Republican Party

The Republican Path To Victory in 2016 is Assured

gregladen — Sun, 09 Oct 2016 09:53:14 +0000

The Republican Path To Victory in 2016 is Assured

I have no idea why so many smart people are saying that anything that happened over the last few days changes this election, or destroys the Republican Party. Pay attention, people. that is not what is happening.

The Republican Party has become the party that harbors racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, hate, politically expedient willful ignorance about all things science, classism, anything anti-PC, and dedicated service to the demands of the wealthiest Americans.

Most of that comes from the Tea Party the rest comes from the elite in the party. In this way, the Republican Party represents something just under a majority of Americans, about something percent. America is a racist country. America is a misogynist and sexist country. America is a country that isn't quite sure about education and has no real interest in universal health care. America has one of the most abysmal criminal justice systems of any democracy.

(The Republican Party has always been bad at security, economics, medium and small sized business support, education, science, the environment, family values, healthcare. That isn't particularly relevant to the question at hand, but I just felt like mentioning it, because this is something most people don't seem to know.)

The Republican Party has been unable to put forward a candidate for President that enough Republicans could support that they would have a chance of winning for three elections in a row. Why?

Romney was too normal for the base (the Tea Party). McCain was (allegedly) famous for working across the aisle and being a states-person (both exaggerations, but that was the belief). He was unacceptable to the Tea Party even after pandering to them by making the single worst pick for Vice President ever in our history. Neither candidate was able to beat a black man in a racist country. This happened because the party has major factions, the Tea Party and everyone else, and the elite in the party chose to please themselves and not the Tea Party in the election. So the Tea Party said no.

This year the Republicans finally put up a candidate that represents their majority, a sexist, racist, misogynist, willfully stupid, anti-education, anti-environment, pro 1%er movie star. This candidate will also lose. The base will support him; these latest scandals will not affect that at all. But the leadership and party elite have already failed to ensure a Trump victory by their inaction, and what little they were doing now ends (as does some important funding).

It takes more than one thing to win an election, and one of those things is the support of a good number of voters. But another thing is the full throated and vigorous support of a lot of other well known partisans, surrogates, representatives, together with money from the usual sources.

McCain had the latter, not the former; Romney had the latter, not the former. Trump has the former, not the latter.

In the end, this year's Republican candidate, Donald Trump, will be trounced by a woman in a sexist country, must like McCain and Romney were beat by a black man in a racist country.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between the Romney campaign, the McCain campaign, and the Trump campaign. They all are or were doomed to fail for the same reasons, though the details represent different sides of the same coin.

Republicans will lose this year, not because of this week's gaffs by Trump. They were going to lose anyway. People will still vote for Republicans in the Congress, and at the state Level. Overall, while Republicans may lose a down ticket race here or there, they will maintain control of at least one house of congress or, if they lose both houses, they'll get at least one back in a short two years from now. No one who knows anything about American politics doubts this.

Having a Republican congress (full or in part) obviates the President, for the most part. And, since the Republicans' main goal is to make government ineffective, the Republicans win no matter who is in the white house. A similar formula applies across the states as well.

And, nothing will change about this. All this talk about the Republican Party falling apart, going away, having to change, is well meaning wishful thinking.

The Republicans will win this year, again, no matter who goes into the White House, just like they won in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, and so on most of the way back to just after World War II. Even though they are in the (slim) minority.

gregladen Sun, 10/09/2016 - 05:53

Tags

Election 2016

mccain

Republican Party

Wishful Thinking
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/09/wishful-thinking-first-100…

Sadly, I believe you are correct. Not that the Democrats, in their frequent capitulation to the Right over the last 40 years, have not helped - but by and large, it's been conservative and Republican ideas that have won the long-term battles.

This is chilling:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/politico-morning-consult-poll-229…

It shows clearly how it is entirely possible for America in this century to become like Germany 80 years ago. It is here, now.

Bruce Jensen:
"Sadly, I believe you are correct. Not that the Democrats, in their frequent capitulation to the Right over the last 40 years, have not helped – but by and large, it’s been conservative and Republican ideas that have won the long-term battles."

Yes and no.
The GOP has systematically leveraged its positions. It finances its positions by offering give aways and capitulating on fairness and regulation issues with big business and the wealthy. It has established a brain-trust and employment/welfare system through think tanks, directed publishing, position papers, and a steady supply of legislation-ready proposed laws though ALEC. Knowing that it is the states that control redistricting they target key districts in key states at the state level. They work to fill local administrative and legislative positions with ideologically compatible people. They have a comprehensive and multi-level system, a machine. to gain and keep power and control.

The Democrats have never had this level of organization. funding, discipline. Organizing Democrats is like herding cats.

The GOP holds a large majority at local, state and national offices. They have installed most of the judges. Have controlled redistricting, and effectively run the country in term of practical measures both for the last 60 years, and likely for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand liberals have bent the conservatives over on human rights, race relations, sexual rights, freedoms, welfare, and pretty much on every issue that might be said to be progress.

Consider that while the laws, and certainly not the higher ideals, are not well or consistently applied the fact is that black and brown people, and women can and do vote, have a lot more choices of where and how to live. Unions have been beaten and battered but they still exist and but for constant attacks they would spring back to vibrancy and power.

The racism, sexism, bigotry, xenophobia, anti-worker and fairness fights cost them time and energy. The Democrats are learning even as the GOP leaders and constituencies age and grow tired. Trumps is so extreme, IMHO, because they have to remove all the stops to even have a chance on the national stage. They have to go 'up to eleven' in an all-out, no holds barred, threaten violence, and operate from a alternate reality mentally, because they can neither accept nor take responsibility for what they have said and done.

I hate to think Trump might win. It is obvious that the problems of government have to do with GOP candidates and voters, not government itself.

For the time being the GOP will maintain enough power to stop progress. But they will continue to lose of the bigger issues and, with time and the death of the bay boomers, they will lose power.

On Facebook I have seen some Republican Party politicians have asked Donald Trump to "drop out," as if there was time for the cult to nominate someone else. The America Treason Party is stuck with Trump as their candidate, and I hope the cult chokes to death.

"On Facebook I have seen some Republican Party politicians have asked Donald Trump to “drop out,”

There is also a bevy of posts with a picture that has text along the lines of "If people are really so upset about what Trump said, who the hell bought all those copies of 50 Shades of Grey?", followed by dozens of people stating agreement, saying that he didn't say anything any other man hasn't said, that he was set up, etc. I heard a group of men this morning discussing the story about his his "yes, you can call my daughter a piece of ass" conversation with Stern. One said "Every dad with a hot daughter has thought that some time."

Anecdotes do not equal data, but the fact that the sets of people who would say things like that are non-empty is sad and scary.

And as every Trumpkin knows, "Thinking about it is equivalent to actually doing it". And Adolf was only saying things about Jews that every other German was already thinking... So he's harmless and there's no justification to condemn his speech either.

Little wonder that the American Nazi party is simply delighted to have Trump's party align with theirs...

I have noticed that Americans love divided government.

No matter which party has the Presidency, except for a few years here and there, most of the time, the other party controls the house, the Senate or both.

It seems that the only thing the majority of Americans like less than a do nothing Congress is a Do Something Congress.

RickA, when one party gerrymanders the nation's election districts, it can no longer be said that "the majority of Americans" prefer this or that.

It becomes, "The unpopular minority of Americans" prefer. And they are most welcome to meet the fate referred to by Desertphile in #5.

If this weren't the reality with the Republican party it would be much funnier.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/republicans-urge-replaci…

this blog is a real load of dung! what a waste of internet space! the left is morally bankrupt

What S. Craig must be telling us is that the statement, anything that happened over the last few days changes this election, or destroys the Republican Party, is, in his eloquently voiced opinion, above, false.

Ergo, S. Craig seems to be in the camp that the Republican Party will be destroyed by these recent revelations about the revulsions of Donald Trump, and that the voters will join the Republican Party leaders in convincing the electorate to vote against the Trumpkin Party candidates.

We shall see... But it will likely be moved more in that direction after tonight's debate. And in the coming weeks as more evidence of Demonic Don's "moral bankruptcy", as you so put it, surfaces.

(Sorry about your agonizing cognitive dissonance, S. Craig. Must be really causing you a lot of mental stress...)

"Having a Republican congress (full or in part) obviates the President"

And yet there are people who whine about what an ineffective President Obama has been - of course he's ineffective, he's only the President. People who whine about how ineffective a President was without mentioning that it's because power mainly rests with congress are just demonstrating their ignorance of the US system of government.

Well, we did have President Cheney, who's spent his entire political career trying to elevate the office of the president to have all the capacity and capabilities of a dictator...

And then the conservatives had the temerity to complain when Obama assumed the presidency and started wielding some of those extra powers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/

Entertainment , as our new religion , may well be the REAL opiate of the masses. [I know- its not so new- I remember hearing my parents discuss Kennedy vs Nixon TV debate!] It is certainly the drug of choice for most “journalists” and their parent organizations. Unlike football commentators who can only wish for a closer contest, the news media can actually create such an environment….and, as profit driven enterprises, it is ALWAYS in their best interests to do so.

I am grateful that the GOP has nominated this Orange Satan of Insecurities… he has single handedly sabotaged at every turn the news attempts to portray him as worthy of serious , adult consideration. Had another , a bit more self aware , sleazeball [I’m looking at YOU Ted Cruz] been running, the issue would very much still be in doubt.

By the way- anyone else get the feeling that much of the dismissal of Bernie had more to do with making sure HRC, with her long record as a favorite [after that black “Kenyan” fella of course] Tea Party target became a ratings winning nominee , than any real parsing out of policy positions and histories? Before you answer please check the record breaking viewership of the last Pres debate. I’ll wait.

Greg’s point regarding local politics is also tied IMHO to the for-profit -news industry. Vigilant, nuanced and researched journalism simply had [and has] no chance running against the O’Reilly -s, Limbaughs and Hannity-s…. not to mention the newer rise of Alt Right trolls. And that seems to enflame a seriously obsessive compulsively relentless group of right wingers at the local level….and I too, see no way out of this [ Although – on the national level, steering clear of another Scalia nominee IS significant].

I managed to watch 2 minutes 22 seconds of the second president candidate "debate" before I vomited in disgust and left the bar. Okay, maybe the vomit was the tequila, but the candidates COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FIRST QUESTION and spewed a canned well-practiced speech about ":how wonderful I am."

With the candidates ignoring the questions, why the blood hell even pretend to ask them questions?

I refuse to vote for either of them. Fuck them both in the eye with the same pointed stick.

"...why...?"

Tradition, I guess... People like to gauge body language... and maybe feel some feelings about things they like to feel feelings about... feely feelings...

Did Trump stop his slide? Maybe. It wasn't pretty.

The similarities of Trump and Republicanism to traits of pathological Narcissism are remarkable:
"pathological narcissism is characterized by at least five of the following characteristics:
A need for constant attention and admiration
A sense of entitlement
Interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends)
Lack of empathy (is unwilling or unable to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others)
Envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
An arrogant and haughty behavior or attitude
A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
A belief that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people

Democratic narcissism is a little less crudely obvious than the Republican kind, and a lot less socially destructive, but it is there too. There seems to be a certain amount of built in narcissism in the biology of life. The built in belief that one's genes are special, the crown of creation as it were, and that one should spread these genes throughout the cosmos.

Life blunders along. People like Trump and the tea party are dealing with the problems that arise when unrealistic beliefs crash into reality. Narcissistic beliefs that are useful in infancy are pathological later in life. Economic society exploits narcissism to sell products and encourages infantile feelings.

In summation: The protoplasm blunders on.

I agree with Greg that this will not affect the outcome of the Presidential race. Three decades of full-bore media hate ensure that a significant fraction of the population would never vote for Hilary Clinton, but the fraction was never large enough for Trump to win.

Where this will matter is the downballot races. Some Republicans won't bother to show up. Others, the diehard Trumpites, will vote for Trump as President but not bother with the downballot races where the candidate has not supported Trump sufficiently. And some independents who will not vote for Trump will also be unwilling to vote for downballot Republicans who have been too supportive of Trump. These effects could swing a couple of Senate races, and even put the House in play. For instance, here in NH Sen. Kelly Ayotte actually said in a debate that she considered Trump a role model, a remark she is now running away from at relativistic speeds. Until last week that race was considered competitive, with some polls showing Ayotte ahead and others showing her challenger ahead. I suspect Ayotte is now toast: the independents will find her too supportive of Trump, and the Trumpites will find her not supportive enough.

When Donald Trump met Dr. Oz: A huckster bromance

oracknows — Fri, 16 Sep 2016 03:31:37 +0000

When Donald Trump met Dr. Oz: A huckster bromance

When I first heard that Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President, was scheduled to appear on The Dr. Oz Show, my first thought was, basically, “Of course he is. What took him so long?” After all, it’s a crank pairing made in heaven. Given that, I considered it my skeptical blogging duty at least to watch the show, even if I never actually blogged about it. So I dutifully set my DVR to record it, and, after I got home from work, did my evening bike ride and ate dinner, I settled down in front of the television to see if this appearance would be as bad as I predicted in my mind.

I’m not sure if it was as bad as I had feared, but it certainly was bizarre. Surprisingly (to me), it was also actually mostly boring. Worse, although at the beginning of the first segment Oz cautioned Trump not to attack Hillary Clinton because he wanted the show to be about Trump, Oz also basically gave Trump a segment in which his daughter Ivanka appeared to shamelessly pimp Trump's recently announced childcare initiative. The selling was so blatant that Ivanka Trump's segment might as well have been a Donald Trump campaign infomercial. It was so bad that it left me with the question: Why is it that, while everyone seems to detest Trumps sons almost as much as him, they give Ivanka Trump a pass? In any case, I can’t help but wonder if the segment with Ivanka Trump promoting his latest campaign promise was the price that Trump demanded in return for agreeing to appear on Oz's show. I bet it was. The segment was just that blatant.

Be that as it may, I do agree with Julia Belluz. Trump’s appearance on Dr. Oz’s show was very odd and very surreal. Surprisingly, it was also rather dull. Of course, perhaps I should explain why I think Trump and Oz were basically made for each other. Trump, as you know, was always flamboyant and good at attracting media attention, a skill he honed to its current level of sharpness in reality TV as the star of The Apprentice. It’s as show that I admit to having watched and actually liked, at least the first two or three seasons. After that, I rapidly lost interest, and have never watched its spinoff Celebrity Apprentice. Trump also never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. The one that I’ve criticized him the most for is, of course, his belief that vaccines cause autism, a belief he’s been very consistent about at least since 2007.

Enter Dr. Oz.

Dr. Oz is a near-perfect match. Back in the 1990s, Dr. Oz was a rising star in the world of academic surgery, a young cardiothoracic surgeon who published a lot and in good journals. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Oz discovered reiki. Soon, he was becoming famous as the surgeon who let reiki masters into the operating room to ply their woo on the patients as he operated on their hearts. Eventually, he caught Oprah Winfrey’s attention, and it wasn’t long before he was doing segments on her show, becoming “America’s Doctor” (a name that he trademarked). Back then, he hadn’t dived ad deepling into pure woo, mostly giving sensible if somewhat trendy advice on diet and exercise. Then he got his own show, and from there it was all downhill, as I’ve documented many times, to the point of labeling him America’s Quack, which he is. Examples to support my characterization abound, featuring Mike Adams on his show, having antivaccine icon Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on his show to promote his last book, running an unethical and bogus “clinical trial” of the weight loss supplement green coffee bean extract, and promoting homeopathy. That’s not even counting the times he had “Long Island Medium” Teresa Caputo on his show (plus John Edward, too!), and promoted a faith healer. Along the way, he also credulously featured anti-GMO fear mongering and basically every form of bogus weight loss supplements you can think of. He was even hauled before a Senate committee on the marketing of ineffective weight loss supplements and ended up being on the receiving end of a tongue lashing by Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

None of this seems to matter. Like Trump, Oz is all about the money. Like Trump, he’s also become very skillful at sliming his enemies, as he did in 2014 when a group of doctors, some of whom were associated with the American Council on Science And Health (ACSH) wrote a letter to Oz’s dean at Columbia University basically demanding that he be fired because of his activities on his TV show. It was an astonishingly clueless and incompetent play, and Oz struck back, effectively turning the tables and labeling his critics as being in the thrall of big pharma.

Yes, Oz is a lot like Trump, and I haven’t even discussed everything I’ve written about him. Before last season, Oz, sensing that the pressure was on, promised to clean up his act and stop promoting pseudoscience. He must have done so, at least to some degree, because I haven’t done a post about him in exactly one year. Or maybe I lost interest. Then came Trump.

The video for Trump’s appearance is not yet up on Dr. Oz’s website. I’ll add links when it is. In the meantime, you can refer to a transcript of the interview. The first segment is pretty dull, with Oz conducting a “review of systems” on Trump (which in Oz’s hands was really a combination of a review of systems, a family history, and a medical history). We learn that Trump has hay fever, that his PSA is good, and that he’s on a statin. We also learn that both his parents lived long lives (into their 90s). Also, apparently Trump considers his gesticulations while speaking to crowds to be a form of exercise.

It was the second segment where the real stunt occurs. As Belluz describes it:

The key moment came when "America’s doctor" asked Trump: "If your health is as strong as it seems ... why not share your medical records?"

The 70-year-old Republican presidential candidate looked at the audience and said, "Well, I have really no problem doing it. I have it right here. Should I do it? I don’t care. Should I do it?"

Trump then pulled two papers out of his breast pocket and handed them to Oz. At this point, we, the audience, are meant to believe that these are real medical documents, and that Oz is shocked the presidential frontrunner is revealing the state of his personal health.

It was a moment every bit as staged as anything on “reality” television and allowed Trump to play to the crowd. Oz, professional TV personality that he now is, played along, acting surprised and looking serious as he examined the two pieces of paper:

Oz calls the two papers "comprehensive" — we’re meant to see this gesture as one of transparency, and to think the TV doctor is the trustworthy filter through which medical information can be relayed to the public. But, of course, The Dr. Oz Show has a history of deviating from reality and medical science.

What follows is even more surreal: Oz conducts a made-for-TV physical of Trump. No actual exams, no hands laid on the patient, no verification of the patient’s data.

One of these papers was a letter, and one was a report. We learn that Donald Trump is a bit overweight, being 6’3” and weighing 236 lbs.; that his routine lab values are normal; that his cholesterol levels are fine; and other assorted bits of medical history. In response, Oz dutifully asked him softball questions, like asking him, if his health is so good, why not release the records?

Basically, Dr. Oz became Donald Trump’s health spin doctor that day, laying it on pretty thick, even by Dr. Oz’s standards, proclaiming:

Blood sugar, 99. And C-reactive protein also low. Your liver function, your thyroid functional is all normal. You had a colonoscopy performed July 10, 2013, which was normal with no polyps. (Oddly enough, a look at Trump's Twitter feed shows that he was Tweeting all day that day.) Calcium score and your heart, 2013, also was low at 98. Oh my goodness. EKG chest x-ray on April 14 was normal. A normal echocardiogram was done two years ago. And your testosterone’s 441, which is actually -- it's good. It’s good.

You're only on the statin drug you mentioned. If a patient of mine had these records, I’d be really happy. And I’d send them on their way.

Trump returned the love, saying:

I would tell you – You know, my wife is a big fan of your show, and I would absolutely say because I view this as in a way going to see my doctor. Just a little bit public. That's all.

Gag me with a spoon. (Sorry. I felt as though I went through a time warp to 30 years ago.)

Throughout the rest of the interview, Oz basically gave Trump every opportunity to brag about his health, the longevity of his parents and, by extension and implication, how he expects to live a long time too. Trump informed Oz that he feels as good now as he did when he was 30. And, despite Oz’s request that Trump refrain from attacks on Hillary Clinton, Oz said nothing when Trump said, “I think when you're running for president of the United States, or maybe any other country, in all fairness, but when you're running for president, I think you have an obligation to be healthy. I just don't think you can do the work if you're not healthy. I don't think you can represent the country properly if you're not a healthy person.” Elsewhere, in response to a question on health issues, Trump brought up immigration, basically blaming them for the opioid addiction crisis.

That’s not to say that there wasn’t some inadvertent hilarity during the interview. (We are talking about Donald Trump, after all.) For example:

OZ: So what type of temperament is required for the person who becomes president of the United States?

TRUMP: Unbelievable strong and smart temperament, and I think it's my grandest asset. I think temperament is my single greatest asset.

OZ: Why do so many people question your temperament?

TRUMP: They don't question – it’s Madison Avenue. Madison Avenue went to Hillary Clinton and they said -- and when I say Madison Avenue, I’m talking about the advertising people, the people that make up the ads. And they said, let's see, and they put 15 things on a board. ‘Oh, temperament. Let's go after temperament.’ The people that know me -- I win. I know how to win. You can't win unless you have a great temperament. I know people that can't win. I know people that are very talented at sports, and they never win.

Yes, you read that right. Trump has the greatest temperament ever, and it’s all Hillary’s fault that there have been “questions” about his health. Never mind that Trump allies have been sowing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health for several months now. Just yesterday, I saw the most hilarious one yet over on TruthKings by a guy claiming to be a medical school professor—yeah, right, I bet she’s an adjunct instructor or something—entitled “Hillary Clinton has 1 Year to Live,” says Medical School Professor. The claim? That Clinton has severe subcortical vascular dementia and is likely to die in a year. I showed the article to a neurologist friend of mine, and the response was that it was “brain dead stupid.” Let’s just put it this way. Just like the case with Parkinson’s disease, if Clinton truly had advanced subcortical vascular dementia, she couldn’t hide it.

Basically, Dr. Oz is every bit as much of a carnival barker as Donald Trump is, and in this instance he helped Trump not only brag about his own health but to insinuate that Clinton is not healthy enough to be President while also allowing Ivanka Trump to air what was basically a campaign commercial for Trump’s childcare proposal. The two were clearly made for each other. It was placebo transparancy, making a mockery of transparency norms. No wonder they have such a beautiful bromance brewing.

Oz said that Clinton was also invited to be on his show and that the Clinton campaign is “considering” the offer. Call me skeptical, but somehow I don’t think it would be a good idea on her part to appear. If she does, though, she should demand the same deal Trump got, complete with a full segment in which she can sell whatever proposal she wants to using whomever she wants to bring in to do it. Fair's fair, after all.

oracknows Thu, 09/15/2016 - 23:31

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

complementary and alternative medicine

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

complementary and alternative medicine

Categories

Trump ran two casinos at a loss. How do casinos run at a loss. It is ovious these two events lifted him out of the prospects of bankrupcy, the tax department missed out badly. When Trump runs the country to bankrupcy there is no place to cheat to save the USA. I think the emphasis on his disarsters and his string of dishonesties are not being addressed. God help the world if Americans vote for Trump. He will become the richest man in the world through selling out his country for his own buisiness interest. He learned the deception from his forefathers who lied to the Americans to get business they posed as swiss origens rather than honesty they were German. Trump has grown up with lies manipulation pitting his and his family interests first

Saved me the trouble of watching this love fest, just as well since my mop is at the cleaners and I would have barfed on the floor. Oh the torture Orac endures so we don't have to.

Nothing in that transcript on vaccines, immunizations or autism.

I guess Dr. Oz could work up enough spine to ask Trump about his positions on those. Then again, since Senator McCaskill flogged Oz severely in 2014 (as you reported), Oz seems like the cowardly lion.

Trump is 6'3"!? I thought he was more like 5'5"

And yet, audience members (“average” people) had rather glowing things to say. Trump’s comment that he “feels 30” seems to suffice for medial records to these people. The fact that noone but Oz has seen these two pages or that they were issued by the same doctor who wrote the first goofy testimonial-substituted-for-medical-report doesn’t trouble them. The dumbing down of a significant portion of the population is now complete.

Note: My grandson is at college and tells me he’s not making a lot of friends as he is having trouble finding anyone to engage in substantive conversation--giggling and sports talk seem to prevail. A video was shown at orientation that showed about 1% of students even knowing how much debt they have or the interest rate on that debt. The University (top rated in my state) wasn’t even embarrassed about this, but rather presented it as somewhat charming. We were shown endless video of the various food courts, but not a single lab or classroom was shown, although the library was pointed to on a tour of said food courts. On a brighter note, grandson is impressed with class content.

Trump once again confirms my opinion that the man is so vain, he probably thinks the old Carly Simon song is about him.

The fact that noone but Oz has seen these two pages or that they were issued by the same doctor who wrote the first goofy testimonial-substituted-for-medical-report doesn’t trouble them.

For that matter, we only have Oz's and Trump's word for it that those pieces of paper were medical records, let alone genuine Trump medical records. I wouldn't trust either of them to tell the truth.

Finally, I have to comment on Orac's caption to the photo on top:

I got a great real estate deal for ya, doc. Just check out that inspection report and sign on the dotted line.

I suspect the real estate deal in question involves a bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Onnie
Tokyo
September 16, 2016

Trump is 6’3″!? I thought he was more like 5’5″

He's 6'2"....had to get that extra inch too.

I wonder if there was any political screening of the audience. I don't see self selection since people on both sides may have an interest.

You expect people to believe that "Dr." Oz is a real physician? If he cannot hit the wardrobe department for some scrubs or a white lab coat, then he's obviously a fake.

How do casinos run at a loss.

Maybe because they are attached to hotels?

How do casinos run at a loss.

Load them up with debt, such that the revenue isn't enough to service said debt. Then, when you declare bankruptcy (at least under US law), you wipe out that debt. It's standard business practice in American real estate development.

Trump takes that to extremes by also routinely stiffing his contractors. There is a reason so few people will do business with Donald Trump anymore.

Was there any discussion of Trump's views re: Muslims?

You'd think these might be of at least passing interest for Oz.

Although as Orac mentioned, it's all about the money for Mehmet.

Perhaps he and the Donald are working on a new dietary supplement scam "MLM opportunity".

Do be so hard on Ivanka! She's got a rare mutation that gave her an extra vertebra in her neck.

What's an EKG chest X Ray?

Some new combo advancement in diagnostics that I'm not aware of?

One of these papers was a letter, and one was a report.

The labs from my last routine checkup were a hell of a lot longer than a single page.

The labs from my last routine checkup were a hell of a lot longer than a single page.

Maybe Trump's physician included only "positive" results.

I wonder if there was any political screening of the audience.

Unlikely. The self-selection for this kind of show favors folks who have little interest in politics, or 'reality' as we might understand the word, instead devoting attention to the theatrics of celebrity. Furthermore, as Oz fans, they'll be likely to follow his lead. The applause for something he features is really applause for him.

Except for the boring factor Orac mentioned, Oz and Trump appear to have staged this perfectly: Trump says he won't reveal anything; then when Oz gives him a friendly 'why not?' he's taken by the trustworthiness of America's Doctor and hands over the goods; at which point Oz reads and then exclaims, "Oh my goodness... It's good. It's good."; America's Doctor has ended the speculation and quieted the controversy; all is well in the land of Oz; the audience applauds.

Also, apparently Trump considers his gesticulations while speaking to crowds to be a form of exercise.

They are, as Trump would say, yuuge gesticulations. Not to mention classy. The absolute best gesticulations in the world.

Maybe Trump’s physician included only “positive” results.

Positive for what? Because if Trump (let alone Dr. Oz or the physician who allegedly performed Trump's physical) really thinks he's the picture of perfect health, I'd like some of whatever he's been smoking.

Much ado about not much. He's been under the care of his same doc for decades.

Why is it that, while everyone seems to detest Trumps sons almost as much as him, they give Ivanka Trump a pass?

Given some of the things he's said about her, pity.

Positive for what? Because if Trump (let alone Dr. Oz or the physician who allegedly performed Trump’s physical) really thinks he’s the picture of perfect health, I’d like some of whatever he’s been smoking.

It's a joke. I'm just riffing on the silly letter Trump's physician wrote which proclaimed that Trump's chems were "only positive".

Clearly those pages were the scripts telling Oz exactly what to say and do

Given some of the things he’s said about her, pity.

Not just the things he's said, which are bad enough. Specifically, Donald is on record as admitting that if Ivanka weren't his daughter, he'd date her.

But there is more to it than that. I have seen a photo, claimed to have been taken in the 1990s, of Donald in an inappropriately sexual pose with the then-teenaged Ivanka. And I am told (I didn't watch it myself) that she recoiled at the RNC when he tried to pat her on the bottom.

Nevertheless, she is getting off easier than she should. She's not dumb; so far this campaign she has displayed more intelligence than Donald Jr. and Eric (or as some wags call them, Uday and Qusay) combined. She should know better.

SM@22: So was I. When it comes to medical examinations, "positive test results" has another meaning, one that IME is more common than the one Trump and his physician intended.

she recoiled at the RNC when he tried to pat her on the bottom.

Lurid.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/dr-oz-show-edited-out-trumps-creepy-rem…

http://media.thecelebrityauction.co/picture/c/76/TFgAGRNLBRYLDRcXGQYTAB…

The Oz missed a golden opportunity to ask the Rump for a genetic sample to determine if the Rump is an ALF.

And what is up with mentioning his testosterone level? They even pointed out on NPR that there is rarely ever a reason to actually do that.

Trump trying to show he is not a girly-man?

What a pathetically contrived health revelation politically designed to win votes from Hilary through fitness one-upmanship.

Also, apparently Trump considers his gesticulations while speaking to crowds to be a form of exercise.

So did Nixon. I hear rumors that Trump does ten "I am not a crook" double-V deltoid salutes a day.

You can’t win unless you have a great temperament. I know people that can’t win. I know people that are very talented at sports, and they never win.

Wow! Now, sports figures don't even have to play. They merely need to show temperament. That'll go over well at the Super Bowl!
The World Series is about temperament, not about who can throw how fast or who can hit a ball!
The Olympics are all about temperament too, why, there's an Olympic Gold Medal in Temperament.

It's also interesting that he can tweet while undergoing a colonoscopy...

And of course, illegal aliens are now prescribing narcotics at record levels, causing people to turn to heroin or something.
Does that mean it'd be cheaper for the lawn guy down the street to write me an RX for hydrocodone than for me to pay my primary's copay?*

*Considering how many flaming hoops I and doctor have to jump through just to get an MRI to prove a diagnosis of a herniated disc, that lawn guy would be more cost effective. Pity that isn't how things work here on the planet Earth. Maybe on Bizarro World, but not here.

Still, if gesticulating is an exercise, I've always been in supreme physical form. Being of Sicilian-American heritage, I "talk with my hands" a lot. Beware when I start talking and am butchering a piece of meat for dinner - unless one wishes to get in some unintentional fencing practice. ;)

If he's 6' 3" and 236 pounds, his BMI is 29.5 which is about as close to obese as you can get and still be overweight. To be fair, his normal numbers for cholesterol and blood sugar probably reduce his risk of health problems but.

With the number of pages he had on his physical report, tests must have been on only a few of of his best stats. Dr Oz only perpetuates Trumps lies. I never really watched Dr. Oz and definitely never the apprentice Okay, maybe 15 minutes of one episode, but not ever again.

Also, apparently Trump considers his gesticulations while speaking to crowds to be a form of exercise.

He no doubt does several trapezius-strengthening Heil Hitlers per day, possibly with a 7 oz Rolex for added weight.

#30 Wzrd1

OT
Being of Sicilian-American heritage, I “talk with my hands” a lot. Beware when I start talking and am butchering a piece of meat for dinner – unless one wishes to get in some unintentional fencing practice

Now that you mention it, I don't think I have ever known a professional chef who “talks with their hands”. I had never thought about this before.

Gil: I thought you were cool with incest, since you incessantly cheer for Trump, and then lie, just like your hero.

Eric Lund: Nevertheless, she is getting off easier than she should. She’s not dumb; so far this campaign she has displayed more intelligence than Donald Jr. and Eric (or as some wags call them, Uday and Qusay) combined. She should know better.

I'd disagree about the dumb; she's more intelligent than her brothers, but so are octopi. I do agree that she should know better. If she had any sense or self-respect, she'd cut molester-daddy loose and never, ever talk to him or let him near the grandkids.

jkrideau: Professional chefs know that's a good way to lose their hands, though a few may be inclined to talk with knives.

Rachel Maddow asked NBC medical correspondent Dr. Natalie Azar about the testosterone:

MADDOW: And it`s gratuitous or not gratuitous to throw in your testosterone level in a public document like this?
AZAR: It`s interesting. And for him, I will say that`s a good number to have, because it`s cardio-protective. It`s a check mark in his favor. And it`s almost time to move on, you know?
MADDOW: It definitely is.

since you incessantly cheer for Trump

Oh Trump, you're so fine
You're so fine, you blow my mind,
Hey Trump, hey Trump
Ra, ra, ra!

What is your damage, little girl?

A few things I've heard**..

- The Orange One's cholesterol numbers could be low because he takes meds!!!
- saying 6'3" rather than 6'2" ( another quoted height for him) puts him in 'overweight" BMI vs 'obese'
- some controversy about weight 230+ vs 260+
- he got the testosterone number because he WANTED it
- some news dude said there is so much crap about him to report on, they just go form one thing to the next- it's endless ( hint: FOCUS!)

** heh

@ PGP:

Right. Se should know better. If she dreamt up the childcare plan - and she has a business degree from an elite school- shouldn't she know it only benefits higher income people?

-btw-

I am contemplating whether we are actually watching the final decline of civilisation up close and personal as revealed via the 24hr news cycle.

Perhaps Ragnarok?

Can voters really be so f@cking stupid?
And have no long term memory ( about birtherism)

He has a frigging dyed blonde combover.

Reporters are looking into the shady operations of his businesses, foundation, campaign and NOTHING sticks

He does the reverse of what he says ( e.g. has his clothing line made in China, / hires illegal people)

Do some believe his reign would be FREE entertainment?

DW: If she dreamt up the childcare plan – and she has a business degree from an elite school- shouldn’t she know it only benefits higher income people?
I think she's so sheltered she doesn't know that lower and middle-class people exist. Her servants and employees are just moving shadows to her.

Jerkface: MY DAMAGE? I have a functioning brain, unlike yourself, you, lying, drug-addled, incest-supporting sexist, hippy-dippy pig. I've run out of patience with you and your lies, and supporting your parents (for you are certainly a product of incest) is the last straw.
You are a prime example of a generation that is a waste of space. You're a Republican, who for some reason, choses to act like a walking DARE advertisement. For the last time, get off this board and go back to Reddit, or whatever MRA or libertarian hellhole you came from.

You are a prime example of a generation that is a waste of space.

Oh, my; What generation are you imagining I belong to? You forgot that I think age of consent laws are stupid.

And have no long term memory ( about birtherism)

Ahh, yes. It's all coming back to me now:

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667

Jerkface: You're a boomer, obviously or did you forget your age? Also, that whole Clinton thing was fact-checked, seven ways to Sunday, and guess what? It wasn't her. It was your dumbass friends who started that birther thing, with Trumpie's full and active support. So get your child-diddling fried-egg lying rear out of here already.

You’re a boomer

Really? I've never worked with artillary. How old are they?

a good number to have, because it`s cardio-protective.

I guess the cardioprotective quality of testosterone explains why the male life span is so much longer.

You forgot that I think age of consent laws are stupid.

Well that's a Gilbert keeper. My apologies to Narad of course.

That was a past 'supposition' of PgP when commenting on my support of Ron Paul.

Well that’s a Gilbert keeper. My apologies to Narad of course.

For allowing him to ooze out of the killfile? I'll get over it.

Well, you can say a lot of things about Donald Trump; but at least he know that vaccines are toxic as sh¡t.

For that, he gets my vote.

It's even funnier when you consider that Oz is a Turkish Muslim.

More well known is that Trump is a (former?) Democrat and contributed multiple times to .... Bill and Hillary Clinton. He also said she'd be a good president. Notably, Mrs Clinton has not returned the favor. P'haps DT should ask for his money back.

Sadly, Nun of the Above (an actual candidate one year in San Francisco) is not an the ballot. But you can write him/her in ;-).

@Denice #40

I see your Ragnarok and raise u one SMOD

.....it'll be the best, the classiest meteor, the most metaphorical meteor ...

But you can write him/her in

Well, in 41 states, only seven of which don't immediately shіtcan them unless the putative candidate has made some effort in advance.

I remember last year, there was a joke. Amy Poehler and Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live "campaigned" under the slogan "[Strong Women] get [things] done". I can't put the actual slogan otherwise it'll get moderated.
Looking at Trump and Clinton, I'm beginning to wish they were serious.

Also, that whole Clinton thing was fact-checked, seven ways to Sunday, and guess what? It wasn’t her.

Ahh. I see, PgP #44:

Clinton’s short-term 2008 campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, admitted that a campaign staffer circulated what became known as the “Birther” theory that Obama wasn’t born in the USA...

Doyle said it was a “rogue staffer” who sent out an e-mail and “was fired pretty damn quick.”... There was a volunteer coordinator, I believe, in late 2007, I believe, in December, one of our volunteer coordinators in one of the counties in Iowa — I don’t recall whether they were an actual paid staffer, but they did forward an email that promoted the conspiracy.”...

President Obama also bears some responsibility by allowing his literary agent back in 1991 to claim Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia” which was printed inside a promotional booklet about the young author and future president that circulated for years.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillary-insider-admits-starting-birther…

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-camp…

Trump had long fanned the flames of this conspiracy theory, known as ‘birtherism’, and spent much of spring 2011 garnering media attention

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/sep/16/donald-trump-bara…

James Asher, the former Washington bureau chief for the news agency McClatchy, tweeted that longtime Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal was spreading the conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya while he was a senior Clinton campaign advisor in 2008, long before Trump ever parroted the claim...

But Blumenthal also dabbled spreading much less reliable reports, such as conjecture about Obama's "communist mentor" Frank Marshall Davis. Further, Blumenthal's reputation for dishonesty and underhanded tactics is well-established. It is generally accepted that he lied to the media and publicly smeared Monica Lewinsky and other Bill Clinton accusers when he worked in the White House.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/report-clinton-confidant-sidney-blumentha…

Blumenthal denied that he'd spread the rumor in an email to the Boston Globe. But later in the day, McClatchy itself made it clear that the charge has merit. In fact the chain sent a reporter to Kenya at Blumenthal's urging, to look into what he had to say "and that reporter determined that the allegation was false."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/does-clinton-have-a-blumenthal-birthe…

that whole Clinton thing was fact-checked, seven ways to Sunday

Apparently through Clinton's smooth-blue anti-seizure glasses darkly.

Clinton: "I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota..."

Reporter: "Secretary, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately took the stage tonight, calling the explosion a 'bomb'?"

https://news.grabien.com/story.php?id=518

She looks and sounds tired/zonked out; I wonder how badly she's been 'floxxed' from the levofloxacin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8TR61QFpoA

@ Spectator:

Hahaha!

On second thought- perhaps the Donald IS the SMOD?

But seriously, folks;
I have been watching liberal/ moderate television politicos wring their hands and (try to) knit their Botoxed brows whilst this general situation continues and listened to the rapturous stylings of his ( Alas!) female campaign leader, lately visiting Orac's fave, Bill Maher...

I can only say:
Oh Jesus/ Lord G-d of Israel!
( which are rather telling expressions of exasperation for an atheist)

the fact that the pressure cooker bomb found at the second location did not go off suggests it failed to explode.

http://circa.com/world/security-threats/new-york-law-enforcement-was-al…

It might also suggest that it was mearly full of Quinoa.

Jerkface: Shut up. Why don't you check this place out : http://www.politifact.com/subjects/obama-birth-certificate/

and then go away forever. You can't even do libertarianism right, though you;ve got the hatred of women down pat; you're supposed to have a pile of guns and sleep on them every night. Also, Breitbart isn't a reputable site. It's allied with infowars, and most of the staffers are paid by the Trump campaign.

Gilbert @42 "You forgot that I think age of consent laws are stupid."

Go. Now.
You are the worst of the worse and lower by far than Trump.
That is a monstrous thing to say. Begone.

My sleep caliber is .303.

Breitbart isn’t a reputable site. It’s allied with infowars, and most of the staffers are paid by the Trump campaign.

Ohh. I see you got that email

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has sent out a fundraising email arguing the website Breitbart News has no “right to exist,” and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hillary-campaign-vows-to-destroy-oppo…

I fail to see how they are 'allied' with Infowars -- Though he did siphon off the Breitbart chairman:

Mr. Trump’s decision to make Stephen K. Bannon, chairman of the Breitbart News website, his campaign’s chief executive was a defiant rejection of efforts by longtime Republican hands to wean him from the bombast and racially charged speech that helped propel him to the nomination

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/us/politics/donald-trump-stephen-bann…

The only alliance between them and Infowars is a common threat to being shut down; Which the dems have been sweaty palm-balming for quite some time.

It's a vast alt-right conspiracy. By the way, it was her confidant, Sidney Blumenthal, who first coined the phrase 'vast right-wing conspiracy' of Clinton critics in the mid '90s.

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/768897046124302336/photo/1

Infowars addresses the fundraising email:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8W7kRopvO8

Once again, JustaTech #62; That was how PgP painted me for embrasing Ron Paul -- I was needling her for it; I wish I could remember where that comment was.

Gilbert @65: Given the other things you've said here you can understand why I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. PGP says outrageous things, but in this thread *you* said it. And there are some subject you really shouldn't joke around about, and child rape is one of them.

And what the f*%& all do consent laws have to do with libertarians?

And what the f*%& all do consent laws have to do with libertarians?

I know, right? Ask PgP.

in fact, I think the laws, as they stand, are rather stupid, much as you think age-of-consent laws are stupid and oppressive- though unlike you, stoners hurt no one but themselves.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/22/no-ddt-wont-save-us-from-t…

She just threw that out there with her multi-chroma smear-brush.

I seem to remember a previous reference concerning libertarians, but I can't find it.

In general, making comments on the Internet should be treated like talking with airport security: Always assume your sarcastic comments will be taken at face value.

And here is the first 'needling':

That Gilbert is a scoundrel, Politicalguineapig.

It was 1996 when my father, a cop, cited him for driving on a section of interstate they had closed to practice “unconventional ticketing tactics”. Well he blurted out in court that he was going to “pimp out your son to pay for this!”

He did just that; He pimped out my douchebag brother and he pimped me out as well. I learned…stuff…about myself that I had not ever even dreamed of before; The least of which, age of consent laws are stupid. It’s been a love/hate relationship between us ever since.

After Joey manned up and quit peeing on people, they sort of bonded as they’re both weed feinds. Daddy didn’t look at me ‘that way’ anymore, like it was my fault or something that I got pimped. My father accidentally blew off his pecker in the mens courthouse restroom and subsequently O.D.’d on Tylenol as he was adamant against any kinds of mind altering drugs; especially if it would cause one to be in a state of relaxation or relieve pain — He spent his whole career depriving others of such; He was no hypocrite.

Love him and hate him, he gives me stuff, ya know?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/04/07/all-drugs-are-poisons-and-…

Justatech: And what the f*%& all do consent laws have to do with libertarians?

They don't like them and find them oppressive, like manners, basic hygiene, and not being dickheads.

Jerkass: Another lie. You were pretending to be at least two people on that thread, including smearing yourself, or writing out a personal fantasy, I'm not sure, as you apparently forgot your brain that day. I was just trying to make you leave.
And once again, learn what facts are, and try to get yours from somewhere that doesn't think David Icke is a credible source.

Why would anyone shut down infowars? It does a fantastic job at being a black hole of stupid.

As far as high/ low testosterone goes, testosterone is a brain poison, so wouldn't a low number be better?

though you;ve got the hatred of women down pat

If you were the last woman on earth, I'd be as queer as a football bat.

Gilbert, homophobic put-downs are not really helping your position here.
In case we haven't covered it recently: The first rule of holes - when you're in a hole, stop digging.

homophobic put-downs are not really helping your position here

How is that a 'put-down'? She's led me to embrasing the idea.

They don’t like them and find them oppressive, like manners, basic hygiene, and not being dickheads.

The fact remains that she said it first and defends it with her reply to you; I elaborated on the long litany of 'put-downs' in #41 by pointing out she forgot the most outrageous one.

I get it, JustaTech; Your story is you were touched where you retroactivly did not want to be touched -- remembering the 8'th boyfriend who tapped your phone and caught you being lascivious with #9 or daddy?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Jerkface: So far, you are providing ample proof that libertarians are generally awful people. And you're continuing to support pedophilia. Why don't you go join your fellows on reddit already?

Dear G-d, do yall not remember when Gilbertimmeh was seeking attention because his father had put a hit out on him and something something black helicopters?

Narad: I do, and I regret giving him sort of a pass because I thought he was mentally ill, if also a stupid and deeply unpleasant person. Now I know better, he is a stupid and unpleasant person, and any brain damage he has is his own d*mn fault.

"That Gilbert is a scoundrel, Politicalguineapig."

He made that look like pgp originated that whole spiel. That's incredibly dishonest, nay evil, other forums I'm on would perma ban any idiot pulling something like that...

Jay: That’s incredibly dishonest, nay evil,

Well, that's the default of both libertarians and Trumpeteers. You forgot to mention stupid, as he included the link..to something he wrote himself.

He made that look like pgp originated that whole spiel.
Once again, she did -- or did you just miss the link #68 or forgot that february 24 comes before April 8?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/22/no-ddt-wont-save-us-from-t…

It's also news to me that, according to PgP, I'm now *continuing* to support pedophilia.
==========================

Yes, I included that link, PgP. But not before including your previous (and initial) slurr.

in fact, I think the laws, as they stand, are rather stupid, much as you think age-of-consent laws are stupid and oppressive- though unlike you, stoners hurt no one but themselves.

-- Politicalguineapig, Feb 24, 2016

"Jerkass: Another lie." -- Well, a 'twisting' on your part. I'm not sure you know what a 'lie' is as much as you hurl it at me without just cause.

re various comments over the past few days on this thread by PGP regarding Gilbert

I hope that Orac's minions can now understand why I love her so much despite her comments that I do not love

Ancient Walter Family Motto
'Something is better than nothing'

Gilbert @#63

Ohh. I see you got that email

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has sent out a fundraising email arguing the website Breitbart News has no “right to exist,” and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

That's a lie. Here's what the E-mail said.

I don't always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and right to exist.

Breitbart is something different. They make Fox News look like a Democratic Party pamphlet. They're a different breed altogether -- not just conservative but radical, bigoted, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy paddlers...

I mean, I post something most unflattering to Trump and PgP slaps an 'incest' label on me.

""Gil: I thought you were cool with incest, since you incessantly cheer for Trump, and then lie, just like your hero.

"" you, lying, drug-addled, incest-supporting sexist, hippy-dippy pig. I’ve run out of patience with you and your lies, and supporting your parents [I assume she means 'boomers'] (for you are certainly a product of incest)

Meh. Incest; It's a family affair. Some people are just immutably acerbic, I guess.

It is implied, SteveJ.

I don’t always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and right to exist.

Breitbart is something different.

since you incessantly cheer for Trump

I challenge you to cite one instance where I have 'cheered for trump' (not counting the sarcastic snipe at #37)

In fact, I think he is a loathsome creature who blames it all on the drugs:

“drugs are a very, very big factor in what you’re watching on television at night”, referring to riots against police abuses in Charlotte, North Carolina, the night before.

He denied having said this to a reporter who asked him about it in Philadelphia. He added, as if in support of his original statement: “Drugs are a big problem all over the country. They’re flowing in like never before. Drugs are a big, big problem.”

“I think stop and frisk, in New York City, it was so incredible, the way it worked. Now, we had a very good mayor. But New York City was incredible the way it worked.”

As already shown, I disagree with the article on this point:

There is no evidence that Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with the false rumors that Barack Obama was not born in the United States

(see #57)

Did you see the dermatologist about your raging leprosy yet?

I do, and I regret giving him sort of a pass because I thought he was mentally ill

I was never afraid of black helicopters, but I do vaguely recall being freaked out this past winter by my webcam, because it was a version of the One Eye that I was being observed by, so I covered it with duct tape. (The FBI has followed suit, I see.)

This wasn't an Illuminati thing, but rather had something to do with squid and octopi being p!ssed at us because we lock them up and observe them. It all led back to the One Eyed Kraken or something; too many tales told to a young lass by drunken Norwegian uncles, maybe.

At least my terrifying, mania-and-sleep-deprivation psychosis was kind of interesting. The "satanic mind-control group from Thailand" was kind of a low point, and one of the things that led to me being involuntarily admitted to St. Joe's. (They were very nice there, though at the time I resented greatly being locked in the seclusion room and injected with Ativan several times because I was throwing fits about, well, being observed.)

@Gilbert (87),

I see you got around to mentioning it on the 14th on the Hillarz thrwad.

But since comment 11 at least offered an excuse for Trump and your one word "lurid" in 26 could be taken as either direct or ironic, please forgive us if we misunderstood.

I dont know if it matters since Citizens United, but under the old rules, a PAC could spend wharever on attack ads and didn't count for the other candidate's spending limit.

So if you mainly post anti-Clinton comments, it's a fair assunption that you support her opponent.

I ratger would have guessed you would support the candidate who runs a medical marijuana business. His mountain climbing skills certainly win him the fitness award.

@Gilbert (87),

I see you got around to mentioning it on the 14th on the Hillarz thrwad.

But since comment 11 at least offered an excuse for Trump and your one word "lurid" in 26 could be taken as either direct or ironic, please forgive us if we misunderstood.

I dont know if it matters since Citizens United, but under the old rules, a PAC could spend wharever on attack ads and didn't count for the other candidate's spending limit.

So if you mainly post anti-Clinton comments, it's a fair assunption that you support her opponent.

I ratger would have guessed you would support the candidate who runs a medical marijuana business. His mountain climbing skills certainly win him the fitness award..

Fartface: Well, in 76, you certainly act like you think pedophilia is no big deal and in that comment from 2015, you seemed to think it was a POSITIVE experience that everyone should go through,so, I'm going to continue to think you're a skeezy person who hangs with skeezy people and whoever you vote for is scum or at the least, dumber than a dozen sheds of bricks. By the way, for your information, I'd never write anything like that comment from Timmeh (you), aside from its content, I wrote more coherent sentences as a first grader, while you didn't seem to grasp grammar, commas,or basic verb usage. And you still aren't very coherent and seem to be stuck at twelve, where making fart noises is considered conversation.
Also, I've never, ever, ever used a different nym than the one I do now, whereas you seemed to change names every day for a while. So please, for the love of god, go fart somewhere else, or go get high. At least then you'd be someone else's problem, teenage skeezeball.

JP: Just out of curiosity, why Thailand? Russia or China I could understand, but Thailand seems random.

JP: Just out of curiosity, why Thailand? Russia or China I could understand, but Thailand seems random.

I don't know why Thailand, and it is pretty random; crazy works that way, I guess. I do have a friend who spends a lot of time there and whom I guess I suspected of being in on the whole thing (long story, also my friends are saints) so there's that.

drunken Norwegian uncles

One of these words is redundant.

Gilbert @#86
"Breitbart is something different." starts a new paragraph. It's different because it's openly bigoted, unlike other mainstream conservative media.

I rather would have guessed you would support the candidate who runs a medical marijuana business.

I'm not too fired up about Johnson, squirrelelite. His running mate, Bill Weld, is sort of a 'neocon' who is friends with HRC at that. There is even some talk that he should drop out and endorse Hillary.

thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/297074-bill-weld-should-leave-libertarian-ticket-and

With Johnson supporting mandatory vaccinations, a carbon tax, and TPP, I'm not sure he wouldn't siphon equal votes away from Hillary as he will from Trump.

Maybe I'm naive, but migrants and immigrants (even undocumented) are not a big issue for me -- I more worry about having to have permission to leave a country. Johnson's veiws on migrants and immigrants don't disturbe me.

I'll probably not be voting but Hillary is the 'devil you know' and I definately do not want. I can only hope that, If it is a Trump, his rhetoric on stop-and-frisk and certain fascistic tendancies can be tamed by his finding a respect for the rights of States. And I wonder if he counts cannabis as a component of the 'drugs' he says it's all about. He's seriously backward with his 'drug talk'. Maybe it's good for big Pharma but it's a serious issue with the new kid, kratom and its pain relieving without depressing respiration as well as staving off opiate withdrawal.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/09/06/right-to-try-goes-federal-…

I'm uncomfortable with Infowars' continuous fawning over Trump; So it's with chunks of salt on how I regard this piece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW5gQo43ay4

My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Immigration.htm

I think I agree wholeheartedly; The boarder agents at permenant checkpoints 100 miles from the boarder are an oppressive travisty.

I wrote more coherent sentences as a first grader, while you didn’t seem to grasp grammar, commas,or basic verb usage.

Really, PgP? While I don't usually countenance 'grammar nazis' who can't see the meaning for the words, I now welcome your cogent critique when I mess up -- Help me to do better.

p.s. ""you certainly act like you think pedophilia is no big deal and in that comment from 2015, you seemed to think it was a POSITIVE experience that everyone should go through,so, I’m going to continue...**

I am at a loss to know what you are talking about. Can you point me towards the comment or give a PgP-filtered synopsis of it? I would be most appreciative.

** I *thought* that a phrase bounded in comments like that was only valid when the sentence is whole with the commented part removed. Did I fail somewhere?

commented == coma, oops.

Well, Narad thinks species of consent laws are stupid.

Gil: I thought you were cool with incest, since you incessantly cheer for Trump, and then lie, just like your hero.

It's kludgy, PgP. You sprinkle commas out as if from a pepper shaker. Allow me to adjust it for you:

Gil: I thought you were cool with incest since you incessantly cheer for Trump and then lie, just like your hero.

^^That reads much more fluently; See how that works?

Well, Narad thinks species of consent laws are stupid.

Way ahead of you, Fucklesworth.

I see the sock puppet is back again.

""Well, Narad thinks species of consent laws are stupid.

Imagine the toung on that think twice as long as the snout -- It would certainly toss Narad's salad out the back door with those claws so he couldn't get away.

{Don't worry, Narad won't see this or if he accidentally does he'll just brag about his 'killfile' some more}

I don't think Thailand is random at all. Different foreign countries have different collections of cultural connotations here in the US, in addition to whatever we may associate with them from personal experience, like someone we know who's from there. A paranoid delusion isn't going to imagine a satanic mind control group running super secret crytptic panoptic surveillance out of an orgainzed/oligarchic/authoritarian country like Russia or China, where the state actually keeps tight watch on its citizens, and/or has cyber-spys. It would have to be someplace more anarchic and mysterious. Thailand has that, and it's exotic, and ancient (satanic cults always have ancient roots, yes?) and a reputation for immoral skeeviness and danger, with sex tourism and what-not.

Only God Forgives is set in Thailand. Check it out, if you think you'd like a movie where David Lynch meets Park Chan-wook, the villain is The Worst Mom In The History of Cinema, and Ryan Gosling is on camera without saying much of anything for most of the film. Extremely weird... JP, I'd actually be curious to know which vision of Thailand is weirder, yours or Nick Refn's.

@Gilbert,

I finally looked at a little of your latest video post and found it a bit ironic.

So whoever is spouting off there doesn't like Gary Johnson because he looked at the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and decided they weren't as bad as he had thoughtb4 years ago.

Sounds like an intelligent, reasoning individual.

Since I don't think even the EU has borders like you describe, it's highly unlikely to happen between the US and either Canada or Mexico.

Yea, baby, yea! Johnson gets my vote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhR41lsEJY

In other (non) news...

Dear old Mikey boy goes full tilt wackaloon in his endorsement of the Orange One. ( Natural News)

Elect him or the World Ends

In other (non) news…

John Stone's difficult-to-follow tale of being censored (again) by PubMed Commons is also of passing note. I suspect that he simply posted the same thing three times in the space of 10 minutes and had them auto-nuked, but he asserts that it was due to some undefined complaint.

The icing on the cake is that he also pretends that mentioning Brugha at AoA could somehow summon his presence.

Are you the same Narad that has been trolling the pet forums looking for an aardvark?

I've figured out the answer to the age old mystery of where your socks go in the dryer.

They come through a wormhole to here and become sock puppets.

Did 99 resurface as 109 ?

So. Trump was caught talking nasty towards women.

Barak: " Gotta have them ribs and p*ssy too!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKYmiWiNqOw

Jill Stein and left wing antivaccine dog whistles

oracknows — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:00:10 +0000

Jill Stein and left wing antivaccine dog whistles

During the political battle last year over the recently implemented California law SB 277, which eliminates nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates and then later during the campaign for the Republican nomination for President, I used a term regarding antivaccine views. That term was “antivaccine dog whistle.” In politics, as you probably now, a “dog whistle” is a term for coded messages that sound like advocating principles with broad acceptance but to a certain subgroup are recognized as code for something else. The analogy is obvious. Just as humans can’t hear much of a dog whistle while the intended recipient (dogs) can, political dog whistles come through loud and clear to their intended audience while those not familiar with the issues hear nothing or something unobjectionable. Thus “states’ rights” became a euphemism for continued discrimination and resistance to federal civil rights mandates. In the case of vaccines, there are “dog whistles” too. For example, whenever you hear a politician discussing in the context of vaccines parental rights health freedom, or fascism (likening school vaccine mandates to an assault on freedom), there’s a good chance that it’s an antivaccine dog whistle. Pediatricians do it too. (I’m talking to you, Dr. Bob Sears!) The purpose of dog whistles in politics is to tell a group with an odious set of beliefs, “I’m with you” without explicitly saying so while couching the message in ideas that many people would consider admirable or at least unobjectionable.

Last year, contrary to the usual stereotype of crunchy lefties being antivaccine, it was mostly conservatives blowing the antivaccine dog whistle. Indeed, Republicans as varied as Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, and, of course, Donald Trump blew really hard on that dog whistle. Over the weekend, though, I learned that Republicans aren’t the only ones good at blowing antivaccine dog whistles. On Friday, Green Party nominee for President, Dr. Jill Stein, found herself in a spot of political bother due to her remarks on vaccines, which represented such a massive dog whistle that antivaccinationists across the land heard it loud and clear.

Dr. Stein’s problems began when she participated in a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” session in May. Actually, they intensified when that AMA was resurrected late last week and reporters started asking questions. In the AMA, though, Stein was asked, “What is your campaign's official stance on vaccines and homeopathic medicine?” In response, she laid down a screeching series of antivaccine dog whistles:

I don't know if we have an "official" stance, but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex.

Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them. In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don't trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice. A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. Create public funding of elections to stop the buying of elections by corporations and the super-rich.

Regular readers will recognize this as the gambit I like to call, “I’m not ‘antivaccine.’ I’m pro-safe vaccine and don’t trust the FDA and big pharma.” I will grant that Dr. Stein was a little more—shall we say?—emphatic in her concession that vaccines do good than the average antivaccinationist making these arguments. One almost has to wonder if the lady doth protest too much. However, the rest of her word salad above could be cribbed from any number of antivaccine websites. Hell, even Andrew Wakefield concedes that vaccines do good and claims not to be “antivaccine.” Then he routinely launches into the same sort of rant that Dr. Stein engaged in above. An even better example is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who's been spewing antivaccine pseudoscience since at least 2005 and yet has the temerity to repeatedly characterize himself as "fiercely pro-vaccine." In other words, denying being antivaccine counts for nothing if you're repeating antivaccine tropes. It's standard practice among antivaccine activists.

Dr. Stein is also sadly mistaken about a great many things. For example, her rant about “corporate influence” on the vaccine approval process is straight out of the antivaccine playbook and based on incorrect information. As David Weigel pointed out, the most members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee work at academic or medical institutions, not drug companies. Yes, there are representatives from drug companies there, but they are a minority, and they are nonvoting members. Moreover, VRBPAC business is nearly all conducted in public. There are only very rarely nonpublic working groups, and all meeting materials are posted to the FDA website. Dr. Stein can peruse them herself going back many years if she so desires. In fact, I urge her to do so. Also, VRBPAC has vigorous screening for financial conflicts of interest. If a member has any that member can't vote. Finally, I can't help but note that the antivaccine group the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) has occupied the voting consumer representative slot in the past. Barbara Loe Fisher held it in the past, and, more recently, Vickie Diebold. (For example, check out this 2009 VRBPAC roster). Basically, Dr. Stein is utterly clueless how vaccines are approved and has repeatedly slandered the FDA over it.

Similarly, the linking of “Monsanto lobbyists” to vaccine regulatory approval is yet another page straight out of the antivaccine playbook. None of this stopped Dr. Stein from doubling down when she sat with the Washington Post’s Sarah Parnass and Alice Li:

"I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication," Stein said. "Like any medication, they also should be — what shall we say? -- approved by a regulatory board that people can trust. And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence."

Of course, the CDC doesn’t decide which vaccines are approved. The FDA does. The CDC only chooses vaccines that are already approved to place on its recommended vaccine schedule. As for Dr. Stein’s claim that most countries rely on voluntary vaccination and the trust of their citizens in their government, that’s a very simplistic version of events. In fact, various countries use a variety of means of persuasion, mandates, and, even in some cases compulsion, to assure high vaccination rates. Australia, for instance, offers financial incentives and recently implemented a “no jab no pay” policy that denies welfare payments to children who don’t vaccinate. As for voluntary programs maintaining a high rate of vaccination, well, the UK learned in the wake of Andrew Wakefield’s MMR scare, that doesn’t always work so well.

In addition, Dr. Stein seems not to be up on the latest vaccine data:

As a medical doctor, there was a time where I looked very closely at those issues, and not all those issues were completely resolved.

There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed.

The issue of mercury in vaccines in the form of the preservative thimerosal was resolved nearly 15 years ago. Thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines. Moreover, there was never any compelling evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines had anything to do with autism. It’s something I’ve written about tiem and time again, and I know. As for these “real questions that needed to be addressed,” one notes that these issues have been addressed ad nauseam. Over and over and over again. In every case, in the case of every well-designed study looking at the issue, no epidemiological link between vaccines and autism or vaccines and the diseases antivaccinationists attribute to them has been found. I’ve blogged about this very issue more times than I can remember. I’ve blogged more studies than I can remember. This is not controversial. Vaccines are safe and effective. Just because Dr. Stein is too clueless to realize this doesn’t make these “concerns” scientifically valid.

In the face of criticism, Dr. Stein tried to defend herself when asked what she says to people who think she’s antivaccine:

Her response:

What I say to those people is that we need regulatory agencies we can trust. I’m definitely not anti-vax; what I have raised is the issue that we need an FDA that’s working for us, that’s not working for the pharmaceutical industry. I think that makes some people uncomfortable, so they’re trying to smear me as being anti-vaxxer. I’m not anti-vax; I’m just saying we need good, reliable data so that the American people know what we’re doing. I mean, it’s like saying the FDA, that has leadership from Monsanto, should tell us what kind of food is safe? No, you get Monsanto out of there, you get the pharmaceutical companies out of there, and then we can trust…

In other words, she basically just doubled down on the same antivaccine dog whistles. The only difference between her and Rand Paul or Chris Christie is that Republicans couch their antivaccine dog whistles in appeals to freedom and parental rights while Dr. Stein couches hers in distrust of big pharma. Either way, the message is the same to antivaccinationists: “I’m with you,” or, at least, “I sympathize with your views.” As I said in other places, if you keep mentioning big pharma and the FDA and how much you distrust them in the context of a discussion about vaccines, you’re blowing antivaccine dog whistles.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Stein’s admirers leapt to her defense with scientifically ignorant assertions that she’s not antivaccine because she says she’s not antivaccine. For example, Dan Arel tried to argue that, sorry Clinton supporters, but Jill Stein is not the antivaccine presidential candidate, but even he was forced to admit that her statements were “straight anti-vaxx pandering,” adding:

While I still feel okay saying Stein is not “anti-vaccine” I cannot confidently say she is not anti-science and that she does not overly pander to the anti-science and anti-vaccine crowd.

A leader needs to stand up against the movement that is killing children, not court their vote.

Unfortunately, a usually trusted source, a source that I’ve admired and cited for years, fell hook, line, and sinker for Dr. Stein’s defense, based on her statements and a statement from Dr. Stein’s campaign denying she is antivaccine and a Tweet:

As a medical doctor of course I support vaccinations. I have a problem with the FDA being controlled by drug companies.

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) July 29, 2016

I expressed my disappointment on Twitter, and Kim LaCapria responded:

.@gorskon @snarkyhumanist @pzmyers We adopt science-based perspective but it was not a page about vaccines/rhetoric, it was about her view

— Kim LaCapria (@KimLaCapria) July 31, 2016

And:

.@brian111979 @gorskon It’s solely on the rumor (is she anti-vaccine) and her answer (no). There’s a place for editorial, but not w/us.

— Kim LaCapria (@KimLaCapria) July 31, 2016

I actually agree that it isn’t black and white. Here’s the problem. By declaring the criticisms of Dr. Stein as antivaccine as unequivocally false, Snopes made it black and white. The very best spin one can put on Dr. Stein’s statements is that she is pandering to antivaccine activists. That’s the very best spin. The worst spin is that she is antivaccine. Thus, it’s not editorializing to conclude that the contention that Jill Stein is antivaccine is at least partially true, because that’s what the evidence is most consistent with. She’s parroted antivaccine talking points. There is no denying that.

Then on Twitter there was this:

Compare @DrJillStein's statement on vaccines to what @BarackObama & @HillaryClinton said eight years ago: pic.twitter.com/cmB56FXH8s

— Ben Spielberg (@BenSpielberg) July 30, 2016

This one really annoyed me because I wrote about what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said about vaccines and autism, back when they said it in April 2008 during the Democratic primary campaign, and actually what Obama and Clinton said back then wasn’t worse than what Jill Stein said. They basically both did some vacuous politician-speak promising more research into environmental causes of autism. As I said at the time, “calling for more research” is the cop-out that all politicians use whenever there’s an issue that is contentious, but that wasn’t not why the Democratic candidates received a dose of Orac’s loving attention. Rather it was because in answering these questions the way they did, they both fell for the very frame that antivaccinationists wanted them to fall for with respect to vaccines and autism. What they didn’t do is to rant about how the FDA and CDC are in bed with big pharma and cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of vaccines the way that Jill Stein did. More importantly, neither of them are physicians, and neither of them ever repeated the same nonsense. Neither of them said demonstrably false things about the FDA in order to demonize it. They figured out their mistakes and didn’t make them again. Indeed, Hillary Clinton made a point of Tweeting:

The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 3, 2015

And in her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton also made it a point of stating, “I believe in science.” I could quibble that you don’t need to “believe” in science for it to work and be valid, but it’s refreshing to hear a candidate say that, and, yes, I know that Hillary Clinton’s record isn’t perfect on that score, given her admiration for Mark Hyman and his functional medicine.

So the question remains: Is Jill Stein antivaccine? To be honest, I’m not sure whether she is or not. It almost doesn’t matter. Almost. Certainly, at the very least she is aware that what she is saying sounds antivaccine. It’s like racism. Whenever you hear someone say, “I’m not a racist, but...” you know that whatever follows after the “but...” is almost certainly going to be racist as hell. It’s the same with antivaccine views. If someone feels obligated to say, “I’m not antivaccine, but...” you know that whatever follows is highly likely to be antivaccine as hell. Jill Stein fits that pattern. However, I rather suspect that she probably isn’t really antivaccine. She does, however, clearly feel the need to pander to the antivaccine fringe, which is sad. She’s also dodged the question in so many ways. She’s been asked if vaccines cause autism, and in response she initially said that there wasn’t. But then she changed her mind, deleting her original Tweet and substituting another one. Here’s the one that’s there now:

I'm not aware of evidence linking autism with vaccines. Let's do more to support autistic people & their families. https://t.co/eISgfxQ5vm

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) July 31, 2016

And here’s what someone noticed:

There's no evidence that Thin Lizzy sucks OH FUCK I mean I'm not AWARE of any evidence that Thin Lizzy sucks wait uh pic.twitter.com/eEUfJSJlEh

— Twiττer's Good Boy (@twitersgoodboy) July 31, 2016

Changing from "there is no evidence" to "I'm not aware of evidence" that vaccines cause autism? Well done! Now that is a dog whistle. That is pandering to the antivaccine movement! It’s more subtle than her earlier pandering, but it’s pandering nonetheless.

Think of it this way. I’ve written many times about how antivaccine Donald Trump is. Indeed, he’s been spewing antivaccine nonsense since at least 2007, long before ever running for President. In fact, given how much Donald Trump lies and how often he switches positions, what is amazing to me about Trump's antivaccine beliefs are how long he’s expressed them and how unrelentingly consistent he’s been in expressing them. That vaccines cause autism appears to be one of the few things Donald Trump really believes and hasn't changed his position on. In a way, that makes Jill Stein arguably worse than Donald Trump in that she probably doesn’t believe the antivaccine BS she’s been laying down, but she lays it down anyway. In other words, she chooses to pander to antivaccine loons with antivaccine dog whistles for left wingers.

And, as Skeptical Raptor tells us, vaccines aren’t the only topic where Jill Stein gets the science wrong.

oracknows Sun, 07/31/2016 - 21:00

Categories

Environment

Scopes bit the wax tadpole on this one. First it declared the "Stein in an antivaxxer nut" rumors to be UNPROVEN, based on the usual lack of sophistication about dealing with liars and their methods, then shifted to FALSE on the strength of a tweet made once Stein realized she was in the media spotlight.

Snopes: Mr Capone, how many people have your murdered?

Capone: Good heavens, none! I just have questions about the quality of liquor coming in from Canada.

Snopes: Rumors, FALSE!

Politically, of course, we now have an ad hoc coalition of Greens and AntiVaxxers and opportunistic Bernie holdouts mobbing anyone who speaks up to defend Science - Snopes URL in hand, for with these people it's never about evidence and always about authorities. I find it brutally ironic that, after all these years of holding off the conservatives hordes, the progressives are getting fired up to drown themselves in their own brand of superstition.

Sigh. I saw her tweet re vaccines and autism and was encouraged that she went that far, but the change from the original tweet puts a very different completion on it.

Someone with the visibility of a presidential candidate needs to avoid reinforcing anti vaccine fears. Get your political capital without putting kids at risk, please.

Wait, the perennial Green nonentity shaves her armpits?

That's OK, as long as she doesn't use any antiperspirant or deodorant, I guess.

Don't even get me started on the Green Party, let alone Stein. Follow her Twitter for longer than a week and you'll find she's pretty universally terrible, and every time someone points out where her logic is a bit off, she brings up how Hillary is awful is more terrible regarding a different subject.

When the antivax thing started, she tweeted that Hill was even MORE antiscience because she wasn't 100% against fracking. Apparently nuance only exists when Jill speaks about an issue? Then when this election is over, she'll slink away, to make nary a sound re: politics or grassroots or really anything, until 2020, when she can demand the spotlight again. Plus, she's just a straight up jerk a lot of the time.

Unfortunately, a lot of lefties aren't seeing this for what it is; I got into it on one of Anna Merlan's articles this weekend with someone who just didn't get it. It's pretty masterful pandering; people who don't deal with this nonsense day in and day out miss it and think she's taking a perfectly reasonable stance, when the only reasonable stance to take, as an MD, is "Vaccines are safe, effective, and have very low risks for a medical intervention. Everyone who can should be vaccinated to protect those who legitimately can't." Period.

Also, why does everyone seem to think the FDA and CDC are the only oversight in the entire world when it comes to vaccines?

Also, why does everyone seem to think the FDA and CDC are the only oversight in the entire world when it comes to vaccines?

Dr. Stein seems to acknowledge that other countries have similar agencies, and that most people in those countries trust those agencies. She then goes on to say that the FDA and CDC cannot be trusted because agents of Big Pharma work there. Here's a question for Dr. Stein: Does she think there aren't other countries that get their vaccines from the same sources as the US? A vaccine that is considered safe to use in, e.g., Switzerland should be safe to use in the US, and conversely if a vaccine is too dangerous to use in the US it should be considered too dangerous to use in Switzerland. Any left-winger worth her salt should know that big corporations usually don't limit themselves to operating in their home country.

I'm-all-for-vaccines-but-don't-trust-vaccines-because-CORPORATE-INFLUENCE is a slimy evasion.

At least Stein hasn't said "I'm 100% pro-vaccine" while repeating antivax tropes, which is a classic ploy of the deceitful antivaxer (as in the case of M.D. contributors to JFK Jr.s' "Thimerosal - Let The Science Speak").

Another devotee of the "I'm 100% pro-vaccine _but_" gambit is James Lyons-Weiler, who's deeply into CDC whistleblower nonsense, has contributed comments here and has a lengthy webpage devoted to griping about how mean posters on RI and Left Brain Right Brain are.*

*he's preserved your comments there for posterity - shame, shame.

Another devotee of the “I’m 100% pro-vaccine _but_” gambit is James Lyons-Weiler, who’s deeply into CDC whistleblower nonsense, has contributed comments here and has a lengthy webpage devoted to griping about how mean posters on RI and Left Brain Right Brain are.

Yes, we were such big meanies responding to his ignorance with things like "facts" and "evidence", weren't we? I guess he couldn't stand getting handed his backside, his nose, and other parts of his anatomy by the posters.

Because nobody can work for a private company and then work for the government. Why does the conspiracy theory always revolve around the idea that once you make money with one firm a person can't leave that job without immense personal bias? If you show me real evidence of corruption or nepotism within the FDA or CDC I'll jump on for administrative reform. But I need more evidence than "so and so used to work for company X."

But I need more evidence than “so and so used to work for company X.”

There is some justification in the case of political appointees who are chosen from the industry the agency in question is supposed to regulate, and then return to that industry after they leave government service (or worse, become lobbyists for said industry). The "revolving door" does create the appearance of conflict of interest.

Civil servants are another matter. They are much less likely to make the industry-to-government transition a round trip. There are generally many more of them than political appointees. And although it's the political appointees who set policy, the civil servants are the ones who enforce it.

Dr. Stein and her fellow travelers take the grain of truth about political appointees and extend it to smear the civil servants.

Actually, this might not be all bad. This may lead some of those anti-vaxers who were going to vote Trump, to vote for Jill instead......

What did she have to say about homeopathy?

Actually I suspect that she may be rather anti-vaccine because like the other spoil.... erm, I mean, *third party candidate*, Gary Johnson, she has, over the past few years got a great lot of free airtime courtesy of Gary Null: Johnsons' libertarian outlook would support a lack of governmental interference in personal decisions ( the state won't 'force' parents to vaccinate their children) so of course the hoary old woo-meister would like that. Stein's quibbling would also be attractive to him. These appearances are available via prn.fm- although you need to wade through loads of dreck to find the salient parts.

The woo-slinger obviously is unhappy with liberal tax raises so third party votes might ameliorate the chance of that ever happening. -btw- I heard Stein speak quite stridently and over-confidently about her chances when she was at the Democrats' convention.

I can't stand AV dog whistles for the same reasons you mention, Orac. Trump: clearly AV. All the other candidates--well, they are all politicians running for office trying to be everything to everyone or at least everything to enough voters to be elected. Those AV dog whistles are, unfortunately, ideal for pandering. And citing one's "personal feelings" is always a good wiggle, too, since personal feelings may not equal "official stance" for politicians. Trying to pin down a politician on most issues can be like nailing jello to a wall.

Some of us don't have the luxury of protest votes

OT BUT
are thoroughly anti-scientific political rants by a well-known derider of our own plastic fantastic host who is as perspicuous as he is perspicacious, i.e., Orac, ever TRULY OT @ RI? Didn't think so.

I missed Friday's looned out article by Mikey wherein he broadcasts sans dog whistles against AGW. IN DETAIL.

This may lead some of those anti-vaxers who were going to vote Trump, to vote for Jill instead……

No, its not gonna happen. Jake has a post up about Jill and her tweets, and he's telling his millions of followers to stick with Trump.

@ Johnny:

Jake's recent posts have been insane.

Like the other woo-meisters I survey, it seems that his mind is more on politics than on ( so-called) public health and nutrition.

Maybe that's a good thing. Less woo anyways.

What I don't get is why she felt the need to include the remark that "mandatory vaccination that doesn’t allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of." Even the most stringent vaccine requirements in the U.S. allow for medical exemptions, and not even the most strident vaccine advocate has ever suggested eliminating them, so this is a non-issue. That alone would make me suspicious of her true motivations - the only reason to create a straw man is so you can score cheap points with an audience by defeating it. And when your straw man is a draconian vaccine policy which does not, in fact, exist, it's pretty obvious who the target audience is.

I've noticed that, at least when venturing outside of their own little circle of true believers, antivaxxers have shifted away from the whole question of vaccine safety and/or efficacy and doubled down on the "health freedom" and "you can't trust big bad pharma" angles instead. It's pretty sad that even the antivaxxers have begun to realize that they've well and truly lost on the science, but still can't bring themselves to admit that they were wrong.

Jill Stein's platform says "Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. Protect the rights of future generations."

Apparently the multi-decade safety record of GMOs (no demonstrated illnesses or deaths) and the recent declaration of safety by the National Academy of Sciences' panel do not equate to "proven safe" for Jill Stein.

http://www.jill2016.com/plan

And since GMOs' safety record exceeds that of vaccines, vaccines must not have been "proven safe" either.

Science apparently isn't Jill's forte.

I am going to vote for Hillary for President because Hillary seems to be the only reasonable candidate to vote for.

Third-party candidates like Jill Stein don't seem to have the necessary support needed to get enough votes to be elected as President. America hasn't had third-party Presidents elected in decades. The Democratic Party and the GOP get more media coverage and more attention than any Third Party does.

Donald Trump is rumored to be in cahoots with the Russians. If the rumors regarding Trump and the Russians are true, then Donald Trump could possibly be guilty of treason. Trump may possibly be guilty of encouraging Russian espionage against the United States. This bodes ill for American democracy.
The possibility that Donald Trump is a traitor and a narcissistic opportunist is a hundred times worse than Trump's antivax views. Someone like Trump could be a terrifying danger to the international community if he becomes Commander in Chief of the US military.

Third Party candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson won't matter much in the general election anyway, since they are much less likely to win the number of votes needed to become President. When was the last time a Third Party candidate won a US Presidential election?

A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat.

I did not know that; He shouldn't tell one what to grow, smoke, vape, or make oil from either.. But here it comes:
https://www.corbettreport.com/big-ag-wants-to-sell-you-gmo-marijuana/

From Sarah:

"I’ve noticed that, at least when venturing outside of their own little circle of true believers, antivaxxers have shifted away from the whole question of vaccine safety and/or efficacy and doubled down on the “health freedom” and “you can’t trust big bad pharma” angles instead. It’s pretty sad that even the antivaxxers have begun to realize that they’ve well and truly lost on the science, but still can’t bring themselves to admit that they were wrong...."

When we are wrong we will admit it. You vaxtremists don't ever seem to get it. This is not a new battle. This battle has been raging on for over 200 years. This is a basic fact that vaxtremist loons don't seem to even know.

Rather than go into all of the reasons you people are misguided and don't even know the most basic facts about chemical injections or the diseases those chemical injections are meant to prevent, I'll simply say that you people will continue to have 0 credibility until you have an open, honest, UN-edited debate on the subject. However, THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN. You people should be locked up. You are are threat to the health and well-being of all of us!

I read Anna Merlan's piece on this, so I've been trying to parse Stein's position here. She says too much in favor of vaccines to be labeled an anti-vaxxer, but even my reaction was, 'dog whistles!'. So why would a physician who knows vaccines are safe, and that dropping vax rates threaten whole communities with outbreaks, engage in this kind of pandering? I have two hypotheses (not mutually exclusive):

1) "Follow the money." she could be courting or serving a big donor with 'vaccine concerns'. Most anti-vax whales backed GOP candidates, even before Trump, but there are a few with strong liberal agendas in general. Most specifically, one of the biggest if not THE biggest source of anti-vax funding is the Dwoskin Foundation, and more specifically Claire Dwoskin. The Dwoskins have been close to the Clintons for forever, and Hilary's 2008 pandering was almost certainly a sop to Dwoskin. I don't think Hilary and Claire want to be associated with each other publicly these days, so Claire might have been looking for a new political mouthpiece. I haven't checked campaign contribution info, but the cash could be going under the table anyway.

2) Stein's just trying to find supporting material for her real concern wherever she can get it. That is, the 'dog whistles' only come out in service of some other premise. And it's that primary premise that's the true whack-o here, IMHO. She's not evading in her responses as much as she is retreating to that 'big issue". Stein is pitching reform of the FDA to eliminate the supposed influence of Big Pharma. And that's a much louder dog whistle to a much bigger group than anti-vax nutjobs. Think: where do we hear smack about the FDA. It's not from the left, it's from the big guvmint haters who never met a regulatory policy they didn't decry.

in short, Stein is serving as a handmaiden of the right, as the FDA and CDC are among the least pertinent examples of the 'revolving door' issue that's a proper Green concern. Who wants to undermine the FDA? First and foremost, it's the supplement slingers, who have the funds and power the poor little anti-vax fringe lacks. i'm guessing Jason Chaffetz is just LOVING Jill Stein right now. Second on the shackle-the-FDA! list is – ta da! – 'Big Pharma'. They don't run the agency, it's a thorn in their side. Again, follow the money. A couple of times here, I've noted something most skeptics don't seem to know: one of the largest funding sources for the most anti-science legislators in the US are the major pharmas. It's not direct: the pharmas are major players in ALEC, and the anti-science pols are big ALEC-money recipients. If that seems like a head-scratcher – why would Pfizer and Lily be funneling $$ to the likes Dan Burton and Bill Posey? – it shouldn't be. These guys are the anti-regulation power players who want to weaken FDA policies, make big cuts in the FDA's already meager funds for enforcement, and have the clout to get that on the legislative table. Oh yeah, the pharma lobbyists are all in on anything that will let their firms get new meds to market faster and with lower costs. That – unlike the small profits from standard vaccines – represents real money that would show up on the quarterly reports to the joy of the stockholders and get nice promotions for the executives involved.

It's politics folks. Think Karl Rove, i.e. think 'Orwell'. A lot of the bleat against 'Big Pharma' is coming from pols on the payroll of 'Big Pharma'...

I could look past and live with Stein's weak-sauce AV dog whistles. I can't abide by her smack at the FDA at all. That's the real Fox in the henhouse here. It's not the political revolution; it's just revolting.

When was the last time a Third Party candidate won a US Presidential election?

Abraham Lincoln in 1860 arguably qualifies. The Republican Party had only been founded six years earlier. After that, the Republicans were firmly established as the not-Democrats.

The last third-party candidate to finish in the top two was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 with the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party. He outperformed the Republican candidate, incumbent William Howard Taft, but lost the election to Woodrow Wilson. The last third-party candidate to receive any electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968.

Opps. Direct YouRube link:

Voter initiatives like California’s “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” have many celebrating the legalization of the long-demonised plant. But as Ellen Brown writes in her new article, “The 'War on Weed' Is Winding Down – But Will Monsanto/Bayer Be the Winner?” the push toward legalization is being steered by corporate interests for potential profit, not a concern for public health.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7akr74GLQ4w

New data shows that legal marijuana is hurting the profits of corporate opioid dealers, aka Big Pharma... -- TYT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5MLzeP0biU

p.s. Does anybody know why YouRube has no audio today? It seems to be all videos muted. If it's just me then it's time to go find another standalone flash installer.

Anyway, what are Jill Stein's other political viewpoints? What are her views on racism, sexism, LGBT issues, reproductive rights, et cetera?

I should add to the above that third-party candidates sometimes do have an effect as spoilers. Most notoriously, in 2000 Ralph Nader siphoned enough votes from Al Gore to throw Florida and New Hampshire to George W. Bush (Gore would have won if he had carried either of those two states). Likewise, Wallace and Humphry split the Democratic vote in 1968, allowing Nixon to win, while Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote in 1912, allowing Wilson to win.

That's the danger Jill Stein poses--most of her voters come from the Bernie-or-Bust crowd. It's possible for her to tip enough states to Trump for him to win the election. The Republicans have a parallel hazard in Johnson, who is a logical protest candidate for Never Trump Republicans. He might get enough votes in normally-red states like Georgia or Kansas to throw those states to Clinton. But that's less likely to affect the overall result, because if Johnson is drawing that much support from nominal Republicans Clinton is likely to carry all of the states Obama carried in 2012, plus North Carolina.

I’ll simply say that you people will continue to have 0 credibility until you have an open, honest, UN-edited debate on the subject.

Would that be a UN-moderated debate? I don't trust the UN, Cypher #24 -- too much corporate influence; Especially the WHO.

@Cypher

When we are wrong we will admit it.

Can you give an example of actually admitting you were wrong, rather than simply dropping one argument to move on to a different one?

Who wants to undermine the FDA? First and foremost, it’s the supplement slingers, who have the funds and power the poor little anti-vax fringe lacks

The funny thing is, because of the DSHEA of 1994, FDA regulation of the supplement industry is already incredibly lax. What more could supplement manufacturers want?

@Cypher #24

Oh, I'm well aware of the long, not-so-proud history of antivax hysteria. Being the intellectual descendant of people who claimed that the smallpox vaccine would turn people into cows - isn't something I'd go around bragging about if I were you.

I must confess that the demand for a UN-edited (I presume you meant moderated?) debate is a new one on me - is this the latest goalpost you guys have decided on now that it's finally sunk in that performing a double-blind randomized control trial of every childhood vaccine in every possible combination would literally require more subjects than there are people on earth, in addition to deliberately putting children at risk even from your own point of view? Which of course was the new goalpost you came up with after the high-powered epidemiological studies you demanded were done and showed no link between vaccination and any of the various ills you ascribe to it? Which in turn was the freshly relocated goalpost you decided on after thimiserol was removed from childhood vaccines in the U.S. and the rate of autism diagnoses continued to climb? (ah, the good old days, when antivaxers actually had a shadow of a ghost of a plausible, testable hypothesis.)

So what other well-established technologies that have become an integral part of modern life should we arbitrarily stop using until we've had a UN-moderated debate on their risk/benefit analysis? How about motor vehicles? After all, cars are actually known to cause tens of thousands of deaths each year in the U.S. alone, and Big Auto has a proven track record of malfeasance. Come to think of it, we should probably ban the wheel altogether, just to be on the safe side. It's for the children, after all.

P.S. Love the pseudonym, btw - I know its a cheap shot but I can't help remarking on how appropriate it is that you name yourself after a well-known movie villain who was willing to sell out the entire human race so he could ensconce himself in a comforting delusion.

When we are wrong we will admit it.

Can you point out any instance when the anti-wax comminity publicly went "oops! Sorry folks, our bad but here's the correction" (and stuck by it)? There's hardly ever even an nonpology after their accusations or claims have been proven wrong.
Whereas I (and most other humans beings) could make nigh-endless lists where science (medicine included) has changed based on new, more compelling evidence.

Or is that statement one of those "I once thought I was wrong but that was a mistake"-type of deals. "I sweat I'd own up to it if I ever made a mistake".

This is not a new battle. This battle has been raging on for over 200 years. This is a basic fact that vaxtremist loons don’t seem to even know.

Yes, it's ridiculous how long it has been going on, what with one side offering so very few arguments that haven't been refuted time and time again, against such overwhelming and constantly increasing body of evidence contrary to their antediluvian claims.

Rather than go into all of the reasons you people are misguided and don’t even know the most basic facts about chemical injections or the diseases those chemical injections are meant to prevent,

Might be for the best - you'd probably reveal your ignorance on the subject. Oh, wait...

I’ll simply say that you people will continue to have 0 credibility until you have an open, honest, UN-edited debate on the subject. However, THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Well, coming to a comment board that doesn't wield the ban hammer for contrary opinions* is a good start. Why not use the opportunity and initiate the debate. Be polite to others here, don't use sock puppets, don't make racist remarks and your comments will remain here for all to see, as lasting monuments to unedited discussion.

* Unlike most of the anti-wax sites I've heard of, if not visited myself.

and has a lengthy webpage devoted to griping about how mean posters on RI and Left Brain Right Brain are.

He's lucky he's never ventured over to SBM.

When we are wrong we will admit it.

Such as when Wakefield et al. (1998) was proven to be fraudulent? Crickets from most of the anti-vax crowd, and the exceptions are people who continued to defend ex-Dr. Wakefield after he was struck off.

Pull the other one, it has bells on.

"I’ll simply say that you people will continue to have 0 credibility until you have an open, honest, UN-edited debate on the subject."

The United Nations?* Oh no, they are deeply into that chemical injection stuff.

http://www.unicef.org/immunization/

Gotta love someone who prattles about "vaxtremists" (ooo, clever) and then rants about how they should be "locked up".

*unless by U.N. he means Unbelieving Ninnies.

"What more could supplement manufacturers want?"

What do any greed-heads want? 'The moon'? Anything they can get? In practice, I'd guess the supplementers are content with the status quo, mainly worried about it changing, and support whacking the FDA in general as 'insurance' that won't happen. At least that's how I interpret the fact Chaffetz took the time to do a photo op with the Vaxxed gang. I think he could care less about vaccines, but wants to put a scare into the regulators, and anyone who would have the temerity to propose new regulations.

I'm not Bernie-or-bust, but I'm to the Left of Sanders, and I've voted 3rd party twice (McCarthy in '76, and Commoner in '80). I actually can't remember my vote from '84; I might have gone total protest performance with Gus Hall and Angela Davis, just to be able to say I voted CP to piss people off. But, in no instance was I living in a state where the Electoral College outcome was in doubt.

I don't have any contact with youthful Lefties into Occupy-type stuff, though there were a few (very few) at the college where I taught from '00 - '10. But my sense is that any talk of voting for Stein is mainly woofing, and while she'll pull some votes that won't matter in rock solid Blue states like CA, she'll have zero effect in contested states like FL. The argument that Gore would have won but for Nader is dubious, and Stein's no Nader.

Eric:
I'm dubious on Nader-gave-it-to-Bush (I voted for Gore, btw), and don't buy 'Wallace hurt Humphrey and gave Nixon the victory in '68' at all. Humphrey screwed himself out of loyalty to LBJ on Vietnam (despite knowing better) leading to the massive post-Chicago alienation, exploited by Nixon's 'secret plan to end the war' lie. Most Wallace voters would have gone to Nixon anyway. You know it was HHH's speech on civil rights at the 1948 d. convention that led to the Dixecrat walkout, right?

If you want a case of a 3rd party candidate possibly turning a presidential election, the best example since the Bull Moose is Perot-Clinton-Bush in 1992, but check the analysis on Wikipedia:

Election Night exit polls showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton,.State exit polls suggested that Perot did not alter the electoral college count... Perot was most popular in states that strongly favored either Clinton or Bush, limiting his real electoral impact for either candidate.

Stein's not even a Nader-level candidate, much less a Perot level candidate. I'd put the odds she'll "tip enough states to Trump for him to win the election" at less than those of an adverse vaccine reaction easily, and probably lower than the odds the GMO corn syrup in your Pepsi will cause mutations in your offspring.

Wonkette is Not a Fan of Stein.

Trigger warning: extreme snark, and heavy cussing:

http://wonkette.com/605001/dr-jill-stein-pandering-to-anti-vaxxers-beca…

and:

http://wonkette.com/605009/we-got-canvassed-by-a-jill-stein-guy-it-was-…

@Sadmar

What is with all the sexual innuendo in your last post?:
... Nader-gave-it-to-Bush...
...Humphrey screwed himself...
...Wallace hurt Humphrey...
... massive post...
...exploited by Nixon...

Do you have a subconscious politician fetish?
Perot siphoned

The United Nations?* Oh no, they are deeply into that chemical injection stuff.

Not to mention the freaking Codex Alimentarius and Agenda 21.

@ Sarah A

I must confess that the demand for a UN-edited (I presume you meant moderated?) debate is a new one on me.

Given the non-UN-edited various quotes in e.g. the movie Vaxxed, I wonder if Cypher's definition of "UN-edited" comes from the same bag as the antivaxers' definition of "bullies".

@ Helianthus

Oh...you think he actually meant "un-edited" rather than "edited by the United Nations" and just got carried away with the capitalization? In retrospect, it's strange that that possibility never even occurred to me (I actually read your comment several times before I figured out what you were getting at.) I suppose the idea of establishing one's credibility via debate is so nonsensical to begin with that it seemed to make a weird sort of sense that he'd try to bolster the legitimacy of the whole idea by insisting it be done under the auspices of an international organization ^^;

If that is what he meant, I wonder why he doesn't consider the past 20+ years of discussion and debate that have been going on all over the world valid. Does he seriously think "vaxtremists" have somehow managed to censor every conversation about vaccines that's ever occurred? Could it be that he thinks there's some fact-finding magic in the structure of a formal debate? So many questions...but since I doubt he'll return to give answers to any of them I should probably just stop trying to make sense out of his rant before I hurt myself.

To add to what Eric Lund said @36, or like the time your crowd admitted they were wrong about vaccines causing SIDS? Or SBS? Or allergies?
On the off chance that Cypher isn't a hit and run poster...
Anti-vaxxers (sorry, pro-safe-vaccine advocates) have never admitted to being wrong, even when they demonstrably are. Instead they have attacked the scientists, denied the evidence and claimed conflicts of interest (when there are none) rather than acknowledge their incorrectness.

This may lead some of those anti-vaxers who were going to vote Trump, to vote for Jill instead……

I find it inconceivable that someone who might have voted for Trump would decide to vote for the Green candidate.

Oh look! It's not just antivaxxers that she's pandering to. She's also JAQing on the question of children's brains being exposed to WiFi:

“We should not be exposing, especially, kids’ brains to that,” Stein said. “You know, we don’t follow that issue in this country, but in Europe where they do, they have good precautions around wireless. Maybe not good enough, because it’s very hard to study this stuff. We make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/jill-stein-says-its-dangerous-to-expose…

Eric Lund: The last third-party candidate to receive any electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968.

I thought Wallace ran as a Republican.

Gil: The UN and WHO are non-profit organizations. In fact, a lot of the WHO's recommendations actively undercut profits. I think you need to get your knee checked. As far as Youtube goes, try switching browsers. Or check the control panel widget on the computer; there's usually a way to access the computer volume on there.

Melissa She hasn't said anything about those things at all. As far as sexism goes, I suppose she, like Secretary Clinton, thinks women are human, unlike the orange guy who collects mail-order brides. (How did anyone not notice that particular red-flag?)
But, I really can't be bothered to find out, as the Green Party at this point is, well, Gil would be a good example of half of their rank-and-file party members. The other half are hopeless idealists with no idea how the real world works.
Also, there's this : http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingtomatthew/2016/08/jill-stein-thin…

I wonder if she actually believes that or if she's just pandering to the anti-wifi crowd. Either way, I don't think I'll be voting for her.

The Green Party recently edited its platform to remove mention of homeopathy and naturopathy, but continues to support Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

I thought Wallace ran as a Republican.

Wallace was a Democrat. He was elected Governor of Alabama as a Democrat, and tried a couple of times to get the Democratic nomination for President. He formed the American Independent Party for his run for President in 1968.

Sorry, Callie, I see you beat me to it.

Crooked Hillary.

Thanks MOB. The winds shifted so rapidly back then that I have trouble keeping track of which political party was which back then. Doesn't help that the '60s are ancient history as far as I'm concerned. (And probably one of the most annoying decades ever. The 1950s are a close runner up, since they were simply bleak and awful, but the nostalgia for both of those decades just makes me grind my teeth.)

Oh, whatever, Jake. You were mentored by a criminal, buddy, and admire a guy who was an accessory to murder, so maybe you should mind your own glass house.

Is that the same Jake Crosby? He is using a modified name.

This could be an impostor.

It's him.

Frankly, I could care less about what Stein's position on vaccines is. I'm voting for her as a protest against what I view as a corrupt political system and against militarism. Her willingness to appeal to woo aficionados doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to those issues.

Crooked Hillary.

Jake is there any word on that Thompson PNAS paper since your last update, viz., that the submission must have been delayed (despite the incongruity with announcing a publication date)?

Frankly, I could care less about what Stein’s position on vaccines is. I’m voting for her as a protest against what I view as a corrupt political system and against militarism.

I have the luxury of being able to simply choose nobody in the presidential contest and just cast a vote in a Senate race, but I'm really not sure how this amounts to much of a "protest." I mean, at least get a sandwich board.

On the off chance that Cypher isn’t a hit and run poster…
Cypher was last seen as a drive-by troll on the "Violent rhetoric" thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/07/20/the-violent-rhetoric-of-th…

He or she does not hang around for responses.

I'm really starting to lean toward the ultimate and final 3rd party candidate, even if not as entertaining as the zombie apocalypse. While other candidates keep digging dirt on each other, Giant Meteor 2016 will bury us all: https://www.facebook.com/meteor2016/?fref=ts

Jake is there any word on that Thompson PNAS paper since your last update, viz., that the submission must have been delayed (despite the incongruity with announcing a publication date)?

I know you aren't actually expecting an answer given Jake Crosby has avoided answering that and you and I have asked him that on his own blog. But I just thought I would let others know that Jake refuses to answer that question and deletes inconvenient questions on his blog. So much for the ethics of anti-vaxxers eh?

On the off chance that Cypher isn’t a hit and run poster…

Cypher turns out to prefer the safer environment over at Skeptical Raptor:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/snopes-defended-…

and rather than defending the bizarre / dishonest assertions he / she made here, Cypher is even now demanding that Dr Gorski go there, to address VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS.

I know you aren’t actually expecting an answer

I am indeed. Jake has a long memory, and I've never noted him to simply pretend that an assertion didn't happen.

I am indeed. Jake has a long memory, and I’ve never noted him to simply pretend that an assertion didn’t happen.

Curious. Hasn't he been doing exactly that though? I know that at least both of us have asked him about his claim since he made it in May and crickets (or in my case) deleted comments.

Dorit Rubenstein Reiss is here!

I heard a rumor that she is related to Jack "Ruby" Rubenstein.

Is this true? Is she in the Mafia?

Curious. Hasn’t he been doing exactly that though? I know that at least both of us have asked him about his claim since he made it in May and crickets (or in my case) deleted comments.

I haven't known Jake to delete comments – they all go into the moderation queue to start with – but the reason I mentioned the "delay in submission" (wording approximate) is because that was Jake's response to my most recent inquiry.

I don't visit often, and the commentariat seemed to be mostly "Eddie Unwind" and "Sophie Scholl" = "Hans Scholl" = "Hans Litten" = "White Rose" the last time I took note of it.

Anyway, I don't personally recall being subject to weird moderation. It's Jake's blog and thus Jake's rules, and when I have commented, I've tried to stick to a straightforward tone.

Annabel Lee, you are Just Asking Questions, which is a known dishonest tactic. Just stop.

Annabel Lee, you are Just Asking Questions, which is a known dishonest tactic. Just stop.

Oh, FFS, the M.O. is too coherent to be Gilbertimmeh, which leaves Fendlesworth et al. Starts out (too) chatty, starts lobbing cutesy turds, and then lances its own existential boil to see how far it will spray.

@ Sarah A

Oh…you think he actually meant “un-edited” rather than “edited by the United Nations” and just got carried away with the capitalization?

I am afraid Cypher's definition of UN-edited debate is more akin to "give me a podium*, let me talk and shut up".

* the podium could be inside an UN building, for all I know, so your interpretation is as good as mine.

As for being carried away, that would not be the first happenstance with antivaxers.

I must admit that I don't follow these things as closely as maybe I once did, but I've just read stuff that shows that this guy Crosby has threatened both Dr Thompson and PNAS that if they publish a report by him, then they will both be subject to ethical complaints to various bodies.

This would be without Crosby having the slightest idea what is in any such report, but because, sight unseen, he has determined that it warrants not only his complaints, but his invitation to others to make complaints.

I really, really, hope that people keep this material, and when he tries to get a job, any potential employer is subjected to a barrage of information about his outrageous conduct.

Even now, people would have good grounds to write to his academic institution, as he's plainly unfit to be involved in any form of scientific work.

This would be without Crosby having the slightest idea what is in any such report, but because, sight unseen, he has determined that it warrants not only his complaints, but his invitation to others to make complaints.

You have missed one relevant item, viz., "Brian Hooker is all the confirmation I need."

Most notoriously, in 2000 Ralph Nader siphoned enough votes from Al Gore to throw Florida and New Hampshire to George W. Bush....

Why Monica Moorehead gets a free pass is anybody's guess.

I haven’t known Jake to delete comments – they all go into the moderation queue to start with

Until such time as Jake feels like responding to them.

I have had several comments never see the light of day, presumably because Jake can think up no adequate answer. But then it is his blog and his rules.

...and when he tries to get a job...

His mommy and daddy have enough money to keep him in school for the rest of his life. I'd bet his only job will be 'professional student'.

Ha ha ha!

Several years ago - I think right after Jake received his first degree**- I asked him whether he thought that his 'activities' on the 'net would come back to haunt him when- and if- he sought out a position in PH or suchlike.

He didn't seem too worried.

About the same time, someone I know - his son actually- asked me to look over his activities because he was seeking work in the health field. I found nothing alarming. Unlike Jake, this guy was not the scion of an extremely wealthy family and didn't write odd non-SB tracts for woo-fraught websites or start his own

I sometimes think that for all of his enmity of scientists and science writers ( i.e. people we know), Jake, like some of the woo-meisters and anti-vaxxers I survey, is trying TERRIBLY hard to make a splash as just that- a researcher and writer - without the necessary prerequisites.

He scours public records to find 'errors' in studies like Geier or Hooker and pontificates ostentatiously from his cathedra like Adams or Null. There's a reason why they do that.

Jake fits in amongst their crowd but he ain't no Orac or Brian Deer. Maybe that's why he hates them so much.

Sometimes people can't self-evaluate their own skills in particular areas in relation to others' abilities.
There's a reason for that too.

** I had long conversations with him here

Something for denialism aficionados:

I had a peek at Mike Adams's article today :
EVERYTHING IS RIGGED

Jake espouses the same viewpoint - both politically and
( quasi) scientifically. It's what I hear at prn.fm "Everything is an illusion" produced by the "cult of professionals".

If your cherished beliefs are not validated by most of society- call it a fix.

As far as Youtube goes, try switching browsers.

That was part of it as I've started using the Pale Moon browser. The flash cookie left the audio muted from a former tab -- So much for Self Destructing Cookies addon working correctly with Pale Moon.
==========================

@Jake Crosby, MPH #53

Crooked Hillary

Ja.

http://borneobulletin.com.bn/thai-mother-indicted-one-word-royal-slur-f…
========================

@ #53 Jake Crosby, MPH

Crooked Hillary.

Congratulations on "winning the internet," both for the day, if not all time. Your deeply incisive, fully on topic, and informative post has left me speechless with admiration for both your intellect and maturity. I can see that it will be no time at all until no one here or at any so-called science based or pro-vaccine blog will post anything, anywhere, that could be even faintly considered contradictory to any of your output.

"I had a peek at Mike Adams’s article today :
EVERYTHING IS RIGGED"

Hopelessness sells, apparently.*

I get an image of Der Huckstermeister being carried in a sedan chair in a grand processional, under the banner "Belief In Nothing Is Sacred"**.

*more grist for my theory that blind faith in woomeisters by the woo-prone is driven by the intolerable vacuum engendered by belief in overwhelming conspiracies. One's mental state (or what's left of it) cannot survive paranoid distrust of _everything_. There's got to be something to cling to, and what better than the woo-mogul warning you that everyone else is crooked?
**with apologies to Gahan Wilson.

DB: projection from the nutball: I am rigged, thus everything is rigged.

Captain'O Al

Crooked Hillary's source for said comment by Master Crosby:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/01/05/hillary-c…

While other candidates keep digging dirt on each other, Giant Meteor 2016 will bury us

My Sweet Meteor O'Death for President campaign tee-shirts came in yesterday! I'm wearing one to work today.

@DB (83)

I miss Gahan Wilson! I looked forward to each issue of Analog to see the cartoons.

On the political front, I found this interview with Gary Johnson. If you scroll down quite a ways, he discusses his ideas for restructuring medical care.

I didn't see any discussion of vaccination specifically.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-gary-johnson-libertaria…

But I don't think he would oppose this program introduced by current Republican governor Susanna Martinez.

http://krqe.com/2016/08/01/program-aims-to-spread-vaccination-accessibi…

I also saw a mention that Trump doesn't want Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to participate in a presidential debate.

Since the polls that include him have Johnson as high as 12%, there's a reasonable possibility that he could reach the 15% level to merit inclusion.

squirrelelite @87

I also saw a mention that Trump doesn’t want Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to participate in a presidential debate.

I expect he doesn't want Hillary Clinton to participate in a presidential debate either.

For those going "Huh?", here's the Gahan Wilson cartoon I was referencing:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UiZRvkBqTqE/SSAwNhqGpxI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/eo7VcRV-x…

I know a lot of people think that the earthy-crunchy thing is primarily a left-wing phenomenon (think Vermont and Oregon), but in my experience as a semi-crunchy parent, there are at least as many if not more conservatives involved in the subculture. Their reasons for choosing natural foods and more DIY living are different-- rather than mistrusting corporations, they mistrust the government. But given how many crunchy practices are deeply anti-feminist at their core, in that they place the burden of parenting almost exclusively on the mother, it's not super surprising that so many conservatives have adopted the lifestyle.

I expect he doesn’t want Hillary Clinton to participate in a presidential debate either.

Most of all, he doesn't want Donald Trump to participate in a presidential debate.

HDB,

Come on, Trump debating himself would win best comedy of the year.

@Rich Bly: We had a similar thing in the UK - here's a page of Boris Johnson debating with himself about the EU...

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/the-great-eu-debate-boris-joh…

This is a Red Herring argument. Quit smearing Stein.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/05/85477/

Um, no. It is not a "red herring," and that article you cite doesn't refute a word of what I've written. Instead it whines about the media "distorting" what she said. Well, I cited exactly what she said, and she wasn't taken out of context; she was pandering to antivaccine loons and clearly shows signs of possibly being antivaccine herself. Nice try. Oh, wait. It wasn't even a nice try. It was a pathetic try. Oh, well...

From the Counterpunch link: "Chomsky notes that 20-30% of the populace is highly indoctrinated so as to function as system-managers, and that these tend to correspond to the college-educated. The remaining 70-80% are fed a steady diet of entertainment programming to induce sheer apathy in politics"

Boy, were we wrong about Jill Stein and vaccines! Thanks for setting the record straight, Mark!

A friend's sister was very hostile to vaccines, credited her children's avoidance of childhood illnesses to her wonderful organic diet etc etc. They were of course protected by herd immunity. However by the time her youngest child was born, more and more parents in her neighbourhood had rejected vaccines, herd immunity was vanishing and whooping cough re-emerged. She was very frightened when children with whom her little boy had played were in hospital, so she ran to her GP and said. 'Give him everything!'.

Stein is the perennial Green Party candidate. It's getting to be about as comical as seeing Gus Hall on the ballot. It seems pretty clear to me that, being an anti-corporatist, Stein is by default anti-vaccine because they are made by corporations who, being evil, wish to make a profit from their product.
Oh, and it does not surprise me to see Jake Crosby here parroting Trump talking points. Crosby seems like the sort of guy who needs a figurehead to follow.

Jake's showing himself up to be a really nasty little piece of work, isn't he? Describing Neurodiversity and Feminism as "cancer", and Black Lives Matter as a "victim playing movement", giving a picture of Jezabel journalist Anna Merlan the filename "merlantheuglylizard", posting approving links to stories such as the Breitbart "Women should be paid less than men" article, and one claiming college rape statistics are far lower than reported.

What a vile, hateful little boy.

Yep. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. The indications were there early on when I first encountered him and he was still a high school student. At the time, I went easy on him because, well, he was still a kid, had been born to parents with crank views, and had fallen in with a bad crowd of adults. I had hopes that he might be salvageable once he matured. Unfortunately as he grew into manhood, he became worse, not better, and his evolution into a full bore misogynistic, racist, conspiracy-minded Donald Trump supporter is depressing to behold, although in retrospect shouldn't have been unexpected.

He's certainly gone from a misguided, troubled boy to a full-fledged conspiracy wacko.

In a way, I do feel sorry for him, because the people around him did him no favors by playing to the darkest side of his condition & cultivating it for their own ends.

Now that he's on his own, there is no filter anymore...and it's obvious that he will continue down the rabbit hole.

Any potential employer is going to Google him & the results will virtually guarantee that he'll never get gainful employment.

Very sad, really - when so many others have been able to lead successful lives.

Any potential employer is going to Google him & the results will virtually guarantee that he’ll never get gainful employment.

True, but I doubt it will ever happen. I don't think he'll ever hold a job, because he doesn't need to hold a job. He'll go from one course of study to another his whole life, with mommy and daddy paying the bills.

The only real question is where he'll go next. UT has a law school, so maybe he'll go there. Then, when somebody criticizes something like his latest post (about how "Doctor" Wakefield has been legally exonerated), he'll be able to say ''I'm a law student, and I say it's true".

Johnny,

If it's any indication, no school in the world was off-limit for me when I wanted to travel and get paid to study. That said, personal experience suggests that some autistics will voluntarily dig deeper into their holes as the years passes by. My oldest brother is such an example. One other aspie is jailed for a very long time in a forensic mental hospital here because of that tendency.

Me? I have a huge interest in not turning like them, or Jake, for that matter. Thus, I always check, assess and ask if I'm too deep into a hole.

Alain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNG3gDTPYjc

Seems pretty direct.

This article blends anti-vax thought with legitimate concerns about big pharms influence. As others have pointed out, it does drip with someone else's political agenda. I would also warn about supporting/disproving any argument with Snopes as being useless, too. They used to be a reliable source to check on urban legend-ish things. However, they have already demonstrated the taint of MSM with showing similar, slanted political agendas. Jill Stein does show concern for the schedule of vaccinations, but is not a Jenny-McCarthy-ite about it. Jenny was a nursing school drop out. Dr. Stein was Harvard educated and has over 20 years medical experience.

"Snopes...used to be a reliable source to check on urban legend-ish things. However, they have already demonstrated the taint of MSM with showing similar, slanted political agendas."

It is always a good idea to take issue with specific points in an article without simply dismissing the website that hosts it. If you can't or are unwilling to do this, how about citing other Snopes articles that you believe show "the taint of MSM"?

As for Jill Stein's education - Harvard Medical School does not have the best reputation when it comes to promoting woo.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/harvard-medical-school-veritas-for…

I think that there is lot in these comments to warrant ORAC's concern, but I think Jill Stein maybe more teachable on this issue than most Republicans. I think that this is an issue for those who are considering voting for someone other Hillary Clinton, even though there is a lot to dislike about her. I think that there is a case to be made that Big Pharma's influence on the production of pharmaceutical drugs and Marcia Angell has written about this in great detail. While I concur with her observations, it is important to know that she is no fan of pseudoscience and would likely make the same criticisms of Jill Stein as ORAC has made here.

Beware Democratic Party Optimism

gregladen — Fri, 06 May 2016 12:35:14 +0000

Beware Democratic Party Optimism

I've seen it said again and again that the Trump nomination will be a debacle for the Republicans. The Republican party will fall apart, become small, become insignificant. Clinton will easily crush trump. We're done. Ding dong.

But this is all wrong.

The Republican Party is in power in more state houses than ever, and in most cases, are solid in those state houses.

There are more Republican governors than Democratic governors, and this is a recent phenomenon never seen before. Most are pretty solid. Even the much maligned Walker of Wisconsin could not be gotten rid of when he messed with the most power parts of the Democratic establishment there.

The Republicans control both the House and the Senate. I think the Democrats may take the Senate back this year, but these days the Senate goes back and forth pretty regularly. The fact that the Democrats may take a lead by one or two Senators this year does not mean that the Republican Party is done.

The Republicans will likely control the House after this year. Then, they are likely to strengthen their lead in two years, if Clinton is elected president, because that is what always happens.

And, Republicans hate Hillary, and will eventually congeal in their support of Trump, who may be busy right now reshaping his message to help make that happen. A Trump loss is not inevitable.

Notice the date on the tombstone at the top of this post. The Death of the Republican Party has been celebrated before. But always prematurely.

Complacency is the hobgoblin of defeat. Or defeat is the hobgoblin of complacency. Whatever. Don't be complacent, don't be defeated.

Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid understand this, of course:

gregladen Fri, 05/06/2016 - 08:35

Tags

They say there's nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal...

And now the G0P is seriously both.

Indeed.

I predict that there now will commence a rewriting of Trump's history and an apologetics campaign for every vile thing that he has ever said or done.
The GOP will circle the wagons and declare that he was never so bad as even they said, and certainly not as bad as Hillary.
I further predict that the GOP voters (even those who have previously hated him) will buy this coming fiction of a kinder, gentler, smarter, better read, more presidential Donald Trump, because they have shown for years that they have an infinite capacity to be manipulated by their ideological masters.

Democrats should be confident, but not overly confident – not exactly a revelation of insight.

One might ask whether this isn't a journalistic ploy to make the election more suspenseful (rather than odd and entertaining) than it is.
Every indication is that the Democrats are not being complacent. They are carefully, assiduously studying Trump's success in the Republican primaries, mapping out how he could attack Clinton, and how Clinton should respond. Trump has given the Democrats an abundance of material to work with, and, as evidenced by the videos we've already seen, the Democrats are prepared to use it. Trump will not be able to attack without facing a swift, hard counterattack. And, as it concerns his legacy, I would be very wrong if President Obama didn't engage actively on Clinton's behalf, securing the participation of the (winning) Obama coalition. In short, the fear of complacency is unwarranted nonsense.

The election will be a debacle for Republicans, but it will not mean the demise of the party, and Republicans are positioned to do well in 2018.
It will mean that the Republicans can no longer be complacent about the loyalty of their base.

"The election will be a debacle for Republicans"

...and a spectacle for the press.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11589262/2016-general-election-is-going-to-…

Greg,

I wish you would stop using the language that the Republicans want you to use.

"Republicans hate Hillary"

Republicans fear Hillary, and they have since she came on the scene. As they feared Bill, and Barack Obama. They did not fear Al Gore or John Kerry anywhere near the same way. But this is a rational fear.

Language matters. We see comments all the time that are intended to plant little subliminal seeds, and unfortunately they have been working. Associating negative words with the individual is an old ploy.

Are some of these people actual racists or misogynists? Sure. But mostly they see their status being eroded because the population is accepting "others" in the role they thought was a sure monopoly.

They hate the idea of Hillary, as they hated the idea of Bill and the idea of Barack. From what I've read, she got along just fine on a personal level with people in the Senate.

When you see stuff about her favorability being low, it correlates with election cycles, when the propaganda machine is revved up-- the rest of the time she does quite well.

I've read the David Roberts post, and I think he's wrong in measuring this particular race with the same yardstick as previous ones. This one is unprecedented, and I don't believe that the press will try, or will be able to normalize it by postulating equivalence. The articles I've seen thus far – I don't watch American TV, and am not qualified to say if its coverage is different – have overwhelmingly focused on Trump's lack of support, and the problems his nomination is causing the Republican Party. They are based on facts. Very, very few articles focus on the threat Trump poses to the Democrats, and these are based on strained conjecture. Trump's campaign is already being defined as a fiasco, and it won't be easy for him to recover. It won't be easy for the press to redefine him and turn him into a serious candidate.

The last two Republican presidents and the most recent Republican nominee have disavowed Trump. Obama is doing what he can to delegitimize him, and Bill Clinton will soon be deployed against him:

"In a biting critique of the presumptive Republican nominee, President Obama said Friday that Donald J. Trump should be subjected to serious scrutiny and not be allowed to treat the presidential campaign like 'a reality show.'
...The comments, though restrained in tone, were a preview of what aides say will be a vigorous presence by Mr. Obama in the general election.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/obama-jobs-economy-donald…

What worked in Trump's favor in the Republican primaries will work against him in the general election. The Democrats are united in their opposition to him, and they're familiar with and prepared for his style of campaigning. They've been gathering ammunition for months, and Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. Unlike the Republicans, they don't risk compromising themselves or exposing their hidden priorities by opposing his policies. I don't think the Donald quite appreciates the mess he's gotten himself and his brand into. But he will.

Re. the post-election GOP:
My belief, as stated above, is that the GOP will suffer a walloping loss. Both the candidate and the party will then be forced to examine and explain what happened, and what I see are two explanations that will difficult to reconcile. The party establishment will probably attempt to vindicate itself by claiming that Trump lost because he didn't adhere to the party's “goals.” Trump, however, won the nomination by rejecting those goals, and his opposition to the Ryan agenda and more personal conflict with Ryan indicate that he's not readjusting his position. The voters rejected the GOP establishment, and Trump won't fail to remind the McConnells and Ryans of that.

Trump's explanation will be a consequence of his personality. He changes his mind when he finds it opportune, he freely contradicts himself, he lies without inhibition, and he can't admit to having made a mistake. His analysis of his defeat therefore won't be so much an analysis, as an exculpatory assignment of blame. This is of course speculation on speculation, but what I see rising from the ashes of Republican defeat is a tale of betrayal: Trump lost because he was stabbed in the back by the establishment. If I'm right, and if this explanation is endorsed by devoted Trump supporters, then the GOP will be in serious trouble.

(The following article gives a view of why Trump will be an easier target for Democrats than he was for Republicans:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/the-real-never-tru… )

The press doesn't have to make Trump into a serious candidate; all they have to do is keep broadcasting images of his Nuremberg rallies. Everyone knows Trump is a bigoted bully, but in an imperial nation in obvious decline, many people will vote for him BECAUSE he is a bigoted bully. They will interpret that as evidence that he is "strong" enough to crush or coerce "our enemies" (meaning, anyone who has resources left that we want to take). You will have seen the increasing degree to which many white Americans' ethnicoreligious paranoia has been commingled with hostility towards intellectuals. Sound familiar? We are close to the collapse of American civilization.

At least we are close to the collapse of the anti-civilization G0P.

Jane: Exactly. Pointing out how Trump is a big bad bully is not an argument that he will therefore not have support.

And that is the problem.

#10
“The press doesn’t have to make Trump into a serious candidate; all they have to do is keep broadcasting images of his Nuremberg rallies. Everyone knows Trump is a bigoted bully, but in an imperial nation in obvious decline, many people will vote for him BECAUSE he is a bigoted bully.”
#12
“Jane: Exactly. Pointing out how Trump is a big bad bully is not an argument that he will therefore not have support.”

You're making two different arguments. Jane is saying that “many people will vote for him BECAUSE he is a bigoted bully.” Greg is saying that (some) people will support him despite his bullying. I can't argue with Greg's point, but I think that that both of you are overlooking that many are repulsed by the violence at his rallies and by his condoning such violence. Also, there are many other reasons why one can and should find Trump objectionable. Thus far Trump's popularity has been tested in the Republican primaries, and I would venture to say that they aren't a representative example of the American electorate.

To Jane's first point (the press etc.) I would underline that the press in fact is currently removing whatever aura of seriousness Trump had. The focus has been on disarray within the Republican Party, lack of endorsements, active disavowals, Trump's lack of organizational preparedness, his flip-flops, anti-Trump videos, his lack of support among donors. His refusal to release his tax returns will be thematized as “what is he hiding?” His business record will be scrutinized, and not all will be pretty. The images of violence from his rallies do not show him to be a serious candidate.

I have never argued that Trump couldn't win the Republican nomination, but already now it should be clear to both of you how little that nomination is worth.

MSN today said that recent polls in the three important swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida had Clinton and Trump neck and neck - Clinton ahead by just a point or two in two, Trump with a similarly narrow lead in the other. Clinton had a large lead among women polled, but Trump had a similarly large lead among male voters. Anyone who is not alarmed by that either has his head in the sand or is a Nazi sympathizer. By this point, these voters surely already know that he's a repulsive dishonest violence-loving greedbag. They will still vote for him.

If the media finally finds a pair and starts trying to take him down, his followers will just interpret that as "the elites" undercutting someone who says he will look out for the people's interests rather than the elites. Partly this is because right-wing media have trained their audience to mindlessly reject facts that don't fit their ideology (I almost wrote idiology - Freudian slip) and partly it is because mainstream media have spent decades condescending to the working class and ignoring their problems, and made themselves appear useless and untrustworthy. And now the chickens are coming home to roost.

I am hopeful that once the dust settles after the convention, the insular hatred of Hillary that prevails amongst Bernie fans (I am one, but getting irritated with him and especially with the more extreme of his disciples; he's not the Messiah) will diminish. Right now they are showing up in droves, and it is sometimes hard to distinguish the genuines from Republican trolls. They promise to stay home, write in, or vote for Jill Stein, and too few of them realize that voting locally and down ticket is vitally important. They're the ones that, if they are old enough, didn't bother to show up in 2014, 2010, and during Clinton's time.

While I suspect the most of the ones who say they'll vote for Trump instead of Clinton are trolls, even that is happening.

Bernie's stubborn one-note righteousness in a good cause is both his strength and his weakness.

No matter how much we all know that Republican operatives are good at their jobs, all too many people buy the merchandise.

One culprit is the internet. It is entirely possible to hang out with fans who encourage each other to dig up dirt on Hillary. There's just enough truth in their to make the distortion look legitimate. We all know the Clintons didn't murder Vince Foster, but many of the other memes are sophisticated enough to fit the bias.

In my rough amateur sampling, the number of these bots is larger than we all want to believe.

Yeah, it's a good thing there aren't any Hillbots.

Gary Johnson was on This Week, last Sunday, and mentioned a website iSideWith.com. I was worried the answer would always be Gary Johnson, but I answered the questions, and I supposedly side 96% with Sanders, 95% Stein, 88% Clinton and 53% Trump.

#14
Is it possible that Trump could win the election? Yes
Is it probable? No
Is it necessary to fight tooth and nail to prevent him from winning? Yes.

Regarding the polls you refer to, please read this:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/trump-leads-in-one-poll-of…

Note that "Trump is struggling to raise money," and to do that he's undermining his not beholden to special interests credibility by appealing to the Republican establishment and the party's donors.

Thanks for the link. It makes a couple of good, reassuring points. Among them is that the polled voters were whiter than the 2012 electorates in those states. However, in Denmark you may not be aware that in just the past couple of years a huge fraction of American states have passed and are passing burdensome voter-ID and other vote-suppression measures specifically to make it harder for poor and working-class (disproportionately minority) citizens to vote.

To keep minority turnout even equal to what it was in the past, there will need to be a serious volunteer effort to inform the public about the entire process of hoop-jumping required to get proof of citizenship and then state IDs. Poorer people will need to be provided with transportation to government offices, and financial support for the fees associated with the paperwork. Otherwise, it won't happen.

Of course there are Hillbots. I would probably almost exactly match Donal's answers. All this is pushing her towards more triangulation, since many Republicans are now promising to vote for her. I don't like her position on fracking, or her hawkishness, but I don't believe her opinions are Republican lite, nor do I accept the Republican narratives. For example, lately her attitude towards Bill's womanizing problem is misrepresented; she was genuinely deceived and her attitude reversed once she found him out. It's all very handy for spin.

On climate, I could wish she'd get the message from John Podesta's ABC Primetime special (which pretty much sunk without a trace) shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDqRpM72Odg

#18
I follow American (printed) media closely enough to be aware of voter suppression. My question: how many contested states would it apply to (I can think of Wisconsin and North Carolina), and would that be enough to change what looks like a favorable to Democrats electoral map?

#19
Please see:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/05/10/west-virginia-democratic-p…
The links may be of interest to you.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/primary-results-takeaways/index…

[Exit polls on both sides of the race showed an electorate hungry for a shake-up in Washington. Among Democrats in West Virginia, only 27% said they want a candidate who continues Obama's policies. In both states, more than 90% of Republican voters said they were "angry" or "dissatisfied" with the federal government. And more than 6 in 10 Republicans in Nebraska said they felt "betrayed" by GOP politicians.
It continues a trend seen in primaries all year — voters are hungry for change. Even if the parties don't agree on what change they seek, voters have responded strongly to candidates promising to remake Washington, which could pose a challenge to Clinton in a general election as she seeks to build on Obama's legacy.]

I see more and more people willing to take a chance on Trump, just to make a change.

#22

“But MSNBC's Steve Kornacki tweeted a more remarkable data point: Almost 4 in 10 Sanders voters plan to support Trump over Sanders.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/10/early-w-va-nu…

The voting pattern in West Virginia seems to be something of an outlier.

The Republican Party is on the verge of nominating has made an antivaccine loon named Donald Trump its presumptive nominee

oracknows — Tue, 03 May 2016 01:00:15 +0000

The Republican Party is on the verge of nominating has made an antivaccine loon named Donald Trump its presumptive nominee

[Note: Since this was written, Donald Trump won Indiana and Ted Cruz has suspended his campaign. This is why I changed the title of this post on Tuesday night. Meet your presumptive nominee, Republicans.]

I haven’t written anything about Donald Trump and vaccines in a while. When last I did write about him, I enumerated his long, sordid history of making ridiculously pseudoscientific antivaccine statements linking vaccines to autism dating back at least to 2007. That was when I first discovered him and referred to him as the latest celebrity antivaccinationist drinking the Kool Aid of vaccine pseudoscience. A few years later, I noted his risibly nonsensical claim that a “monster shot” causes autism. Truly, Donald Trump’s history of making idiotic antivaccine statements is long and sordid. Of course, Donald Trump’s history of making idiotic statements about a great many subjects is long and sordid, but antivaccine pseudoscience is what I know better than domestic or foreign policy.

Of course, I don’t recall having heard anything from Trump in a while on the vaccine-autism front, at least not since September last year. But his antivaccine lunacy is definitely part of his persona, so much so that when I started to type “Donald Trump vaccines autism” the first entry on the search was a Natural News link from 2012. In any case, I get the feeling that Trump’s antivaccine views were too crazy even for most of Trump’s supporters, hence his relative silence these last eight months. Sure, he can spout off about how he wants to build a wall on the Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it and numerous other proposals even more ludicrous than that, but he’s apparently toned down the antivaccine nonsense. Now, with the Indiana primary today, Trump is on the verge of all but wrapping up the Republican nomination if he wins there today. That’s why I decided to revisit the topic today, particularly given that the issue has reared its ugly head again.

Still, if Trump were actually to become President, he could do great damage to public health. Sure, school vaccine mandates are a state issue, but the guidelines upon which they are based are developed by the CDC. Over the last couple of decades, there have been various antivaccine legislators who have brought CDC officials before Congressional committees to demand “answers” about the link between vaccines and autism. Just imagine how much trouble a President Trump could cause, with his power to appoint a Secretary of HHS. I was reminded of this again by a video in a story that popped up in my feed yesterday featuring Elizabeth Emken.

The reason this is relevant is that Emken used to be the Executive Director of Autism Speaks, an “autism advocacy” group that used to be very much into antivaccine pseudoscience. Indeed, after much foot dragging, it wasn’t until 2015 that Autism Speaks finally grudgingly admitted that there is no good evidence linking vaccines to autism after a large study was published showing no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism and a meta-analysis involving over a million children similarly failed to find a link. It’s not for nothing that Autism Speaks has been quite appropriately accused of speaking up too late on vaccines.

That tension, and the weasel words that characterized it among many autism advocacy groups, fairly drips from Emken’s response to a question about Donald Trump’s beliefs about vaccines, complete with an example of a quote by Donald Trump about having heard of children getting sick and becoming autistic after vaccination. Here’s the video:

Donald Trump campaign spokeswoman + ex-@AutismSpeaks exec @ElizabethEmken on Trump linking vaccines to autism: https://t.co/EwZKC488Q8

— CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) May 2, 2016

And here’s what Emken said:

Donald Trump spokeswoman Elizabeth Emken, a former executive with the leading advocacy group Autism Speaks, was put in a difficult position Monday when asked about the frontrunner’s earlier statements linking vaccines and autism.

Asked on CNN about Trump suggesting a scientific link exists between childhood vaccines and autism during a fall 2015 presidential debate, Emken sidestepped a direct rebuke of Trump’s claims.

“The position of Autism Speaks has been for quite awhile that we need to find out what's happening,” she replied. “We know there's a genetic component and there's an environmental trigger and until we get to the bottom of what's happening, no one knows what causes autism. Anyone that tells you what does or what doesn't cause autism is simply not basing that on facts."

I see now why Emkin was chosen to be Trump’s spokeswoman. The above is basically one massive appeal to ignorance, the implication that, because we don’t know what causes autism that some environmental factor—cough, cough, vaccines—must be causing autism. Don’t believe me? Check out what she says next:

“We don’t know, we need to keep looking,” Emken continued, saying she hadn’t discussed the issue with the GOP frontrunner. “But the bottom line is, look, vaccines are the most successful health program in the history of the world, so I don’t believe that’s at all what he was saying.”

This is, of course, a bald-faced lie; that is, unless Emken is not . Let’s take a look at the sort of things Donald Trump has said about vaccines over the years just on Twitter. Truly, the burning stupid flowing from that one Twitter account is not unlike a flow of ash from Mount Vesuvius engulfing Pompeii. Here is but a sampling:

Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2012

If I were President I would push for proper vaccinations but would not allow one time massive shots that a small child cannot take - AUTISM.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 27, 2014

Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2014

No more massive injections. Tiny children are not horses—one vaccine at a time, over time.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2014

I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2014

"@OnlineOnTheAir: My friend's son, immediate #autism after #vaccines 10 yrs ago. So sad. Keep up good work Nay-sayers will understand soon."

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2014

I'm not against vaccinations for your children, I'm against them in 1 massive dose.Spread them out over a period of time & autism will drop!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2014

So many people who have children with autism have thanked me—amazing response. They know far better than fudged up reports!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2014

"@P01YN0NYM0U55: @jamandatrtl #vaccines #Shills insist #Autism starts in utero or genetic, but parents insist sudden onset after #vaccine"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 6, 2014

You get the idea. That’s some hard core antivaccine quackery. Trump’s meaning is very, very clear, Emken’s attempts to deny it notwithstanding. But, hey, if that’s not enough for you, let’s review a bit more of what Trump has said on the topic over the years. I apologize to long time readers, who have probably seen many of these quotes before in various posts I’ve written over the years, but, now, with Trump on the verge of becoming the Republican nominee and Ted Cruz’s chances to stop him are fading, I feel the need to revisit these. Not that Cruz is any less scary than Trump, but he isn’t, as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, antivaccine.

The first time I learned of Donald Trump's antivaccine proclivities was way back in 2007. What was he saying back then? This:

"When I was growing up, autism wasn't really a factor," Trump said. "And now all of a sudden, it's an epidemic. Everybody has their theory. My theory, and I study it because I have young children, my theory is the shots. We've giving these massive injections at one time, and I really think it does something to the children."

He made the comments following a press conference at his Mar-A-Lago estate announcing a fundraising and lobbying push by Autism Speaks to get the brain disorder covered under private insurance policies.

And:

"When a little baby that weighs 20 pounds and 30 pounds gets pumped with 10 and 20 shots at one time, with one injection that's a giant injection, I personally think that has something to do with it. Now there's a group that agrees with that and there's a group that doesn't agree with that."

Referring to his and his wife Melania's 22-month-old son Baron, Trump continued: "What we've done with Baron, we've taken him on a very slow process. He gets one shot at a time then we wait a few months and give him another shot, the old-fashioned way. But today they pump the children with so much at a very young age. We do it on a very, very conservative level."

So, yes, back in 2007, Trump was already parroting the antivaccine pseudoscience that at that time I had been deconstructing for seven years and blogging about for nearly three. It was a performance—and, let's face it, everything Trump does in public is performance art, if you can call it that—that was brilliantly parodied at Autism News Beat as The art of the schlemiel. In any case, I'm hard pressed to come up with any time when a baby gets 10 or 20 shots at a time, and that's even assuming that Trump was ignorantly conflating the number of diseases vaccinated against in combination vaccines with "shots."

Four years later, Trump was still at it. On Fox and Friends, he repeated once again that he had a "theory" about vaccines, and that was:

Business mogul Donald Trump chose the fifth annual World Autism Awareness Day to reveal that he “strongly” believes that autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are linked to exposure to vaccines.

In a Monday interview on Fox News, the reality star explained that a series of casual observations had led him to the conclusion that “monster” vaccinations cause autism.

“I’ve gotten to be pretty familiar with the subject,” Trump said. “You know, I have a theory — and it’s a theory that some people believe in — and that’s the vaccinations. We never had anything like this. This is now an epidemic. It’s way, way up over the past 10 years. It’s way up over the past two years. And, you know, when you take a little baby that weighs like 12 pounds into a doctor’s office and they pump them with many, many simultaneous vaccinations — I’m all for vaccinations, but I think when you add all of these vaccinations together and then two months later the baby is so different then lots of different things have happened. I really — I’ve known cases.”

The video can still be viewed here. Tellingly, when he was challenged on this by Gretchen Carlson, who noted that "the studies have said that there is no link" and that there hadn't been any mercury in vaccines for years, Trump would have none of it:

“It’s also very controversial to even say,” Trump acknowledged. “But I couldn’t care less. I’ve seen people where they have a perfectly healthy child, and they go for the vaccinations and a month later the child is no longer healthy.”

Don't trust those pointy-headed expert scientists. They've only been spending their entire lives studying the issue! Trump knows better then they do! Why? He's got anecdotes, man:

“It happened to somebody that worked for me recently,” he added. “I mean, they had this beautiful child, not a problem in the world, and all of the sudden they go in and they get this monster shot. You ever see the size of it? It’s like they’re pumping in — you know, it’s terrible, the amount. And they pump this in to this little body and then all of the sudden the child is different a month later. I strongly believe that’s it.”

All because of what Donald Trump calls a "monster shot." I note that this appears to be the example that was presented to Emken. It couldn’t be more clear what Trump meant, either: He attributed his employee’s son’s autism to vaccines, which he called a “monster shot.” As I pointed out at the time, even if the child were truly "different" after vaccination a month later, that would not be "all of a sudden." In any case, this is what those of us who pay attention to these things the "too many too soon" gambit. All spreading out vaccines accomplishes is to increase the period of time that a child is vulnerable to infectious diseases for no real benefit of reducing the chance of autism because there is no link between vaccines and autism.

If that’s not enough for you, in 2015, when interviewed by conservative talk radio show host Hugh Hewitt, the question of vaccines and autism came up. Here’s how the conversation went down:

HH: So you believe there’s a causal connection between vaccines and autism?

DT: Well, a lot of people do. I mean, there are many people that do. And I know at least two people, one of them who works in the building that I’m in right now, a beautiful woman, has a child. The child is 100% healthy, takes the child, who was I think around a year and a half or two years old to get the shot, gets this massive shot of fluid pumped into the baby’s body, and a few days later, catches a fever, and all of a sudden, is severely autistic. And many people, many people have had that experience, Hugh. And I will tell you, on Twitter and on Facebook, where you know, so many people, I feel, it’s sort of interesting, because I get so much response, people are praying for me that I at least say that. So I totally believe in the shot. I totally believe that you should be vaccinated. But let them spread it out over a little period of time. You can’t pump that, because have you ever seen the size of these inoculations? You can’t pump that much fluid into a little baby’s body. And I think it’s having an effect. And I know of at least two cases in my, but many people say the same thing happened to me where their child is totally healthy. They get pumped up with this huge pile of liquid, with many, many different vaccines, and their child turns out to be autistic after it. And all I’m saying is spread it out in smaller doses over a longer period of time.

HH: If a group of scientists came to you and said look, The Donald, that’s just, that’s not right, you’re giving out misinformation, would you change your mind if presented with facts on that?

DT: Well, I’ve seen babies that were totally healthy that weren’t healthy, and I’m not asking for anything. All I’m doing is saying spread it out over a period of time. I’m not saying don’t get inoculated, don’t get the shots, don’t get the vaccines. I’m saying spread it out over a period of time. It doesn’t hurt anybody other than probably the pharmaceutical companies, because they probably make more money putting it into one shot. Maybe it hurts the doctors. I don’t know. But I can say this. Everybody would get the vaccines. They just, they wouldn’t be pumping these massive amounts of liquid into a child.

Again, contrary to Emken’s twisting around the issue, Trump’s meaning couldn’t have been more plain. He believes vaccines cause autism. He doesn’t believe any of those elitist pointy-headed scientists who say otherwise, and nothing will make him change his mind. Nor does Trump sound as though he believes that vaccines are the “most successful health program in the history of the world,” as Emken put it.

I referred to the tension at the heart of Autism Speaks regarding vaccine-autism pseudoscience. The organization was founded by Bob and Suzanne Wright, who were always fence sitters on the question of whether he believed vaccines cause autism. His daughter Katie, however, was a true believer that vaccines cause autism, a belief that caused a great deal of friction with her parents and the organization. For years, the organization was riven with strife, as the Wrights tried to appease the vaccine/autism pseudoscience contingent, which provided much of the money and ultimately led to a schism in the group. As recently as last September, Bob Wright was using the same sort of weasel words that Emken used. It’s useful to note that the scientific advisor’s statement was:

Over the last two decades, extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccinations and autism. The results of this research are clear: Vaccines do not cause autism. We urge that all children be fully vaccinated.

To which Bob Wright added:

Over the last two decades extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccines and autism. Scientific research has not directly connected autism to vaccines. Vaccines are very important. Parents must make the decision whether to vaccinate their children. Efforts must be continually made to educate parents about vaccine safety. If parents decide not to vaccinate they must be aware of the consequences in their community and their local schools.

Note the weasel words: Scientific research has not “directly connected autism to vaccines” and “efforts must be continually made to educate parents about vaccine safety.” Not only that, but the science officer’s statement was expunged from the website. If you go to the Autism Speaks website, all you will find is Bob Wright’s statement.

As the primary season winds down, the Republican Party is on the verge of nominating an antiscience, antivaccine loon named Donald Trump. It looks as though he will have a spokeswoman who, through the use of weasel words like those of the co-founder of the organization she used to work for, will try use her skills to make Trump’s antivaccine nonsense sound more palatable. She will fail.

oracknows Mon, 05/02/2016 - 21:00

Categories

Policy

Seriously, the GOP is ending up with the village idiot as their candidate.
I could successfully run a potted plant against him and have the plant win. All I'd have to do is have the plant "ask a few questions" that Trump would fly off the handle over.
Congratulations, President Cactus!

Will anything good come out of this?

Perhaps. At last, the republicans are being dragged out of the closet and exposed for who they really are. And we all have heard about what a great disinfectant sunlight is....

Honestly, Plague is the least of The Donald's Horsemen. He'll probably plate-glass the continent before it's even saddled.

It doesn’t hurt anybody other than probably the pharmaceutical companies, because they probably make more money putting it into one shot.

And the Donald claims to be an expert businessman?
First rule of business: if your customers want extra, they pay extra.
The pharmaceutical companies may have some trouble modifying their existing lines of production, but making money out of the products won't be one of the issues. There is a demand for vaccines; even better, a government backed-up demand. You know, one of these you can overcharge 300% and no-one will call you on this.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Big Pharma will be making more money with individual shots; all this extra packaging and handling isn't free, and I don't see them paying for it out of the goodness of their heart.

He is also plenty wrong on the science, but that was to be expected.

@ Wzrd1

The Belgians managed without a government for a few months, recently.
Maybe installing a cactus at the White House and hoping for a less populist candidate to show up is the better option.

@Helianthus, I did consider running for Emperor, creating the office, then retiring with Imperial dollar pension and re-instituting the Constitution, but that was way, way, way too much work.
A potted plant would do nicely, it's not like the personality actually *has* a personality or intellect. ;)

If the Founding Fathers saw this circus, they'd be doing the "God Save The King" bit. :/

I suppose giving all shots seperatly would not be a good idea. Taking a child to the doctor far more often and everytime that needle. Doesn't sound like a great idea. I would say less sepetate injections would create less hassle.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for all the Repub candidates and their "love" of science.

But honestly, all the heinous things he's said, the fact that he's antivax is like the *least* offensive thing I hate about him, and I've stopped speaking to relatives and broken off friendships with people with were antivax. He's just THE WORST.

@Renate,
Yes more visits to doctor's offices where there are likely a higher incidence of sick people than elsewhere.

And, if you don't combine the shots, wouldn't there be more adjuvant volume in the final tally? I do not manufacture vaccines so this is only speculation.

One of the strangest things is that my American relatives quiz me about the fact that Australia has had 5 Prime Ministers in 6 years (in truth it is 5 in 9 years) as if this is some sort of problem. If Trump is elected, you will be saddled with him for 4 years with no turning back.

Somehow, I am looking at our system and thinking it has some serious upside.

And the Donald claims to be an expert businessman?

He's expert at running companies into the ground. At least four of his businesses have gone through bankruptcy. He knows about as much concerning how to run a successful company as he does of the medical science of vaccination, i.e., little or nothing.

Now, now, I'm sure Mr. Trump is actually the sane, rational, grounded, loves all people and is the not at all bigoted in any way, just like all his supporters on TV say he is.

He's just surrounded by awful people who believe crazy conspiracies and use terrible words about everyone and poor thing lacks a filter and must repeat all these crazy things the people around him say at least twice whenever they pop into his head. He tries to telegraph to us what is going on everytime he says, "I'm not saying this evil thing but I hear people saying this evil thing".

It's not his fault he is surrounded by the worst people on the planet who can't help but say these things to him and certainly we can trust that he won't ever act on any of them when he is elected as he surely will only do what is best for the least among us no matter what!

/sarcasm

Anyone that tells you what does or what doesn’t cause autism is simply not basing that on facts.”

And this is only half true. We may not know what does cause autism, but there are countless things that we can clearly say do not.

Sandals, for example, have no relationship to autism and so we can absolutely say they do not.

Or the MMR vaccine. Or any vaccine, for that matter....

Either I'm very confused, or Autism Speaks has changed the page at that link recently.

I'm just curious what Trump means by "massive" amounts of fluid? And how he thinks separating the vaccines into individual vaccines spaced out over a greater period of time will reduce these "massive" amounts. I mean, let's look at DTaP-HepB-IPV (Pediarix) or DTaP-IPV/Hib (Pentacel). Each of these vaccines protect infants against 5 diseases. Yet each is only 0.5mL per dose. Now, let's look at ActHIB, which only protects against Hib. It is also 0.5mL per dose.

So Trump is actually advocating that rather than on 0.5mL shot to protect against 5 diseases, we should do five separate 0.5mL shots to protect against the same five diseases, for a total of 2.5mL for each round of boosters.

And I've seen other anti-vaccine activists making similar bone-headed comments regarding the number of doses on the schedule.

Orac reminds us of what can happen to the CDC (and FDA) should Trump be elected. When politics interfere with science bad things happen, and we only need look at the Nixon era for a good example. Nixon played politics with the FDA and essentially tanked the agency and its ability to keep the American people safe. Protecting America's Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation is a great book on the FDA's history, it's ups, downs, successes and failures. Very even-handed treatment that isn't afraid to criticize the agency when it screwed up or to praise it when it did well.

I have to agree with those who've pointed out that antivaccine sentiments are not the worst things about Trump. It's just one piece of the massive pile of horribleness that he represents. Part of me wonders whether the Republican party will even survive this.

I really don't like any of the candidates this year. Of Trump, I'll say he's the guy that makes me want Clinton. And I don't want Clinton. But I will happily vote for her if it keeps Trump out of the White House. I don't like her at all, but she's far less likely to destroy the nation.

Helianthus rightly points out that Trump is exposing how lousy a businessman he is by parroting the line that vaccine manufacturers only keep the combined shots out of a desire for profit. I mean, it is actually true, but not the way the antivaxxers think. The *vast majority* of patients would greatly prefer getting more vaccine for less needle poking. Antivaxxers hate being reminded that they are actually a very loud and obnoxious minority, and strive mightily to pretend they are not. But stuff like this reveals out.

That said....

And the Donald claims to be an expert businessman?

I almost shot Dr Pepper out my nose at that. :-D He does claim to be an expert businessman, but if he runs the country the way he runs his businesses, we're in serious trouble. He's left a trail of ruination behind him. He's very good at taking other people's money, magicking it into being his own money, and then leaving them holding all the bills. Take his current campaign, for instance. He claims he's paying for the whole thing from his personal fortune, but is he? He's accepting donations all over the place, but putting them into a corporation that he owns instead of into his campaign. The fact that the corporation then writes him a check is supposed to be a happy coincidence.

The Donald never pays for anything if he can get someone else to pay for it first. He's a fraud in every sense. Even his tan is fake.

@ Todd W.

I’m just curious what Trump means by “massive” amounts of fluid?

He means HOOOGE amounts of fluid. And not classy at all.

Frankly, he is just snatching buzzwords and then run away with them.

@ Eric Lund

At least four of his businesses have gone through bankruptcy.

Including one casino, IIRC. I have some trouble imagining that a casino is a difficult business to keep afloat - compared to a restaurant or a hotel - but I could be wrong.

There was also the Trump steak, the Trump boardgame...
I detect a franchise, but also a pattern.

Helianthus -- Don't forget Trump University, which was pretty much entirely fraudulent.

I really hope Hillary finds a clever sociopath to use as a sparring partner in debate practice. She needs to figure out how to deflect his insults and turn them on him, jiu-jitsu style.

I have some trouble imagining that a casino is a difficult business to keep afloat.

They aren't. I read once that a casino that runs at a loss is "that rarest of rare birds" (actual phrase used). If you can't run a casino to turn a profit, you're pretty incompetent.

Part of me wonders whether the Republican party will even survive this.

I've never really been into politics, but I have to say, I've been watching the accelerating implosion of the Republican party with a sort of horrified fascination. I was hoping Obama's reelection would be to conservatives what the fall of Communism was to liberals - a wake-up call that they'd drifted too far from center and reality was tugging the other way. I say "hoping" because, even though I'm not terribly sympathetic to the Republican party, I worry that America is going to become a de facto one party state.

According to Wiki, that Atlantic City Casino has been in bankruptcy four times.
Lest anyone misunderstand, this is not bad management by every definition. Chapter 11 is a business tactic. Overspend, then screw your creditors. You can get away with it if you're large enough to attract small vendors who aren't in a position to negotiate terms. Note how he talks about China and Mexico. This works best if you're expanding because then you get to keep all the stuff you bought, whereas if you're running a viable business the food rots and the employees move on. Eventually you get to the point where you're getting government support and have the hugest building in the town so no one can compete with you, and theoretically you might actually make some money.
For a developer like Trump, there's no downside to this business model. He pays himself first and won't lose anything in the bankruptcies. He honestly thinks taking advantage of civic resources and alienating all his possible supporters is smart business.

I still remember an episode of American Chopper, when thy build a chopper for Donald Trump. Of course it had to be gold-colored and it said; "He, look at me, I'm filthy rich".

I really hope Hillary finds a clever sociopath to use as a sparring partner in debate practice. She needs to figure out how to deflect his insults and turn them on him, jiu-jitsu style.

Oh she already has, e.g. "The woman card". I understand that her team has some delicious oppo-research on the Donald and they can't believe his repub opponents haven't found the same. The republican party deserves him; they created the void that allowed his ascendancy after all.

I think this pictures says it all.
http://tomoji-ized.deviantart.com/art/Trump-Bike-American-Chopper-29745…

There was a Facebook meme doing the rounds this side of the Pond. It said, and I quote;
"America, you might call this an election, but the rest of the World is viewing it as your I.Q. Test.
And it's not looking good".

One of the reasons I lurk here is to remind me that the above quote isn't necessarily true.

@ Julian Frost / Christine Rose

If you can’t run a casino to turn a profit, you’re pretty incompetent.

Chapter 11 is a business tactic. Overspend, then screw your creditors.

Ah. I was leaning on the 1st explanation, but that didn't explain how DT was still afloat.
Christine's explanation is making sense with the facts, but now I am really frightened by DT.

He really is a caricature of a capitalist businessman. I also understand why he is the Deranged Ranger's hero. A lot of small-scale quacks must have wet dreams of being like him.

Now I'll be busy thinking of ways DT can screw up the US science/health system to scrounge money out of it. And, from my personal point-of-view as an US outsider , if he can do the same to foreign/international institutions.

The sad thing is, I have a strong suspicion he's going to be our next President. It won't take much - an economic downturn, a terrorist attack, things going south in Europe with the EU, Hillary stumbling into yet another scandal - to swing momentum in his direction

I have some trouble imagining that a casino is a difficult business to keep afloat – compared to a restaurant or a hotel

IIRC the casino in question had a hotel attached, so while the casino part of it was likely profitable, it wasn't profitable enough to keep the hotel afloat. That would be particularly true if the business were loaded up with unsustainable debt. Lots of businesses have operated this way over the last 35 years. It's quite profitable for the people in charge. For other investors and (as Christine Rose notes above) vendors, not so much.

These days I tend to believe Republican politicians who say they would run government like a business. They do. What they don't say is that they would run the government like Mr. Trump's businesses, or Enron. Then they act surprised when their methods for running companies into the ground are also effective at running governments into the ground. (I'm looking at you, George W. Bush, and you, Bobby Jindal, and you, Sam Brownback, and several other Republican politicians.)

I don't know, maybe it's just me but doesn't that photo make him look like a perturbed member of the order *Rodentia* ?
Perhaps a golden capped marmot .

Well you can't deny that he's right in saying that a tiny child is not a horse. Unless it's a tiny horse child. I just can't imagine why anyone would even consider voting for Trump. Even if you believe he speaks for the ordinary person - he doesn't and he isn't.

I'm also very fed up with hearing the argument that no-one knew anyone with autism growing up and no-one knew anyone who died of measles either. The extent of your personal knowledge does not reflect reality.

I certainly knew people diagnosed with autism growing up (neighbor) and people who should have been diagnosed with autism (brother!) and people who suffered terribly and permanently from polio (mother, grandfather) and mumps (me) and measles (me, again). I can't imagine anyone who lived through those horrors inflicting this on their children. Do all these people have to see a child passing out from whooping cough spasms or rushed to the ER with encephalitis and coming home talking funny before they get the picture? Does it have to be their own kids? Does the kid actually have to be the rare case that actually dies?

Donald Trump is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous presidential candidate for a major party in my lifetime. Yet he's probably at worst a slight underdog in a race against Hillary Clinton - a former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State - to be the next president of the United States.

And he is in this position precisely because he says things like "vaccines are a cause of autism" and "Mexico brings us their rapists and murderers" and "everyone should have nukes". The U.S. has become a country of low-information voters that uncritically believe everything they read on the internet, so the idea that someone like Trump has a legitimate chance to be president isn't shocking to me at all.

I'm not sure this is a viable solution to the problem of Trump, but Barnaby Joyce, the deputy prime minister of Australia says that the way to deal with a "bottom-dwelling, mudsucking" pest is to unleash herpes on it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-36189409

(Joyce was actually referring to invasive carp, but the principle is the same).

This election is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I laughed with everyone else when drumph entered the race, but he's going to win on the self hating minorities and the fact his colossal errors have been public instead of Clintons. Drumph bankrupted shit, dealt with it publicly (screaming oppression even), she has a history of being the only one to kill a run before it started. Reps are going to run trump, then instead of a hanging chad they'll run a current fbi investigation. Enjoy the new hitler, because in 8 months you're going to have an emperor of the USA.

and the fact his colossal errors have been public instead of Clintons.

Oh please. The Republicans have been going after the Clintons for almost 30 years. There's nothing left, and his whiny little remarks are going to push everyone into her arms. His "woman card" alone has netted her 2.6 mill in donations since he said it.

Doesn't mean we can sleep easy, because when everyone thinks it's a slam dunk, there's low turnout and that's how Repubs win. But you can't win without the women and minority votes and he absolutely doesn't have those.

But I Play One on T.V.

No, we won't have an emperor. Whatever Trump actually thinks the Presidency entails, it's not a dictatorial post. The Republican Party right now seems unsure what to do -- support Trump as part of the all-encompassing desire to beat the Democrats, or oppose them since he's terrible? So I have a suspicion he will have difficulty working with Congress. This has been the millstone around the Obama administration, and I think it will be around his as well. The Dems of course will not want to cooperate with him, and I rather suspect a fair number of Republicans also won't. We could be in for the most useless Presidency in recent memory.

Not to worry. He will put the best minds from the faculty of Trump University in charge or public health. I'm sure there isn't a problem they can't solve.

The fact that Trump is self-financing (not entirely, though) may be one of the most dangerous things about his candidacy. Big donors expect favorable results and if an elected official fails then they don't get them. I suspect, but I don't know for sure, that big money behind a candidate might act as a brake on some of the more stupid or dangerous ideas and actions that the recipient might indulge in.

Under "it's worse than that, Jim," I want to remind people that the Director of the CDC, the one that actually decides on the schedule (ACIP can only make recommendations) is also appointed by the president.

I have not been able to find any restrictions on the president's power to remove the CDC director, either.

Another thing to consider.

Calli Arcale: I don’t like her at all, but she’s far less likely to destroy the nation.

Ditto. And, unlike most of the Republicans, she's willing to accept scientific theories. I mean, seriously, we have two 'Science' commitees in Congress, and not one of the people on those commitees is aware that the Earth isn't flat or that the earth goes around the sun. And on a purely selfish level, I rather like voting, being able to control my own reproduction and knowing that sexual assualt is in, theory, illegal and will, again in theory, be prosecuted, rather than being tolerated. If a Republican wins, say goodbye to voting, the pill and any rights at all.
. I'd prefer Sanders, but.. we'll make do with what we have.

Calli Arcale:No, we won’t have an emperor. Whatever Trump actually thinks the Presidency entails, it’s not a dictatorial post.

Yet. Most members of the armed forces vote Republican. I suspect they'd be ok with a coup. The only good thing about Trump is that it shows you who people really are. I've unfriended two people on Facebook- one was a Trump supporter. I'm kinda disgusted with him, really, he seemed like a decent guy in high school, but a dude who'll happily support a guy who's cool with rape and incest is not someone I need in my life.

You know what they say about conspiracy theories: "Bet ya' can't eat just one."

Trump has a whole Roman feast of CTs. Today on Daily Kos (Democratic activist site), an article about Trump's insinuations that Cruz's crazy father had something to do with Lee Harvey Oswald and the Kennedy assassination.

Really. For real seriously. Read this:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/3/1522574/-Trump-says-Ted-Cruz-f…

The guy is out of his mind.

Now think of him with the nuclear button, getting in a nasty with Putin.

And yet, Cruz really is worse: God's agent of destiny.

Whatever policy differences I might have with HRC, are utterly insignificant compared to the true existential dangers that Trump and Cruz each represent. The choice is ridiculously clear. And we'd better make sure everyone we know gets in and votes this year: the stakes are too high to sit this one out.

I saw that on the cover the the National Enquirer at the check out line; I heard they endorsed Trump.

He only repeats stuff from the finest of news sources y'know.

No, we won’t have an emperor. Whatever Trump actually thinks the Presidency entails, it’s not a dictatorial post.

I've been wondering about this myself, seeing's how Trump has no political experience whatsoever and his only platform seems to be unbridled narcissism. Beyond redecorating the Oval Office in that distinctive "neo-Gilded Age robber baron" style, what is he going to do? Does he think he can just hire someone to do all of the actual work while he jacks off to video clips of himself set to "Hail to the Chief?" And if that does happen, who's really going to be running our country?

@Sarah A

And if that does happen, who’s really going to be running our country?

Listen. Trump's got people. He's got the best people. You wouldn't believe the great people he has. It's like words. Which he has, too.

And if that does happen, who’s really going to be running our country?

Didn't that already happen with Cheney? It is paramount that people get out, vote and don't just think a candidate has it locked up. Tho' I think it's a bit hysterical to imagine Trump as the fearless leader of 'Murka. To use his own words, "do the maths" and add: there aren't enough angry, white male mouth-breathers out there to get him into office.

Most members of the armed forces vote Republican. I suspect they’d be ok with a coup.

I don't doubt that there are rabid, loudmouthed Republicans among the armed forces, particularly among the officer corps, and particularly in the Air Force (the Air Force Academy is in Colorado Springs, home of the politically active religious right). But if you mean the armed forces as a whole, this claim calls for a [citation needed]. Because I see plenty of military types (active duty and retired) who tend to vote for Democrats. They tend to be quieter about it, only bringing up their service in contexts where it's relevant. There is also the UCMJ, which prohibits political activity in uniform. Of the loudmouths, I suspect that many (even most) of the right-wingers who claim a military background have no military experience other than the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and the 82nd Chairborne Division.

The Constitution, to which military officers swear loyalty, explicitly subordinates the military to the civilian President. There are lots of good reasons for that. Lots of countries do not have such a tradition, and those countries have almost without exception fared badly in terms of economic and political stability than similar countries that do have such a tradition: compare Pakistan and India, for instance. For a military coup to happen in the US, multiple high-ranking officers would have to violate their oaths, and the military takes that sort of thing seriously.

I’ve been wondering about this myself, seeing’s how Trump has no political experience whatsoever and his only platform seems to be unbridled narcissism. Beyond redecorating the Oval Office in that distinctive “neo-Gilded Age robber baron” style, what is he going to do? Does he think he can just hire someone to do all of the actual work while he jacks off to video clips of himself set to “Hail to the Chief?” And if that does happen, who’s really going to be running our country?

If—heaven forbid—Trump is actually elected, I predict he'll be at most a one-term President. The reason isn't that he couldn't potentially be re-elected (sad to say, his getting elected once would show that he could potentially be elected again) but rather that he almost certainly won't like the actual very hard work of trying to get anything done as President and would likely decline to run again; that is, if he doesn't resign before his term is over in frustration. He'll very rapidly find out that most major change in the US requires legislation, and no one in Congress is going to want to work with him.

That's why I'd look very carefully at whomever he picks as his VP.

I suspect, but I don’t know for sure, that big money behind a candidate might act as a brake on some of the more stupid or dangerous ideas and actions that the recipient might indulge in.

I wouldn't trust the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson to be effective as a brake on stupid or dangerous ideas. These guys know how to run a business--on that point, they have an advantage over Trump--but there is no evidence that they know how to run a government.

Although apparently Charles Koch actually does have standards. He's made some comments suggesting that he'd rather see Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump in the White House. It's a rational view for someone in his position to take. His profits under Clinton might not be as high as they would be under a generic Republican, but she's predictable, so there would be profits. Trump has a huge (not to mention classy) potential downside, because it's harder to predict what he would do.

I've been reading this thread. I would like to agree that Trump is unlikely to win, but I'm not convinced.
In 2004, Bush Junior was up for reelection. This was after clear evidence had started to emerge that the Bush Administration had not merely been wrong but had actively lied about Iraq having WMDs and links to al-Qaeda. Despite this, Bush won by an increased margin.
While I would like to believe that Trump will lose, I'm not convinced he will.

Why I'm not voting:

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

Trump also peddled The Trump Network, a naturopthic weight-loss and "customized" multi-vitamin scheme back around 2007.
True to his nature as a grifter, it was a multi-level marketing scam.
Britt Hermes' Naturopathic Diaries had a lovely takedown of The Trump Network last year: Donald Trump’s Naturopathic Weight Loss Pyramid Scheme

Though President Trump (a shudder went down my spine when writing that) would completely obliterate the Rethuglican party, he would heartily continue the Republican war on science started by Bush the greater and brought to a pinnacle by Bush the lesser.

Also, it is easy to have a casino go bankrupt. Put it near other casinos and have one that sucks.

If—heaven forbid—Trump is actually elected, I predict he’ll be at most a one-term President.

I suspect that if he gets elected the Wall will like, "Read my lips, no new taxes." Or if not the wall any of his other gimmicks that fires up the crowd, yet "it will be easy" is his only answer to "How?".

That is if he sticks around for 4 years. Unfortunately I don't think hiding in Trump Towers, refusing to talk to anyone in the Government, while calling into whatever media will still take the call about how the system is rigged with all those pesky checks and balances, is enough to get him impeached. We may be stuck with him for the duration.

I will not ever vote for Donald Trump.

I would also neither cast a vote for Ted Cruz.

And I will not vote for Hillary Clinton either.

Well...looks like I have no choice but to sit this election out again, or either do a write-in for Daffy Duck, would be about as useful as writing in any other viable candidate. I do not understand why the US election process consistently produces such unappealing candidates. I will only ever vote for someone who I actually want to vote for, & unfortunately, it appears that this is just yet again not my election year, third in a row.

Honestly, does it really profit anyone to point out yet more ways that Trump is a fucking disaster waiting to happen? If his supporters aren't fazed by his patently unconstitutional ideas about deporting Muslims, or his blatant racism directed at Mexicans, or his ridiculously unworkable wall, or his rampant sexism, or his support for committing war crimes, or his ludicrous ideas about trade, or his terrible grasp of foreign relations.... I doubt his anti-vax idiocies are going to sway them.

Wading through the muck that is the world of anti-vaxers, I'm used to feeling depressed about humanity, but at least in their case I can feel cheery knowing they are a much-mocked lunatic fringe. Now, though, we're being forced to face up to the fact that huge swaths of Americans are evidently pining for the "good old days" when men were men, women knew their place, and any dark-complected individual had better watch his step if he knows what is good for him. Talk about depressing.

he almost certainly won’t like the actual very hard work of trying to get anything done as President

To paraphrase Lois McMaster Bujold:
A lot of people dream of getting the Emperor's throne, but no-one wants the Emperor's desk.

Well…looks like I have no choice but to sit this election out again, or either do a write-in for Daffy Duck, would be about as useful as writing in any other viable candidate.

The majority of states that allow presidential write-in candidates require preregistration by the candidate in any event.

Sitting out this election is voting for Trump. There is exactly no excuse for the politics of snit. When the fertilizer hits the ventilator, ye who sit on thy thumbs will get no help whatsoever from the rest of us.

Trump will choose a VP whose task is to be so horrid that they will deter any thought of impeachment.

Oh, and one more thing. Three Supreme Court vacancies. The current one, and two likely additional ones. Whoever fills those seats will likely serve for twenty years. So it doesn't matter is Trump is a one-term wonder: his Supreme Court picks will be "the gift that keeps on giving." And don't forget, "gift" is German for "poison."

Yet. Most members of the armed forces vote Republican. I suspect they’d be ok with a coup.

No. They wouldn't.

"Trump will choose a VP whose task is to be so horrid that they will deter any thought of impeachment."

Jenny McCarthy. It fits his anti-vax agenda and the present gender-of-choice for running 'mates'.

I'm glad I can observe US politics from a distance.

Pompeii was engulfed by ash not lava. While it doesn't invalidate the entire article it does hurt your credibility as a science blogger.

I suspect they'd be okay with a coup.

Fortunately what you suspect and reality are poles apart.

Jenny McCarthy

I have a hard time envisioning a VP candidate worse than Sarah Palin, but la McCarthy, if chosen, just might do it.

I tend to think that Trump would go for someone with a bit more political experience. But there are plenty of potential VP candidates who would be almost as bad on the science as McCarthy, and simultaneously more coherent than Palin. Bill Posey would be just one such candidate. I'll refrain from mentioning others, because I don't want to give The Donald any ideas.

I do not understand why the US election process consistently produces such unappealing candidates.

I've been thinking about this too - but if you "officially" join a party, you get to help choose their candidate, right? I have a visceral negative reaction to the very thought of "picking a side," but at this point I think it's time for those of us who've heretofore avoided politics like the fetid swamp it is to let go of the idea that we can be independent and above it all. It's becoming increasingly obvious (to me, that is - I imagine it's been obvious to everyone who's been paying attention for some time) that our current system is so heavily stacked in favor of the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else that there is, realistically speaking, no neutral ground - even to do nothing is to de facto support the status quo.

Damn - now that I've consciously realized that I'm obligated to actually do something about it, aren't I? Bloody, bloody damn.

And I will not vote for Hillary Clinton either.

Well…looks like I have no choice but to sit this election out again, or either do a write-in for Daffy Duck, would be about as useful as writing in any other viable candidate.

OR, you could be a grown-up, realize sometimes the best decision has to be made out of not-your-favorite choices, and realize there are VERY REAL DANGERS to women, LGBTQ, and minorities if another Repub gets in, let alone this one. We have to worry about the Supreme Court and I am absolutely terrified.

You vote with your heart during the primary. You vote with your brain in the general, and the choice is clear if you care about ANYTHING aside from white, cis, straight, Christian men. Think about the other people dying on that hill with you if either Trump or Cruz or any other Republican gets in. Also, down races. You want a "revolution?" Gotta stack Congress and the Senate. Do not stay at home.

EmJay@51: And it turns out that Ted Cruz's dad sold Mannatech (which Ben Carson also shilled for, as described by our gracious host a few months ago).

Just ugh. What ever happened to Bob Dole?

It makes me sad when any citizen says they're going to sit out an election - for whatever reason. You have only two rights that are unique to you as a US citizen: jury duty and voting. Enjoy the heck out of 'em, I say!

(Quoth the immigrant who paid through the nose to become a US citizen and fills out every ballot that comes her way. Haven't been called for a jury yet, though...)

I have a visceral negative reaction to the very thought of “picking a side,” but at this point I think it’s time for those of us who’ve heretofore avoided politics like the fetid swamp it is to let go of the idea that we can be independent and above it all.

Fortunately I live in a state where as an unaffiliated voter I can (with some restrictions) pick which primary to vote in.

So far it has always been about trying to keep one bozo or another out of the general election.

I even held my nose and voted for a State official I cannot wait to vote out in November because all the other people running against them was out and proud about their complete and totally insane view of the world.

At least when they put referendums and bond issues at the primary I can vote on those if for some reason I cannot find anyone to vote for or against in either party. I do remember when my Mom was livid because they put some issue or another on the primary ballot but you had to declare a party to vote and it was something she cared about voting for or against.

Jezebel is covering this same thing right now, and they're pretty solidly in the pro-vaccine camp. But I've run into quite a loon in the comments. He goes by the excellent moniker "idonthaveanyideawhatimtalkingabout", who has gone on to prove that eloquently with some JAQ-style concerns about vaccines creating superbugs combined with truly astonishing leaps of logic. At one point, he said that the only thing guaranteed to halt viral replication was death of the host, so I asked him if he disagreed that vaccination was more ethical than mass euthanasia.

His answer was that we don't have enough information to answer that. So I think I've officially found someone more horrible than the "better dead than autistic" people.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/new-trump-spokesperson-who-used-to-work-for-…

Jenny McCarthy

I have a hard time envisioning a VP candidate worse than Sarah Palin, but la McCarthy, if chosen, just might do it.

Is Trump satisfied in bed?

</ScratchHead>

we don’t have enough information to answer [that vaccination was more ethical than mass euthanasia]

Even if vaccines were responsible for every single illness that occurs, including cancer, they would still be better than mass euthanasia. What is wrong with antivaxxers?

One small consolation for those of us on this side of the pond is that Trump makes our politics look almost sane. I mean, we only have an Islamophobe rich twat up against a decent lawyer who's tainted by his party's rampant antisemitism to worry about in our election in London on Thursday, and the minor matter of whether the xenophobic loons might muster enough votes to take us out of Europe in June to worry about. I've been saying for ages that I should dust off my Canadian passport (I'm dual national) but now that's starting to look like a seriously good option.

A question: if Trump does look as if he's got enough delegates to secure the GOP nomination, is there any wheeze that can be pulled at the convention to prevent him becoming the candidate?

I haven't heard any speculation or rules that explain how they can oust him if he has 50% + 1 delegates who are required to vote for him on the first ballot.

At that point I think the only option is to convince him to step aside. I'm unclear that if he did something so bizarre they voted, walked out, and started a new party in that moment if they can put someone on the ballot at that point (I just don't know all the deadlines for alternative candidates).

Eric Lund: I salute you for coming up with 101st Chairborne Division. That said, I would like to point out that first of all, the Air Force has all the bombs. Secondly, the Constituition hasn't applied for over a decade now. Everyone just acts like it's still in force.
Camthe cat: You're making Susan B Anthony cry. Women need to vote constantly, unless they're into submission, shrouds and never talking.

PGP, if the Chair Force has all of the bombs, what are hellfire missiles? What are artillery rounds? What's an AT-4?
MLRS?
USAF has the bigger bombs, but each branch has their own supply, with the US Navy having quite a few bombs on their carriers.

As for the Constitution being in abeyance, odd, we're still holding elections, we've not had anyone declare themself emperor, we're not summarily executing people for political reasons, etc. I'd say that we're pretending very, very well!

I’m unclear that if he did something so bizarre they voted, walked out, and started a new party in that moment if they can put someone on the ballot at that point

The convention is July 18–21; the associated deadlines make this seem impractical.

Regarding the possibility of a coup which PoliticalGuineaPig raised, in every presidential election since I've been paying attention there have been dark mutterings that the President will cancel the election and declare himself President for Life. Of course, they never have.

But I've thought about the practicalities of this. Suppose a President actually did this. He has no legal authority to do so, which would make it an attempted coup. Who would obey this order? The governorships are split between the parties, and governors of the opposite persuasion certainly, but more likely all governors, would simply refuse to cancel elections.

Even if we pretend that everyone in the President's party would support him, the electorate is split about evenly among Democrats, Republicans, and independents. That means two-thirds of the population will not recognize the authority of the leader of the coup and would have to be compelled to obey by force of arms.

Even if we pretend that the armed services would support the leader of the coup, what's he going to do? Send tanks in to occupy American cities? Nuke them? Do you really think the military would go that far? They're volunteers. They volunteered to serve this country. Very few are going to launch military operations against Americans.

As for PoliticalGuineaPig's fantasies that women would lose the vote, the pill, and all rights, how does she imagine that working?

The States run the elections, and the U.S. Constitution sets the minimum standard, not the maximum. Even before the Constitution was amended to grant women universal suffrage, they already had it in some Western States. If the President decreed that women no longer had the right to vote, the States would thumb their collective noses at him. Again, what could he do about it but try to launch a military attack?

Women will be denied the Pill? Or abortion? Or all rights whatsoever? Again, how can the President, even with the aid of the armed forces, enforce such a thing? Order the FDA to crack down on Big Pharma to stop production? Oh sure, that will work. And even if it did, the Pill is as easy to smuggle across the borders as all the other drugs that are already smuggled. And what would stop governors from declaring their States "Sanctuary States" where presidential decrees would be ignored?

How does the President stop State prosecutions of rapists? Short of pardoning them all, he can't. And if he did pardon them all, would the States really let them go? And if the States ignored such pardons, what again could the President do short of military attack?

Unless every single governor is willing to turn on a dime against the women of their States if a Republican is elected, PoliticalGuineaPig's scenario is impossible.

You know, let's pretend for a moment that every single governor really is willing to turn on a dime against the women of their States, as is necessary for PoliticalGuineaPig's fantasy. What is stopping them now? What stopped them from 2000-2008? Everything I've said above also applies right now. If all the governors suddenly decided to deprive women of the right to vote, or announced that rape is now legal, how could the President stop them? They don't do it now because it's wrong, and they won't do it if Trump is elected (not that I want him to be) because it would still be wrong.

LW, the POTUS can't pardon state felons, only federal felons. So, any attempted pardon would be null and void.

As for PGP's military nonsense, it was just that - nonsense. We swore an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution, not usurp it. Any presidential order that was unconstitutional would get ignored. Repeated orders might result in the POTUS being trussed up and delivered to Congress for impeachment.
He also can't unilaterally order a nuclear strike, as a cabinet official, in the presidential lineage, would have to also approve of the use of nuclear weapons. It's called the two man rule and that rule is ubiquitous in the nuclear program. No single person may have dealings with things nuclear alone, another must be present. That ranges from being in physical proximity to a warhead through the launching chain and up to the POTUS himself.

As for denying women rights, women still do vote, if they were suddenly denied the vote, they'd be in court and reacquire their rights back swiftly. At approximately half of our population, that'd be a hell of a lot of pissed off citizens!

There are a lot of Republicans who loathe Trump.

Obamacare. That's gone. Trumpcare is going to be amazing! No more Kenya Obama horse monster shots. I gave my son separate shots, and he's perfect. Look at how awesome, that boy! It's a no brainer. Three Trump Shots. No measles, No autism. That's how me make America great again, folks. We'll make those shots here, in America. Nobody can create jobs like me. I'm going to win because Trump is a winner. The Trump movement is sick of losing. You're telling all these loser politicians where to go. America will be great again.
____
Wow! Lyin' doctors going wacko today. Can't face reality. Making all sorts of crazy charges. Not very 'scientific'. Sad!

LW has a point. I remember charges that if the Catholic JFK were elected, we would all be governed by the Vatican. Abortion rights has been settled law for over 40 years. Most Americans don't really care about changing that. Whatever our flaws, we are a pretty law-abiding country.

@Wzrd1, of course the military wouldn't cooperate. Neither would large parts of the Federal government, nor the State governments, nor the Courts. That's my point, really. The President has no power to enforce any of the unconstitutional decrees in Politicalguineapig's fantasies.

PGP:

That said, I would like to point out that first of all, the Air Force has all the bombs.

If you mean the nukes, the Ohio class would like to have a word with you.

Secondly, the Constituition hasn’t applied for over a decade now.

It most certainly has. But your cynicism is noted.

Holy hell. Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee, as Ted Cruz has dropped out of the race.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/politics/ted-cruz.html

Abortion rights has been settled law for over 40 years.

And female suffrage has been the law for ninety-six years. It's not going away.

I think Politicalguineapig imagines the relationship between the United States Government and America as akin to the relationship between Rome and its conquered barbarian tribes: a powerful civilized state barely keeping the vicious barbarians in check, so if anything happens to loosen its grip, or if one of the barbarians actually gets control, then the vicious barbarians will immediately revert to their preferred activities of slaughtering or enslaving anyone who doesn't look like them.

LW, Wzrd:
May I remind you two that Mississipi and North Carolina recently passed a state-wide dress code, and that services there are now a matter of whim? If a cashier, a diner owner or even a food bank administrator doesn't like your looks, out you go. Frankly, I put nothing past the Republicans, especially the governors. Just because it's wrong doesn't mean the politicians won't do it.

Calli Arcale: "Jezebel is covering this same thing right now, and they’re pretty solidly in the pro-vaccine camp."

She is the same journalist who went on the Conspira Sea Cruise. Her most excellent article is here:
http://jezebel.com/sail-far-away-at-sea-with-americas-largest-floating-…

Due to the Electoral College, an individual's presidential vote in the general election only matters pragmatically – to keep the worse of two evils out of office – in 'purple' swing states. According to Politico, in 2016 these are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia. Presumably, every other state is effectively seeded to the Democrats or Republicans, regardless of the candidate. Trump might put some other midwestern and/or industrial states in play: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

So, all the readers of RI in CT, CA, TX or GA can vote for Bill the Cat for President if they like, and the D will still get all the electoral college votes in the first two, and the R will still get all the electoral college votes in the second two.

But Lurker hits the nail on the head with Congress, Senate – and Governor and especially state legislative races – as the reasons sitting-out elections amounts to turning science policy over to anti-science ideologues. First, education policy is set at the state level. Not only are we talking about anti-science curricula from the GOP, but an evisceration of education in general. Critical thinking? Forget about it!

Second, just compare CA and MI. The D-led legislature in Cali had passed a weak school-vaccinetion measure, weakened at signing by D. Governor Jerry Brown, as his Jesuit background led him imagine people wouldn't just blatantly lie about their Personal Beliefs, and abuse the PBE. After the Disneyland outbreak, the legislature cam back with the much better SB277, and Brown, sadder but wiser, had no hesitation signing it into law. On the other hand, the R-led Michigan legislature backed R. Governor Rick Snyder's anti-democratic takeover of low-income municipalities, turning them over to un-elected managers charged with cutting spending regardless of the essential services sacrificed. Thus, the lead poisoning of a city of ~100,000 citizens. And Snyder is doing nothing about it. No significant change in policy is even being considered. He's just blaming the Big Guvment feds.

Third, the utter gridlock in Washington is a byproduct of state elections. GOP legislatures and governors have gerrymandered Congressional districts to the point where conservative R.'s can easily maintain a majority in the House while receiving far fewer votes in total than D.candidates. Most of these folks win their seats in off-year elections, with no presidential race to draw interest, and thus D. voters especially tend to sit home. With control of the House, comes control of the committees that move or stall legislation in science and education.

The vote for President may well be the least significant civic responsibility for the interests of science.

@Calli Arcale #70: I haven't gone over to check it out yet, but are you sure he/she isn't a Poe? Especially given the 'nym?

Also - Holy. Jumping. Sh!tballs.

It's true that a majority of Americans don’t really care about changing abortion rights. It's just that the ones that do control a number of state legislatures, and are doing everything they can to 'save the unborn'. And then there's those that care, and have guns and fire-bombs, and can chase the last remaining abortion doctors out of Red states out of fear for their lives.

Which has nothing to do with PGP's scenario – commentary on which, as is usually the case with PGP, is pointless. While a sort of soft-coup could indeed be attempted in the U.S. – Patriot Act, War on Terror, martial law, something-something-Dick-Cheney – if Trump manages to get elected (don't bet against it yet, wait a couple months) he wouldn't even be close to positioned to pull it off, nor I think inclined to consider it. Coups are for losers.

@ Sarah:

Calli's Jez correspondent isn't a poe. He also doesn't think vaccines have anything to do with autism. He's off on some other 'unintended consequences' mutation something-or-other at some future point down the road. It's all OT, but Calli has her own science field to speak for...

Another Orac antivaccine article.
What a surprise.

Orac,
Are you ever accused of being a *one-issue* voter/thinker?

@ Calli and Sadmar: Yeah, I just left a reply to his most recent comment and it lacks the distinctive over-the-top craziness usually associated with Poes. Which makes it even more terrifying that he couldn't immediately answer the question of whether vaccination is more ethical than euthanasia. I'm just gonna assume that when he said he "didn't have enough information" to answer the question he meant that he needed to go look up the definition of euthanasia. And in the name of all things good and decent don't enlighten me if you have evidence to the contrary - I don't think my faith in humanity can take any more hits tonight.

Molly: Abortion rights has been settled law for over 40 years. Most Americans don’t really care about changing that.

Legal, yes. Accessible, no. So rights can be legislated out of existence without a lot of people noticing. I suggest you see how 'legal' abortion is in Kansas or Texas. The same thing applies to suffrage, and for that matter, rape. Heck, rape is legal in Oklahoma now.

LW: a powerful civilized state barely keeping the vicious barbarians in check, so if anything happens to loosen its grip, or if one of the barbarians actually gets control, then the vicious barbarians will immediately revert to their preferred activities of slaughtering or enslaving anyone who doesn’t look like them.

I don't think I'm very wrong on that. Every thing out of Trump's or Cruz's mouth, or their advisor's mouths, suggests that the US, as we recognize it, is a rapidly failing experiment. Frankly, monarchy ain't as bad.

Are you ever accused of being a *one-issue* voter/thinker?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You oughta know, goofus.

@ Politicalguineapig

Frankly, monarchy ain’t as bad.

Take my French word for it, monarchy ain't the solution. To remove a king, you need a sharp implement.
At least with fixed-term presidents, you can hope the next one will not be as abysmally bad as the one you will/have become stuck with.
Although I have to admit, the US Republicans* have been collecting bad marks for a decade, now.

But beware the quest for the providential man**. We French spent a century after our Revolution alternating between some pseudo-republics and at least three different monarchic regimes, always hoping to have found the right man for the situation.
This attitude bite us seriously in the posterior when we turned toward a war hero, a certain Maréchal Pétain, and made him a non-elected autocrat. And just to show we didn't learn anything, at the Libération we proposed his position to a certain Général de Gaulle. Fortunately, the latter did the right thing and declined, preferring to earn the country's leadership through public elections.

* And it is in this context that my country's main right-wing party decided to change its name (again), from UMP to Les Républicains. I will never understand politicians.

** culturally, we are starting to consider the possibility of finding a providential woman, but it is still a long shot.

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

Are you ever accused of being a *one-issue* voter/thinker?

Beware, lads and lasses, the one-issue troll has found his way here. Must have heard the "a" word.

Kate @73

And bear in mind that the current mayor of That London is a serial liar, responsible for many of the anti-EU clichés and lies in our meejah, who is serially unfaithful, who has advocated violence towards other journalists, who pays more in income tax than most of us will ever earn while professing to be an ordinary bloke, whose grasp of reality is tenuous, and...and...

And he has ambitions (oh, does he have ambition!) to be our next Prime Minister...

Unfortunately I don't have dual citizenship, although - if the meejah coverage of the Scottish referendum campaign was anything to go by - most of our meejah think I live in Scotland, which I don't...

Imagine: President Trump and PM Bozza...

*Shudders* and it's too early for a large gin...

PGP

Want a royal family? You're welcome to ours, especially Chucky.

OK, Murmur, PGP gets Chuckie, I'll take Liz. Anyone good enough to work with military trucks in the war and still drive around her estate at her age sounds like someone fun to hang out with. ;)
It'd be quite fascinating hearing about the era of her childhood in the UK. Used to listen to dad talk about his childhood, back when milk was still delivered by a horse drawn cart and neighbors argued over the issue of said horse, when it was dropped near the property line.

*checks the results from last night's election coverage*

Mourning in America.

*sigh*

Well, PGP can have our Alexander, or Willem Alexander, including his whole family as well.

Heck, rape is legal in Oklahoma now.

You are delusional.

I have a visceral negative reaction to the very thought of “picking a side,” but at this point I think it’s time for those of us who’ve heretofore avoided politics like the fetid swamp it is to let go of the idea that we can be independent and above it all.

The US, like most English-speaking countries, uses the first-past-the-post system in elections. Mathematicians who study electoral systems have shown that the only stable solution in a FPTP system is to have two major political parties: loosely speaking, Our Party and Their Party. The last time somebody who was neither a Democrat nor a Republican was elected President of the US was 1848, which was about six years before the Republican Party was founded. Occasionally a third-party or independent candidate gets elected--Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine are the most prominent current examples--but that is rare. And note that Sanders chose to run for the Democratic nomination for President--he knew that he would have no hope of winning as an independent.

More often, third parties split one side of the political spectrum, allowing the other side to win. Most US readers will recall Ralph Nader, who likely siphoned enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida and New Hampshire to throw the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush. A more recent example had Canada's left-wing party, the NDP, winning a provincial election in Alberta, Canada's version of Texas, because the right-wing vote was split between the Conservatives and a group called the Wild Rose Party, who thought the Conservatives weren't right-wing enough.

LW@104: You need to pay more attention to the news. A court in Oklahoma ruled that the law does not apply to unconscious victims.

As for abortion: A bunch of state legislatures are acting like Roe v. Wade is not settled law. There are many areas in this country where abortion, while theoretically legal, is effectively unobtainable: combine travel logistics (at least three states have only one clinic each) with waiting periods, and you have millions of Americans who would not be able to afford going to the clinic for the procedure.

Voting rights, too, are under attack. The voter ID laws in some states require documentation of every name change. Thanks to the unfortunate Western tradition of women taking their husband's name on marriage, this rule disproportionately affects women.

Want a royal family? You’re welcome to ours, especially Chucky.

I am quite happy for you lot to keep Chucky to yourselves. I am seriously hoping that the minute your current monarch drops off the twig, we will see sense and disassociate from the lot of them. As for King Donald ...

vote for Bill the Cat for President if they like

Ack! Thwwrp!

Heck, rape is legal in Oklahoma now.

This is an attempt at sarcasm, right?

Delphine #109

IIRC it is because that state has different laws for acts of sodomy rather than rape.

So just because they added terms and conditions to the rape laws doesn't mean they were automatically added to the sodomy laws.

So I think with the case that went forward because it was oral sex they rape laws didn't apply.

Hopefully this is a fairly easy legislative fix, although the attitudes about alternative sex acts could get some people in enough of a huff to be a problem.

My political sense, for what it's worth, is that mr. Trump co-opted the Republican Party only because he felt it was easier than trying to do so with the Democratic Party. He pretends to represent everybody who feels left out by both parties. The so-called true Republicans despise Trump as much as the Democrats. Now while the polls so he doesn't stand a chance of winning the general election they didn't show he had a chance of getting the nomination when he announced his candidacy, so I think it's prudent to plan for the worst. Trump is a master of just making things up and saying whatever he thinks needs to be said to get people to vote for him. It's clear however he doesn't understand science or medicine and as such if he should become president of the United States we can expect all sorts of Mayhem on those fronts. Myself, I'm not at all happy with any of the candidates running. It's like this whole country has turned into a reality show and nobody seems to understand that actions have consequences.

Eric Lund #106
The comments on that article you linked make me so very depressed. That and the fact that Trump has a real chance to become our next president. *shudder*

I’ve unfriended two people on Facebook

Ohh, be still my beating heart. "I am woman, here me roar!"-- Politicalguineapig #40

I bet she made her highschool sole male acquaintance say 'meh' after such unbridled assertiveness.
===================================

Military coups? Well, there is DHS, TSA, NSA, DEA, ..., NIST. It can happen here regardless of the status of the current figurehead puppet.

The Purge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQg9gpcx5Tc

American Drone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNXzmGrD16o

SecretCisco@112: One of the essential things to learn about the internet is that you should generally avoid reading comments on news sites. Unless they are aggressively moderated (which most news sites can't afford to do), they become wretched hives of villainy that make the Shades of Ankh-Morpork look like a safe neighborhood.

Oh god, that's it. I'm moving to Greenland.

Alright, our friends, PGP and Eric Lund, illustrate precisely what I'm talking about
( about which I'm talking? which one sounds better? I don't know):

PGP makes over-the-top statements about rape being 'legal' and a lack of abortion rights and Eric clarifies her statements. ( @ # 96 she even says, 'legal' but not accessible. TRUE).

People react to her hyperbole or poetic licence- whatever you want to call it- and get upset with her.

You might ask why people write or speech in such a fashion: does she want to deliberately mislead us? Is she unsure of her facts? Is she trying to start an argument?

No, I would venture that it is a rhetorical move to get people to agree with her ( most of them may already agree about those two topics) that may come from a lack of confidence**.: describing a very horrible situation ( e.g. lack of accessibility of abortion ) as being even worse ( illegal) is exaggeration and a way of getting people to understand how awful it is. Not the best way.

YET opponents can just say-
'Well, she's lying- it iS legal'.
That's why we have to be careful: as sceptics, our opponents are always looking for stuff like that.

Remember a while back, one of Orac's commenters suggested that sceptics go on anti-vaccine sites and pretend agreement but then add outrageously loony ideas ( even loonier than anti-vax itself) to make them look crazy and discourage potential followers.

Orac didn't agree: he even wrote a post about it, quoting those of us (including me and Antaeus IIRC) who spoke up against that tactic- because we can win with the facts. FAIRLY. We're reality-based/

NOW I read on Mikey's cesspit of muddledness and Tim Bolen's re-vamped disaster zone masquerading as a website that Orac / Dr G encourages what the commenter had suggested.

He didn't . Most of us didn't either. BUT will any of Mikey's or Bolen's adherents go and search RI to find the entire episode ? NO.

Personally, I love hyperbole but know we should use it sparingly if at all.

** altho' she doesn't seem to exhibit fearfulness when confronting woo-spreaders- for which she should be praised.
AND she has often done just that @ RI.

A court in Oklahoma ruled that the law does not apply to unconscious victims.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Regarding the claim of Politicalguineapig and Eric Lund, the court decision in question was not about rape in general; it was only about the specific law regarding oral sodomy. It was not about a case of forcible oral sodomy or any other forcible sexual assault; it was about inability to give consent due to intoxication or unconsciousness. The legislature did not declare it legal for a man to get a very drunk girl to give him a blowjob; the court found that a poorly drafted law failed to explicitly make that illegal. And finally, far from the wicked Republicans rubbing their hands in glee that certain rapists will get off, a Republican state senator immediately set to work to fix the law. Since the matter only came up recently, that isn't done yet.

So basically what Politicalguineapig and Eric Lund have discovered is that some laws are poorly drawn, that one cannot be convicted of an act however reprehensible that isn't illegal, that Oklahoma prosecutors thought (and still insist) that the act actually was illegal under the letter of the law, and that Oklahoma legislators will act to fix the law.

This does not mean that rape is or is intended to be legal in Oklahoma. To say that it is, is paranoid and delusional.

Murmur @99 At least Boris won't be the mayor after tomorrow, which is small consolation. I recommend Sonia Purnell's book, Just Boris, btw - I think you'd enjoy it.

You might ask why people write or speech in such a fashion: does she want to deliberately mislead us? Is she unsure of her facts? Is she trying to start an argument? Perhaps she simply believes what she writes.

(Sarcasm): Ask not what Trump can do for you but what you can do for Trump.

(Sarcasm): Ask not what Trump can do for you but what you can do for Trump.

I can ask him to never speak of his own daughter in a sexual context, ever ever ever ever ever again. There are not enough vomit emoticons in the universe to express my revulsion for his total lack of both respect and BOUNDARIES JESUS CHRIST.

Delphine @120: Or maybe she has a terrible filter? I mean, sometimes I think terrible, outrageous, over-the-top things (often in response to things I think are equally outrageous), but I don't *say* them (or type them).

For once I agree with PGP, that abortion rights in America have been eroded significantly (in some places more than others). But as usual, the hyperbole isn't helping her argument.

Samantha Bee at Full Frontal tweets:

"Shouldn't Ted Cruz have been forced to carry his unviable candidacy to term?"

@ Delphine:

I think that she believes SOME of it AND fears that if events continue as they have, eventually it will be true entirely.
Also, what JustaTech said.

My ( totally unsolicited) advice to PGP is that she might try being more clear so her meaning won't be misinterpreted even if it entails verbosity and going into more details than anyone would ever require or relish-
after all, this IS RI and that sort of thing is rapidly being developed into an advanced art form and is NEVER ( well, hardly ever) frowned upon- so why not?

Aren't we trying to learn how to more effectively communicate SBM and scepticism?
Rome wasn't built in a day.

It should be noted that some woo-meisters exaggerate to deliberately mislead people. whilst their attempts at parody and sarcasm usually are too heavy handed - there's a reason for that that goes beyond addressing the level of their audience-
it MAY be that that's all they are capable of doing.
( see executive function: figurative and symbolic speech, jokes et al) That's my guess.

Take a look at Mikey's lame attempts to vilify doctors and describe health care. It's so bad it's nit even funny.

I don't disagree with either of you. As I age I'm less apt to demonstrate grace with generalizations (all Catholics, all MBAs, etc.), hence my impatience with her hyperbole. In the back of my head these days I hear my old man's voice, offering his (relatively few) words of wisdom: "Some people are just arseholes, end of."

Seems appropriate to share a bit of The Onion prediction going around the web.

http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-s…

@KayMarie: That's just uncanny. And to think that all the time I was hoping Republicans might actually learn something from Obama's reelection, the Onion could already foresee the white-hot ball of rage that was soon to be visited upon us - right down to the blotchy orange complexion.

I'd just like to point out to all the chest-pounding Leftists that Hillary Clinton is dependably anti-vax, and Bernie Sanders is a conspiracy-spouting, anti-GMO whackadoo who wants to fund alt medicine with public tax dollars.

And speaking of white-hot balls of rage...
( in other news)

- Kent Heckenlively writes a review of VAXXED which is a fine example of his ... uh.. 'way with words'

- TMR's Professor writes an epic that mentions her cohorts' recent appearance at the UN but focuses upon
the verdict handed down to Ezekiel's parents:
she finds it an 'affront'.

@Sarah A You keep approaching it the wrong way, probably deliberately. Trump's surging popularity (and I say that not as a supporter) more aptly reflects the growing dissatisfaction between the majority of America abd the out-of-touch petty authoritarianism of Obama and the Regressive Left.

It's a pointless endeavor. There's no real difference between Trump and Obama, or Hillary for that matter.

My current state of Indiana has gone full asshat, Thompson is alleging yet another 'reanalysis' of the DeStefano data, and Flintstones vitamins will kill children because GMOs!!!! At this point, I'd welcome the Zika zombies. At least it's something refreshing and will possibly give Robert Kirkman some new material.

@JustATech Not funding "private" abortions with public tax dollars in clear violation of the law is in no way akin to "eroding abortion rights".

If only you Regressives were as troubled by the actual erosion of actual rights Obama and your party have gleefully engaged in throughout the past 8 wiretap-filled years.

@ThatSkepticGuy, what is a "private" abortion vs a public health care treatment?
So, while I was in the military, my wife should have not been treated for her ectopic pregnancy, as our health care money came from public funding? She should have instead died, to make our nation great or something?

All of those wiretaps started under Bush, they continued under Obama, as there is a war going on or something.
You know, loads of dirty, smelly guys shooting at other dirty, smelly guys and vice versa? That all started after a couple of office towers were rammed by airplanes that were hijacked.
I had some friends and one cousin in those towers, they didn't make it out.

LW: that Oklahoma legislators will act to fix the law.

It's Oklahoma,so I doubt it.

Christopher Hickie:It’s clear however he doesn’t understand science or medicine and as such if he should become president of the United States we can expect all sorts of Mayhem on those fronts.

Most of the electorate doesn't understand science or math either, so at least he's representative there. It's funny, with all that money that he seems not to have had any education at all.

DW: Most of the commentators here aren't applying the mouse problem to politics. Basically, it's for every mouse you see, there are ten more that you aren't. The same applies to anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, conspiracy theorists and coup planners. Also a lot of them are optimists and don't believe in the crowd effect-for every ten people, the IQ level of every person present drops.

Delphine: I generalize to work up profiles of people.
off topic- can we get rid of the might morphin sock puppet already?

PGP, generalization is OK, but far afield hyperbole isn't. The former can be a useful tool, whereas the latter just convinces others that the hyperbole flinger is simply a flaming asshole.
Indeed, your "It's Oklahoma, so I doubt it" comment actually called a poster here a liar, as one person posted which politician is addressing the gaping hole in the state sodomy statute. Hopefully, they'll add drunken rape into the forcible rape statute, where it belongs.

Personally, I've been known to use hyperbole, but I use it as a humorous reductio ad absurdum tool, following an absurd point down the rabbit hole to absurd lengths.
I've even resolved to one day develop a humorous argument that utilizes every single logical fallacy around, in a completely circular and self-contradicting way. ;)

It’s Oklahoma,so I doubt it.

While people who have lived in Oklahoma may say that, it comes off badly when said by people who haven't.

Who's the mighty Morphin sock puppet?

PGP, generalization is OK, but far afield hyperbole isn’t. The former can be a useful tool, whereas the latter just convinces others that the hyperbole flinger is simply a flaming asshole.
Indeed, your “It’s Oklahoma, so I doubt it” comment actually called a poster here a liar, as one person posted which politician is addressing the gaping hole in the state sodomy statute. Hopefully, they’ll add drunken rape into the forcible rape statute, where it belongs.

Yes, she called me a liar. If I had any respect for her opinion, that would upset me. And rape of intoxicated persons (which I presume is what you mean by "drunken rape") is in the forcible rape statute. In fact, that's what the court's decision turned on: if all the same language is in both the forcible vaginal rape statute as in the forcible oral sodomy statute, except the intoxication provision was left out of the forcible oral sodomy statute, then the court can't read it into the statute. If it hadn't been in either, they probably could have read it in as part of the general mental incapacity.

And Politicalguineapig's indefensible bigotry in this and so many other cases is too disgusting for me to address further.

@ PGP:

I like the term 'mouse problem' Ha!

but we do have ways of figuring out how many anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists etc there are,
I used to quote Reuters research about anti-vax attitudes in the US and we do know where pockets of anti-vax exist.

In fact. doppelganger advocacy groups ( AoA, SM, Canaries, TMR, Health Choice etc) may make it look as though their numbers are greater than they really are.
Facebook numbers rarely reach 50K and I venture that many of these folk choose more than one place and get each family member and pet included as well. Plus, they're loud and extremely active on social networks.

Research around the time of the California legislation showed that most people there supported it.

Returning to my question of last night, a (British) lawyer friend of mine pointed me at this discussion of how the GOP could ditch Trump. It strikes me as unlikely to happen, given the clear, if terrifying, democratic process of the primaries, but as the piece points out, this is not a normal election. http://lawnewz.com/chbml

That said, I'm coming round to the idea of Trump as the candidate, as there will be much schadenfreude/fun to be had watching the election from this side of the pond, and Trump will (I hope) pretty much hand Hillary the White House with a landslide, which to my British, liberal eyes, seems like a good thing.

Kent Heckenlively ['s] ‘way with words’

He gets them drunk first.

FWIW (rien) I don't think he will win, whether it's Sanders or Clinton. I don't even think he will get close.

@ Mephistopheles O'Brien:

Agreed

In fact, that’s what the court’s decision turned on

This, however, devolves into the state's failure to charge sexual battery instead.

This, however, devolves into the state’s failure to charge sexual battery instead.

That too. Politicalguineapig naturally confuses "not illegal under this specific statute" with "Totally legal and enthusiastically practiced by all the evil white Christian middle-class Republican suburb-dwelling males living south of Missouri." I may have missed a few of her bigotries there.

Wzrd1: Indeed, your “It’s Oklahoma, so I doubt it” comment actually called a poster here a liar, as one person posted which politician is addressing the gaping hole in the state sodomy statute. Hopefully, they’ll add drunken rape into the forcible rape statute, where it belongs.

I actually didn't see that comment, so I did not intend to call LW a liar. However, that is ONE politician. That does not mean a law will get passed. More than likely, the fix will get hung up in bill purgatory.

LW:Totally legal and enthusiastically practiced by all the evil white Christian middle-class Republican suburb-dwelling males living south of Missouri.”

Sigh. First of all, I'm not sure Oklahoma has suburbs. They might have one suburb. And it's more likely to be enthusiastically swept under the rug rather than practiced by a lot of people. Lots of people, especially hard-core Christians, believe rape is excusable and only happens to women who" had it coming." And they elect people who believe that too. The legal system has always been pretty useless; I figure if anything happens to me, I'm taking care of things myself.
Delphine: Gilly boy up there. It's no one's business if I don't want to bonsai myself into 'girlfriend material' at any point in the past or the now.

Sigh. First of all, I’m not sure Oklahoma has suburbs.

You just gave Larry Clark a stroke...

It’s no one’s business if I don’t want to bonsai myself into ‘girlfriend material’ at any point in the past or the now.

No, it most certainly is not. He's probably jacking into a bucket next to a stacked plate of cheeseburgers in his Mom's basement, PGP. Don't let him bug you.

Sorry to be blunt PGP but an autistic nun I know is better girlfriend material as compared to you ;)

Alain

Don't do that. Really, don't do that. You want to pick on her for her opinions, her gracelessness, bigotry, go for it, but do. not. do. that.

You might ask why people write or speech in such a fashion: does she want to deliberately mislead us? Is she unsure of her facts? Is she trying to start an argument?

_Political_ _Guinea_ _Pig_

Is there politics in the comment sections of this blog (and no, I don't mean US electorate, I mean social politics or conventions here)? My question is halfway rhetorical but useful to answer...

Ok,

Please excuse me both, PGP and Delphine.

Alain

Alain: there politics in the comment sections of this blog (and no, I don’t mean US electorate, I mean social politics or conventions here)? My question is halfway rhetorical but useful to answer…

Oh, the nym? Actually, it's just old, from when I used to go on a lot of political blogs. I'm too lazy to change it. I tend to prefer to recycle my nyms, and this one is the most gender-neutral name I "own." And no, I'm not putting my real name on the net more than I absolutely have to.

@ ThatSkepticGuy

There’s no real difference between Trump and Obama, or Hillary for that matter.

Last time I checked, the two latter never advocated nuking my country - or any other country - to keep it in line with American interests.
Considering seriously to start a nuclear war seems like a huge difference to me.

@ KayMarie

How prescient.
One of the Onion's article following yours isn't bad either.

"Nation Was Kind Of Hoping For Different Outcome When Concerned Citizens Came Together To Make Voices Heard"

The annoying bit is that the Onion is supposedly a satirical newsite, but the satire part is feeling weak.
It's one of the troubles with anything regarding Trump: it's next to impossible to make a caricature of him, because reality is already so over the top...

First of all, I’m not sure Oklahoma has suburbs. They might have one suburb.

As Politicalguineapig demonstrates, again, for the benefit of anyone who missed it before, her spectacular ignorance if anything existing in the real world instead of between her ears.

@PGP

Lots of people, especially hard-core Christians, believe rape is excusable and only happens to women who” had it coming.”

Yes, lots of people do believe that rape is excusable and that victims (not just women) "had it coming". That includes lots of atheists, too. And I know some hard-core Christians who believe that rape is inexcusable and that "xe had it coming" is a reprehensible thing to say or even think.

Once again, your bigotry is noted.

ThatSkepticGuy @ 133 said "Not funding “private” abortions with public tax dollars in clear violation of the law is in no way akin to “eroding abortion rights.”

The Hyde amendment has prohibited federal funding for abortions, since 1976. Although the wording has changed slightly over the years, the 2014 wording is typical: "The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion— (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed."

JustAnUninformedIdiot and those of his ilk are unable to grasp a simple point: most federal funds are for services, not entities. The fact that our tax funds are used to provide screening, prenatal care and other LEGAL services through Planned Parenthood, an organization which provides abortion services using non-federal funds, does not mean that our tax funds are used for abortion "in clear violation of the law."

The beancounters under the Bush/Cheney administration spent millions of dollars trying to prove that federal tax dollars were being used for abortion and were unsuccessful.

I am certain that JustAnUninformedIdiot and his/her friends would say that it is impossible to keep the funds separate since money is fungible. I would invite them to peruse this at leisure, since it shows exactly how that daunting task is accomplished:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=fdf0cad10f98330d8a47b…

If only you Regressives were as troubled by the actual erosion of actual rights Obama and your party have gleefully engaged in throughout the past 8 wiretap-filled years.

That was a Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld machination if I recall correctly. It just spilt over onto the Obama admin. Just like the recession.

@Opus

I am certain that JustAnUninformedIdiot and his/her friends would say that it is impossible to keep the funds separate since money is fungible.

If only there were some sort of book, or ledger, as it were for recording funds, and people who could account for money that comes in, what fund it goes into, and how it is spent. And then, and I know this is a pipe dream, just imagine if there were individuals or organizations that could, I don't know, double-check, or audit, if you will, those records. Why, you could build entire professions around these!

My thanks to ThatSkepticGuy for bringing this incredible lack to our attention. Excuse me while I go and make my fortune on a brand new, never-before-seen field of occupation.

re Trump..

I just saw two absolutely hilarious commercials for Futbol teams from Mexico and Argentina that make use of the Donald's gadawful slanderings of Latinos-
they show players with soundbites saying "Killers!" etc.

Todd W @ 161 "If only there were some sort of book, or ledger, as it were for recording funds, and people who could account for money that comes in, what fund it goes into, and how it is spent. And then, and I know this is a pipe dream, just imagine if there were individuals or organizations that could, I don’t know, double-check, or audit, if you will, those records. Why, you could build entire professions around these!"

Wait - this is just the beginning!! What if we used beads on wires to tally items for these books?!? Perhaps knots on strings for notes regarding these tallies!!!?!

Entire sweeping new vistas await, if only JustAnInsertPejorativeHere would break the chains and join us in this exciting future!!

@ ThatSkepticGuy
I’d just like to point out to all the chest-pounding Leftists that Hillary Clinton is dependably anti-vax,

Really? Maybe you ought to ask Mikey what he thinks of Hillary.

Or take a look at what Lyn Redwood and Safe Minds have to say about Clinton.

@Opus

I think we'd need something somewhat more permanent than beads on wire and knots in a string. Maybe...ooh...I have it. Clay or stone tablets. They're a bit difficult to work with, but they will last a good long time.

Todd W. @165

The technology is evolving so quickly that it's tough for a pensioner like me to keep up!

Trump’s surging popularity (and I say that not as a supporter) more aptly reflects the growing dissatisfaction between the majority of America and the out-of-touch petty authoritarianism of Obama and the Regressive Left.

To be honest, Trump's popularity did initially make me question my life-long belief that the vast majority of Americans are basically decent people who just want to live and let live, while the ignorant and bigoted are simply a disproportionately vocal minority. But then I figured that since only slightly less than half of Americans are Republican, and only slightly over half of them support Trump, at most, only 25% of Americans support Trump. That's more than I'd have thought, but then, IIRC, about 25% of Americans also believe that 9-11 was an inside job, that climate change is a hoax, etc. (25% seems to be the magic number for practically every conspiracy theory - I'm seriously starting to wonder if its always the same 25%. Is it possible that 1 out of 4 Americans completely out of touch with reality?)

Of course, the number of people who support Trump, or conservatism in general, is only half of the picture - the other half is who the conservatives are. If you look at the demographics of people who lean Republican vs people who lean Democrat, the Republican base is white, religious, and old. The Democratic base is non-white, educated, and young. In other words, the population that supports Republicans is shrinking, while the population that supports Democrats is growing. The insanity we've been treated to over the past few months isn't the distant roar of the conservative revolution - it's the dying wail of a sad remnant who refused to change or grow and are now being left behind.

^ I should note that the 25% figure is an extremely spur-of-the-moment, back-of-the-envelope sort of calculation based solely on the observation that regardless of who actually wins, elections generally seem to be fairly close to 50/50.

@ ThatSkepticGuy
I’d just like to point out to all the chest-pounding Leftists that Hillary Clinton is dependably anti-vax,

I'm too distracted to figure out who to format this properly.

Hillary Clinton Verified account
@HillaryClinton

The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest

That's the only relevant statement I could find from H.C. about vaccines. She made some hedging comments in 2008.

Yes, you're referring to the 2008 election, when both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made the mistake of making statements a little too credulous about vaccine-autism pseudoscience.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/22/hillary-clinton-and-barack…

Oh, and John McCain, too.

Sara A, I believe that the numbers may be even lower as the first primaries had ~20% repub voter turnout and fell to 10% for most of the primaries. Which would reflect that most rational repubs are staying home.

The Democratic base is non-white, educated, and young. In other words, the population that supports Republicans is shrinking, while the population that supports Democrats is growing.

The problem here, of course, is that the youthful Democratic voter base doesn't much like Clinton. Without younger Democratic types actually choosing to run for office and providing something to motivate that demographic going forward, the party seems likely to just continue stagnating.

Opus and Todd W.:

Hang all that!

I really need a device that will allow me to write words without carefully drawing each individual letter with a pen.
Maybe something
that reproduces each letter the same way each time.
It would certainly save a lot of work

Denice,

Just carve each word into a block of wood (backwards of course). Now when a word is needed just dip it into some berry juice and press against the animal hide.

If only we had something better than berry juice and animal hides.

@ Rich Bly:

Now why didn't I think of that?

Wait a minute.... what stains better than berries?
Squid juice!

What you need to do is get some brown stain from oak galls. Mix it with ground up green rock. The cool thing about this is that as the oak gall fades, the green rock powder turns reddish-brown! It's a huge improvement over berry juice.

@denice if you grind up these special bugs you get a fantastic red

ThatSkepticGuy @133:
"@JustATech Not funding “private” abortions with public tax dollars in clear violation of the law is in no way akin to “eroding abortion rights”."

And that is 100% NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about the TRAP laws (the actual name) that require the same standards as a surgical suite (hallway width, HVAC, etc) for clinics that perform medical (pill) abortions.

I am talking about the 24, 48 or 72 hour waiting periods. I am talking about the politician-written scripts that doctors are required to recite to patients that are not medically accurate. I am talking about requiring hospital-admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortions, as though any hospital emergency room would ever turn away a patient in need.

I am talking about the 20 week maximums, the 'fetal pain' laws. I am talking about how some states only have one person to perform abortions for the entire state.

THAT is what I am talking about. The right to bodily autonomy. The right to not have some man tell me what to do with my life; to decide that I must die for his 'morals'.

25% seems to be the magic number for practically every conspiracy theory – I’m seriously starting to wonder if its always the same 25%. Is it possible that 1 out of 4 Americans completely out of touch with reality?

The exact value is (as any fule kno) 27%.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crazification_factor

Anyone hoping Bernie Sanders might yet pull off defeating Hillary had probably better get used to the fact that it's not going to happen. This is an interesting take on the psephology that sets out just how impossible a task Bernie faces. I think he'll have to concede soon. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-sanders-comeback-would-be-unprece…

While I'd far prefer Sanders, I think now, anyone holding out hope is simply expressing wishful thinking.
It is a truism that, if one shits in one hand and wishes in the other, everyone knows which hand will be filled first.

I think he’ll have to concede soon.

There's still cash in the bank; he has no reason to.

@Rich Bly #174: Even better - instead of carving whole words, how about just making a bunch of letters that you can rearrange to make any word you want? Of course, you'd end up using each letter hundreds or maybe even thousands of times, so we may need something a bit more durable than wood...like, maybe metal? It's just crazy enough to work!

Sanders won't concede. He's running 'for the future of the party'. He wants to get in on platform planks, and make a speech before the national audience at the convention. By staying in he also puts more pressure on potential VP picks. Even if he's effectively eliminated, he'll stay in of only to keep faith with everyone in California who wants to vote for him. Running is about a lot more than winning. See Ronald Reagan, 1976.

Trump could always change his mind, but after his win in Indiana he outlined two fronts of attack against Clinton. The election will wind up revolving on a handful of issues, and if Trump can set the agenda, he'll do much better than expected. His two issues: 1) trade/jobs 2) ISIS/military strength. For over 35 years, the only job measure supported by the GOP has been supply-side voodoo 'cut taxes for rich people'. That's dead for the base, now. Trump is the only candidate advancing a scheme - however impractical – to bring jobs back to the rust belt. The wall and the deportation fantasies are just symbols of 'jobs for YOU, not them', and the meat is NAFTA and the TPP, on which the Donald will simply obliterate Clinton, if he can move the question to that turf. Of course, he can't 'destroy ISIS' anymore than any president could (i.e. not at all), but he can savage Clinton on Benghazi and emails, and being the kind of figure the jihadis might fear more than HRC. Plus, he doesn't have the mainstream GOP's ties to the Saudis, so he he's freer to raise hell.

The GOP's problem is that they're going to stick with the Grover Norquist thing no matter what, won't go with Trump on trade, and thus he'll only get lukewarm support form the establishment at best. Trump may not need them, and the growing hordes of big-name R.s now saying "Never Trump!" may be replaced by twice as many rank-and-file enthusiasts drawn to him exactly because the establishment is turning on him. The GOP establishment thought it could choke the hated Big Guvment by enabling and exploiting the Tea Party, Fox News, and the wingnut radio-talkers and websites. But they were the ones who wound up with the noose around their necks.

Two recent headlines turned up by Google:

"Cruz: Let's face it, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have turned Fox News into the Donald Trump network."

"Deadpool, Donald Trump give Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox sales a boost."

There you have it. Trump/Deadpool 2016!

If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America? LOOK! I'm a teenage girl, I'd rather be anywhere than here! I'm all about long sullen silences, followed by mean comments, followed by more silence! So what's it gonna be, long sullen silence, or mean comment? Go on, take your pick. If she was a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote Daddy needs to express some rage. I'm gonna do to your face what Limp Bizkit did to music in the late 90s! I know where she went; it's disgusting; I don't want to talk about it. Finish fucking her the fuck up. You're probably thinking “This is a superhero movie, but that guy in the suit just turned that other guy into a fucking kebab." Surprise, this is a different kind of superhero story. The making and authorized distribution of this film supported over 13,000 jobs and involved hundreds of thousands of work hours.

Sanders won’t concede. He’s running ‘for the future of the party’. He wants to get in on platform planks, and make a speech before the national audience at the convention. By staying in he also puts more pressure on potential VP picks. Even if he’s effectively eliminated, he’ll stay in of only to keep faith with everyone in California who wants to vote for him. Running is about a lot more than winning. See Ronald Reagan, 1976.

Trump could always change his mind, but after his win in Indiana he outlined two fronts of attack against Clinton. The election will wind up revolving on a handful of issues, and if Trump can set the agenda, he’ll do much better than expected. His two issues: 1) trade/jobs 2) ISIS/military strength. For over 35 years, the only job measure supported by the GOP has been supply-side voodoo ‘cut taxes for rich people’. That’s dead for the base, now. Trump is the only candidate advancing a scheme – however impractical – to bring jobs back to the rust belt. The wall and the deportation fantasies are just symbols of ‘jobs for YOU, not them’, and the meat is NAFTA and the TPP, on which the Donald will simply obliterate Clinton, if he can move the question to that turf. Of course, he can’t ‘destroy ISIS’ anymore than any president could (i.e. not at all), but he can savage Clinton on Benghazi and emails, and being the kind of figure the jihadis might fear more than HRC. Plus, he doesn’t have the mainstream GOP’s ties to the Saudis, so he he’s freer to raise hell.

The GOP’s problem is that they’re going to stick with the Grover Norquist thing no matter what, won’t go with Trump on trade, and thus he’ll only get lukewarm support form the establishment at best. Trump may not need them, and the growing hordes of big-name R.s now saying “Never Trump!” may be replaced by twice as many rank-and-file enthusiasts drawn to him exactly because the establishment is turning on him. The GOP establishment thought it could choke the hated Big Guvment by enabling and exploiting the Tea Party, Fox News, and the wingnut radio-talkers and websites. But they were the ones who wound up with the noose around their necks.

Two recent headlines turned up by Google:

“Cruz: Let’s face it, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have turned Fox News into the Donald Trump network.”

“Deadpool, Donald Trump give Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox sales a boost.”

There you have it. Trump/Deadpool 2016!

If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America? LOOK! I’m a teenage girl, I’d rather be anywhere than here! I’m all about long sullen silences, followed by mean comments, followed by more silence! So what’s it gonna be, long sullen silence, or mean comment? Go on, take your pick. If she was a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote. Daddy needs to express some rage. I’m gonna do to your face what Limp Bizkit did to music in the late 90s! She was favored to win and she got schlonged, She lost. All they do is lose. Finish fukking her the fukk up. You’re probably thinking “This is a superhero movie, but that guy in the suit just turned that other guy into a fukking kebab.” Surprise, this is a different kind of superhero story.
[The making and authorized distribution of this film supported over 13,000 jobs and involved hundreds of thousands of work hours.]

One simple way to obliterate Trump is to recall his comments under Reagan about nuclear proliferation, attacking France, etc.
Dude is totally a twilight zone candidate, way out there!

So it is going to come down to either Shillary or Trump. Sigh. At this point I'm wishing for some more Obama - let him stay in office for now and we can all hope that the next round of candidates won't be as awful*.

*who am I trying to fool here - US politics will always be about choosing the lesser evil...

Well, it's a big village, there are plenty of more village idiots to pick from.

It takes a village idiot.

I see! So, is it too late for me to enter the race? ;)

OMG they give nominees security briefings with classified information.

We are trusting a man who seems to have no control over what comes out of his mouth if he thinks he is being funny with national secrets.

I mean I know he keeps saying he won't tell anyone what he is doing until after he did it, but this is the guy as Trevor Noah pointed out that can't be trusted to keep anyone's cell phone number to hisself if he would get some energy from the crowd by giving it out.

@KayMarie, I'm not too worried about Trump running his mouth with classified information. The NDA that he signed in order to be allowed access to classified information is air tight and has very, very serious medicine for anyone divulging classified information.
Heavy medicine as in being Manning's cell mate.

Which brings up an interesting question. In our political system, what would happen if Trump were to now become unavailable? A single party election?

Which brings up an interesting question. In our political system, what would happen if Trump were to now become unavailable? A single party election?

Nobody has been nominated by the Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter). Were Herr. Drumpf to suddenly become indisposed or unavailable, then the convention in Cleveland becomes extremely exciting. supposing he were not available after the convention then it would depend on the rules for being put on the ballot in each of the states, which I admit to not knowing. Even then it becomes a matter for the Electoral College, since the popular vote is really for a slate of pledged electors.

So it would depend on the state and how late it was as to what would happen.

IANALNDIPOOT, but I wouldn't think that Presidential candidates have any authority to release classified data. Wzrd1 is probably right on the risks a loose lipped candidate with access to classified data runs.

"But from now until November, we have truly little idea how Donald Trump, probable 2016 Republican nominee for president, will handle America’s most sensitive secrets – until he is suddenly privy to them."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/donald-trump-class…

We actually do know, Liz. When he signed his non-disclosure agreement, he was also briefed on criminal penalties involved in spilling, breaching or disclosing classified information. It's a standard briefing given when access is granted.
I know that from personal experience, as I've held a security clearance for my entire adult life and get that briefing annually.
We're not talking about a gentleman's prison either, it's straight solitary confinement, lest further disclosures occur to the prison population.
Uncle Sam is really, really big on retaining his secrets, which is something even Ben Franklin agreed should be so.

The shame about Manning was, access to classified information is to be immediately terminated if one is flagged for deleterious personnel actions. That wasn't done in Manning's case and those who failed to do so should have also been punished, as their dereliction of duty permitted access to continue until a lot of damaging information was divulged to a foreign group.
Still, nobody in the diplomatic community was shocked to learn that ambassadors loathed one another, the big deal was releasing that information to the unwashed masses.

Yeah, but -

Trump has not yet been nominated, and isn't receiving briefings yet.

Yeah, his path looks clear, but maybe, just maybe, the GOP will find a way to block it. I dunno how they would do that, but it would suck for the country if the choice was Trump or Clinton for POTUS, the two most hated candidates ever.

I too have been privy to some of our nations closely guarded secrets, and the thought of Trump, born without the ability to engage his brain prior to speaking, having access to the same thing fills me with dread.

Just to keep this whole thing on topic, I view Trump the same as I view Doctor Jay - even if both had perfectly sane views on vaccines, even if both said loud and clear that vaccines do not cause autism, I would still believe both were unfit for their positions because of their other statements and beliefs.

I have a passing familiarity with security clearance and what the threats are if you breach it.

Donald's style of riding the crowd and letting it dictate what falls out of his mouth requiring multiple aborted efforts at walking it back worry me. Add in how much he has no self control if he thinks someone dissed him....yikes.

On another note, they interviewed a group of independents about Trump this morning on CNN. One of the women who has drunk the Trump Koolaid tossed out one of the nastier Clinton Conspiracies and when asked what her evidence for that was sputtered and then replied, "Google is my best friend." *facepalm*

I want to live in Canada. Canada seems to be better than the USA.

I want to live in Canada. Canada seems to be better than the USA.

The antivax brigade has been "threatening" to emigrate for as long as I can remember (mostly from California, of late). A work visa should do.

I'm just pissed off that the crappy, monopolistic, financially mismanaged public radio station in the U.S.'s third-lagest DMA stopped airing The Vinyl Cafe (and Ideas) in the evening in favor of reruns from their endless weekend outpouring of This American Life knockoffs.

Ohh, Narad #200; Why do you hate??

Wzrd1 #196, you need a reminder of what it's all about:

Collateral Murder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

@Gilbert, I'm actually quite effective at collateral murder. Your point?

My point, Wzrd1 #203??

That video is what Manning 'leaked'. And the American people shouldn't give a rat's ass why??

Laughing man hacks Facebook:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUZUv7jxlLI

Funny, the unedited version of Manning's video showed a men with AK's and RPG's, but those were innocent weapons, not men involved in firefights with US forces all morning.
But, let's not let silly little things like facts get in the way of discussing the issues!

Yea, it was pretty sneaky of them to disguise that RPG as a camera.

Man with camera interviews man with RPG, man with RPG gets shot at by AH64 helicopter, resulting in man with camera having his terminal interview.
Maybe it's a lousy idea interviewing people with RPG's and AK's in an area where a firefight has been raging all morning.

Yeah, and the guys with broomsticks disguised as AKs were just gathering to pose for pictures, right?

/sarcasm

They first mistook cameras for weapons "that's a weapon". Then they identified two individuals with rifles (it's a warzone with bad elements walking about,would you be caught out there without yours?). They were already planning to open fire when at 4:13 they note an 'RPG'. They finish coming around the building to have all the individuals grouped together looking at the telephoto picture Namir just shot. They are all killed.

All these elements are seen in the 'edited' version; The only other thing the 39.5 minute unedited version has on offer is the destruction (via hellfire) of a building where several men with rifles entered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dDHkv1XhGU

Mistakes are one thing. Only in refusing to see or correct the mistake does it become an error.

A long shadow cast on the ground by a telephoto lens on Noor-Eldeen's camera is misidentified by the pilot as an additional RPG aimed at him and a U.S. Army humvee directly below his aircraft. One second later he screams, "He's got an RPG!"

But they recieved permission to open fire before uttering the word 'RPG'.

"the vast majority of the men were clearly unarmed". Greenwald called the second airstrike a "plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety".

...When the crew were informed that a child had been injured by their attack, one initially responded, "Ah damn. Oh well", and a minute later continued, "Well, it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle". Smith describes this reaction as inhuman. She draws parallels with soldiers who suffered post-traumatic stress disorder in earlier wars. She continues "... the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are inflicting huge psychological damage on combatants". In refusing to recognise this, the US military fails both its own soldiers and their "victims"

...""And you can see that they also deliberately target Saaed, a wounded man there on the ground, despite their earlier belief that they didn’t have the rules of engagement—that the rules of engagement did not permit them to kill Saeed when he was wounded. When he is rescued, suddenly that belief changed. You can see in this particular image he is lying on the ground and the people in the van have been separated, but they still deliberately target him. This is why we called it Collateral Murder. In the first example maybe it’s collateral exaggeration or incompetence when they strafe the initial gathering, this is recklessness bordering on murder, but you couldn’t say for sure that was murder. But this particular event—this is clearly murder. -- Julian Assange

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike

Of course, " the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded."

Of course that would have been the finding in order to not take two effective killing units out of commission for the length of a Geneva hearing.

I can plainly see rifles (two amongst 11 men); I can not see any RPG tubes.
==================

What would Trump do? I must say I don't like much of his little-handed tough talking. How would he handle this classified material? Why was the video 'classified' if there were nothing to hide?

Classification of information may be done to not disclose to any adversaries our sources, means and capabilities of our technologies or even to avoid inflammatory uses, as was done with the inflammatory title "collateral murder".

Having been on the receiving end of RPG fire, receiving multiple broken ribs from fragments propelled from an exploding warhead, to this day, I have an adrenaline response whenever I see a silhouette of an RPG in its pouch or in its tube.

Narad... I am not antivaccine. I know that vaccines are safe, and I know that vaccines do not cause autism.
I really dislike the Republican Party and I really dislike Trump.
Canada is better than the USA nowadays because Canadians had the good sense to kick Harper to the curb.

Narad… I am not antivaccine.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were; I should have written that more carefully.

It's official.
Trump is the Republican Party Presidential Candidate.

I know and a Dutch politician was there as well. I read a statement gay people are better of with Trump.
I think I doubt that. Today I read an opinion piece, stating Trump might become the next president of the USA.

A More Reality-Based Poll

scientificactivist — Thu, 06 May 2010 07:45:27 +0000

A More Reality-Based Poll

Remember that strikingly inept poll analysis about the Tea Party movement from The New York Times last month? Well, the new Washington Post-ABC News poll addresses the same topic, and the Post's analysis seems to actually be rooted in reality:

The conservative "tea party" movement appeals almost exclusively to supporters of the Republican Party, bolstering the view that the tea party divides the GOP even as it has energized its base.

That conclusion, backed by numbers from a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, also suggests that the tea party may have little room for growth. Most Americans -- including large majorities of those who don't already count themselves as supporters -- say they're not interested in learning more about the movement. A sizable share of those not already sympathetic to the tea party also say that the more they hear, the less they like the movement.

Overall, the tea party remains divisive, with 27 percent of those polled saying they're supportive but about as many, 24 percent, opposed. Supporters overwhelmingly identify themselves as Republicans or GOP-leaning independents; opponents are even more heavily Democratic. The new movement is also relatively small, with 8 percent of supporters claiming to be "active participants" -- about 2 percent of the total population.

(Emphasis added by me.)

These numbers are somewhat similar to last month's New York Times-CBS News poll, which found that 18% of Americans support the Tea Party movement. Despite the Times doing as much as it could to hype these results, I pointed out that this wasn't very meaningful, since that poll found that 78% of these "supporters" had never attended a Tea Party rally or meeting or donated money to the Tea Party cause. So, doing a little math, we find that about 4% of people could be labeled as active Tea Partiers based on that poll (compared with 2% in the current Washington Post poll).

The difference in both of these numbers (27% vs. 18% for supporters, 4% vs. 2% for active participants) could be due to a real drop in support for and participation in the Tea Party movement, or just a difference between the two polls. My point in bringing it up is that The Washington Post's analysis actually makes sense.

On the side, it is also of note that there's some good news in the poll for the Democratic Party:

The percentage of people who say the Democratic Party represents their personal values and is in tune with the problems of people like themselves hasn't changed since November. The percentage siding with the GOP, however, has dropped by almost precisely the numbers now siding with the tea party.

Some 14 percent of Americans say the tea party is most in sync with their values, nearly matching the 15 percentage-point drop-off for the GOP over the past five months.

For more, check out a graphic on the poll results here and the full poll results here.

scientificactivist Thu, 05/06/2010 - 03:45

Tags

Media

Republican Party

Washington

Sometimes polls went wrong of the right side. But at all polls are good for judge any types of decision. I love to take part on poll. Thank you for the article.

Hello scientific activist readers!

Here is another great blog for you to enjoy: realscienceexperience.wordpress.com

The Real Science Experience is a blog written by university students who have come from various backgrounds (and countries) and have followed the Bachelor of Science down different pathways from undergraduates to masters. On this blog we discuss what it is really like to study science at a tertiary level.

AmerikalÄ±larÄ±n bazÄ±larÄ± yÃ¼zde 14 Ã§ay partisi neredeyse son beÅ ayda GOP iÃ§in yÃ¼zde 15 puanlÄ±k dÃ¼ÅÃ¼Å-off eÅleÅen, kendi deÄerleri ile senkronize en sÃ¶ylÃ¼yorlar.

Tea Party losing members?

But just look at the millions of them out there protesting socialist federal aid for Nashville & the Gulf Coast.

There they are right over ....

It sounds as if the WP's poll got it about right.

The politcal context of the Tea Party along with a description of its development and likely evolution is presented in an excellent article noted below.

http://funks2.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/the-trip-to-nowhere-on-the-tea-p…

Just goes to show what you can do with statistics. It seems like you just accept the polls which accord better with your wishes. You don't want the Tea party to have mass appeal! Therefore, you deny polls showing that.

Cheers,
NS

Dave Beattie, a Florida-based pollster who conducts surveys for Democratic candidates, said the reasons for the decline in favorable views of the tea party are myriad. Not only has the newness of the tea party brand worn off, Beattie said, but rank-and-file voters have grown weary of its politics.

This Is a Very Dumb Poll

scientificactivist — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:33:59 +0000

This Is a Very Dumb Poll

Actually, I should say that this is a very dumb analysis of a poll. The New York Times is really promoting its new NYT/CBS poll right now; as I write this, the top headline on the Times' homepage reads "Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated."

When I first saw that headline and read the email news alert that the Times sent out, I did agree that these appeared to be interesting and surprising findings. And, as I read the article, my interest--and then skepticism--continued to grow. According to the article, these "Tea Party supporters" are "wealthier and more well-educated than the general public", and they make up "18 percent of Americans". Hmmm... interesting. Also, they "do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president", and are "more likely than the general public to have returned their census forms." Well, that's quite a surprise.

The article goes on and on, but one thing should become clear: these "Tea Party supporters" sound almost indistinguishable from your run-of-the-mill establishment fiscal-conservative Republican. How could this be?

Well, if you look at the actual the survey results and methods, you'll see that these "Tea Party supporters" are just people who answered affirmatively to the question "Do you consider yourself to be a supporter of the Tea Party movement, or not?" In fact, 78% (!!!) of these "supporters" have never attended a Tea Party rally or meeting or donated money to the Tea Party cause.

It's no wonder that these "Tea Party supporters" sound nothing like the Tea Party activists we've grown so familiar with... because they're not! Now, I'll grant that the Times' analysis never explicitly equates these two. But, especially by making statements like "Speculation and anecdotal evidence have often taken the place of concrete data about who supports the Tea Party movement, and the poll offers some surprising findings", they're really insinuating a lot.

In the end, these results are pretty uninteresting, since this poll just describes a large bloc of the Republican Party that has been in existence for a long time. (For a much more reasonable analysis of the poll, check out CBS's take.)

For a more relevant picture of what the Tea Party movement actually looks like, just take this recent sampling from the Times' own pages:

Let's not mince words here: the Tea Party movement has been fueled by misinformation, bigotry, and irrational violent anger at the government. If this new poll shows us anything, it's just to what a large degree the Republican establishment has accepted and embraced this radical fringe.

scientificactivist Wed, 04/14/2010 - 15:33

Tags

Media

Republican Party

Washington

Ancak, Ã¶zellikle "spekÃ¼lasyon ve anekdot kanÄ±t genellikle kim Ãay Partisi hareketi destekler hakkÄ±nda somut veriler yer almÄ±Å ve anket bazÄ± ÅaÅÄ±rtÄ±cÄ± bulgular sunuyor," gibi ifadeler yaparak, onlar gerÃ§ekten Ã§ok Ã¼stÃ¼.

Nick, if you go to the article you needn't go further than the headline to see that "Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated". Ok Nick, if you look closely, it says "BACKERS" it doesn't say Tea Party members. This simple fact renders your entire article moot. Don't waste my time on your mindless propaganda. This publication is discredited already in that it uses "Science" as part of the title and offers nothing that resembles that....and you are a post doc??? LOL!!!

Scott, if you read the rest of the post, you would realize that I'm saying exactly that: the NYTs doesn't explicitly say anything here that's technically untrue. Instead, it just hypes up something that at the end of the day is pretty uninformative.

ScottD only reads headlines.

Incredible. From the first story in the list of links:

âIf you donât trust the mindset or the value system of the people running the system, you canât even look at the facts anymore,â Mr. Grimes said.

These people are entirely incapable of recognising the treacle-thick irony in which they're thrashing around. Perhaps Obama should appoint and Irony Meter Czar so that every American can have their own personal irony meter. Surely there's an abandoned factory in Detroit that can be quickly retooled to churn them out.

Hey, as another commentator who goes by that name, I formally distance myself from the other "ScottD".

I read the Times article as well and was struck by how inconsistent so many of the 'backers' beliefs were, especially in regards to wanting smaller government yet clamoring for Medicare and Social Security.

And of course there was the obligatory line about Obama being a Muslim, which is always cause for tuning out.

As an antiwar activist, I have a different take on this:

What struck me about the article was that there was no mention of the wars, which have had such a huge impact on the US budget and where there is more agreement on the right/tea baggers and left. Moral arguments are different in each group, and I do wonder why the tea baggers weren't out protesting while Bush was in office. But from my left views, I also wonder why Obama supporters aren't more outraged at continued war, continued decreases in education, health care, etc.

Using the lens of war, there isn't such a big different between Democrats and Republicans. This is a chance to talk to tea baggers, to find common outrage and maybe solutions, and get past the demo/repub politics that distract the country from really getting something done, such as stopping the private financing of elections.

Kathy, It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Tea Baggers are same sorry Republicans. This world would be a better place without loud mouth extremists. Thanks!

Not every person that disagrees with Obama and the direction he, and congress are taking the country is white. So, how can we all be racist? Well Pelosi, and reid are white. I guess I can be a racist. Well I disagreed with Bush too. I guess I am a racist. Everytime someone says we're misinformed, a video or statemnet comes out in Obama's, Pelosi, or Maxine Waters own words to confirm what we are outrage about. I am not a Republican either. I was a Democrat before Clinton took office. Now I'm a Libertarian; and I make under $50,000.00 a year. I have never used public assistance and will not have to depend on it when I retire. But the first thing you liberals yell when somebody speaks out against your precious anoited savior, and his oligarchy: is misinformed, racist, republicans. With that said I guess you will call me a conservative, uncle tom, libertarian. But that's ok I can take the name calling.

The point IS: those such as yourself, Franklin Smith Jr, that sit there and "disagree" over the direction the country is being taken; are the very ones who really don't understand what direction the country is being taken.

I can't comment on you specifically, but calling yourself a Libertarian is a clue of many. Also, your rejection of Clinton when his presidency actually eliminated the deficit, is a big red flag. All of the Libertarians I personally know and nearly all who I meet online are sociopathic, over-privileged, and white. While you yourself might not be a racist, SOMEONE has to point out the elephant in the Libertarian conference room. Tea-baggers also share these same qualities, and nearly all of them voted for Bush twice. I should also mention they hold up racist signs (many of which are misspelled). If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

The elephant in the room is that the pollsters FAILED to ask the question that would have done the most to establish exactly who these folks are....

Did you vote for President Obama in the last election?
---Yes --- No.

I continue to contend that these people are nothing more than sore losers who are upset that their man didn't win the election, and that the man who DID win is trying to implement at least some of his campaign promises.

It's the strident minority.

The problematic article appeared in the NYTimes. I am a life-long daily reader of the Times, faute de mieux. I know for a fact that the quality of the journalism there is uneven to put it mildly. Some examples: obit of Ralph Rinzler, who did folk music promotion at the Smithsonian Institute, who played mandolin for a while with the Greenbriar Boys a notable bluegrass band, and to whom I sold my portable Nagra tape recorder for a not inconsiderable sum. The NYTimes obit included the remark "Rinzler was a black man." The reporter was obviously having his leg pulled by an informant. My point is that you should not assume that the facts in a NYTimes article seriously if they are self-contradictory. A waste of time to point out impossibilities in daily journalism. Think rather of how much they correctly report.

If you didn't already know, the billionaire Koch brothers and their industry front groups, Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, have coached and organized Tea Party members. Their message is always the same. Unfettered capitalism with no environmental regulations, no regulations on tobacco or formaldahyde. No climate change action. They actually outspent Exxon/Mobil last year, funding the global warming denial PR machine. They have been involved in denying the science of tobacco's health dangers. They are funding efforts to deny the science showing formaldahyde is cancer causing. Surprise! Surprise!
They also own Georgia Pacific lumber company, which uses formaldahyde in lumber products.

From what I've seen, tea baggers are mostly global warming deniers. That is a decidedly anti science position, considering that the vast majority of climate scientists (97%) and scientists in general (90%), as well as nearly every major science organization in the world agree on anthropogenic global warming.

And these guys are some of the bigger disinformers on climate change. There is no more important issue.

Nearly every single GOP congressman and senator is a global warming denier.

They consider well known liar and charlatan Christopher Monckton, a climate expert. He has no science training whatsoever. He has been completely and devestatingly debunked many times. Yet in May,2010 Republicans invited him as their only expert witness for a hearing at the Select Committee On Energy Independence and Global Warming

They also had him testify in 2008 at a U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing. That was when Joe (apologise to BP) Barton (R Texas) introduced Monckton as -"being generally regarded as one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side".

Global warming is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of science. Monckton is an activist, not a scientist. And what he claims is science isn't. He is known to make completely absurd claims, like that industrialization helps the environment and that global warming will be beneficial.

the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley as he likes to be called.

Monckton claims to have discovered the cure for many diseases, like Herpes, HIV, common cold etc. He is well known in the world of GW skeptics. He is a real slick showman who is constantly on the campaign trail spreading his psuedo science, and who lies, twists and distorts the science and is a complete fraud. Among real climate scientitsts he is something of a joke. He is considered one of the least credible of skeptics and that is saying a lot. Scientists consider him a joke, but are aware of the danger of men like this to the public's understanding of science. He is clever and knows how to persuade an audience, unlike most real scientists, who aren't very good at public speakng and being persuasive.

Monckton's claim to nobility has long been suspected of being false. That was recently confirmed by an inquiry to the British House of Lords, who said: "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." They have asked him to stop saying he is a member.
Despite this, Monckton has insinuated himself to the U.S. Congress as an envoy from the British Parliament. He likes to embellish his temperature graphs and such, press releases, etc. with a very close approximation of the crowned portcullis, symbol of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. He's balmy, I tell ya.

And this is a climate expert to the GOP.

Vote them all out.

It's Getting Kind of Hot Out There....

scientificactivist — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:09:55 +0000

It's Getting Kind of Hot Out There....

Oh boy, it was a real scorcher in our nation's capital today... at least by April standards! With temperatures in some locales surpassing 90 degrees, several area daily high temperature records were broken.

As I sweated through the day, I got to thinking: where are all of those oh-so-clever political cartoonists and global-warming-denying Republican politicians who just a couple of months ago were incessantly using February's record-breaking snows to "mock" the idea of global warming?

(Bueller...? Bueller...? Bueller...?)

The fact is that this is largely an irrelevant*** question (well, irrelevant in terms of science; politically, we should seriously be questioning the integrity and competence of these people). As anyone with a grade-school education should be able to tell you, climate and weather are two distinct concepts. Weather deals with events on the timescale of hours and days, whereas climate concerns averages on the scale of years. Although day-to-day weather can be erratic and somewhat unpredictable, the average global temperature has been increasing at a fairly steady rate for many years now (i.e. global warming), and this change has accelerated recently. There is very strong evidence that this warming is due to the actions of humankind.

Although the behavior we saw back in February was just political theater on behalf of opportunistic Republicans, one might be somewhat surprised to learn that some of those we might--superficially--expect to be experts on our changing climate, meteorologists, are particularly skeptical about global warming. This is something I have observed personally, and Leslie Kaufman of The New York Times recently had an interesting article about this phenomenon--and why this shouldn't be taken as strong evidence against global warming:

...

But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as television weather forecasters.

...

Such skepticism appears to be widespread among TV forecasters, about half of whom have a degree in meteorology. A study released on Monday by researchers at George Mason University and the University of Texas at Austin found that only about half of the 571 television weathercasters surveyed believed that global warming was occurring and fewer than a third believed that climate change was "caused mostly by human activities."

More than a quarter of the weathercasters in the survey agreed with the statement "Global warming is a scam," the researchers found.

The split between climate scientists and meteorologists is gaining attention in political and academic circles because polls show that public skepticism about global warming is increasing, and weather forecasters -- especially those on television -- dominate communications channels to the public. A study released this year by researchers at Yale and George Mason found that 56 percent of Americans trusted weathercasters to tell them about global warming far more than they trusted other news media or public figures like former Vice President Al Gore or Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate.

...

The reasons behind the divergence in views are complex. The American Meteorological Society, which confers its coveted seal of approval on qualified weather forecasters, has affirmed the conclusion of the United Nations' climate panel that warming is occurring and that human activities are very likely the cause. In a statement sent to Congress in 2009, the meteorological society warned that the buildup of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to "major negative consequences."

Yet, climate scientists use very different scientific methods from the meteorologists. Heidi Cullen, a climatologist who straddled the two worlds when she worked at the Weather Channel, noted that meteorologists used models that were intensely sensitive to small changes in the atmosphere but had little accuracy more than seven days out. Dr. Cullen said meteorologists are often dubious about the work of climate scientists, who use complex models to estimate the effects of climate trends decades in the future.

But the cynicism, said Dr. Cullen, who now works for Climate Central, a nonprofit group that works to bring the science of climate change to the public, is in her opinion unwarranted.

"They are not trying to predict the weather for 2050, just generally say that it will be hotter," Dr. Cullen said of climatologists. "And just like I can predict August will be warmer than January, I can predict that."

...

Resentment may also play a role in the divide. Climatologists are almost always affiliated with universities or research institutions where a doctoral degree is required. Most meteorologists, however, can get jobs as weather forecasters with a college degree.

Thomas Lin has an additional blog post at The New York Times' Dot Earth blog chronicling why this climatologist/meteorologist divide is so dangerous: the outsized influence over public opinion that TV weathermen wield from their very visible platforms.

Interestingly, I also received a surprisingly timely press release today on this very topic from the Union of Concerned Scientists--regarding tonight's episode of The Colbert Report:

UCS Climate Scientist, Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel will go head to head with a skeptical meteorologist during "couples counseling" tonight on the Colbert Report. It should be funny and informative. We hope you tune in, tonight, April 6 on Comedy Central at 11:30 p.m. EDT.

Both sciences are indeed "married" through their focus on the atmosphere, but they differ when it comes to identifying short-term trends, such as storms, versus long-term trends, such as human-induced climate change. Brenda will set the record straight: Global warming is real and its consequences are becoming increasingly apparent as sea levels rise, glaciers melt, and extreme weather events become more prevalent.

I imagine it will be entertaining as usual!

***In addition to the political caveat above, one could also make the case that the recent weather may not be totally irrelevant scientifically to discussions of global warming, as increases in global temperature are expected to also increase the frequency of extreme weather events (as noted with less measured language in the press release). However, no single weather event can be attributed directly to global warming with absolute certainty, so this is a point that should only be made cautiously.

scientificactivist Tue, 04/06/2010 - 16:09

Tags

Categories

We normal people are still here. Yes it is hot. That is becuase it is APRIL! When November gets here, it will turn cold. Please remember that we generally have a thing called SEASONS!

I guess I better be careful what i say on the internet, since it does belong to the global whining king Al Gore. I wonder if he still pays a $30,000 electric bill and leaves his lemo running for hours?

Global warming is just another marxist leftist scam to gain more control over the people and to gain more money while having an excuse to have an abortion.

As far as I am concerned we need to repeal the EPA and they can politely screw in those CFL bulbs up their asses. Please help stop the treehugger dictators from taking over the world!

I urge all conservatives to screw up earth hour. Fir that hour, turn everythin g in your house, office, barn, wnhatever, ON wide open for the whole hour. Then fart, burp, and leave your cars running for that whole hours. As a matter of fact, pour a gallon of gasoline onto a brush fire that day. Help pollute the treehuggers into their usual fit of terrorist rage. They will probably retaliate by burning another hummer dealership.

Remember fellow conservatives, when earth hour comes, run everything you can wide opne for the whole hour. Drive the libs crazy. Also, leave your water running too. Spray alot of hair spray into the air.

GWDFL = Poe. :-)

Tragically though, I have heard people seriously state some of the same things.

Edgar Allen Poe?
or just Poe? I will be poe after Obama's radical socialist population control healthbill takes full effect. i have a sneaking feeling that Crap and Trade will make us all poe since it will tax us to death. Yep, I be poe.

Daniel, are you a 13 year old girl with a cell phone? Stop abbreviating! It's annoying.

Pleeeeazzz, get serious. You take a single 90 degree day and claim that as proof of global warming. Why don't we look at temperatures in context, over the recent past?:

http://tinyurl.com/yelxbau

or, how about this empirical evidence:

http://tinyurl.com/yhn26n5

^^^ In the grand scheme of denial, those two links were really impressively out there on the stupid scale.

I feel like a lot of people are missing the point here: that you can't take a single weather event and hold it up as damning evidence against or undeniable proof for global warming.

Nick, you're assuming that Global Warming Denier for Life and Art Ford are missing your point. They understand your point perfectly well; they just don't care. These are people who consider loyalty and tribal identity to be greater virtues than honesty or integrity. They don't mind spouting bullshit because they have no interest in engaging in honest debate or understanding the world. Their comments are not directed at you; they are directed at their conservative comrades in order to establish their bona fides as a member of the tribe in good standing.

The deniers live in a tiny, tiny world where the most important thing they can imagine is how others see them.

@GWDFL-- that's a pretty stupid argument you got there. Yeah, it's always 80 degrees in April. We like are summers now in Maryland. Screw spring.

NEWSFLASH! The average April high in MD is the mid-60's! IN YOUR FACE GWDFL! Maybe you want that blizzard to come back again, so you can go on denying the obvious.

Global whining king AL Gore? Thats' the best you can do? It must be really smug in that tiny world of yours. And could you please tell me what a lemo is?

Global warming is another Marxist scam... do you even know what Marxism is? Maybe its your climate change denial that's a scam. Treehugger dictators? Is that like Islamofascists? Is it always a neo-cons prerogative to invent words on the fly? Okay enough with the dumb jokes...

I want to point out how much of an empty room you are calling out to when you are trying to reach your fellow cons.

In the most recent Gallup poll: 50% of all Americans believe that global warming is already happening. Add another 10%, who believe global warming will happen in their lifetime. How many people are in the denial camp? A paltry 19%. It must be lonely there in "ignorance-is-bliss" land Mr. Head Stuck in Sand for Life.

Of course, maybe they'd just prefer oceans with a high pH level. Maybe they'd just prefer oceans that can't support life anymore, and laugh all the way to the back as the ecosystems utterly collapse because fish can't feed on faster plankton that are replacing the older ones (they prefer warmer water). Maybe a mass extinction of fish is something they want - and the maybe they want the food chain to collapse completely, and destroy the entire ocean ecosystem. Maybe they'd prefer water wars, and food wars as drastic climate change brought about by the rapid change in the ocean composition and atmospheric composition shifts growing seasons erratically. May he likes to see plants close their stomata, and not absorb as much water, and not work as hard to absorb CO2. Maybe he enjoys watching rivers flood, because plants won't be absorbing all the water. But hey - Al Gore flies a jet! And I'm not changing until he stops flying a jet! I'm not gonna read any of the above because Al Gore flies a jet, and I WANNA FLY A JET TOO!

Basic science: Venus has a high level of CO2 in its atmosphere. What does Venus look like? It's a pleasant place, let me tell you. And we're putting what in our atmosphere? Shaddup and listen. We're putting CO2 in our atmosphere. It doesn't go away. All this CO2 caused something that's coined "the Greenhouse effect." That's what's causing Climate Change. You wanna disprove Climate Change? Disprove the Greenhouse effect. Tell me that CO2 doesn't have properties that we KNOW it does. Tell I'm wrong, and I'm lying, and the Venus is actually a pleasant place to live. Tell me that I'm lying about this, and back it up - I challenge you. Prove that CO2 has done Venus good, because it's basically doing the same thing here.

Many people are in the "denial camp" becuase we deny the left's agenda to gain more money and power through this so called global warming thing. It is a scam. Nothing less. Global warming/environment worshippers (idoloatry) are scary. They want to control the world. Good luck controlling me.

icecap.us

Ever heard of it. Probabaly not since it denies man made global warming.

I guess all that CO2 that martian SUVs and light bulbs are creating on mars is melting the polar ice caps of mars too?

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but it is the SUN that is melting the ice and causing climate changes. It is a natural cycle. It happens now and then. It just amazes me how liberals refuse to beleive that a gigantic ball of fire can possibly make something warmer. Micheal Savage was right. Liberalism is a mental disorder. maybe they just had too much sodium flouride and now have to obey thier commanders.

And who is GWDFL? I suppose some cannot say words. Reminds me of gitty little 13 year school girls getting their first cell phone : BFF, GGD, FFG, TYOY, KNUOIT, WTH?

Does anyone says real words anymore?

Why is everyone attempting to argue with 'Global Warming Denier for Life'? Doesn't everyone realise that he is really a proponent of AGW, and is cleverly parodying the attitudes of the deniers.

This is so obvious people! No-one REALLY says the things that he wrote at post #1 or #10. That would be too moronic for words!

Indeed - the short term view of the deniers saying "well it's cold, so there ain't no warming" is going to bite them on the proverbial. Sweltering April? Records temperatures following records winter fall. Climate all over the place? Gosh, what could that mean?

This might be the thing that snaps peoples cognitive bias.

Of course, what does the denial movement do? Focus on Arctic ice...

"Many people are in the "denial camp" becuase we deny the left's agenda to gain more money and power through this so called global warming thing. It is a scam. Nothing less. Global warming/environment worshippers (idoloatry) are scary. They want to control the world. Good luck controlling me. "

What is this agenda? Nobody informed me, damn it. I wanna know! And environmental worshipers? Hey, if you're cool with all the stuff happening I outlined before happening then have it, son. But your pathetic little Jebus ain't gonna save us. We either save ourselves or we die.

As for the controlling you - well, it looks like AGW and the conservative party's already got that down. You don't have to worry about "liberal brainwashing" - the conservatives had already done that. Slavery is Freedom, War is Peace, and all that good stuff.

"I guess all that CO2 that martian SUVs and light bulbs are creating on mars is melting the polar ice caps of mars too?"

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot? Put down the Kool-aide, boy, an clean out your dog damn ears. Mars-to-Earth is not an accurate comparison. Mars is tectonically dead. Mars does not have an atmosphere worth mentioning. Water freezes and evaporates on the surface at the same time because there's no pressure.

My example of Venus still stands. Venus has an atmosphere. Venus is still alive, Venus is roughly the same size as earth - we're called "TWIN PLANETS" for a reason. Earth isn't like Venus - yet.

"I hate to be the one to tell you this, but it is the SUN that is melting the ice and causing climate changes. It is a natural cycle."

You say this and expect me to just dismiss all the CO2 that we've put in the atmosphere? When the damage it's done to the Ozone Layer is so prevalent? You're full of it. Before I believe it's occurring naturally, prove to me it's not all the CO2 we put up there doing it.

"It just amazes me how liberals refuse to beleive that a gigantic ball of fire can possibly make something warmer"

First, it's not a ball of fire. Fire can't burn in space - it requires this thing called oxygen. How do you expect me to even take you seriously if you think fire can burn in space?

"maybe they just had too much sodium flouride and now have to obey thier commanders"

Hey, I have white teeth. My enamel is strong (considering how much pop I drink on a regular basis). Put down the McCarthy Propaganda, the business of NaF has been put to rest for at least 40 years now.

I asked you earlier for chemistry evidence. It's apparent to me know you don't know jack squat about chemistry, or anything relating to it. It sounds to me like you're just making stuff up.

"Micheal Savage was right"

And there it is. I knew you were just making stuff up. This proves it.

"And who is GWDFL? I suppose some cannot say words."

Not my BFF, that's for sure...

"Reminds me of gitty little 13 year school girls getting their first cell phone"

Someone's mad. I guess this means we can't use words like laser anymore. Or words like OSHA, or NASA, or the FBI, or the CIA... Globe Warning Denier For Life will get mad, because s/he doesn't like acronyms.

"Does anyone says real words anymore?"

I'd rather see shorted txt spk that has a point rather than a block of words saying nothing.

Enigma, don't have a hissy fit. No Jebus will not save us becuase he only exists in the world of the Simpsons. However, Jesus will save some of us.

Do you wish to know how the earth will die? IN WAR! Read Revelation.

One day every single thing on this planet is going to burn. Global warming will be real then when the earth is literally on fire. What will the environuts do when God destroys your precious little environment and creates a
brand new one just for us?

Your econuttiness has you batshit crazy. Stop worshipping idols. Environmental radicalism is a form of idol worship which is the same as satan worship since he created it.

My teeth are strong too. I take Vitamin D3 and Magnesium.
I don't need the nazi socilaist compliance formula (sodium flouride) for anything.

The Sun is not on fire? Well, cut my legs off and call me shorty. I suppose it is just an illusion to trick us all. If it is not fire, then please inform me what it is. I have never seen water burn. Is it an unknown substance that just lights up all by itself and produces the illusion of HEAT? I suppose so according to liberalenigama.

Global warming denier for life - great satire. No real person would be so delusional that they would come on SCIENCEblogs and display so much ignorance and subject themselves to so much ridicule.

I mean c'mon, "The Sun is not on fire? Well, cut my legs off and call me shorty. I suppose it is just an illusion to trick us all. If it is not fire, then please inform me what it is."
That's great satire. As you know of course, the sun is not burning, since is combustion where oxygen rapidly combines with a fuel. Instead the sun is a glowing ball of plasma, heated by nuclear fusion in it core.

Oh yeah, and to try to refute scientific knowledge by using the language of the crazy perversion of Christianity that is fundamentalism. Just brilliant!

I'm slightly sleep deprived currently, so maybe that's why this thread makes me feel like my head might explode. I really, really can't tell who's being serious and who isn't.

"The Sun is not on fire? Well, cut my legs off and call me shorty. I suppose it is just an illusion to trick us all."

Poe. :P

Unfortunately, the confrontation no Colbert was a total waste of time. You just had one person spouting one set of "facts" (the body builder guy, whose facts were mostly false) and another person spouting another. The guy with the false facts was more telegenic and sounded more convincing. There was no way for an otherwise uninformed viewer to choose between them, and Colbert didn't help. It was just about unwatchable.

And unfortunately, that's how this whole thing comes across to the general public as well.

That's an interesting comment about "meteorologists". I didn't think the TV weather person was required to have a degree in meteorology. The dozens of meteorologists I know who actually work on the weather forecasts don't dispute the global warming (but they get fired up about unsupportable claims of "bigger badder storms").

Hehehe; I like "Global warming denier for life" - maybe he/she should write some bits for Colbert.

A while ago in order to create some test data, I downloaded a copy of the engine behind the Pomo Paper Generator. It's a fairly simple generator that creates text based on a specified set of rules, with a bit of randomness added in.

I'm pretty sure that with a bit of tweaking, I could get output that's identical to GWDFL's posts. I mean, just look at them, the layout is so obvious!

I'd imagine his overall grammar is something like:

[body] -> [element]+ [end]
[element] -> [consequences type?] | [unrelated_conspiracy] | [liberal_bashing] | [denialist_claim]
[consequences type?] -> [consequences_opening type?] [consequences_body type?]

And here's how they map out:

Enigma, don't have a hissy fit. No Jebus will not save us becuase he only exists in the world of the Simpsons. However, Jesus will save some of us.

A handcrafted reply header to muddy the waters.

Do you wish to know how the earth will die? IN WAR! Read Revelation.

[consequences_opening type="religious"]

One day every single thing on this planet is going to burn. Global warming will be real then when the earth is literally on fire. What will the environuts do when God destroys your precious little environment and creates a
brand new one just for us?

[consequences_body type="religious"]

Your econuttiness has you batshit crazy. Stop worshipping idols. Environmental radicalism is a form of idol worship which is the same as satan worship since he created it.

[liberal_bashing]

My teeth are strong too. I take Vitamin D3 and Magnesium.
I don't need the nazi socilaist compliance formula (sodium flouride) for anything.

[unrelated_conspiracy]

The Sun is not on fire? Well, cut my legs off and call me shorty. I suppose it is just an illusion to trick us all. If it is not fire, then please inform me what it is. I have never seen water burn. Is it an unknown substance that just lights up all by itself and produces the illusion of HEAT? I suppose so according to liberalenigama.

[denialist_claim]

It's so simple! This is how they find the time to do so much trolling; the body of their posts is randomly generated.

Arlen Specter Leaves GOP for Dems

scientificactivist — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:22:31 +0000

Arlen Specter Leaves GOP for Dems

The Republican party today moved another step closer to becoming just the regional party of the South by losing one of its most respected members, Senator Arlen Specter (PA). Citing the Republicans' notable swing to the right in recent years, Specter announced earlier that he would be switching parties to join the Democrats. His switch will give the Democrats a filibuster-proof 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, assuming the courts uphold Al Franken's victory in the Minnesota Senate race.

Without a doubt, this is a positive development. Fears that the Democrats will have "too much power" are overblown, as Specter will certainly continue to be an independent voice in the Democratic Party as he was in the Republican Party. More importantly, since Obama's inauguration, the GOP has done little else besides engage in obstructionist tactics, while offering few if any solutions of their own. This move, then, should at the very least help make Congress more productive.

You can read Specter's full remarks here, but here's a taste:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.,p>

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

scientificactivist Tue, 04/28/2009 - 07:22

Tags

Democratic Party

Republican Party

Washington

Republicans have managed to PUSH the Senator to the other sides. If they don't watch it, they'll push Maine's two Senators over, too. OsiSpeaks.com

If it won't be an amicable split, at least it will be dignified. On Specter's part, if not the GOP's.

Fears that the Democrats will have "too much power" are overblown

Personally, I don't think fears that any politicians have too much power are ever overblown. Consider how much effort goes into fighting things as obscure as the Texas Board of Education. I think you'd agree with me that a certain fundamentalist dentist from Bryan has too much power.

However, I assume you are referring to the marginal difference from Spector's switch, in which case I mostly agree.

There needs to be an opposition party. But it doesn't need to be a wingnut party. Perhaps everyone should leave the GOP except the religious right, making the Democratic Party so big that it splits in two. We can have a 30% left Democratic Party, a 30% conservative Democratic Party (Blue Dog Party?), and a 20% wingnut GOP. Which eventually withers away.

However, I assume you are referring to the marginal difference from Specter's switch, in which case I mostly agree.

Yes, that's right. And, I agree with your premise that we have to constantly hold our leaders accountable and not let anyone consolidate too much power. However, I'm not too worried about the Democrats in general right, now given how effectively internal disagreements and fault lines seem to mitigate their power.

Having inflicted W on the world it's only fitting that the GOP is consigned to history.

Just When I Thought Texas Politics Couldn't Get Any Dumber

scientificactivist — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:30:44 +0000

Just When I Thought Texas Politics Couldn't Get Any Dumber

What can I even say about this? From the Austin American-Statesman:

At a hearing Thursday of the House Committee on Human Services, [Texas State Representative Gary] Elkins and other members of the panel considered more than two dozen bills related to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Three hours into the hearing, Elkins asked: "What's Medicaid?"

The Houston Republican continued: "I know I hear it -- I really don't know what it is. I know that's a big shock to everybody here in the audience, OK."

And, for the win....

Medicaid, for the record, is the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people and people with disabilities. Elkins is new to the Human Services Committee. However, he's served in the House since 1995, where one of the main tasks is crafting the state budget.

A quarter of the state budget is Medicaid.

Is there anyone out there who lives in the 135th Texas House District, has more than half a brain cell, and wants to run against this guy?

Hat tip: Burnt Orange Report

scientificactivist Mon, 03/23/2009 - 11:30

Tags

Health Policy

Republican Party

Texas

Is there anyone out there who lives in the 135th Texas House District, has more than half a brain cell, and wants to run against this guy?

First you ask them to disqualify themselves, then to run?

(Emphasis added.)

Dude, move to Texas and DO IT!!!!

Moving to Texas is one thing... moving to a sprawly Houston suburb is taking things to a whole new level.

I am in close contact with a couple of people who are partially incapacitated and on Medicaid. They both visit doctors nearly every week and are taking major tests which appear to be totally unnecessary. It appears that they ENJOY the PERSONAL ATTENTION they receive during medical visits and procedures. I also suspect the doctors view them as easy "marks" and tell them they need all of these expensive tests so as to increase their incomes. Also, they receive subsidized rent and free caretaker housekeeping. One has, over the past year, received $400. diabetic shoes (which he won't wear), an electric cart (which he doesn't need and doesn't use), and is always alert to any other "freebies". It's easy to see why 25% of the state budget is now consumed by Medicaid costs.

Re: Interested Observer
Its rash to say that everyone on Medicaid is an abuser of the program.

Interested Observer:

I'll trade you my bones that won't knit, arthritis, constant pain and meds for your health. You can have all the attention I get and the freebies.

Oh, I get to have your extra years of life too...