are going to decide this election. Bruce, listen to Marcus, VOTE TRUMP !!!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 12:56 pm

If Hillary wins I don’t believe either House of Congress will stand up to her any more than they have Obama, meaning more power being assumed by the Presidency and more Executive Order un-constitutional legislation. On the other hand, if Trump were to win, I believe both Houses of Congress would work together to reign him in.
Just an observation.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 1:12 pm

Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 at 9:02 am
Sorry, but I no longer care. I can’t vote for someone I have no respect for. I can’t stand listening to him. Also, a vote for not-Trump isn’t a vote for Hilary.
Yes it is, she (the DNC and Washington DC hangers-on) are desparate.Expect soon the DNC effort to play up third parties. Amusingly, that would also hurt Hillary as Sanders supporters will go Green.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 1:27 pm

“The elephant in the room is Trump, who could actually hurt Republicans.”
Trump is an elephant in the room. The people who have been hurting Republicans are the people
in media. As former President Jimmy Carter said, Obama is the worst president. And the Media have
been Obama’s yes men to an ridiculous degree. One thing which would be hard to make the case for, is that the Media is somehow at fault for Obama’s failure as President- except in the sense of not providing
any useful criticism. The media is doing all it can to get Clinton elected. This is hardly a secret as people at CNN have said so- not that one should need it actually said. The media are mostly Dems and/or Lefties- again, they will tell you. Dan Rather committed career suicide, trying to smear George Bush. Now the media would like for there to be close race, but come Oct they want Clinton to be our next President. The media would also like to give Clinton control of Congress. The media problem
is they accept and admit they can only manage to give, oh some say 5 to 15% to candidates they like-
which might be delusional to some extent. But point is they think they can swing the election and we
do their best to do so. The main thing they do is lie, and try not to be caught.
But point is who actually could hurt the Republican [and who have hurt the republicans] is the lefty media
which hates them. There some reasons other than ideological biases the media love dem, as the media
business depends upon mayhem. Dems have long history of providing “if it bleeds it leads” stories.
The media does not care that Clinton was one of worst Sec States in the history of the US and that Clinton used her governmental position to get hundreds of millions of dollars- what important is she is
a woman, and woman who would divorce her husband who raped other women. A woman who smeared
these woman who dared the say anything which could damage Bill [and his career- and most importantly her grip on political power.].
Anyways if you pleased with this house of cards, don’t vote for Trump. Trump is the elephant in the room and he has and he will be disruptive.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 2:12 pm

Some of the Trump naysayers might want to read this as it seems to fit most:

Tom Judd
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 2:15 pm

Aw, c’mon Bruce Cobb. Evan McMullin an alternative? Just what we need, a 40 year old inexperienced neophyte compared to someone who’s 70 years old and has actually been a CEO since dearest Evan was wearing diapers.
But, in case there’s any doubt, Evan McMullin was in the employ of Goldman Sachs.
Yeah, just what we need.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 2:16 pm

just might vote for Ron Paul again

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 5:48 pm

Bruce Cobb August 14, 2016 at 9:02 am wrote: “Sorry, but I no longer care. I can’t vote for someone I have no respect for. I can’t stand listening to him.”
It appears you have fallen victim to the Leftwing News Media’s smear campaign against Trump. It’s powerful. No doubt about it. You are not alone, there are lots of Republicans who share your feelings.
Fortunately, the never-Trumpers are a very small portion of the electorate, whereas Trump recieved more than 14 million votes in winning the presidential nomination, a record number of votes, and I think this, along with Trump’s appeal to other groups who don’t normally vote Republican will more than offset Trump’s detractors.
You see the power of the Leftwing News Media now, don’t you. You see how they can sway public opinion. A lot of people out there hang on their every word and believe what they say, sadly. You should also see they are a danger to our democracy, when they distort the truth the way they do, and demonize otherwise good people in their efforts to gain and retain political power over others.
This election has a long way to go. Don’t get discouraged Republicans. That’s just what the Leftwing News Media wants you to do.
The Leftwing News Media has smeared Republicans before, and although this current Trump smear is unprecedented in my memory, these things too will pass. Trump and Hillary still have three debates to do. Let’s see where things stand after that.
And Hillary still may have some legal problems in her future.
Let’s pray she never becomes president. We might as well be putting a Mexican drug cartel in charge in the White House. Neither has any morals, and both are only out for themselves, to the detriment of everyone who opposes them.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 6:38 pm

I’ve disliked Trump at least since the time he got pegged as the ‘short-fingered vulgarian’ (yeah, I’m an old dude). Disliked. Not detested, not loathed, not hated; I just thought he was a rather tasteless, obnoxious real estate hustler with ridiculous hair. But seeing the large and rapidly increasing numbers of truly appalling statist collectivist types who do detest, do loathe, do hate him, I’m being forced to the conclusion that maybe he isn’t such a bad guy after all. And the hair IS getting less ridiculous.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 8:04 pm

I hate to pop anybody’s bubble here; you know who I’m talking to Bruce; but, by golly, I just can’t help myself. You see, there’s info out on our dearest Evan McMullin that I know well informed voters cannot let past their noses. While I think it would advance my career to go ahead and plagiarize (or, at least be accused of such), since everyone else who’s a who’s who does it, I’ll just limit myself to quoting the following article at; ‘Trump’s Unqualified So…Evan McMullin’ by Chris Buskirk.
“Mr. McMullin, at 40 years old, is the posterboy for everything the neoconservative establishment loves and actual voters hate. And his resume reads like an Infowars parody of a neocon Manchurian candidate.
Wharton School of Business (Trump’s alma mater, so they have that in common)
UN Refugee Resettlement Worker processing Middle Eastern refugees for resettlement in third countries.
CIA Clandestine Service (It can’t be too clandestine since it’s on his LinkedIn profile)
Goldman Sachs (Does he have the transcripts of Hillary’s speeches?)
Council on Foreign Relations (member)
Various policy positions for House GOP Conference (translation: He worked for Boehner & Ryan)
“What’s worse is that there is speculation that McMullin was chosen not just because of his ruling class bona fides, but because of his Mormon faith. The idea is that his candidacy could cost Trump victories in Arizona, Idaho, and Utah – the 3 states with the largest LDS populations. … This looks like a campaign consultant’s idea of genius: try and play the Mormons out in the sticks like the Democrats play the black community and it’s repellent.
“We shouldn’t be surprised. Buzzfeedreports that Rick Wilson, the respectable Republican consultant who Tweeted this (@AnnCoulter Does Trump pay you more for anal?) about Ann Coulter will be involved in the campaign:…”
Yep, the Evan McMullin campaign’s so very much classier and respectable than Trump’s, eh? And, so much less vulgar.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:02 pm

Sorry Greg,
How many Libertarians that have run for any office have won their election??

Bryan A
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:15 pm

Just so you don’t have to look for it
144 libertarians hold office from 1 state senator (Utah), the seat of mayor (12) down through city council, school districts, and lower seats. Voting for a Libertarian for President is like voting for Hillary because the Libertarian has no chance of winning so Voting Libertarian is literally throwing away your vote (or voting for Hillary instead of against her
As far as Preaident goes:
David Koch was a Libertarian vice presidential candidate in 1980. He advocated the abolition of social security, the FBI, the CIA, and public schools. He poured $500,000 of his own money into his electoral campaign, but he and Ed Clark, his presidential running mate, won only 1.1 percent of the vote. Nevertheless, that was the best Libertarian showing in a presidential race to date. In 1984, David left the Libertarian Party, because he found so many of the hard-core Libertarian ideas to be “unrealistic.”

Terry Gednalske
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Tom in Florida,
“The reason so many professional politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are against Trump is because they are afraid his people will expose them all for the corrupt thieves that they are.”
Thank you for pointing this out. The intensity and irrationally of the opposition to Trump betrays the fear amoung traditional politicians that the game could be over, or at least more difficult to play, if Trump is elected. I believe Trump would be far more likely to look out for the American people than any of the crooked professional politicians.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2016 9:52 pm

Bruce Cobb —
Even McMullin expands the outer limit of the meaning of “fringe candidate”. The Oort Cloud is less fringe than this guy.
Hillary is the real danger. You have just fallen for all the leftest propaganda about Trump.
Good propaganda is not about spreading false information — It is really about creating false emotions. Leftest propaganda has pumped you full of false emotions about Trump. Question those emotions and you might free yourself.
Eugene WR Gallun.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2016 4:55 am

Trump would, at worst, be a 4-yr mistake. Her Hagness would be a generational disaster. The next President will probably nominate the next 1-4 SCOTUS justices.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2016 6:31 am

This election is as clear cut as anyone can observe. You can elect Hillary and guarantee the continued theft and corruption from the government coffers or elect Trump and cross your fingers that he will at least expose the rampant corruption.

J. Camp
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2016 7:36 am

For everyone repeating negative phrases about Trump, I challenge you to listen to him at one of his latest rallies in Irie PA and tell us what is wrong. If you think more of what Obama has given us will be a good thing and there are enough of you to give us Hillary, I think we will soon be Venezuela and mpg will be moot.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2016 8:36 am

Trump didn’t build anything. He hired the people who did.
He’s also driven at least 3 of his companies into bankruptcy.

Tom Halla
Reply to  MarkW
August 15, 2016 8:43 am

Trump has the practice of incorporating each project as a separate entity. As I remember, it was four in bankruptcy, but he has several hundred separate operations, and his overall record is rather good.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2016 8:38 am

For years we have been told that we have to vote for whatever awful candidate the Republicans were presenting this year, because otherwise the Democrat would be elected and the world would end.
As long as this lie continues to work, we will continue to get nothing but awful candidates from the Republicans.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2016 12:51 pm

MarkW on August 15, 2016 at 8:36 am
“Trump didn’t build anything. He hired the people who did.”
Mark, it sounds like you’ve been writing speeches for Obama – “You didn’t build that.”

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2016 9:10 pm

“Hillary has enough negatives on CAGW policy to merit a vote against her for that alone, apart from the rest of her policies and personal corruption.”
Can not be repeated often enough or said loudly enough.
Thanks Tom Halla!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2016 9:19 pm

For years a A.C casino seemed like a good bet.
That changed, and they will all be bankrupted soon enough.
Even Carl Icahn could not turn around the casino he bought from Trump…no one could, the business model there is broken through no fault of their own. Politicians in other places realized they could keep that money at home by allowing casinos in their own cities and states, so they have.
And after the savings and loan meltdown, a lot of real estate deals went bust…and I do not think Trump was the cause, but rather, a victim of that calamity.
That he picked himself up, dusted himself off, and rose again is a testament to the man, not a black mark on what he has been able to do.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2016 10:09 pm

“Her Hagness would be a generational disaster.”
No. If Clinton wins, America is done.
Even if she doesn’t start a war with Russia, which she seems to be just itching to do, she’ll flood the country with so many new Democrat voters that there’ll never be another Republican President.
A vote for Clinton is a vote for Civil War 2 (assuming WWIII doesn’t come first).

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 16, 2016 5:33 am

@ MarkW – August 15, 2016 at 8:36 am

Trump didn’t build anything. He hired the people who did.
He’s also driven at least 3 of his companies into bankruptcy.

Shur nuff, MarkW, …. and I betcha you also make the claim that …. “A person’s medical Doctor does not cure him/her of any disease or ailment. The Doctor just prescribes the medicine that does the curing of the disease.
And as far as bankruptcies are concerned, didn’t you know that …… “It is far better to have tried and failed, ….. than to NEVER have tried at all.

george e. smith
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 16, 2016 6:12 pm

Well don’t forget to come back and tell us all proudly how you participated in making history by electing the first woman President of the United States.
We have plenty of apparently intelligent regulars at WUWT who admit proudly to having voted for the historic election of the first Black President (not counting Bill Clinton), and also admit that they even did it twice after seeing the total destruction he leaves in his wake.
My thanks to all of you, and also to you thinking persons who plan to not vote, using the not Trump strategy.
If I was able to vote (not a citizen of illegal alien so I’m not aloud to vote), I would vote to elect the next stray dog that wanders down our street, as POTUS to save this America from its demise under that crook HRC.
I can’t even believe that there are Americans who believe the positions taken by some here.
For what we are about to receive, may Mother Gaia make us eternally grateful.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
August 14, 2016 11:46 am

It’s not “illogical” and that kind of thinking did not put Obama in office. In fact is was just the opposite way of thinking that helped put Obama in office.
Only Hillary or Trump have the ability to win. If you prefer one over the other then it is only logical that you vote for the one of those two you prefer even if they are not your first choice. In essence it is perfectly logical to vote AGAINST the person that you least want to see in the WH by voting FOR the opponent that has the best chance to prevent that person gaining the presidency. Nothing illogical about it at all. What is illogical as things stand now is thinking that by voting for a person that is not a member of either of the two major parties will help prevent the least desirable candidate from winning. When you do that you have no logical right to complain when the least desirable candidate wins as Obama did twice.
You can argue for principle, you can argue for making some statement. But in REAL POLITICS the person that wins this election will set the ideological balance on the SCOTUS for a decade or longer. So if you value your liberties as expressed in the Bill or Rights, you better be thinking long and hard about what is most important for your future and the future of your decendents.

Reply to  RAH
August 14, 2016 2:44 pm

I believe you read my remark incorrectly… I was talking to Bruce..and I AGREE with you ( no reply button) :o)

Reply to  RAH
August 14, 2016 4:15 pm

Does anyone remember what happened to George Wallace when he ran for president? And Ross Perot threatened?
Wallace had a good chance to win even among Republican voters.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  RAH
August 14, 2016 11:03 pm

Barbara —
George Wallace was a Democrat as were almost all the politicians in the “Solid South” (Solidly Democratic — Jim Crow only died when Republicans began to be voted into office in the South and they refused to support segregation. It was Republican who killed Jim Crow.) He was famous for making the pledge — “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” — and famous for standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent the entrance of a black child..
He sought the Democratic presidential nomination three times and never got it. In 1968 he was the American Independent Party candidate. He came in a distant third, almost all his votes coming from segregationist Democrats. He was not shot and crippled till 1972 four years after his one run for the presidency as a party nominee. He was shot when he was politically irrelevant — not when he was a party candidate.
Ross Perot believed that the New Black Panthers were plotting his assassination. There was never any overt threat or even the smallest shred of proof. He claimed the Bush campaign was planning on wiretapping his campaign office and that the Bush campaign was plotting to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. He made those claims to explain why he dropped out the the election. It is the judgment of most historians that as he was funding his own campaign he quickly realized that he could not win and was just flushing his own money down the toilet.
He later jumped back into the campaign — and everyone suspects — not to win but to screw over Bush. It is amazing how hate for Bush loosened his purse strings.
Ross Perot — something of a paranoid nut case and not a nice guy. He made people who volunteered to work for him sign loyalty oaths which really tells you something. You decide what it tells you.
Eugene WR Gallun

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  RAH
August 16, 2016 6:44 am

So sayith: Eugene WR Gallun

Ross Perot — something of a paranoid nut case and not a nice guy. He made people who volunteered to work for him sign loyalty oaths which really tells you something. You decide what it tells you.

Eugene, “Beauty is only in the eyes of the beholder” ….. and I’m here too tell you that I observed Ross Perot’s rise in his DP business (EDS) to be a major government contractor and IMHO, …… a “paranoid nut case” he was not.
In the late 60’s, early 70’s, Ross Perot was in the DP business and I was in the engineering design and manufacturing of electronic DP equipment business, …. to wit, …. MDS Corporation
And most everyone with any “smarts” at all, know that “nice guys usually always finish last”.
And ps, Eugene WR, most all major corporations even till this very day, mandate that new employees sign n’ date a per se, “loyalty oath” document not to divulge, sell, transfer or give away “priority” information concerning the company’s business practices, manufacturing processes, etc., etc. (Oftentimes referred to as “trade secrets”).
Sam Cogar, the old computer designing dinosaur.

August 14, 2016 8:01 am

And if I remember correctly, those cars, SUVs and pick-up trucks that meet the new standards aren’t selling very well. The consumers are voting with their money and those votes are against Obama’s new standards.

Reply to  ddpalmer
August 14, 2016 8:35 am

In the US, 1 gallon is equal to 128 fluid ounces. A 16 ounce bottle of water costs $1.00, if it on sale and not including tax. Today, where I live, 1 gallon of gasoline costs $2.07 (okay, it is really $2.069). If I was to buy one gallon of bottled water, it would cost me $8.00. Gasoline is very cheap right now.
People are short-sighted. Which is part of the reason why people are so ready to believe in global warming: they quickly forget that today’s weather occurred in the past and so are quick to believe when a scammer tells them this is “unprecedented”. But that same myopia also means they quickly forget how high gas prices were and thus how high they will be again one day. Americans love to drive and they love their big vehicles. For Americans, 100 miles is a daily commute; for Europeans, 100 miles is a holiday. So when gas prices take an extended dip, people forget about the days when they were happy to find gas for $3.50/gallon. These same people will cry the blues when their owe more on their large SUV than they can sell it for when gas prices eventually go up again.
People aren’t voting with their wallets because they don’t care about global warming; they are voting with the wallets because they forgot the past and don’t plan for the future.

George Tetley
Reply to  alexwade
August 14, 2016 12:33 pm

“because they forgot the past and don’t plan for the future”
The Donald is sure taking a pounding here, but how many of the idiotic comments above take into account the people that work for him and keep his billions multiplying ?
He has for sure a file on the Clinton’s that (because people forget ) will at the right time give that women her,,, “Go to jail card “. Anybody as stupid as her ( THINK ) yep ignorant stupid would be the most dangerous loose cannon America has ever seen ! Private email server ? Oh just wait until I get into the White House ( if the FBI and the 33,000 emails don’t stop me first !

Tom Halla
August 14, 2016 8:04 am

Tear up Obama’s green legacy? Hold a witch hunt and remove all traces of the project, and its advocates in the bureacracy. Hillary would do the same as Obama, only worse, if possible to be “worse”.

Ipso Phakto
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 14, 2016 8:34 am

“Many”? …..that’s the exaggeration in the pro-wrestling-style choreography of the “mainstream” media seeking to demonize Trump any way possible. They are hyperbolically exaggerating / fabricating every word, phrase, stance they can to harpoon him. That’s in part why he’s trolling and baiting them on to multiple limbs. He got them in a froth about saying “Obama & Hillary founded ISIS”, then had others bring forward the video of Hillary repeatedly saying Trump was “recruiting for ISIS” from months ago. He’s taking a page from their own Saul Alinsky playbook, and it drives them mad. Romney tried the purity of civility. It didn’t work. Trump knows that.

Harry Passfield
August 14, 2016 8:08 am

We’ve increased solar thirty-fold

– but it’s cost an arm and a leg!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Harry Passfield
August 14, 2016 8:49 am

It’s the same kind of stupidity they claim ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion have been a “success” merely because more people have healthcare. “”But was the cost worth the outcome” the dishonest Democrats will never address.
For public policy they question has to be a cost:benefit analysis, as you highlight with your, “but it’s cost an arm and a leg!” To do it. Clearly agenda-ideology driven for energy and healthcare to expand government control over private market enterprises irregardless of the dire fiscal irresponsible debts they hand to our children.
I am completely cynical now that even a Trump and GOP congress can right our government back to sanity. If we find in January that the Clinton, Pelosi, and Schumer trio is running Washington, all hope, if there is any, will be gone to save our country from the socialists.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 14, 2016 8:54 am

You are correct Joel, and God help us if that happens.
And do not forget for one second that five minutes after she takes the Oath, she will appoint Scalia’s replacement, and there goes the SCOTUS to the revisionists who will tear up the Constitution and cast rulings based on left wing ideology alone.
And there are a lot of very old people on the court right now.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 14, 2016 9:08 am

” because more people have healthcare”
No, more people have health insurance.
Two completely different things.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 14, 2016 11:40 am

Yeah, health insurance with unaffordable deductibles and high co-pays. Most of those “newly” insured are those who have drained the resources of the insurance companies to the point where they are now abandoning the exchanges. They knew this system would never work, it is only the first step of imposing a single payer system on us.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 15, 2016 10:27 am

There will be enough Democrats in the Senate to filibuster any supreme court justice that doesn’t meet the Hillary standard. The Republicans will never have the cojones to go nuclear on supreme court appointments the way the Democrats did on all other appointments.
The best result that we can expect will be The Donald appoints a series of Kennedy’s, who pretend to be conservative but vote with the liberals when it counts.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 15, 2016 9:03 pm

My but you have the cheeriest of thoughts and opinions today Mark.
Tell us again who you are rooting for?
Trump has given a list of who he will appoint.
Which are the fakers?

george e. smith
Reply to  Harry Passfield
August 16, 2016 6:18 pm

Ivanpah as a typical example of that green progress.

August 14, 2016 8:08 am

“the best which America could hope for from the next President, is for the next President to ditch pointless climate virtue signalling”
What you’re going to get is a big push for carbon taxes once Clinton is installed into the White House.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  sarastro92
August 14, 2016 11:42 am

And that will happen if Clinton gets in along with a Democrat controlled Congress. Just like they shoved ACA down out throats and squandered $800 billion in stimulus.

August 14, 2016 8:18 am

Don’t go away mad Bozo, just go away!! When this climate fraud is done away with maybe our country can get back to the prosperity we knew in our earlier years!

August 14, 2016 8:20 am

I been begging for Obama to disappear for over 8 years and you see where that’s gotten me.

August 14, 2016 8:28 am

“In my opinion, the best which America could hope for from the next President, is for the next President to ditch pointless climate virtue signalling, and for the next President to put a stop to the ongoing sale of the future prosperity of American children to foreign loan sharks.”
Won’t get that with Hillary Clinton.

August 14, 2016 8:31 am

From the Obama Impeachment song: Imagine President Obama singing it! (To the tune of “Please release me, let me go”)
Verse 25
Climate change our biggest threat,
If worse, I will break out a sweat.
Global Governance, you bet!
My war on King Coal not over yet.
Verse 69
Climate change or World War III?
Yes, Climate Change much worse must be.
World Wars come and go, you see.
But Climate Must Not Change, That’s my decree.
Verse 83
Global Warming drives me mad
I said to Castro, my comrade.
Common sense is gone, too bad.
I can only say: You have been had.
The rest of the verses:

Reply to  lenbilen
August 14, 2016 8:50 am

Feel free to remove the link. I do not want to overly politicize this site beyond climate change. I added it by mistake.

Walter Sobchak
August 14, 2016 8:34 am

The only thing that I am sure of at this point is that even though Obama is worst president since Wilson, who was positively evil, the next president will be even worse. Neither candidate is more competent, and neither of them is less evil.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
August 14, 2016 8:55 am

You are wrong.
The choice is between another left wing ideologue, and a pragmatic businessman.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 15, 2016 10:29 am

A businessman with a long history of supporting left wing politicians, including Hillary.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 15, 2016 9:00 pm

He supported politicians of all stripes, because he is a business man who needed to get things done and he knows how things work in the real world.
He is no ideologue, but a pragmatic man.
Which is, IMO, just exactly what we need right now.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
August 14, 2016 8:57 am

How many bodies are there in the closet of each candidate? There is not a closet big enough for Hilliary’s.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
August 14, 2016 11:13 am

No, Obama and Hillary are both socialists and as such have no respect for the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments which stand in the way of the implementation of socialism because socialism can’t stand scrutiny, has to be in everyone’s business, requires redistribution of wealth and could easily result in revolution (why else do they want to take everyone’s guns away?). They will render those amendments powerless as quickly as they can. Trump has no problem with the constitution. I don’t know how good he’ll be as a president but he’ll certainly be better than Hillary or Obama and far truer to the idea of America.

Reply to  John G.
August 14, 2016 12:35 pm

Please supply quote where Clinton says she wants to take everyones guns away. Otherwise you are just doing a Trump and telling porkies.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Simon
August 14, 2016 12:41 pm

Simon, as far as Hillary Clinton wanting to take your guns away–she has decried the outcome of the Heller and McDonald decisions by the Supreme Court, agreeing with the dissent by Stevens that the 2nd Amendment ensures no individual right. It is verbiage to claim that does not geld the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to  BFL
August 15, 2016 8:58 pm

He is a very good read for sure Eric, and BFL.
Obviously a very smart man.
His endorsement is a backhand indictment of the danger of being seen as an enemy.

Jenn Runion
August 14, 2016 8:47 am

“In parts of America, these clean power sources are finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.”
Classic lawyer speak. DEFINE CHEAPER! Down to it’s basic element. It’s cheaper because it is subsidized, well then it is not cheaper to those that support the subsidy. It’s cheaper than it was…..insert number of years……because of the technology used? A trade deal with China for parts? Unrealized cost buffering?
Exactly HOW MUCH CHEAPER? Where were the savings? Or were those “costs” simply shuffled from one column to the next?
And while you are defining CHEAPER—lets define DIRTIER. Dirtier how? How do you define dirty? I define dirty as picking up dead birds from wind guiotinnes, cleaning off thousands if not hundreds of thousands of insects that have been burned alive by reflected solar radiation. Or if you don’t want it to be animal life, lets talk the ‘dirty’ of mining for the resources to produce those ‘wonderful’ wind turbines of yours.
This is nothing more than wordsmithing.

Reply to  Jenn Runion
August 14, 2016 9:16 am

Actually, not sure if Obama is a lawyer. He and his wife both mysteriously gave up their Illinois law licences.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Matthew W
August 14, 2016 11:44 am

It’s what you do to avoid further inquiries into your professionalism.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 14, 2016 1:43 pm

Or lack there of

August 14, 2016 8:56 am

Excerpts from previous posts:
Please look at the absolutely flat slope of UAHLTcalc in the above plot, where:
UAHLTcalc (Anom. in degC, ~four months later) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom + 0.15
The slope of the blue line, which is UAHLT calculated from the Nino3.4 Index Anomaly, is absolutely flat – it shows NO average warming since 1982.
The slope of the red line, which is UAHLT actual, shows an average warming rate of 0.13C per decade.
The R2 for this relationship is 0.55 after 1996 – before then, two major volcanoes in 1982 and 1991 caused global cooling that abated after about five years.
Nino data at
Here is my latest hypo:
Maybe there was some real global warming before 1982 due to the Great Climate Shift of ~1976, , but it is possible, even probable, that there was no “real” global warming since 1982 – there was only “apparent” warming, which was caused by the temporary cooling of global temperatures by the two volcanoes El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.
I expect that global cooling will start anytime, even as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase (but more moderately, and CO2 may occasionally decease year-to-year, as it did during the last global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1975 (incidentally, this ~35-year global cooling period disproves the manmade global warming hypothesis).
I suggest that the myth of humanmade catastrophic global warming will not last much longer – global cooling will again demonstrate that Earth’s temperature is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2.
The effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 are entirely beneficial to humankind and the environment. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are not just counterproductive, they are imbecilic. It is difficult to understand how our fearless leaders could have gotten it so wrong – they have relied upon advice from “experts” whose every prediction has proven false to date.
Regards to all, Allan

Reply to  Allan MacRae
August 14, 2016 9:00 am

How right you are, sir.
The warmistas have not been right about a single thing to date.
It is literally comical, and would be funny if not so tragic for our future.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
August 14, 2016 1:05 pm

We are constantly sold that tAvg is increasing with no mention of tMax vs. tMin. I’d bet my bottom $ that a higher tMin is driving the “warming”.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  James Schrumpf
August 14, 2016 8:38 pm

I bet my bottom dollar that about half the GISS TEMP is synthtic adjustments, and the other half is evenly divided between natural warming from the LIA and the other 25% (half of half) is UHI.
Global warming due to anthroCO2 = MIA (lost in the noise).

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  James Schrumpf
August 15, 2016 6:11 am

I’d bet my bottom $ that a higher tMin is driving the “warming”.

Be a big winner, …. bet your family farm.
The Heat Island Effect has been driving up the tMin for the past 50+ years.

Bubba Cow
August 14, 2016 9:00 am

A neighbor (a biologist) report on a walking tour of the environmental damage at the Lowell Mountain – Vermont – wind “farm”.—justin-lindholm/article_96c9d628-d753-54f7-b71b-97cce180e21a.html
surely it is saving the planet

Reply to  Bubba Cow
August 14, 2016 4:26 pm

Also known as soil/rock disturbance caused by IWT installations! Unnecessary soil disturbance. Take a look at the effects in just one state.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
August 14, 2016 6:00 pm

Vermont Watchdog, Aug.12, 2016
‘Storm-water system failures loom over old and new wind projects in Vermont’
System failures include:
Drying-up of wet ponds designed to hold water.
Scores of dead trees from lack of water.
Continuous erosion of fine soil working down hill.
More at:
Also more information on Vermont wind turbine problems are on the internet.

August 14, 2016 9:00 am

Dear Dear Leader,
“In parts of America, these clean power sources are finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. And carbon pollution from our energy sector is at its lowest level in 25 years”
#1 BULLCRAP. Taxpayer funded subsidies don’t make it cheaper.
#2 “Carbon Pollution” is absolutely meaningless.

August 14, 2016 9:30 am

If a British chap can comment: To those who say Donald is a moron. Hang on, just look at all of the other candidates on both sides. Are they the best that the US can offer?
I know that politics is dirty and US politics is very dirty and expensive, so you only get rich people standing, with rich backers, and this is what happens.
All I would say is: With Trump, you hear what he is thinking ‘cos he tells you. You have no clue what Clinton and Obama think because they would never win/won if you really knew what they were thinking!
Good luck US.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  steverichards1984
August 14, 2016 11:45 am

You know us all too well.

Reply to  steverichards1984
August 14, 2016 12:04 pm

“If a British chap can comment:”
NO, YOU CAN NOT! We one the war and you’ve been sulking for over two hundred years now! AND if it wasn’t for US bailing you out with WW2 you’d all be blond haired, blue eyed and speaking german! (ACHTUNG!!!) Get rid of your dopey monarchy an then (and ONLY then) can you comment OL’ CHAP!!!
Just JOKING Steve! (☺) A little benny hill style jocularity to lighten your day with. (i hope you didn’t stop reading before you got to this part of my comment!) I think our election is pretty much the american version of your Brexit. Who knows just how far and wide this global nonsense will go under the wrong leadership. My guess is that hillary will win though. We haven’t quite dug ourselves deep enough into a hole to do the right thing…

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 14, 2016 12:07 pm

Ah! Nothing like a typo to kill a good joke… “one” should read “won”

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 14, 2016 1:08 pm

Pay no attention to the polls at this point. they are sampling registered voters, not likely voters.
And most of them are over weighted with democrat respondents.
And there is almost surely a hidden Trump vote…people who will vote for him but do not feel like admitting it, which is understandable given all the vitriol and venom hurled and Trump and anyone who voices support for him, especially in certain parts of the country.
There is a reason why the secret ballot has long been the norm all over the world. This election offers a good look at why that is.
The election will almost surely be decided by the results of the debates.
In the past we have seen such things as Michael Dukakis up by double digits at this point in the cycle…and no one can remember a President Dukakis.
And then there is almost sure to be an October surprise.
The Julian Assanges of the world know that the best time to throw the dirtiest dirt is when it is too late to counter it effectively or enough time for people to forget all about it.
( If I were him I would be sleeping in a bank vault with around the clock armed guards)

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 14, 2016 1:53 pm

Menicholas, i think things are a little different now than when dukakis was running… Demographics. Dukakis got 40% of the white vote and lost by 6% of the popular vote. Obama, on the other hand, got only 39% of the white vote (in 2012) and won the popular vote by 4%. And i just can’t imagine a tank ride bringing down hillary. She’s too well known for something goofy to bring her down. (if barking like a dog doesn’t bring her down than nothing trivial will) OTOH, i think you may be right about polls. Here in louisiana it was very difficult to poll david dukes’ state house run in ’89. People just wouldn’t admit that they were going to vote for him. (this was shortly after the MLK day riots where white bystanders were beaten) So, who really knows what’s going on with the polls. But, those demographics are really tough to beat these days. It’s also very disturbing to see all those repulican voters going for johnson. Reagan had anderson in eighty, but ultimately it was voters who were disaffected by carter who went with anderson. Should be an interesting fall. Trump still has plenty of time to get a head of steam up by election day…

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 14, 2016 2:34 pm

Speaking of polls, some claim that SJW’s and the MSM are distorting the results. So to add to the confusion there are these which show Trump winning by a landslide; so who knows…—trump-win-election/88640044/

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 14, 2016 2:49 pm

And to add; I followed the Wisconsin Nehlen/Ryan election fairly closely and Nehlen drew only small crowds so the predicted 85% Ryan 15% Nehlen split kinda matched the visuals. However, Hillary doesn’t even come close to Trump’s crowd attendance which also throws some cold water on the polling.

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 14, 2016 6:45 pm

Hi Fonz – it’s been a while since we talked.
I’ve been a bit busy- please see
As a Canadian, I think I have the right to make a brief comment on your election – my justification is the War of 1812, where you burned Toronto and we burned the White House. Nobody here likes Toronto, so we still think we got the better of that deal. 🙂
For most countries, I suggest that the question of a Hillary vs a Donald would come down to “who gets energy right (Donald), and who gets it utterly wrong (Hillary).”
Cheap, reliable abundant energy is the lifeblood of society, and our very cheap fossil fuel energy should provide our two countries with an overwhelming economic advantage, IF the greens would stop sabotaging our economies.
Since the USA is a global power, there are more issues than just the domestic economy – I don’t think you need any more foreign wars for a long while, except to exterminate terrorist gangs. So you might ask yourself who is more likely to start a needless foreign war that will further bankrupt your treasury.
The USA should stick to token “weekender” invasions like Grenada. You might consider Quebec – they’re nearby, they’ve been acting up for quite a while, and you’ve already done Toronto.
Best personal regards, Allan

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 15, 2016 4:04 am

Why is the democratically elected leader of ‘the free world’ shown in pictures, such as the one for this post, as a Roman Emperor complete with laurel?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 15, 2016 8:41 am

Menicholas – August 14, 2016 at 1:08 pm

The Julian Assanges of the world know that the best time to throw the dirtiest dirt is when it is too late to counter it effectively or enough time for people to forget all about it.

In the case of the Clintons, the dirtiest dirt is the actual facts and evidence.
I personally believe Hillary’s personal un-protected basement-residing “State Department” Server was ALSO being used by both Hillary and Bill for all of their E-mail correspondence for soliciting and/or extorting millions of dollars from both domestic and foreign entities.
And being un-protected, Hillary’s personal basement Server was, IMO, a high-speed bi-directional “hacker-friendly” Communication channel that permitted unrestricted access to a lot of other Federal government and/or political organization Servers in the DC metroplex that hackers, etc., such as Julian Assange, have known about for the past 10+- years.
And thus the reason for the FBI’s failure to recommendation “prosecution” of Hillary. If Hillary is prosecuted ……. then all-of-the-above becomes public knowledge and all hell breaks loose.

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 15, 2016 10:31 am

Menicholas, that’s what everyone was saying about Romney and the polls 4 years ago.

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 15, 2016 8:55 pm

Thanks Mark…a cheery thought.
Given what Samuel points out, perhaps this time will be different.
I certainly hope so.
I certainly hope enough people are awake and tuned in to what we have in store if she wins.
I think things can get far worse, and I do not care to see things get even a little worse, or even stay the same.

August 14, 2016 9:32 am

In parts of America, these clean power sources are finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.
So, when you promised that electricity prices would skyrocket, Mr. Obama, this is what you had in mind? Make your idiotic green dream cheaper by comparison?
I’ve never seen a US president so enthralled with his own legacy, and an MSM so easily distracted by his talking about it. Turkey has just become a dictatorship sliding toward theocracy, has spurned both NATO and the EU in order to ally with Russia (and by extension, Syria and Iran) and nobody seems to have the kahonies to even ask Obama how he’s going to get the dozens of nuclear bombs the US has stored in Turkey to someplace safe.

Curious George
Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 14, 2016 10:04 am

An agreement with Iran is also B. Hussein Obama’s legacy.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 14, 2016 5:29 pm

I think you missed the plot (literally) on the Turkish putsch. The people rose up against a theocracy, a coup attempt led by a US resident. They don’t want one. I asked a family member who hails from that eastern region and I was told the young people want to drink and have sex like those in Europe. The theocrats want to stop all that which is why they tried to overthrow the current government.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 14, 2016 6:28 pm

I have a lot of respect for you. Sp please take this constructively.
You are first confusing the origins of the putsch with its aftermath, second, misunderstanding that there are multiple competing theocracies in Turkey, with the most malevolent one now being ascendant (the one that called the people out into the streets BTW), and third missing the significance of Erdogan bending a knee to Putin.
Give it six months to play out. Unless the US and the EU can find a way to pry Turkey out of Russia’s orbit and back into the world of democracy, it will be an even more unhappy region than it already is. Erdogan has pointed a finger at anyone and everyone he doesn’t like, and without evidence or judicial process, thrown them in jail. He is lobbying for a return of the death penalty in order that he can execute them. He has crushed all opposition media, no matter who they were aligned with (secular, liberal, competing theocrats, all of them), and demands the extradition of someone in the US but has so far been unable to provide any evidence that the man was actually behind the putsch, despite having most of the putsch brass in jail where they have been clearly and obviously tortured.
It isn’t a simple a situation as you seem to think. I’ve not lost the plot, I’ve been following it for years and it has more subplots than can possibly be explored in this forum.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 14, 2016 6:56 pm

Erdogan has pointed a finger at anyone and everyone he doesn’t like, and without evidence or judicial process, thrown them in jail.
Our two term limit is a real blessing, because given a third term I have no doubt that BHO would be throwing his critics in jail. And not only his critics. Caligula comes to mind…
And here in the U.S., the only opposition media that remains is on the internet, some radio stations, and some minor newspapers and magazines. All the major media (television networks, all major newspapers, magazines, etc.) is controlled by just six entities. And they’re all on the same page; not one of them dissents from the others. What are the odds of that?
The internet is in their sights now. The president has the authority now to turn off websites based on very flimsy pretexts. And with all the emotion surrounding this election, people are being distracted from the most important issue of all: whoever wins will appoint two or three, or even four new Supreme Court justices.
After Chief Justice John Roberts got flipped on Obamacare, it became clear that branch of government no longer protects the people against the government. Now, the Court protects the government against the people.
Just ask James Comey.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 14, 2016 7:56 pm

“Give it six months to play out. Unless the US and the EU can find a way to pry Turkey out of Russia’s orbit and back into the world of democracy, it will be an even more unhappy region than it already is.”
“Unhappiness” doesn’t have a lot to do with it. I think that you are missing the historical point, that the US doesn’t much care whether a country is totalitarian or not as long as they are in our sphere of influence. Libya and Syria, for example, would have been fine (as are other middle eastern monarchy’s or similar) as long as they follow our wishes.

August 14, 2016 9:40 am

Worst POTUS ever wants us to stop destroying the USA on his behalf?
Whatever were we thinking?

Tom Halla
Reply to  Scott
August 14, 2016 9:43 am

Oh, I think Buchanan and Wilson are worse than Obama, but not for lack of effort on Obama’s part.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 14, 2016 11:46 am

Jimmy Carter is a happy man now.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 14, 2016 6:20 pm

No president has put the U.S. and the world in more danger than Obama. His actions and inactions increase the danger every day. He is either the most clueless man on the planet, or the most sinister.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 14, 2016 8:03 pm

” He is either the most clueless man on the planet, or the most sinister.”
I think you are talking Trump there aren’t you?

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 17, 2016 2:27 pm

Simon August 14, 2016 at 8:03 pm wrote:
TA: ” He is either the most clueless man on the planet, or the most sinister.”
Simon: “I think you are talking Trump there aren’t you?”
I don’t consider Trump clueless or sinister. I think Trump’s heart is in the right place.
I know all sorts of evil has been attributed to him, but I don’t believe any of it without a little evidence, and so far, all I see are accusations, which anyone can make. A smart person should automatically disbelieve anything the Leftwing News Media says. The truth is probably just the opposite of what they say.
I think Trump, even though he is a billionaire, is a little inexperienced in the ways of running for Office and how the Leftwing News Media is not his friend, but he is muddling along pretty good even so.
Trump’s flaws pale in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s. We don’t need the Clinton Crime Family running the U.S. As far as I can tell, Trump, unlike Hillary, is not a serial liar or utterly corrupt and immoral. Anyone who would vote for her ought to have their head examined.

August 14, 2016 9:51 am

will no one rid us of this meddlesome priest?

Reply to  davideisenstadt
August 14, 2016 10:12 am

He will be sitting on the Supreme Court if Hillary wins.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2016 11:41 am

Ha! That’s HILLARIOUS!!! I wonder if she’ll be able to yank roberts and make barry chief. Just the notion should be enough to turn the “never trump” movement into “ever trump”…

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2016 11:47 am

I think he is going for U.N. Secretary General.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2016 11:55 am

I am not sure about that Fonzie, but it is wroth looking into.
My first thought was that Chief Justice is a lifetime appointment.
I really wonder if Republican never Trumpers are really keeping all of the facts in mind at once?
It is hard to understand how someone can go from conservative to not caring about the country with everything we are going through, as if it could not get worse so what the hell.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2016 7:48 pm

“My first thought was that Chief Justice is a lifetime appointment.”
Now why has congress not bothered to consider that with increasing life spans senility has to begin affecting some of these.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 15, 2016 10:33 am

The chief justice is a lifetime appointment, regardless the only special authority the chief justice has is in deciding who writes opinions. And even then, any justice who wants to can still write concurring opinions.

August 14, 2016 10:13 am

Who needs to tear up the Paris paper? I understand it dissolves in warm water… Just pee on it…
I have a 1980 Mercedes Diesel that I will keep repaired and drive until I can’t drive anymore. Just don’t buy the new crap, it’s cheap enough to keep a f ine old car in good condition.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
August 14, 2016 3:00 pm

Yeah most of the older cars are way easier for the owner to work on. I have a ’98 4Runner 4 wheel drive which has had few problems and were easy to fix. Also, (unfortunately) I have a ’99 RX300 (wife’s car) which has an ECU for everything, including at each door/locks & windows. If anything goes out it’s going to be a real bear to troubleshoot. I used to have a ’95 Corolla which was a charm to work on but finally broke the original trans lock (internal-not worth fixing) at 287,000.
[EMP? .mod]

Reply to  BFL
August 14, 2016 7:06 pm

Have to go back to about 1975 and earlier to eliminate transistors in electronic ignition. Probably older ignition coils and relays are more resistant than transistors to EMP but not to UFO magnetic fields which supposedly could saturate the relay iron cores and flip the relays off (head lights going off, car wouldn’t start etc.), In an EMP incident all those older cars are going to be real popular.

Reply to  BFL
August 15, 2016 10:35 am

If you can’t get gas, it won’t matter if your car still runs or not.
You’d be surprised how much electronics is in fuel pumps. You could possibly hotwire the pumps to run manually, but only if there is enough electricity to run the pumps.

August 14, 2016 11:18 am

Sure. Instead burn up this left wing tax and tyranny plan in a furnace to generate power. The sheer amount of money and energy spent on this meeting could have paid for the utility bills for my county for half a year.

August 14, 2016 11:25 am

We should not tear up the Paris agreement.
Copies should be stocked in bathroom stalls so they may be used appropriately.

Reply to  PA
August 14, 2016 11:39 am

Nah, too crinkly.
I’m stickin’ with some Charmin.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2016 1:06 pm

“I’m stickin’ with some Charmin.”
Try a change of diet (:-))

R. Shearer
Reply to  PA
August 14, 2016 11:39 am

I hope your suggestion to wipe out Democrats is not a call to violence.

Reply to  R. Shearer
August 14, 2016 11:55 am

That was sick, twisted, and utterly hilarious, all at the same time.

Reply to  R. Shearer
August 14, 2016 7:11 pm

Not a wipeout, just a harmless smear or two.

August 14, 2016 11:34 am

Windmills and photovoltaic farms across Hawaii, starting with Obama’s “home” away from home. And, if he ever decides to return home, then clear Chicago of its excess flora and fauna, flying, crawling, burrowing, too. It’s for the green-backs.
Finally, carbon and carbon-based life form sequestration/recycling/planning.

August 14, 2016 12:40 pm

Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels use does not materially affect climate. Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is in an interglacial period. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies seek to deceive by “adjusting” prior-period temperature data.
Nature converts ambient CO2 to limestone. Carbonates form in seawater and soils through calcification (ie. cyanobacteria and coccolithiphores). The simplified formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make calcite quickly in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with quicklime.
Its simple. Nature sequesters CO2 as limestone (calcite). The higher the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, the faster it becomes limestone. 99.84% of all carbon is sequestered in sediments. Earth absorbs ambient CO2 quickly.
Climate change results from a combination of (non-CO2) causes, such as sunspots, solar orbital variations, cosmic rays’ effect on clouds, and plate tectonics (well documented elsewhere). But it cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use, because nature efficiently recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals.
Only 3% of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels use. Most of the rest arises from rotting vegetation in swamps and jungles. Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 emissions from these sources, and are not caused by them.
CO2 is in equilibrium. Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). See the paper
The theory of human-caused climate change is based on a false premise. All the cost and hysteria of the global warming movement is a colossal waste, and results in poor economic growth. Tens of trillions of dollars wasted on foolish superstition, when hard working people are deprived. Energy policy as fashion goods. The dead hand of the state, picking winners & losers.
Coal is the lowest-cost and most reliable primary energy source for electric power generation. A modern coal plant emits few air emissions except water vapor and carbon dioxide.

Reply to  miner49erblog
August 15, 2016 1:57 am

I agree Miner.
The global cooling period from ~1940 to 1975 (during a time of increasing atmospheric CO2) demonstrates that climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 is near-zero – so close to zero as to be insignificant.
Furthermore, warm is good and cold is bad – for humanity and the environment. Excess Winter Mortality globally is about 2 million people per year, including about 100,000 per year in the USA and up to 50,000 per year in the United Kingdom. Excess Winter Mortality rates are high even in warm countries like Australia and Thailand.
Reference: “Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather” by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
The scientific conclusion is that there is NO global warming crisis, except in the minds of warmist propagandists.
I recently received a letter from Alberta Environment Minister Shannon Phillips (cc’d to our Minister of Energy and our Premier) wherein she speaks of the government’s plan to reduce “carbon pollution”. Yes, really – some people still talk like that.
There is overwhelming evidence that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans is not dangerously high – it is dangerously low, too low for the survival of life on Earth.
I have written about the vital issue of “CO2 starvation” since 2009 or earlier, and recently others including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, have also written on this subject:
Executive Summary
This study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but which is far too often ignored in the current discussions about climate change policy. All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere. As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth.
This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments. The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.
[end of Exec Summary]
Is it possible to scientifically educate someone like Alberta’s Environment Minister, our Energy Minister or our Premier? If so, how? Suggestions welcomed.
Regards, Allan

Robert of Ottawa
August 14, 2016 1:01 pm

Without getting political, the very fact that Obama is for the crushing of Western industrial and economic activity is proof that the lie of AGW is just that.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
August 14, 2016 1:03 pm


August 14, 2016 2:23 pm

This president is managing the country to set himself up for a prominent position in a world government. That governments needs climate change to justify its existence.

August 14, 2016 2:36 pm

Why is anyone talking about the Paris agreement?
Given the impressive litany of achievements mentioned in Obama’s latest address it would seem that the main objectives in reducing dependence on fossil fuels , accelerating renewables and significantly reducing CO2 emission have already on the way to being realised , without any obvious deleterious effect on US productivity or prosperity.
If Obama or Clinton try to ratify the paris agreement it will not necessarily accelerate what is already happening and might serve to act as a focus for sceptical voices which at present address so many different aspects of the AGW that their impact is defocussed and ignored , IMO.

Reply to  mikewaite
August 14, 2016 2:37 pm

Grammar correction : –“are already on the way–“

August 14, 2016 3:20 pm

I always agree with the product of Chicago/Illinois politics.
Less now as they are running out of other peoples money.
Who woulda thunk you could burn through it so fast ??

August 14, 2016 4:22 pm

Oh crap. We are into the Trump debate. Have voted straight GOP since 1980. Not voting the top of ticket this time for the very first time. Toss me out if you like but I don’t do stupid. It’s why I have been on the Right all these years. Our ideas were better.
I know the short term pain of another Clinton. We will survive that. Trump on the other hand will leave permanent damage.

Reply to  troe
August 14, 2016 4:55 pm

Define “damage”.

Reply to  troe
August 14, 2016 5:33 pm

Short term pain?
You mean like life changing, and all but irreversible, liberal SCOTUS decisions as far as the eye can see?

Reply to  Menicholas
August 15, 2016 10:40 am

There are still enough Democrats in congress to filibuster any judicial appointment to the left of Hillary.
What’s going to happen is we will get stealth candidates like Kennedy, who talk conservative, but vote liberal.
In other words, Trump ain’t gonna save us.

Reply to  troe
August 14, 2016 5:35 pm

Troe: Be careful what you wish for … (not from the USA, My Prime Minister is a pot smoking snowboarder – and I sure didn’t vote for his socialist agenda. But a lot of people are wondering what they did while they look for work.)

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
August 14, 2016 7:26 pm

Under a liberal socialist system where there is a lot of free stuff (and more to come here under Hillary), it doesn’t matter because it’s easier to reside on welfare or live in their parents basement.
“Food stamp recipients in Maine got a rude awakening when Gov. Paul LePage decided to impose a three-month limit on benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents (Abawds).
Now, before all the raging liberals out there start throwing a hissy fit and talking about how much conservatives hate the poor and all that bleeding heart rhetoric, this limit is only enforced if the “Abawds” refuse to get a job working 20 hours a week, take job training, or volunteer six hours a week.
Guess what happened when this rule was enforced?
Nearly 80 percent of people on welfare were cut off the program because they refused to get a job or volunteer to work six hours a week.
Six hours a week was deemed too strenuous to work in order to receive free benefits.”

Reply to  troe
August 14, 2016 5:35 pm

I think electing someone we know to be a lying liar and an untrustworthy criminal to the White House is what will cause a permanent sort of damage, and not just to the office but to the National psyche.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Menicholas
August 15, 2016 5:51 am

Yeah, as opposed to electing someone who is a psychotic moron who thinks he can just say whatever he wants to, without there being consequences.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2016 5:53 am

Yeah, as opposed to electing someone who is a psychotic moron who thinks he can just say whatever he wants to, without there being consequences.

Sorry, you had a typo there.
Yeah, as opposed to electing someone who is a psychotic moron who knows she can just say whatever she wants to, without there being consequences of lying.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Menicholas
August 15, 2016 7:45 am

Yeah, I get it about Hilly. The point I keep making and you tardos don’t get is that they are both bad news, although in different ways.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 15, 2016 11:56 am

Hi Bruce,
I agree with just about everything you post. Your comments are rational and always worth reading. In this case though, I would like to point out something. This thread is getting old, so there will be few readers. So maybe you won’t even see this, but I’ll try anyway. I’m giving my point of view because as I said, I value your input. I’d like a solid reason for labeling one candidate as a “psychotic moron”.
The media is bombarding everyone 24/7 with that same message. The same people own every TV network and every major newspaper. We can’t get away from their message, and it’s always the same: demonize Donald Trump.
But there’s an ulterior motive in play: they’re in the tank for Hillary. But this didn’t just start in this election, or when Romney was similarly attacked for being a “liar”. If the public looked at Romney’s life they would see that he’s religious (I’m not, so I’m not trying to sell that here). But really, people who are religious tend to be honest. What was happening was the usual ‘projection’: assigning Obama’s own faults onto his opponent.
Romney adopted a bunch of kids of all races, before he was ever in politics. He walked the walk. And he gave away almost all his inheritance to charity (not to his own “charity” like the Clinton Foundation). Romney’s charitable contributions put the current Administration’s to shame. And almost 99% of Hillary Clinton’s “charitable” contributions were to an organization that she controls.
But the minute Romney became the Republican candidate (and: IANAR), the DNC posted a picture of him with a Pinnocchio nose, which promptly appeared on Drudge. The accusations of “Liar!” became a fixture of that campaign. But in reality, Obama has a problem telling the truth, not Romney.
So Romney lost because he was demonized by the media, which carried water as usual for the DNC. (I have since changed my opinion of Romney & Ryan. Why? Because Donald Trump gave $millions to their campaign, and he ‘bundled’ millions more for them. Then they inexplicably truned on him like a couple of snakes in the grass. If you were given milions of dollars, would you do what they did? Me, neither).
The exact same playbook is being followed now, because it works on a public that head-nods along with the nightly news anchor babe without thinking. So now Trump is being accused of the exact things that Hillary is guilty of. “Dangerous”; check. “Liar”; check. And so on. All the things we know for certain about Hillary Clinton’s character are being projected onto her opponent. It’s a very effective tactic when the media is all on the same page.
But I have the same question I had when Romney was being similarly accused: where is the proof? Trump has been a public figure for forty years now. But he has amazingly few detractors who know him personally; none that I’m aware of.
There’s no doubt that Trump’s children, and his employees, and his close friends and acquaintences have all been offered $millions to put their names on a “Tell All” book (“You don’t need to write it, Joe, we’ll do all that. Just give us some things to work with and our ghost writers will take it from there.”)
But no one took that easy money. That indicates loyalty. It indicates someone who isn’t vindictive, who doesn’t hold grudges, etc. And if Trump was a psychotic moron, that would have come out long ago. This is everyone’s golden opportunity to stick it to The Donald, and get rich doing it… but there are no takers.
OTOH, people have come out of the woodwork to expose the Clintons from the start. From the start of her gov’t career Hillary especially has been a shady, dishonest character. I could go on, but you’ve already seen it. This isn’t about her. This is because I’m curious why lots of intelligent people are so swayed by the media.
I’ll be the first to admit that Trump is a self-promoter. His bombastic style is different from Hillary’s. And I’ll admit that he has Bad Hair, and any similar petty criticisms. He’s human, so of course he will have minor faults. Everyone does.
But I won’t admit that he’s “dangerous”. That is simply demonizing him with no evidence. It’s a Hillary/DNC talking point that’s being broadcast as factual. But where’s the proof? And I won’t admit that he’s a liar. Again, where’s the proof? It’s just more projection. In reality, it’s Hillary who is dangerous. Do we want her finger on the button?
A businessman cannot earn billions of dollars by double-crossing people, or by being dishonest. In that company reputation is everything. If Donald Trump had a bad reputation we would have heard about it long ago. But he’s been an upstanding citizen. Unlike Hillary, there are no skeletons in his closet. If there were, that’s what we would be told constantly. Instead, the criticism is either petty nitpicking, or it’s a DNC talking point — opinions that are reported as if they’re facts.
But the same Big Media doesn’t seem at all interested in reporting important stories, like the $20 million Hillary Clinton has been given by the Saudis alone. When push comes to shove (and it will, sooner or later), which way would a President Hillary tilt? Toward her Saudi donors? Or would she refuse to listen to them, and do what’s best for the country? (The Saudis are just one example of many foreign donors.)
The same media is uninterested in finding out why Hillary Clinton has been given a complete pass by the FBI, when plenty of others have been convicted and imprisoned for lesser crimes of the same nature as hers. FBI Director James Comey stated that she had repeatedly broken the law — and then he dropped it! Would the FBI do that for you or me?
There are literally dozens of similar instances of wrongdoing that we know about, and likely many more that the media won’t investigate and report. Instead, they continue to demonize her opponent, who’s never even been charged with a misdemeanor offense, much less investigated for providing our country’s defense secrets to foreign hackers.
The point is that intelligent folks should be able to come to their own conclusions based on facts and evidence. But the Big Lie is a very effective tactic. Even intelligent folks are susceptible to the same talking points that are being rained down on the public day and night. We’re all being hammered by the same message.
Eventually, even rational folks begin to head-nod along. It’s human nature: “If everyone says he’s a bad guy, there must be something to it.” Advertising is based on ‘word of mouth’. But those words are manufactured. They’re not based on reality. They’re only opinions.
The country is being told what to think, every hour of the day. That’s a lot easier than doing the thinking themselves. They don’t think: ‘This would be another eight years just like the last 8 years.’ And: ‘We’re worse off now, and both Parties are at fault; their government positions are more important to them than what’s good for the country.’ They don’t think, ‘Let’s try someone new, someone with a solid record of producing. A Maker, instead of a Taker who hasn’t produced anything of value except to herself.’
The current gang of electeds in both Parties are responsible for the fix we’re in. The alternative isn’t some crazy moron, as he’s being portrayed. Donald Trump has built more than 120 skyscrapers, plus hotels, golf courses, and he’s produced other real wealth. He provides what people want, or he wouldn’t be in business. And yes, he’s had four bankruptcies — out of more than 150 big projects. But no developer in his league has a perfect score — and his 97% success rate is better than almost anyone else. But the media doesn’t talk about his success rate, do they?
If anyone can show me a reason that Hillary Clinton would be better for the country than Donald Trump, I’m all ears. But please, no media talking points. Just facts and evidence, please.
This next President will be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. No one else. So I won’t waste my vote on someone who can’t get elected. But I can see that the constant media drumbeat is having the intended effect, when intelligent folks buy into the constant demonizing. There’s a demon for sure, but it isn’t Donald Trump.
If you have facts, Bruce, please post them. I’ll listen, and I’ll think about any facts you have. I’m willing to change my mind. But so far, all I’ve seen is the American public being told what to think by the media. And that media is all on the same page:
That media gang is all controlled by just six (6) entities. They’re all on the same page, that’s why we hear the same message constantly. There is no dissention.
So please, think for yourself. Don’t be the media’s chump. There are too many head-nodders as it is.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 15, 2016 8:18 pm

Great to see you here and to read what you have to say DB.
You outdo yourself with this post.
Concise and to the point, with real points and facts to back it up.
I would like to post this on my FB page for my friends (both liberals, conservatives, and anyone but Trump so called Republicans) to read.
Thanks for this post.
It gives me hope.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 18, 2016 11:37 am

dbstealey August 15, 2016 at 11:56 am wrote, One hell of a good post!
DB, I read your post (not sure if anyone will read mine either:), and thought you were right on the money about how the Left is demonizing Trump in concert. You must have made a hundred good points in that post.
Here’s an article from Ann Colter today that speaks to the same thing: The biased, Leftwing News Media and their influence on human nature:
“If the media can strangle Trump by terrorizing people about everything he says, then it’s already over.
I’m inclined to think Americans hate the media too much for that to work, but even sensible people can’t think straight in the middle of one of these hate campaigns.
It can be very difficult for people to overcome whatever meaning the press superimposes on what someone has said, no matter how psychotic. Throw in incessant repetition and uniform agreement among the pundits (Hillary cheerleaders versus Never Trumpers), and completely deranged interpretations become historical facts.”
This is true, it is hard for anyone to overcome or ignore. This propaganda, especially in concert, is very powerful stuff that has an influence on everyone. Even me. Even though I know everything they are saying are blatant lies. I have to turn the channel sometimes. It’s difficult to listen to a constant barrage of lies. Thank God for the Forensic Files! 🙂
Again, great post, db. Everyone should read it.

Reply to  troe
August 14, 2016 5:47 pm

Slick Willy was the more honest Clinton. Obama will look like a friend of the people in comparison with the Hildebeast.
Go Gary Johnson.

Reply to  dukesilver
August 14, 2016 7:12 pm

Go Jill Stein!!

Reply to  troe
August 14, 2016 5:53 pm

interesting take there, troe… So at least a president hillary will preserve a conservative gop. BUT, a president trump will change the gop forever. Hadn’t thought of it in that light. Ah, but the court! (with hillary, we risk changing it forever, too)…

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 14, 2016 7:28 pm

An old style conservative GOP that does not bend or adapt in order to pull in new voters and make a wider tent was a loser two elections in a row, and during that time the electorate is veering ever further left.
The idea that a party can just wait for the country to feel like voting for that platform again is, IMO, ludicrous.
Look at where we are compared to where we were eight, twelve, or sixteen years ago.
No…that ship has sailed I am afraid.
Another advantage to a Trump win: It would likely open up the field of candidates in the future for an entirely new breed of cat. If we ever want to get away from having no choice but which career politician to elect, this is it.
The time is now to try something different.
And it may be now or never.

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 14, 2016 9:43 pm

“Lasting damage” take a good long look at Trumps record in Atlantic City. Big promises, miserable results, no lessons learned. That he has made money in NYC real estate just mirrors a rising market. No special sauce.
This man is neither Conservative nor Republican. His one passion is his brand aka his ego. Clinton is a mediocrity for certain. Trump is worse. He is a buffoon and we cannot fix or spin him. Sorry my friends. Better than we lose and regroup.

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 15, 2016 7:09 am

Clinton is perhaps a mediocrity in the eyes of . . legally challenged folks, but for many, pathological lying and systematic endangerment of State secrets qualifies her as exemplary, it seems to me anyway, troe ; )

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 15, 2016 9:34 am

Every casino in Atlantic City is going belly up. They used to be the only casinos in the entire northeast US, ideally situated smack dab in the middle of a bunch of big cities. When casinos started opening up in other states and other cities all around that region, the writing was on the wall for Atlantic City. Why should anyone travel all that distance, when there is a casino right in their backyard? Those casinos did not fail because of Donald Trump, they failed because the Atlantic City casino business has a failed business model and has been out competed.

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 15, 2016 9:49 am

I love these lefties who pretend they are conservatives giving every the real story!
Lefties or planted shills.

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 15, 2016 12:27 pm

troe says:
That he has made money in NYC real estate just mirrors a rising market. No special sauce.
Then where are all the other billionaires?
The way you tell it, there should be a few thousand.
This man is neither Conservative nor Republican.
So? He beat hell out of his sixteen opponents, and he spent less than one-tenth the money they did.
He won because he promised what people wanted. There’s nothing wrong with being a populist — when the electeds in both Parties care more about their positions than they do about the country.
I’ve had it with the McCains, the Bush’s, and the rest of the ‘me too’ semi-Dems. If I want a Democrat I’ll vote for the real thing.
Some folks want someone not beholden to the Party insiders, who hate Donald Trump for one reason: he’s not owned by them. If he was, they’d have carried him on their shoulders out of the Convention.
The ‘little people’ put him where he is, and they didn’t appreciate being told who they had to vote for. So now the Insiders want to get even — even if it means giving up the next three or four Supreme Court appointments, and selling out our country.
They don’t care, as long as they have their cushy jobs. But this is what we’ll get…

Reply to  troe
August 14, 2016 6:24 pm

Consider as well if she is successful in giving amnesty to a large proportion of the 11 million illegals, and manages to ramp up further immigration by even more, in eight years the demographics may have changed enough that Dems will be unstoppable in national elections going forward after that.
And they are sending refugees where they want…they could carefully tilt key swing states permanently.
Too dangerous…the assumption that we can just ride out four or eight years of Hillary may be the miscalculation of the century.
Trump is a wild card to some degree, but we know what she wants to do. And she will have a running start with her SCOTUS selection.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2016 7:11 pm
Reply to  troe
August 14, 2016 6:28 pm
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
August 14, 2016 4:55 pm

If the dolling out of $100 billion per year for the five years is removed from the Paris agreement, nobody is interested on the agreement. Everybody is cramming for a share in that big money. Unfortunately the science of climate and climate change has been turned in to a political satire of global warming and carbon credits. Most unfortunately the so called top scientists joined this bandwagon. Money makes many things!!!
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

August 14, 2016 5:28 pm

“We also set standards to increase the distance our cars and light trucks can go on a gallon of gas every year through 2025. And they’re working. At a time when we’ve seen auto sales surge, manufacturers are innovating and bringing new technology to market faster than expected. Over 100 cars, SUVs, and pick-up trucks on the market today already meet our vehicles standards ahead of schedule.”
Take a bow VW. The US President salutes you.

Reply to  observa
August 14, 2016 7:35 pm

Odd the only one I see breaking 55mpg per the EPA is the e-Golf:
But he is probably “literally” correct about this statement (excludes models):
“Over 100 cars, SUVs, and pick-up trucks on the market today already meet our vehicles standards ahead of schedule”

Laws of Nature
August 14, 2016 5:45 pm

being right is one thing, using insulting language is quite another!
Please do not tolerate language like
” sell American children into foreign debt slavery”
on your blog! You are better than that! Obama has done no such thing! (he might have increased the national debt, but that is largely held by national creditors)
There is an international bidding war going on to stimulate each economy, one way to look at Obama’s debt policy results is
“U.S. Treasury low yields are better than nothing elsewhere”
In any case you used to have a high standard many alarmists are lacking!
Calling the black president a slaver or a headhunter selling children to slavers is as bad as it gets in my opinion! And yes I consider this post an alarmist one.. not very informed or correct, but using derogatory language and ad hominem against a political opponent.
=> it seems always easy to spot the difference between politics and science.. or an alarmist and sceptic

Reply to  Laws of Nature
August 14, 2016 6:30 pm

Obama doubled the national debt during his time in Office. Obama accumulated more debt than all previous presidents combined.
But Obama had help. He couldn’t have done it without the consent of the Republicans in Congress. Some of the same Republicans who now question Trump’s qualifications.
Sure do wish I could blame in all on Obama, but I can’t. The facts are the facts.

Reply to  TA
August 14, 2016 6:51 pm

With veto power, without a budget, and executive discretion, Obama is a first-order cause of progressive debt.

Reply to  Laws of Nature
August 14, 2016 6:40 pm

….You’re FIRED !!

Reply to  Laws of Nature
August 14, 2016 7:17 pm

“Calling the black president a slaver or a headhunter selling children to slavers”
And Trump called for 2nd amendment types to do in Hillary…If it quacks like a SJW then it must be one: