"I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. I get the nomination. So I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party," Clinton said. "I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."
Donald J. Trump 2016: 174,419 votes
Mitt Romney 2012: 170,962
George W. Bush 2004: 167,629
John S. McCain 2008: 164,958
Barack Obama 2008: 82,868
John Kerry 2004: 70,776
Barack Obama 2012: 69,286
Hillary Clinton 2016: 55,973
Donald J. Trump 2016: 489,371 votes
George W. Bush 2004: 423,778
Mitt Romney 2012: 417,655
John McCain 2008: 397,466
John Kerry 2004: 326,541
Barack Obama 2008: 303,857
Barack Obama 2012: 238,269
Hillary Clinton 2016: 188,794
Donald J. Trump 2016: 1,522,925
John S. McCain 2008: 1,479,178
Mitt Romney 2012: 1,462,330
George W. Bush 2004: 1,383,336
Barack Obama 2008: 1,087,437
John Kerry 2004: 1,035,160
Barack Obama 2012: 960,709
Hillary Clinton 2016: 870,695
George W. Bush 2004: 232,584 votes
Donald Trump 2016: 227,721
Mitt Romney 2012: 210,610
John McCain 2008: 203,054
Barack Obama 2008: 170,924
John Kerry 2004: 149,244
Barack Obama 2012: 145,039
Hillary Clinton 2016: 117,458
George W. Bush 2004: 736,456 votes
John S. McCain 2008: 699,655
Mitt Romney 2012: 689,809
Donald J. Trump 2016: 671,018
Barack Obama 2008: 514,765
Barack Obama 2012: 439,908
John Kerry 2004: 434,993
Hillary Clinton 2016: 427,005
Barack Obama 2008: 828,940 votes
Barack Obama 2012: 822,544
Donald Trump 2016: 800,983
George Bush: 2004: 751,957
John Kerry 2004: 741,898
Mitt Romney 2012: 730,617
John McCain 2008: 682,379
H. R. Clinton 2016: 653,669
For instance, a ruling declassified this month by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) chronicles nearly 10 pages listing hundreds of violations of the FBI’s privacy-protecting minimization rules that occurred on Comey’s watch.
The behavior the FBI admitted to a FISA judge just last month ranged from illegally sharing raw intelligence with unauthorized third parties to accessing intercepted attorney-client privileged communications without proper oversight the bureau promised was in place years ago.
'This wicked ideology must be obliterated – and I mean completely obliterated – and the innocent life must be protected. All innocent lives. Life must be protected.'
"The long-term solution is to promote a better ideology, which is freedom. Freedom is universal," Bush said in 2011 after Osama bin Laden was assassinated by Obama.
How long is long term? 6 years? 10 years? 16 years in Afghanistan and Iraq? The better ideology isn't working too well, is it?
You don't defeat ideas. You defeat the people who have them, and keep them out of your society. You know, like a Muslim ban.
But no, we're "rights" absolutists and can't bring ourselves to infringe the rights of those who want to kill us.
That's the ideology that is killing us.
Living in the West should be viewed as a privilege, which then distributes the rights. Lose the privilege, and lose the rights.
Our real enemy is libertarians and liberals who think every man, woman and child in the world is entitled to come here, live here and enjoy the benefits previous generations bled and died to ensure for themselves.
The Manchester bomber is not equal to George Washington.
Flashback to 2004 here and The President of Good and Evil:
Bush's tendency to see the world in terms of good and evil is especially striking. He has spoken about evil in 319 separate speeches, or about 30 percent of all the speeches he gave between the time he took office and June 16, 2003. In these speeches he uses the word "evil" as a noun far more often than he uses it as an adjective-914 noun uses as against 182 adjectival uses. Only 24 times, in all these occasions on which Bush talks of evil, does he use it as an adjective to describe what people do-that is, to judge acts or deeds. This suggests that Bush is not thinking about evil deeds, or even evil people, nearly as often as he is thinking about evil as a thing, or a force, something that has a real existence apart from the cruel, callous, brutal and selfish acts of which human beings are capable. His readiness to talk about evil in this manner raises the question of what meaning evil can have in a secular modern world.
They are oft cast into the sea in danger of drowning, or into the fire in danger of burns, were it not for the common sense of Americans who have been repelled by their passions, for health care mandates for example.
For a think tank they really should get some thinkers over there one of these days.
Which is why they kept slaves, and required presidents to be born here of American citizens?
Gee, sounds just like Bush (and ISIS) and conservative talk radio is thrilled.
Typically, this rhetoric is used to justify treating the evil as less than human, which is what ISIS does, or sending American troops abroad in search of monsters to destroy. But we're 16 years into Afghanistan now, with no end in sight, and the monsters just keep reproducing themselves.
This is not to suggest moral equivalence, but only that the West continues to delegitimize the "Islamic" in Islamic State in order to keep the military-industrial complex busy.
The goal of war, rather, is supposed to be to end the enemy's ability to wage it. We haven't been serious about that, and I don't think Trump will be either.
Either end it, or quit it, but carrying on like this is bankrupting the country.
Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé. When Comey was appointed to succeed Mueller as FBI Director, both men appeared together and were effusive in their praise of one another. Their relationship is not merely a casual one. It is precisely the kind of association which ethical rules are designed to guard against.
Mueller's former law firm, WilmerHale, represents Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who met with a Russian bank executive in December, and the president's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who is a subject of a federal investigation.
There is still no consensus on why the last housing boom and bust happened. That is troubling, because that violent housing cycle helped to produce the Great Recession and financial crisis of 2007 to 2009. We need to understand it all if we are going to be able to avoid ordeals like that in the future.
Ordinary Americans were suddenly able to make a lot of money by flipping their homes because of the tax law changes of 1997. Capital that was previously locked-up in housing by the rules of the New Deal until 1997 was suddenly unleashed to slosh around in the economy when lawmakers gave homeowners the right to avoid most capital gains on the sale of their homes as long as they lived in them only two years. Until 1997, if you didn't buy a more expensive home after you sold yours, you were exposed to a tax hit, unless you took the option of a once in a lifetime exclusion on the gain. The old arrangement had insured, along with the 30-year mortgage, that housing capital built up over a long period of time, creating forced savings for the middle class which could be safely liquidated in retirement without adversely affecting the housing market.
The Republican and Democrat geniuses who ran our government in 1997 changed all that, and within ten years the dang thing blew up. Yeah, I'm talking about you, Bill Clinton, and you, Newt Gingrich.
Too bad Robert Shiller still doesn't get it.
It would probably be unwise to turn back the tax clock now that the damage has been done, but the reinflation of the housing bubble after the crisis wasn't inevitable. The Fed's unprecedented zero interest rate policy has been responsible for that.
When the next housing crash comes, we'll probably not understand it either.
Meanwhile, the median sales price of homes in the aggregate has never been higher, or more unaffordable, and remains the primary driver of wealth inequality in America.
“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia.
Previously while preparing to replace Speaker John Boehner McCarthy infamously said with a straight face that Republican success was evident from the House Benghazi investigation because it was proving to be politically detrimental to Hillary. The mug. He never knew what hit him.
They all work for "RT" just like Flynn did once: liberal radio man Thom Hartmann, liberal CNN interviewer Larry King, former Minnesota governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura, and liberal radio man Ed Schultz.
[T]he two [Flynn and Kislyak] discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said.
"Two motives have dirven this false narrative about Trump, that he is somehow a Kremlin agent. There have been two forces. One is the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, which doesn't want to admit she lost the election... and that may be because she wants to run again.... At the same time, there has long been in Washington, let's call it the fourth branch of government -- the intelligence services, who have opposed any rapprochement or cooperation with Russia."
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law. So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
[W]e need to move beyond the hyperventilated pronouncements of criminal conduct or impeachable offenses based on this memo. This conversation in the Oval Office is a valid matter of concern and worthy of further investigation. It is not proof of an impeachable offense any more than it is proof of a crime.
Levin correctly asks why Comey reveals a memo about a possible Trump misdeed now. If it's the real deal, he might have lied to Congress months ago when he said Trump was not a target of his investigation.
Here's the testimony of Comey's number two, who stresses there has been no interference "to date":
The notes taken by Comey appear to contradict testimony offered just last week by his temporary successor, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date,'' McCabe said last week in response to a question posed by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. "Simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.'' Law enforcement officials declined to explain the apparent contradiction between Comey's notes and McCabe's testimony.
Housing was on its way to being affordable again until the Feds stepped in to stop foreclosures from rising and prices from falling, late in 2008. As a result of rock bottom interest rates which existing owners used to refinance their mortgages, housing is now more expensive than it has ever been, but the Times attacks the mortgage interest deduction for causing the problem.
Prices are up 47% since the 2009 low, in just eight years! The mortgage interest deduction was invented over 100 years ago, and helped to build the post-war middle class.
In 2004 there were just short of 114,000 polling places in the United States. The number has doubtlessly grown considerably since then, but take 114,000 for a fact even though 12 years out of date and all it takes to get to 3 million is 26 illegal votes per precinct.
Fraud is complicated by in-person early voting in 21 states and DC, making it possible for determined fraudsters to vote multiple times in one state and/or states. Alternative voting methods other than by in-person on election day are now estimated to account for more than a third of all votes cast. These include absentee/by-mail voting in many states, which liberals typically find more susceptible of fraud than in-person systems.
Lotteries started to fall out of favor after 1830, according to the story here, mostly due to corruption. The guys running the things would run off with the dough. So much for the golden age of the past.
Government at all levels in the US will shell out $7.04 trillion in fiscal 2017, 36.5% of GDP.
In 1817 the number was in the neighborhood of $23 million, about 3% of GDP.
The problem with raising revenues today is only a problem because government is too damn big. Spending 3% of GDP today on government at all levels compared with current outlays means they are twelve times the size they should be, $7 trillion instead of $0.6 trillion.
Besides, you couldn't possibly raise enough using lotteries. In fiscal 2014 lottery revenues countrywide barely totaled $70 billion, just 1% of current total outlays.
Every man, woman and child in this country would have to purchase at least $21,757 in lotto tickets this fiscal year in order to fund government at all levels. And that's before any jackpots are paid out, or lottery workers paid.
Or we could just tax everyone that much.
It would be easier and fairer, right?
After all, we're all "equal".
Except 60 million Americans don't make even that much. If government took it all what would they live on?
Here, chalking it all up to "unexamined collectivist assumptions" and mistakenly allowing "a little dominion of socialism over their thinking" and the left "trying to preserve that territory they own in your head" through various schemes like the estate tax.
In other words, they're insufficiently indoctrinated. You know, like all those intractable Russians who were sent to the Gulag for nothing more than mistakenly expressing incorrect thoughts.
It never dawns on Tracinski that ideology is a coin with socialism on the one side and libertarianism on the other.
With the example of McArdle on the estate tax before him, one might have hoped that Tracinski had stumbled into the origin of the socialism in our heads, but no, "there is no such collective entity as 'society.'"
The man wishing to leave his estate to that little society called his family might have begged to differ.
And they'd never make war, either. So O'Rourke's ideal libertarian world of individual freedom would die out first, from failure to reproduce, and then from war. Compulsion is inevitable. You know, like death.
And what defines a mob? Mobsters. That Cosa Nostra with its code of omertà at the Clinton Foundation. Those "Make America Great Again" Crips and Bloods wearing their colors on their baseball caps with brims bumped to the right.
We should be learning the value of individual liberty from the failure of the elites and the fiasco of their vast political power. Good things are made by free individuals in free association with other individuals. Notice that that's how we make babies.
Individual freedom is about bringing things together.
Politics is about dividing things up.
Elites would have us make babies by putting the woman on this side of the room and the man on that side of the room while the elites stand in the middle taxing sperm and eggs.
One David Runciman, here, who evidently does not know that the old boy has slowed down since he became sick with cancer:
[O'Rourke] operates more in the mould of HL Mencken, one of his heroes, who rarely felt the need to leave his beloved Baltimore in order to lambast the idiocy of his fellow Americans. O’Rourke lives, as it says on the dust jacket, “in rural New England, as far away from the things he writes about as he can get”. This is American politics as viewed from the back room in front of the TV, feet up on the recliner chair. ... O’Rourke forfeits the reader’s patience and simply comes across as lazy.
The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to see any information relevant to its Russia investigation the Treasury agency has gathered, including evidence that might include possible money laundering, according to a committee aide who spoke on condition of anonymity. Also at issue: to what extent, if at all, people close to Vladimir Putin have invested in Trump's real estate empire.
Emmanuel Macron, the new president of France, quoted in the story here:
"I know the anger, the anxiety, the doubts that very many of you have also expressed. It's my responsibility to hear them," he said. "I will work to recreate the link between Europe and its peoples, between Europe and citizens." ...
[Marine Le Pen's] tally was almost double the score that her father Jean-Marie, the last far-right candidate to make the presidential runoff, achieved in 2002, when he was trounced by the conservative Jacques Chirac. ...
[A]ny idea of a brave new political dawn will be tempered by an abstention rate on Sunday of around 25 percent, the highest this century, and by the blank or spoiled ballots submitted by 12 percent of those who did vote.