Sitting in Richard Nixon's Chair

Yes there are Nixon-Trump similarities. But in the end, probably not many. (A lot of Congresspersons boycotted his second inaugural, by the way). Also, for those who are not familiar with Watergate, I'll tell you this: The medium to worst case scenario of Trump's election, which would include Russian Hacking and possibly the Trump Dossier (but you don't need the dossier in this scenario) is about 400% worse than Watergate. The Watergate scandal, after which we now name all scandals, was also about stealing an election. It is not as clear that the Plumbers stole the election for Nixon that it is clear that Putin stole the election for Trump. Either case is hard to be absolutely certain of, but Nixon trounced his opponent the year he had illegal help from his hired thugs, while Trump actually lost the election in the year he seems to have had help from Putin and Comey.

Screen Shot 2017-01-17 at 4.44.00 PMBut that is not what I came here to speak with you about today. Rather, I'm just using the Bloggers Prerogative to reminisce about the time that I refused, as an 11 or 12 year old, in New York City, to sit in the chair sat in by Richard Nixon. We were watching Much Ado About Nothing from a box in Winter Garden, and this was, we were told by the usher, the very box Nixon had sat in during the previous performance. (We had seen him leave the theater. What a mess that made of local traffic!) Learning that, I asked which chair Nixon had sat in. The usher pointed to one of the chairs. I asked to have it removed. My hard core Democratic father concurred.

I have no idea if the usher was just playing around with the kid, perhaps even thinking that we would be happy to share Richard Nixon's butt kooties. And I'll never know. But I choose to believe that I made a point.

As are these folks:

"We woke up on November 9 just gutted," he said. "We were planning to get married in July and decided, 'Let's get married this weekend. Let's be as married as we can be, as long as we can be, starting now.'" The couple opted to elope to Las Vegas.

"As soon as we opened up the drapes [we saw] the front of Trump's building and we're like 'Oh, no way,'" he said. "The letters across the top of the tower are just huge. It was a bitter irony that we were running away from him and he was right there."

Yes, people around the world are asking for rooms that do NOT overlook the giant "TRUMP" that Donald Trump likes to smear across his real estate projects. By the way, many, perhaps most, of these projects simply pay to use the name because it seems good for business. I wonder what those contracts look like, exactly?

More like this

Below is a nice video from Move On Dot Org, as well as a link to a petition of theirs. I would like to take this opportunity to caution everyone who is trying to figure out what is going on in the White House to avoid being misled by confusion, ignorance, or intentional misdirection. I have five…
There has been a lot of talk about Trump and Russia and Putin. I think most people watching this see some sort of connections. Some go so far as to say that Trump is literally a Russian agent. Here is an interesting perspective from intelligence expert Malcolm Nance, author of The Plot to Hack…
When I go to Thanksgiving, all the people there will be reasonable. Also, this will be in Minnesota where politics are not discussed. And if they are discussed, my Father-in-Law has well developed techniques to run interference, as is his responsibility as head of the hosting household. There…
To understand the Trump-Russia scandal, I believe it is necessary to step way back and take the very long view. I'm not talking about going back to early 2016, or even the year before. Much farther. I'm not going to make a claim in this post as to what happened and who did what. Rather, I'd like…

Greg said "while Trump actually lost the election in the year he seems to have had help from Putin and Comey."

Trump did not lose the election.

Trump actually won the election.

When you count up the electoral votes, whoever gets more votes wins.

The constitution even say this is how you define who wins the election.

This liberal meme that Trump "lost" is based on the popular vote - that Trump allegedly lost by 3 million votes.

However, not all the popular vote was counted.

Over 7 million popular votes have not yet been counted.

So we don't even actually know whether Trump won or lost the popular vote.

The reason being that the popular vote is not how you measure who won - so not every state completes counting its mail in ballots or provisional ballots.

So it is factually incorrect to state that Trump lost the election.

I just wanted to clarify that.

"Trump did not lose the election."

No, as you yourself elsewhere said, he won the electoral college.

Trump lost the election.

He somehow got enough electoral college ballots to help Putin take control.

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 18 Jan 2017 #permalink

"So we don’t even actually know whether Trump won or lost the popular vote."

Yes dipshit, we do. Your 7 million number was an approximation of the number of uncounted ballots in late November: states have been counting since then and no announcement that President Elect Trump has gone ahead has come out. The latest numbers (early this month) show Hillary with 65.8 million and Trump with 63.0 million (I've rounded to nearest hundred thousand) votes.

The only people who continue to believe the "he won the popular vote too" are the mouthbreathers at Breitbart and other right-wing shills-for-hire employed by the Republican party.

More substanceless assertions from the "engineer" (where did you buy that degree? One of the on-line for profit diploma mills that had to shut down?)

dean #4:

I did some research and verified that you are correct.

I was wrong, and going off memory - which is never a good idea.

I apologize.

I still say it is wrong to say that Trump lost the election, because Trump got more electoral votes.

But I will agree he got less popular votes, by 2.8 million.

"I still say it is wrong to say that Trump lost the election,"

And I still say it's wrong to say that. He won the electoral college. That's sufficient to win the presidency, but isn't enough to claim he won the vote.

Which trumpers don't accept. Because they want so badly to believe that they're running on what "the people" want. When all they want is what THEY want.The people can go hang if they disagree. You should at least be honest in your disdain for the opinions of others.

And you aren't.

(ps where's this "you're allowed your opinion" crap when you're defending your incorrect opinion? Not good enough for us to use?)

Wow #6:

Trump won the election.

I did not say Trump won "the vote".

That is a strawman you are interjecting.

Whether Trump won the election is a true/false thing - not something which you can have a difference of opinion over.

You count up the electoral votes and if Trump has more than 270 - he wins.

Trump has 306.

So Trump won.

Pretty simple.

"Trump won the election."

No, he won the electoral college. That wins him the presidency. Votes are advisory to the EC. Not binding.

He lost the vote. By 3 million.

"Trump has 306."

Out of 250 million people.

You could say he won the presidency, fair enough. That means the EC allowed him to take it, which they did.

But he lost the vote. By 3 million.

RickA

I did some research and verified that you are correct.

I was wrong, and going off memory – which is never a good idea.

You were wrong about the definition of climate sensitivity and the relationship between sensitivity and natural variability too.

So why not admit those mistakes as well?

Still waiting.

BBD #9:

Here I admitted that "the equation for CS uses delta F.":

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/01/06/amoc-amok-global-warming-b…

However, I also stated that "I have never seen any delta F other than change in CO2."

That is why I believe the IPCC states "It [CS] is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (see Box 10.2). "

See:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/01/06/amoc-amok-global-warming-b…

The IPCC defines CS in terms of the forcing due to doubling CO2 because that is the primary human forcing, and what is being sought to be controlled (in my opinion).

I simply have to disagree with you about the relationship between sensitivity and natural variability.

There is plenty of room in the numbers for a low CS (less than 2.0C) and the natural variability we see, for example from 950 to 1700:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/01/06/amoc-amok-global-warming-b…

So that is all your going to get.

If these comments don't satisfy you, then I would suggest that we simply agree to disagree.

Or you could keep waiting.

That is up to you.

"Here I admitted that “the equation for CS uses delta F.”:"

And delta-F being what?

"However, I also stated that “I have never seen any delta F other than change in CO2.”"

Lie. We'd already told you several times that it wasn't. And, despite all this you continued to insist it meant we had to have one full doubling of CO2.

Which it doesn't. So we already know your claim of ECS ~<<2.0 is wrong.

"The IPCC defines CS in terms of the forcing due to doubling CO2 because that is the primary human forcing"

But not ONLY to precisely one doubling, NEITHER to precisely being from 280ppm.

BOTH claims pulled from your cloaca and, being so near to your heart and centre of intelligence, you insisted were inerrantly true.

"There is plenty of room in the numbers for a low CS (less than 2.0C) and the natural variability we see, for example from 950 to 1700:"

No there isn't, because we have today to know.

See: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/01/2016-is-hottest-year-on-record-three…

However, I also stated that “I have never seen any delta F other than change in CO2.”

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy - something I have repeatedly had to remind you.

I *showed* you by example that you were wrong. So when are you going to exhibit a modicum of good faith and admit it?

That is why I believe the IPCC states

Dishonest rhetoric. This was NOT about what the IPCC said, it was about the correct technical definition of CS which - as I showed you - is simply response to delta F where F is unspecified.

This is a matter of fact, RickA.

Until you admit that you were wrong about a matter of fact, you will remain a proven dishonest little shit.

There is plenty of room in the numbers for a low CS (less than 2.0C) and the natural variability we see, for example from 950 to 1700:

As for CS and natural variability, I also *showed* you that you were wrong.

These errors of yours are not matters of opinion, they are matters of fact. In both cases you have simply made a mistake. In order to get rid of the dishonest little shit problem (which is NEVER going to go away unless you deal with it) you must admit error.

Respond on the AMOC thread, please.

At least you didn't pee on Nixon's chair.

Trump thinks "Sad!".