Senior Bush to vote for Clinton


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Why am I not surprised? Former President George H.W. Bush, the first Bush president, announced today that he plans to vote for Hillary Clinton for president.

Bush, 92, had intended to stay silent on the White House race between Clinton and Donald Trump, a sign in and of itself of his distaste for the GOP nominee. But his preference for the wife of his own successor, President Bill Clinton, nonetheless became known to a wider audience thanks to Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend, the former Maryland lieutenant governor and daughter of the late Robert F. Kennedy. On Monday, Townsend posted a picture on her Facebook page shaking hands next to the former president and this caption: “The President told me he’s voting for Hillary!!”

All the Bushes have been closet Democrats since day one. All this does is confirm this fact for every Republican conservative nationwide. It will also allows Trump to cut them out of the power game should he win the presidency. I should also note that the Bushes are closely tied in with the congressional Republican leadership that has failed to fulfill any of their election promises since 2010, and have instead stabbed the voters who gave them a majority in the back, repeatedly. All this now becomes obvious.

Share

77 comments

  • So HW wants open borders to continue. I doubt if he will feel any guilt over the terrorist attacks which have occurred and will continue to happen in the future as a result. And he doesn’t appear to be concerned about the catastrophic leak of state department secrets. The one advantage is the Rinos tend to support losing presidential candidates.

  • The one advantage is that Rinos tend to support losing presidential candidates.

  • INSOMNiUS

    Let’s connect the dots.
    George Bush Sr. was the 11th Director of Central Intelligence, CIA.
    Clinton = George Soros
    “The Soros Foundation Hack”

  • D. K. Williams

    The GOP hasn’t had a legitimately conservative presidential candidate since Reagan.

  • Des

    Maybe he isn’t prepared to vote for a racist demagogue? Much more understandable than crazy conspiracy theories?

  • PeterF

    I suspect that in the coming months there will be a large number of putative republicans switching parties. They should be encouraged to do so.

    (H.W in the role of Gomer Pyle the proctologist: Surprise! Surprise! That ain’t my finger!)

  • Wayne

    I worked on the ’76, ’80, and ’84 Reagan-campaigns in Michigan.

    >Bush was a RINO then & he’s a RINO now.

  • Localfluff

    At least it will hardly inspire Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for Crooked Clinton. Endorsements like this just make her look more establishment, and those tides have unstoppably turned in this moon system. So Bush lends his name and track record to the Clintons. That won’t sway the masses.

    Btw, did Hillary Clinton’s new book titled “Stronger Together” really sell less than 3,000 copies first week? To keep an eye on the enemy, I sometimes drop into this blogger below, who is a Bernie Sanders socialist. His contempt of the Clintons is still inspiring. He expresses it pretty well. This is what Trump is up against.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV0KnPSZwKc

    And when Trump launches six weeks paid child care for new mothers, he puts up a great show. Even the leftists evidently hate Hillary more than the D.J.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYy-mOsiQqg

  • Cotour

    G.H.W. Bush, father of the One World Government, New World Order, head of the CIA (was it really him in that Dallas picture?) forced on Reagan as VP by the establishment, and I suppose that I have him (and his son) to thank for Strategy Over Morality (S.O.M.).

    Thanks Bush’s, for revealing to me how the world and real power is exercised.

    His agenda demands that he support the establishment candidate, Hillary, Trump actually may represent America and the American people much, much more than any of the politicians of the past 30 or so years.

    Oh yeah, and Trump bitch slapped his son Jeb who spent $150 Million dollars for 3 delegates. Maybe thats why?

  • Phill O

    I always thought that Bush senior was pretty good; until now! Going against a written agreement and supporting Hillary only go to show that my trust was misplaced. It really shows there was no character there to begin with. Rand Paul at least felt bound by that agreement! It is becoming very evident that one needs to follow the money; the money paid to the Hillary campaign and the Bush campaign came from the same source, as I have said before!

    Talk about sour grapes. Screw Jeb!

  • Mike

    While I would never vote for Hillary, I can understand HW’s sentiment. Trump is a disastrous dumpster fire of a candidate who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House. And then again, so is Hillary, but for different reasons. This is honestly the worst election in my lifetime – we have two liberal Democrat candidates – one who is mentally unstable and is pretending to be a Republican who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the nuclear football, and one who is corrupt beyond belief and would sell out our interests to the highest bidder.

    Can we have a do-over please?

  • Cotour

    “Trump is a disastrous dumpster fire of a candidate who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House. ”

    (Who should be allowed near the White House? IYO )

    Probably the one reason that Trump must become the next president IMO. Your preconceive notion of what a “proper” president should be is based, on well, preconceived notions.

    Trump may be the only real candidate that can actually change the trajectory of our country. You can argue over what that trajectory will be but he is the only one to accomplish it.

    Change is not a function of the status quo kind of “safe” thinking that you go to for some kind of security, Change is a function of different think and force of vision. And that, like it or not, is Trump.

  • PeterF

    Contour:
    “Trump may be the only real candidate that can actually change the trajectory of our country. You can argue over what that trajectory will be but he is the only one to accomplish it.”

    The president can choose a course and set the rudder but unless he can get enough of the people pulling on the oars to pull in unison, we will continue to flounder around until the “winds of change” and “the tide of history” runs us up on the rocks.

    That was Reagan’s greatest accomplishment.

  • wayne

    All the Bush’s are RINO’s— they always have been & always will be.

  • Cotour

    And so you saying that we should elect Hillary or someone like her because she can get cooperation? That is what your logic indicates.

    Trump being able to get cooperation aside.

    How he would accomplish cooperation might be very interesting. My point is that if we continue to be fearful about who leads the country in the terms that you lay out those who understand that fear own the populous. I at least see Trump as being an American and is concerned about American issues.

    Fear is a tool of manipulation, lets not be afraid.

    Trumps is it for a reason, his job right now is to somehow get elected and then he must reassess and rise to the occasion and do the best for the country.

    This what we have to work with and its this way because of the fear that politicos have in actually going against the grain. We must go against the grain.

  • wayne

    Mark Levin Mocks Mitch McConnell
    09 23 15
    https://youtu.be/3OUpIEOxEGY

  • Mike

    “Trump may be the only real candidate that can actually change the trajectory of our country. You can argue over what that trajectory will be but he is the only one to accomplish it.

    Change is not a function of the status quo kind of “safe” thinking that you go to for some kind of security, Change is a function of different think and force of vision. And that, like it or not, is Trump.”

    Change for change’s sake is not necessarily a good thing. One could have easily said the exact same thing about Lenin, Hitler, Mussilini, etc. – “Hitler may be the only real candidate that can actually change the trajectory of our country. You can argue over what that trajectory will be but he is the only one to accomplish it..”

    Now before you get all upset that I’m comparing Trump to Hitler, I’m not. Trump is obviously not Hitler or anything approaching Hitler. I’m just pointing out that your argument is not a compelling argument for Trump.

    The argument of “Change” doesn’t make a compelling case that someone is fit for the presidency. That’s how we got Barack Obama. The fact is, Trump has shown that he lacks self control and reacts emotionally to events, even when it is not in his best interest. That is what makes him unfit for the Presidency. It’s not a matter of historical norms, it’s the fact that someone who reacts first and thinks second should not be in charge of our nuclear arsenal. My reason for opposing Trump is directly related to the fact that I would really like to avoid World War III, which I think is a real possibility given his temperament and lack of self-control.

  • Cotour

    So you argue For Hillary. (your going to have to sort this all out in the next 49 days)

    Trump will not be the one who brings on a WWIII, Barack Hussein Obama has invested plenty in that area through his projected weakness, as China and Russia. And its not going to be Trump that will set it off. Nor will he set off the financial crash that will certainly visit the world in the coming next few years. He in fact may well be thee perfect person to counter these coming challenges. Trump is a organizational savant / force of vision type person and will be the one who will be able to figure it out in the most creative and real way.

    Do you really believe that Hillary or anyone who was running is the person to solve these problems? Really? We do not need party hack, ideological Leftist / RINO establishment tools to be in positions to do what must be done. They are unable to fix what they have created through abuse of power and surrendering their fiduciary responsibility. That is how we got here, you, we must all think differently. It is scary to have to think differently. Trump has two potentials, both good and bad, Hillary has only one potential IMO, and its not good.

    My concern in this regard is that the Trump solution not include believing that having to trade away the essence of the Constitution is necessary in order to accomplish it.

    Trump has just as much as anyone that reads this web page to lose, plus much, much more, including his ego and relatively stellar record of success, which alone will force him to readjust his focus and become more than he is. Think about it.

    This is my read and my logic. Hillary must never become the president of the United States, never.

  • wayne

    Mike–
    I personally believe we are already in WW-3.

  • Mike

    I’m not arguing for Hillary. I’m arguing that we have an impossible choice and two awful, horrific candidates. I do think most of the other Republican candidates who were running would have been far superior to either of these two – Cruz, Rubio, etc..

    “Trump is a organizational savant / force of vision type person and will be the one who will be able to figure it out in the most creative and real way.”

    This is a laughable statement. Trump *lacks* vision and any serious views – he figures out talking points that work at rallys, and then grabs on to them. He has very little vision and very little understanding of anything when it comes to policy, etc…

    “We do not need party hack, ideological Leftist / RINO establishment tools to be in positions to do what must be done.”
    Hate to tell you, but Trump is the party hack/RINO candidate that they supported to prevent Cruz from being the nominee.

    Neither Trump nor Hillary should ever become President. One of them will. This is the Kobayashi Maru.

    “I personally believe we are already in WW-3.”

    Fair enough. But I think Trump has a very real chance of opening it on a new front (Russia, China) and making it nuclear.

  • Cotour

    “Change for change’s sake is not necessarily a good thing”

    Are you arguing for the same as we have been getting? Is that sustainable IYO? Do you think it will be a long term win for Hillary to appoint the next 3 or 4 Liberal / Leftist Supreme Court Justices? (who may be around for 30 years?)

    If you are not arguing for the same then you want change, Trump, like it or not is the change potential that we are presented with.

  • Cotour

    Then I guess you will be voting for Cruz or Rubio. (sarcasm for the sarcasm challenged)

  • Andrew_W

    Not an American but.

    I’m all in favor of change, as long as the change is in the direction I want and the forecasted change is at least a little bit predictable. That’s not what you get with Trump, he’s sacrificed all consistency in his drive for the white house, spouting whatever he thinks will appeal to the audience in front of him.

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne: All the Bush’s are RINO’s— they always have been & always will be.

    So what do you think are true Republican principles, economic and social?

  • wayne

    Mike–
    We’ve actually had all these discussions, and more. (I totally empathize! I supported Cruz & not thrilled with DJT.)
    >Vote your conscience, it’s all you can do. (as long as it’s Not Hillary!)

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    So that’s one vote for Hillary, even though you can not vote.

    (The reasons grow and grow for a Trump win.)

  • wayne

    Andrew_W–

    Yowza dude! Are you going to argue the point, that the Bush Family, are not RINO’s?

    Seriously– if you think any of them actually represented the modern American conservative movement, we are just not speaking the same language, at all.

    And I’ll agree to disagree right up front.
    Not following you down that rabbit hole.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W–

    so, if you were able to vote in the United States, you would vote for Hillary? Is that what I’m hearing or what?
    (I’ve been involved in the Libertarian Party at the State level, don’t even attempt to tell me Gary Johnson is an actual Libertarian. I know all about how the Libertarian Movement is cobbled-together. If he were to be your choice, that would explain a Whole Lot to me, on top of everything else.)

  • Andrew_W

    Johnson doesn’t get a lot of coverage down here (only when he makes a gaff). What aspects of Johnson’s policy position do you see as not Classical Liberal/Libertarian?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#Political_positions

  • wodun

    @Des

    The only party running explicitly on racial appeals while their party funds and organizes racial supremacist and other militant activist groups that use organized violence are the Democrats.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W asked: “So what do you think are true Republican principles, economic and social?”

    I think that you have confused Republican with conservative. Republican values have moved far to the left, as demonstrated by the choice of Trump for presidential candidate.

    Cotour asked: “Who should be allowed near the White House?”

    Cruz. Duh. But then, I’m not surprised that that was not obvious to you.

    Cotour wrote: “We do not need party hack, ideological Leftist / RINO establishment tools to be in positions to do what must be done. ”

    No. We needed Cruz, but you foisted Trump upon us instead. Cruz had a plan, but Trump will just wing it, like he wings everything, even his campaign.

    Republicans who favor Clinton over Trump are aware that the two of them have so much in common that there is no difference in the distinction. This is why the choice is seen as impossible. In fact, Cotour, the biggest difference between them and the reason that you tell us is why Clinton can never be allowed to be elected is that her corruption is more visible. The promise of Trump is the increased size and control of government, but that is the same as with Clinton.

    I do not blame those who choose to vote for Clinton, because – at least in your mind, Cotour – a vote for my guy is the same as a vote for Clinton. You may think that I am being dishonest with my vote, by voting for the person who would perform more like I want from a president, because you believe that by not voting for Trump I am actually voting for Clinton. On the other hand, I think that you are being dishonest with your vote, because you are not voting for what you say you want but instead are voting for a hope that there will be a promise of change that isn’t as bad as Clinton’s changes.

    But I do not see her being enough worse than Trump for me to justify abandoning my principles, like RINO Bush Jr. did with his economic principles. And like RINO Bush Sr. did with his tax principles.

    Cotour wrote: “Are you arguing for the same as we have been getting? … Trump, like it or not is the change potential that we are presented with.”

    Don’t be silly. It obviously was a cry for Cruz and his actual solutions. Trump, however, only has change potential, and it is unlikely that it will be for the better, because he is a big government advocate, just like the other RINOs and the Democrats. This is what you voted for, Cotour, when you voted for Trump in the primary. If you wanted change for the better, you would have voted for Cruz. If you wanted conservative Supreme Court nominees, you would have voted Cruz. But like too much of the rest of America, you have swung far to the left, and left us with an impossible choice.

    Thanks a lot.

  • Andrew_W

    Edward: I think that you have confused Republican with conservative. Republican values have moved far to the left, as demonstrated by the choice of Trump for presidential candidate.

    You call Trump a RINO, the Bush’s RINO’s, and argue that they’re too left, but if most of the Republican party has moved left aren’t the Conservatives who disagree with the mainstream Republican position the new RINO’s? Though they might be the true Conservatives and the mainstream Republicans better described as CINO’s?

    I actually agree with the majority of your comment, I’m sorry if this causes you distress.

  • Cotour

    “No. We needed Cruz, but you foisted Trump upon us instead.”

    Do you really think I am that powerful?

    Cruz, did not make it, he could not close the deal, Trump did. Its Trump and the really pissed of Americans that made Trump and not Cruz the nominee. Reality is presenting itself to you but you still refuse to recognize it and make an adult choice.

    (I have really carved out a special place in your head, haven’t I :)

  • Phill O

    “Edward
    September 20, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Andrew_W asked: “So what do you think are true Republican principles, economic and social?”

    I think that you have confused Republican with conservative. Republican values have moved far to the left, as demonstrated by the choice of Trump for presidential candidate. ”

    I am having a hard time negotiating some comments. What Trump is saying (for the most part) is quite conservative: Secure the southern US border. Renegotiate the trade deals that have decimated the north American work force, reduce taxes on companies to bring their money back into the country, enforce the laws that are on the books, “Down With the Established political parties!” What more could a Tea Party fellow want? There are some budgetary issues related to fiscal responsibility. My fear is not what he is saying but whether he will fallow through. He is trying to get support from conservative groups by saying some things. Remember his picks for supreme court!

    Besides his bullying, he would get Trudeau a good run. Now that (JT) is an embarrassment to a country!

  • Cotour

    And now you have a Leftist Muslim Hillary supporter schooling you on American politics.

    Time to step back and reformulate.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    RINO is left over from the olden days, when there was freedom in America. (We are no longer free to choose how to spend our own money. What other tyranny in all of history has had the audacity to direct its population as to how to spend their own money?)

    Although it may be obsolete, the acronym still retains its meaning. This is why Richard, wayne, Cotour, Mike, and I used it here. The Republican Party has clearly been infiltrated and hijacked by liberal Democrat RINOs such as Trump, but the voting of the party’s membership has also allowed for RINOs to lead the party to the left. Often times, the thinking of the party’s voters is to choose the lesser of two evils rather than ensure that the party remain an opposition party to the Democrats, and that allows for the party to slowly move to the left, like boiling a frog.

    This election cycle, the only choice for small government, rather than a government that tells us exactly how to live our lives, is at the local level and with our Senators and Congressmen representatives.

    It is clear from recent rulings that the Supreme Court is already far left, too.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour And now you have a Leftist Muslim Hillary supporter schooling you on American politics.

    I support a free economy, more so than Conservatives who want to restrict free trade and impose other impediments to right wing economic.

    I support freedom of religion and freedom for people to lives their lives as they choose, even when those choices are not those that the anti-freedom conservatives approve of.

    I support small government, anything that can be provided in a competitive market; health, education, policing, should be serviced by a competitive market.

    I support the US not imposing it’s customs on people in other countries when those people are happier living by the customs and laws that their society has chosen.

    I wouldn’t vote for Hillary, I’d probably vote for Johnson, Wayne claims Johnson isn’t of the Classical Liberal/Libertarian right, waiting for him to get back to me.

    I’m not a Muslim, I’m agnostic/atheist.

    From my perspective it’s the arrogant conservatives convinced that they’re the font of all knowledge, the arm chair experts on Islam, that have only studies Islam on sites like “Religion of Peace”, the armchair experts on AGW that only study AGW on sites like WUWT and “RealScience” who are the leftists.

    I just love the way Cotour and others here project their own narrow anti freedom sentiments on to others.

  • Andrew_W

    Another projection onto me is that I’m an “academic”, my background is in agriculture, specifically dairy farming, I’ve been self employed for most of my life, owned a couple of farms, worked hard doing practical things. If anyone here deserves the label “academic” it’s the office dwelling, brain washed, wage and salary slaves addicted to the conservative narrative they’ve lived by their whole lives and never been able to think for themselves, always accepting without challenging the belief fed to them by their peers, sheeple.

  • Wayne

    Andrew_W:
    oh, thought I made it clear–
    Not going down the Libertarian rabbit hole with you, so no need to wait on my reply.
    (sorry dude, you blew your credibility with me on man-caused-climate-destruction)
    If you feel the need to tutor me on how Johnson is, what he isn’t, feel free to search.

    Back to the topic at hand:
    “Read My Lips,” Old man Bush is a Rino,
    Bush the Younger (Medicare part D/ 4 trillion debt) is a Rino,
    Jeb (low-energy/ open-border-er) is a Rino.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “Do you really think I am that powerful?

    You’re the one who said you voted for him.

    You wrote: “Cruz, did not make it, he could not close the deal, Trump did.

    Thanks to you.

    You wrote: “Reality is presenting itself to you but you still refuse to recognize it and make an adult choice.

    No. You and the others who have moved left are the new Republican Party reality. I made the adult choice of leaving the party, and I will make the adult choice of voting for the closest to what I want to see happen. It is childish to vote for something else (like the tyrannical Trump) and expect the big government guy to give you smaller government. What the hell are you thinking by voting that way?

    You wrote: “And now you have a Leftist Muslim Hillary supporter schooling you on American politics.

    I got schooled? Apparently this slang means something other than what I think it means.

    Phill O wrote: “What Trump is saying (for the most part) is quite conservative … My fear is not what he is saying but whether he will fallow through.

    Following through with the “conservative” things that he is saying is not in his nature or his best interest. Just as Trump supporters are trying to convince us that he is moving left now because he is trying to win the general election rather than the nomination, we now know that he is willing to lie and present positions that he disagrees with in order to get elected. The question is whether he was lying when he was saying conservative things (which he could not think of right off, his conservative positions always came after several attempts at it), or whether he is lying now as he says liberal things. I am convinced that he will rule as a liberal, and the left-leaning public will eat it up and reelect him for four more years of tyranny.

    Andrew_W,
    I was unaware that conservatives want to restrict and impose impediments to free trade. Apparently even the conservatives are moving to the left.

    You wrote: “I support the US not imposing it’s customs on people in other countries when those people are happier living by the customs and laws that their society has chosen.

    How is the US imposing its customs on people in other countries? Is the US government going around telling other people how to live their lives, too? This is a federal program that I have not heard about. Please expound. I am very interested in this additional act of tyranny from the Obama administration.

    You wrote: “From my perspective it’s the arrogant conservatives convinced that they’re the font of all knowledge, … the armchair experts on AGW that only study AGW on sites like WUWT and “RealScience” who are the leftists.

    You seem to have forgotten that I worked on some of the climate science. I’m not nearly as armchair as you are. But you have left us with the impression that studying AGW on the internet is how you study it. Are you a closet climate scientist but have not told us yet?

    As for the sheeple comment, New Zealand may be a conservative country with its people continually brainwashed about conservative concepts, but America is the opposite, where liberal concepts are indoctrinated into school children and is advocated in all forms of entertainment (now even including sports), news, advertising, and everyday discussion (liberals shun those who are not sufficiently politically correct, even to the point of breaking life-long friendships, as happened to my father a couple of years ago). This is why America is moving farther to the left and has stopped being a free country.

    Americans must think for themselves, if they are to be conservatives, as society is not a source of conservative thinking. Indeed, it is liberal thinking that would impose American customs on people in other countries, not just impose liberalism on all Americans.

    This is Obama’s (fundamentally transformed) America; land of the formerly free.

  • Andrew_W

    Not going down the Libertarian rabbit hole with you, so no need to wait on my reply.
    Translation: “My problem with Johnson isn’t that he’s not Classical Liberal/Libertarian, it’s that he doesn’t support Conservative interventionism”.

    you blew your credibility with me on man-caused-climate-destruction
    Translation: “Even though you’ve been 100% clear that you don’t advocate CAGW, just the science of the radiation physics, I’m going to pretend that you’re promoting CAGW”.

    RINO, starting to look like: “The Republican parties mine!”, “No mine!”, “No, I’m the true Republican not you!”, “No it’s me, I’m the true Republican, you’re just a charlatan!”

  • Edward

    Oh! Andrew_W,

    I thought you had gotten better, but now you are back to your old ways of recharacterizing what others say.

    So close, but relapse.

  • Wayne

    Edward–
    ditto!

  • Andrew_W

    Apparently even the conservatives are moving to the left.

    In many respects indeed they are, TPPA is dead, Obama supports it, some of the Repeblican candidates (Cruz?) were supportive others not, COTS is supported by Obama, opposed by many porky Republicans. Conservatives certainly used to be more conservative on social policy that they are now, but them, I’d define Liberal social policies as right and conservative antiliberal social policies restricting peoples freedom to live their lives as they choose as left.

    US adventures overseas often have less that altruistic motivations, and bugger the cost in infrastructure, stability and lives.

    New Zealand is politically diverse, but not with the deep emotive political fractures that seem to be dividing the US at the moment.

  • Andrew_W

    OK, point to a comment I’ve made that demonstrates a belief in “man-caused-climate-destruction”

    It was no recharacterization, Wayne clearly claimed I’ve advocated “man-caused-climate-destruction” when I have not.

    As for whether or not Johnson’s policies are Classical Liberal/Libertarian, for now I’ll assume that Wayne is unable to point to policies Johnson supports that are not Classical Liberal/Libertarian.

  • Edward

    It was no recharacterization

    Translation: “It’s not my fault. It is just my nature.”

    Or did I mischaracterize your comment?

  • Andrew_W

    Point to a comment I’ve made that demonstrates a belief in “man-caused-climate-destruction”

    If you can I’ll apologize, if you or Wayne cannot, Wayne owes me an apology.

    Though obviously I’ve no expectation of him delivering in either respect.

  • wayne

    (Edward- HAR, hey, hope all is reasonably well in the land-of-earthquakes!)

    Andrew_W;
    Go fish for someone else. You blew your credibility with me days ago.
    If you told me the sky was blue, I’d wonder what sorta scam you were running.

  • Joe

    Edward, Wayne, really great comments, I too believe we are in the beginning moments of wwIII, where it will end is unknown, I also believe that we no longer have a two party system, the republicans have drifted so far left that many conservatives look at government and say WTF, there is no longer any sanity in American politics, it’s all about power at the expense of what our core beliefs are.

  • Phill O

    “Edward
    September 20, 2016 at 4:55 pm
    The question is whether he was lying when he was saying conservative things (which he could not think of right off, his conservative positions always came after several attempts at it), or whether he is lying now as he says liberal things. I am convinced that he will rule as a liberal, and the left-leaning public will eat it up and reelect him for four more years of tyranny. ”

    You may be right, but then again, he is a repentant democrat. If I could vote (and I can not) it would definitely not to help the Clinton enterprise to gain power again. I would do everything to thwart it. Why would a Canadian be interested in the outcome? Well, when the Clintons (and the Bushes) are taking money from big Canadian banks, somebody has to speak up!

    In general, I have to side with Cotour as he definitely thinks for himself. And yes, the left has been extremely effective in brainwashing kids right from K- Ph.D.

  • Lawrence S

    Rush said today that no one else at that party heard him make that statement and that the Kennedy gal either made it up or betrayed a confidence. Either way a bad deal.

  • INSOMNiUS

    What irks me, is that we Americans in this election year, seem to be basing our votes for what we “don’t want” instead of what we “do want”. So, I am curious as to……

    What would Hillarity DO, that Trump would NOT do?

    What would Hillarity NOT do, that Trump would DO?

  • INSOMNiUS

    “But I do not see her being enough worse than Trump for me to justify abandoning my principles”

    We should be diligent in electing people that are trustworthy and we should also base our votes on their track record. Well, Trump has never been a government official , yet. Hillary has already been a government official with the worst record of corruption.

    Hillary is a criminal and cannot take the office of the president.
    18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    (a)Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    (b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

  • Cotour

    INSOM:

    You make an essential point that I have been making for some time now.

    “Well, Trump has never been a government official , yet. Hillary has already been a government official with the worst record of corruption.”

    Hillary has been an empowered politician and an appointed government official both of which demand a higher standard, and has plainly surrendered her fiduciary responsibility for her own political and personal enrichment. To say nothing of her incompetence.

    D.J. Trump has never been an empowered politician, he has been only a private citizen, who has from what I can see has served successfully as a fiduciary to his private company’s, who the last time I checked has no criminal convictions.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W wrote: “OK, point to a comment I’ve made that demonstrates a belief in ‘man-caused-climate-destruction’”

    Now you are confusing the words ‘destruction’ and ‘catastrophic.’ That is what the ‘C’ in CAGW means.

    Phill O wrote: “You may be right, but then again, he is a repentant democrat.

    Is he actually repentant, or is he just pretending in order to become president?

    Phill O wrote: “Well, when the Clintons (and the Bushes) are taking money from big Canadian banks, somebody has to speak up!

    There is a good point that I never thought of, before. When the US borrows from countries around the world, those countries have less money to invest in themselves. Thus, those countries have a harder time prospering. Yet another reason that the US should balance its budget and pay down its national debt.

    INSOMNiUS wrote: “Hillary is a criminal and cannot take the office of the president.

    Which just means that a vote for Clinton is a vote for … whoever her VP choice is.

    Cotour wrote: “D.J. Trump … has from what I can see has served successfully as a fiduciary to his private company’s to his private company’s, who the last time I checked has no criminal convictions.

    Well, except for those many bankruptcies, but I guess losing people their money as a business tactic is the new definition of fiduciary. And since Clinton has no criminal convictions, either, is that an endorsement of her?

  • Andrew_W

    Now you are confusing the words ‘destruction’ and ‘catastrophic.’

    So is it your contention that I’ve demonstrated a belief in CAGW, despite my saying several times that I didn’t accept CAGW as likely?

    If so, point to a comment I’ve made that demonstrates a belief in CAGW.

  • Edward

    So is it your contention that I’ve demonstrated a belief in CAGW, despite my saying several times that I didn’t accept CAGW as likely?

    That is not what I said, and you know it. It is exactly the opposite of what I said, yet it demonstrates that what I did say is correct. This is yet another example of mischaracterizing a statement just so you can make your own unrelated statement while putting down the commenter.

    In fact, I had debated with myself about using the word ‘conflating’ rather than ‘confusing’ and now believe that I made the wrong choice, as you see no difference between the words ‘destruction’ and ‘catastrophic.’ For you, they are one and the same word.

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne used the word “destruction” when he said: “you blew your credibility with me on man-caused-climate-destruction”

    My reply: “Point to a comment I’ve made that demonstrates a belief in “man-caused-climate-destruction”

    Then you weighed in with: “Now you are confusing the words ‘destruction’ and ‘catastrophic.’ That is what the ‘C’ in CAGW means.” Hoe the hell could I be confusing “catastrophic” and “destruction” when neither Wayne or I had used “catastrophic”?

    It was you who introduced the word “catastrophic” not me or Wayne, you were the one who appeared to be changing the subject to “catastrophic” instead of staying with “destruction”, and by doing so implying that you were contending that I’ve demonstrated a belief in CAGW, now you back off again, claiming no such intent.

    I’ve been very careful to use the word Wayne used as I had no intension of appearing to confuse or conflate the two words, and I didn’t, but you did.

  • Edward

    Hoe the hell could I be confusing ‘catastrophic’ and ‘destruction’ when neither Wayne or I had used “catastrophic”?

    That is explained in your own comment. Pay attention. Wayne may have been mistaken in his stated reasoning for discounting your credibility (although he has plenty of other reasons to do so), but for some time I have been complaining about your lack of attention to what people write, and now you do not even pay attention to your own writings.

  • Andrew_W

    You’re using a typo as a justification for your arrogance, an “e” when there should have been a “w”??
    Pathetic.

  • wayne

    There’s a whole lot of “pathetic” going on, but it has little to do with regular-American’s who oppose Statist Agenda’s & the people who support their world-wide implementation by theft & fraud.

  • Edward

    You’re using a typo as a justification for your arrogance, an ‘e’ when there should have been a ‘w’??
    Pathetic.

    Completely untrue. I have been using quotes for a long time, including typos (that they are typos, not intentional wording, is only an assumption on my part), in order to make sure that I was not mischaracterizing what someone wrote and to make sure we all know what I am commenting on. I did nothing to point out that a typo had been made, and everyone here knows that I had not placed your quote in my comment in order to point out a typo that everyone could already see in your original comment.

    Being correct is not arrogance, it is being correct. Or are you the only one who is allowed to be correct?

    I am a little concerned that you may be projecting your own feelings onto me, again.

    While we are still on, or near, this topic: you are incorrect that I was the first to use ‘catastrophic,’ as you had used it first, in a post from long ago, in order to point out that you were not a CAGW advocate. You were apparently trying to preempt that direction of argument.
    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/the-evening-pause/richard-feynman-explains-the-scientific-method-2/#comment-924578

  • Andrew_W

    Are you suggesting I support “Statist Agenda’s”? I’ve had a thorough look at Gary Johnson’s policies and find very little I disagree with.

    So if you are accusing me of supporting “Statist Agenda’s” reference a comment I’ve made doing that.

    After looking at policies that have been supported by American conservatives, it appears to me that conservatives support for government restrictions on peoples freedom to live their lives as they choose are the “statist” social policies.

  • Andrew_W

    “You were apparently trying to preempt that direction of argument.”

    That’s correct, I know “skeptics” are virtually addicted to the assumption that anyone who accepts AGW likely or very likely must be advocating CAGW, but since Wayne wasn’t labeling me an advocate of CAGW I saw no point in trying to twist his words, I was happy to quote him verbatim, I’ll leave the word twisting to you.

  • wayne

    “Lying is a skill like any other” ( Garak ) DS-9
    https://youtu.be/TS1jhCrqVtg

  • Edward

    “I’ll leave the word twisting to you.”

    That’s OK, but you are the one who twisted the word ‘destruction’ into ‘catastrophic.’

  • Andrew_W

    Don’t be shy about quoting me Edward, I’ve no problem when you quote me verbatim, it’s when you paraphrase my comments to change my meaning I find you’re methods objectionable, so here’s the passage of mine you reference:

    “I see my position as being the most in line with what AGW actually implies and think both the “skeptics” and CAGW advocates have to believe in additional factors beyond the basic physics to support their positions.”

    And something else I said mentioning CAGW on the same page:

    “According to Crowder I’m a “denier” (and I’ve had than from alarmists when arguing against claims of CAGW certainty on other sites), Edward clearly thinks I’m an alarmist, like I said, it’s a minefield out there – especially when you’re disinclined to stick to the acceptable narratives.”

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/the-evening-pause/richard-feynman-explains-the-scientific-method-2/#comment-925430

  • Cotour

    “Well, except for those many bankruptcies, but I guess losing people their money as a business tactic is the new definition of fiduciary. And since Clinton has no criminal convictions, either, is that an endorsement of her?”

    1. Bankruptcy is not a failure of someones fiduciary responsibility it is a function of having the ability to recover after failure. Healthy business includes both risk and failure and success. Now you know the reality of real business in the real world in America.

    2. Actual indictment or conviction aside, Hillary still has the higher bar because she has been an empowered by the people and appointed by the president politician. Now you know what the realistic standard is and the difference is between an empowered politician and their responsibilities are and a private citizen.

  • PeterF

    What does a Carrier Wing Air Group (CAWG) have to do with the fact that G.W.H. has finally come out of the closet and admitted that he has always been a RiNO? He used to be a navy pilot, but come on! That was a long time ago and at this point, What difference does it make?!

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “I’ve no problem when you quote me verbatim

    Except you called me arrogant for quoting you verbatim and said that doing so was pathetic. I guess that means you make it my problem for quoting you verbatim.

    You wrote: “so here’s the passage of mine you reference

    Yes, but that passage, and the other one you included, do not change the fact that you twisted the word ‘destruction’ to conflate it with ‘catastrophic.’

    Just because Crowder told you that you are a denier does not make it true, and you may deny it all you want, I won’t hold it against you. Basically, any person is considered a denier if they do not completely and vigilantly toe the line for global warming/climate change/climate weirding/climate disruption/whatever-PC-phrase-of-the-day, so most people are deniers. Welcome to the large club, and no, there is no card to carry.

    If the CAGW advocates really believed in it, then they would not drive cars, heat their houses, buy food or other goods from a store, turn on their lights, or …, much less fly around the world telling everyone that flying is bad.

    It is bad enough that AGW advocates think people should stop adding carbon to the air, despite the fact that AGW advocates think there is no harm in it (otherwise they would not drive cars, heat their houses, …). So why are people so emotional about a little harmless (and most likely helpful) AGW when any millennium now we will be desperate to warm the planet from the naturally occurring glacial period of the ice age. Getting a head start on the heating may save us all from starvation and territorial wars, as good arable land will be covered in huge glaciers and ice caps.

    On the other hand, I believe that the proper temperature for the planet is a good five degrees cooler (maybe even eight degrees cooler) than it is now, as the pre-historical temperature record shows that the interglacial periods are brief and temporary aberrations from the normal climate. (Notice that the EPICA line, since the 20000 BCE start of xkcd’s chart, only rises, showing that today’s temperature is almost four degrees higher than today’s temperature.)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#Ice_cores_.28from_800.2C000_years_before_present.29

    This record differs slightly from xkcd’s recently published cartoon chart, but then again, it isn’t xkcd’s fault, as Randall Munroe , the xkcd cartoonist, isn’t a climate scientist and may have averaged out a multitude of temperature sources in order to get the smoothed line. Or maybe he made a bunch of assumptions.
    http://xkcd.com/1732/

    William Briggs found some fundamental statistical errors and fallacies in xkcd’s cartoon chart:
    https://stream.org/xkcds-global-warming-time-series-mistakes/

    I noticed that Munroe makes a big error (Briggs ambiguously notes it as gist, or point, three) in data presentation by using precise measurements in the last century when in the 16000 BCE to 15500 BCE panel he states clearly that such short warming periods had been smoothed out in the rest of his graph, thus he makes it seem as though sharp, sudden rises in temperatures are unusual, but they may be very common. After all, many plots show a wide swing of proxy measurements, but the plots often come with a smoothed out line, as with xkcd’s.

    To compound the error, Munroe shows that the Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.4 degrees C since the year 2000 CE, when records show that it hasn’t. Xkcd is read by a large number of people, and many of them are likely to consider this graph, which looks like the fallacious Hockey Stick graph, as definitive, even though it looks like it was made up in Munroe’s head (but as I said, he may have used a multitude of temperature sources rather than a multitude of other assumptions).

    Cotour,
    OK. according to you, in Obama’s and Trump’s America, losing the investor’s money is now considered a fiduciary responsibility. It used to be the opposite, but America has been fundamentally transformed.

    According to you, Cotour, in Obama’s and Trump’s America, being empowered by the people and appointed by the president now constitutes a criminal conviction, despite a lack of indictment.

    It is always nice to know the new normal.

    PeterF,
    G.W.H. Bush’s father was a carrier pilot in WWII, so he is related to someone who was in a Carrier Wing Air Group. The difference that it makes, at this point, is none at all (unlike Clinton’s Benghazi fiasco), but it is so much fun to mess with Andrew_W as he screws up his nit picking, to which he has resorted since the abject failure of his arguments.

  • Cotour

    “OK. according to you, in Obama’s and Trump’s America, losing the investor’s money is now considered a fiduciary responsibility. It used to be the opposite, but America has been fundamentally transformed.”

    No, I did not say that. I said that bankruptcy is a part of our business law system which allows restructuring after a business fails. I did not say that it is a persons fiduciary responsibility to lose an investors money.

    “According to you, Cotour, in Obama’s and Trump’s America, being empowered by the people and appointed by the president now constitutes a criminal conviction, despite a lack of indictment.”

    No, I did not say that. I said that being empowered by the people or being appointed by the president to his cabinet in this case, gives you a higher responsibility in your fiduciary responsibility.

    Did you take you pill today Edward because your interpretation of the words that I wrote is not accurate?

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    No pills needed on my end, just some understanding of your own context on your end. The interpretation is based upon the context in which you placed these words. Interpretations that ignore context are often not accurate. You seem to want to take them out of the context so that they don’t mean the same as when they are in context.

    I thought that you would cotton on, having understood the context you wrote, and I didn’t have to spell it out in great detail, but I will try:

    You claimed that Trump “served successfully as a fiduciary to his private company’s” and “who the last time I checked has no criminal convictions.” Is it unreasonable to interpret those statements as advantages that favor Trump? And since having no criminal convictions is the advantage, that means that the opponent, Clinton, must be disadvantaged by having criminal convictions, even if by virtue of the higher standards that you insist must be placed upon her for having prior political experience.

    I pointed out that you have redefined ‘successful fiduciary,’ and now you seem confused. Either he “served successfully as a fiduciary” or he used “bankruptcy [as] a part of our business law system which allows restructuring after a business fails.” How do you reconcile failed business, where investors lose their money, with serving successfully as a fiduciary of the investor’s money? Isn’t the one who does not run his company into insolvency (requisite for bankruptcy hearings) a more likely candidate for successful fiduciary?

    He did a lot of bankruptcies, and you called him successful as a fiduciary. If you say that Trump is so successful as a fiduciary, then isn’t it reasonable to think you believe he took his companies into bankruptcy as a success tactic as a fiduciary? I do not think that it is honorable for a fiduciary to do this as a business tactic.

    Or is it just that you want to claim that the guy you like is the successful fiduciary and you ignore his failures in that responsibility in order to make that claim?

    You are stating that the candidate with prior political experience, “an empowered politician and an appointed government official,” is subject to a “higher standard” than the inexperienced candidate for president. Should not both be subject to the same standard, as they should be when in office? (Of course you don’t think so, because you favor the one that you want to be placed under the lower standards, kind of like a Democrat, but then again, that is what Trump is, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you want a double standard.)

    Since both candidates have “no criminal convictions,” you use a lack of criminal convictions for Trump as an advantage over Clinton, and since you hold the one with prior political experience to the higher standard then how is it unreasonable to conclude that you believe that you consider criminal convictions to be pre-placed onto the candidate being held to the higher standard?

    Or is it just that you want to claim that the guy you like gets a lower standard, and you found an excuse to give it to him: inexperience?

  • Cotour

    An elected official has a higher degree of responsibility to the people that have elected them because they are charged with protecting the peoples rights / the public trust. A private business person who has investors, which entails understood risk of doing business (which includes the legal “tactic” of bankruptcy), also has a high degree of responsibility but the politicians degree of responsibility is higher.

    If you notice Hillary’s history as SOS is under much more intense examination than Trumps private doings. There is a reason for that.

    Hillary Clinton has IMO clearly traded the fiduciary responsibility invested in her during her service as the Secretary Of State as it relates to her own foundation. Money and access was traded for “donations” to the tune of possibly billions of dollars.

    Add to this the fact that she is also a lawyer and is an officer of the court, Trump is not a lawyer and has no additional responsibility.

    So for our purposes if we weigh Hillary’s activities, and her profession as a lawyer and as a high level politician and Trumps private business activities, Trumps activities are not even on the radar screen. Why? Because his activities were private and legal and hers were related to the public trust.

    So while the term fiduciary means what it means the empowered politician has a higher bar in the context of this conversation and the election.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “An elected official has a higher degree of responsibility to the people that have elected them because they are charged with protecting the peoples rights / the public trust.

    While in office. Now she is running for president as a citizen, just as Trump is. Are you honestly telling me that you do think that there should be two standards for these two candidates? After all, Trump would have even greater fiduciary duties than Clinton ever had, and he has already shown himself to be poor in that area.

    This could be why so many RINO politicians are endorsing Clinton over the RINO Trump.

    Either way, I’m still not going to vote for either of them. You said it best, Cotour, when you compared either of them being president with We the People getting shot in the ass. I’ll ignore Bush’s endorsement and vote for a better choice.

  • Cotour

    Edward:

    When she was an empowered by the people and appointed by the president politician and representative of the government and trustee of the public trust she surrendered her fiduciary responsibility. Which is a responsibility requirement set at a higher bar than a private citizen.

    That IMO and, James Comey’s opinion, is a stone cold fact. Although he declined to prosecute her because he understands that she must be “prosecuted” and judged by the people at the polls.

    Think of fiduciary responsibility like you would think about temperature. Temperature is temperature just like fiduciary responsibility is fiduciary responsibility, but their are degrees of difference when measuring different situations, and still temperature is still temperature. This may may it easier for your highly trained engineer brain (a sincere compliment, remember, I want a building full of guys just like you if I am going to the moon and want to get back) to digest and embrace.

    So she has previously plainly violated her public trust and must be judged by the people on election day. And this is just one IMO rock solid logical reason that she never be empowered by the people again, and why she must never become the president. To say nothing of the fact that she is is a lawyer and an officer of the court.

    I suggest anyone who is challenged to explain to others why they will not vote for Hillary to present them with this narrow but very strong case against her. While I have not heard any talking heads revealing this logic, to my thinking it is the best and easiest way to communicate and defend an individuals reasoning on the subject.

    This argument does not allow there to be any wiggle room in weighing Hillary’s viability.

  • Edward

    Cotour
    You wrote: “Which is a responsibility requirement set at a higher bar than a private citizen.

    Tell that to Madoff. He is in prison and Clinton is not.

    You Cotour wrote: “Although he declined to prosecute her because he understands that she must be “prosecuted” and judged by the people at the polls.

    And if the voters find her “guilty,” what then? Aww, she doesn’t get to be president after all, boo hoo. What a terrible punishment.

    And if the voters find her innocent, what then? She would be empowered again but this time by the people that she betrayed!

    You wrote: “Think of fiduciary responsibility like …

    Dude. I know what it means. I am a director of a charity (but only for another month, I chose not to have another term as director). I was a director of a corporation.

    She should NOT be judged by the people on election day, she should be judged by a court of law. The punishment would slightly better fit the crime.

    You wrote: “This argument does not allow there to be any wiggle room in weighing Hillary’s viability.

    They aren’t voting with their frickin’ brains; they are voting with their fracking emotions, which is why anyone is voting for her. They don’t need any wiggle room, because they aren’t using logic in their choice. Anyone with any brains at all wouldn’t have voted for her in the primaries, which — come to think of it — makes my mother, the Sanders supporter, smarter than she is emotional (there may be hope for her yet).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *