Congress, Media, Politics

“A Means Of Distracting The Public”: Brennan Briefed Obama On Clinton “Plan” To Tie Trump To Russia

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified notes of former CIA Director John Brennan showing that he briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” My interest in this story is not simply the serious underlying allegation but the lack of coverage by major networks or media outlets. This was clearly released at this time for political purposes, but that does not make it a non-story. We have often discussed concerns over the active effort by many in the media to downplay stories that would either help President Donald Trump or hurt the Democrats in the upcoming elections. This would seem such a case. Whether this is true or a complete fabrication, it should be major news. In the meantime, the responses from Clinton allies have not addressed the substance of the document and have simply dismissed the entire story as groundless.

Brennan’s handwritten notes would seem extremely serious on their face. It certainly indicates that Brennan considered the issue sufficiently serious to brief the President of the United States on July 28th. The notes state

“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]. . . CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

There is also a notation reading “Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia” and margin references to “JC,” “Denis,” and “Susan.”  If Brennan thought this was serious enough to brief the President, shouldn’t the media consider this sufficiently serious to investigate and report?

While it would be dangerous to release documents without redactions, there is an obvious value to understanding the truth about these briefings and the underlying allegations.

This release further supports a newly-declassified document with the Senate Judiciary Committee revealing that, in September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral on Hillary Clinton purportedly approving “a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections” in order to distract the public from her email scandal.

When asked about this referral involving a candidate for the presidency, then-FBI Director James Comey insisted that it “didn’t ring a bell.”

Once again, my initial interest is in the utter blackout on the story.  This would seem a major story regardless of the ultimate findings. If these notes have been fabricated or misrepresented, it would show a breathtaking effort to lie to the voters before the election. If these notes are genuine, it would indicate that the FBI was aware of an effort by the Democratic presidential candidate to tag Trump with a Russian collusion scandal.  We know that Clinton’s campaign funded the Steele dossier and that Steele shopped the dossier with the media to try to generate coverage to influence the election.

Throughout the campaign, and for many weeks after, the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the dossier that was later used to secure a secret surveillance warrant against Trump associates during the Obama administration. Journalists later discovered that the Clinton campaign hid the payments to Fusion as a “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to the law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel at the time said that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias had “vigorously” denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman likewise wrote: “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Even when Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was questioned by Congress on the matter, he denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the false information given to Congress.

Later, confronted with the evidence, Clinton and her campaign finally admitted that the dossier was a campaign-funded document that was pushed by Steele and others to the media.

Making things worse is the fact that we know know American intelligence flagged Steele’s main source as a Russian agent and warned that the dossier was suspected of containing Russian disinformation from Russian intelligence agencies.

Yet, even with this latest disclosure in Brennan’s own writing, we hear the familiar sound of crickets.  It seems that journalism is suspended until after the election when reporters might be allowed a modicum of curiosity on such stories.

964 thoughts on ““A Means Of Distracting The Public”: Brennan Briefed Obama On Clinton “Plan” To Tie Trump To Russia”

  1. Did you mean Tie instead of Lie in this case. No matter they both work. As for some valid questions. Clintons staff from Arkansas Governor House to Frist Lady to pay for play and the various coverups as Sec State and the most recent. What is the Statute of Limitations and does it run when the perp continue to compound the original wrong doing?

  2. “Agents foiled a stunning plot to kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, authorities said Thursday in announcing charges in an alleged scheme that involved months of planning and even rehearsals to snatch Whitmer at her vacation home. Six men were charged in federal court, while seven others accused of trying to target police and the state Capitol were charged in state court. …”
    https://apnews.com/article/michigan-checks-and-balances-archive-gretchen-whitmer-da09ca66cd8d5f36722021d3593425ff

        1. Likely a right wing Trumpster who wanted to off her, not that it would be a bad idea. Lesbians and bull dykes are icky.

    2. The Deep Deep State FBI and Comrade Christopher Wray protect the democrat governor Whitmer.

      The Deep Deep State FBI and Comrade Christopher Wray attack the republican President Trump.

      Nope. Not a thing wrong with that.

      1. George, they foiled a plot by a right wing militia to attempt a kidnapping and commit violence. I thought these guys were supposed to be…peaceful and law abiding. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were inspired and encouraged by Trump.

        1. Was it a crime for Hillary Clinton to obstruct justice, destroy evidence, conspire with multiple governmental officials to attempt to usurp power and to abuse the power of government against a duly-elected sitting President?

          Were this to have happened in Great Britain prior to 1870, the perpetrators, en masse, of a conspiracy to simply challenge the authority of the [President] would have been Drawn and Quartered.

          Oh my! The good old days.

          We’ll have a barrel of fun!

          1. 18 U.S. Code § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

            Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

            Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

            Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
            _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

            The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

            The co-conspirators are:

            Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

            James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,

            Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,

            Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

            Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

            Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

            Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

            Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg et al.

        2. And I wouldn’t be surprised that the approximately 30 deaths attributable to the riots were the result of the work of Left Wing Socialists and Marxists.

          In the wake of George Floyd’s death, violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims.To state what should be obvious, peaceful protesters do not throw explosives into federal courthouses, tear down plywood with crowbars, or launch fecal matter at federal officers. Such acts are in fact federal crimes under statutes enacted by this Congress.

          Those 30 lives can never be replaced.

          While there may be good and bad on both sides, the preponderance of evildoing certainly lies with the left.

        3. FBI Bs. wait and see if the whole thing isn’t tossed out of court before trial — then see if they can get a conviction

          that is if they don’t lean on them until they all plead, in which case, there will be no scrutiny of what means were used to gin this one up- the more likely outcome

          I’ll wait and see, but this one has the stink of the old methods of Operation PATCON to it

              1. You need to work on your fake URLs. Kinda gives the game away that you’re trolling.

        5. REGARDING ABOVE:

          This is that same, boring troll who insists on being the center of every single discussion. He’s primarily a dirty trickster, as one can see. Yet he expects to be taken seriously in debates.

          1. Says the Anonymous troll who never debates anything because he’s in middle school.

        6. Trump would put them in jail if what we are hearing is correct.

          However, Harris, Biden’s VP candidate would support them getting out of jail without placing bail and members of her campaign has donated to Bailout to pay the bail. Some of these people have gotten out of jail through Bailt only to commit robbery, physical violence and murder.

          You talk about what you hope Trump would do, but he wouldn’t, however your team actually has been committing robbery, battery, arson and killing. You always blame the other side for your own actions.

          1. Did anyone see the tweet when the President thanked the FBI for their hard work stopping terrorists from attacking an elected leader? I’m sure that a president would have done that today.

    3. She is a petty tyrant and one can understand why so many Michigan citizens have been angry at her.

      The court just cancelled some of her overbroad covid diktats.

      These guys may turn out to be a bunch of beer drinkers who were talking tough. It has the stink of agents provocateurs and informants to it right off the top.
      These socalled militia groups are deeply penetrated and infested with criminal troublemakers working off a beef for law enforcement by trying to entrap patriots.
      Viz. Operation “PATCON”

      Watch for this case to fold up like a cheap suit before the jury.

      1. from AP:

        ““The group talked about creating a society that followed the U.S. Bill of Rights and where they could be self-sufficient,” the FBI affidavit said. “They discussed different ways of achieving this goal from peaceful endeavors to violent actions. … Several members talked about murdering ‘tyrants’ or ‘taking’ a sitting governor.”

        IS THAT ALL THEY GOT? BECAUSE THAT WON’T CUT THE MUSTARD. MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER BRANDENBERG V OHIO. FREE ADVICE TO COUNSEL, YOU’RE WELCOME

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

        Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”[2][3]:702 Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927)[4] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States (1919),[5] Abrams v. United States (1919),[6] Gitlow v. New York (1925)[7], and Dennis v. United States (1951).[8]

        IF ANTIFA LOSERS CAN OPENLY TALK ABOUT OVERTHROWING THE US ON TV AND HOW THEY PLAN ON DOING CRIME TO MAKE IT HAPPEN?
        THEN A BUNCH OF BEER DRINKING REDNECKS CAN TALK TRASH TOO

        1. “IS THAT ALL THEY GOT?”

          Is there a reason that you don’t read the criminal complaint in full, to see the other evidence they’ve made public?

          1. well, partly because I didn’t see it, and i decline to waste ten minutes looking it up and reading it, I will share something more fun

            selection from a communist of old, the infamous Italian Gramsci, who expressed a viewpoint about global mass media that i find, well, awesome! just replace what he calls “bourgeois newspapers” with my oft said formulation, “global mass media,” — BOYCOTT THEM!~

            https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1916/12/newspapers.htm

            Source: Avanti! (Piedmont Edition) December 22, 1916;
            Translated: by Mitchell Abidor;
            CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2008.
            Proofread: by Andy Carloff 2010.

            These are the days of subscription campaigns. The editors and administrators of bourgeois newspapers tidy up their display windows, paint some varnish on their shop signs and appeal for the attention of the passer-by (that is, the readers) to their wares. Their wares are newspapers of four or six pages that go out every day or evening in order to inject in the mind of the reader ways of feeling and judging the facts of current politics appropriate for the producers and sellers of the press.

            We would like to discuss, with the workers especially, the importance and seriousness of this apparently innocent act, which consists in choosing the newspaper you subscribe to. It is a choice full of snares and dangers which must be made consciously, applying criteria and after mature reflection.

            Above all, the worker must resolutely reject any solidarity with a bourgeois newspaper. And he must always, always, always remember that the bourgeois newspaper (whatever its hue) is an instrument of struggle motivated by ideas and interests that are contrary to his. Everything that is published is influenced by one idea: that of serving the dominant class, and which is ineluctably translated into a fact: that of combating the laboring class. And in fact, from the first to the last line the bourgeois newspaper smells of and reveals this preoccupation.

            But the beautiful – that is the ugly – thing is this: that instead of asking for money from the bourgeois class to support it in its pitiless work in its favor, the bourgeois newspapers manage to be paid by…the same laboring classes that they always combat. And the laboring class pays; punctually, generously.

            Hundreds of thousands of workers regularly and daily give their pennies to the bourgeois newspapers, thus assisting in creating their power. Why? If you were to ask this of the first worker you were to see on the tram or the street with a bourgeois paper spread before him you would hear: “Because I need to hear about what happening.” And it would never enter his head that the news and the ingredients with which it is cooked are exposed with an art that guides his ideas and influences his spirit in a given direction. And yet he knows that this newspaper is opportunist, and that one is for the rich, that the third, the fourth, the fifth is tied to political groups with interests diametrically opposed to his.

            And so every day this same worker is able to personally see that the bourgeois newspapers tell even the simplest of facts in a way that favors the bourgeois class and damns the working class and its politics. Has a strike broken out? The workers are always wrong as far as the bourgeois newspapers are concerned. Is there a demonstration? The demonstrators are always wrong, solely because they are workers they are always hotheads, rioters, hoodlums. The government passes a law? It’s always good, useful and just, even if it’s…not. And if there’s an electoral, political or administrative struggle? The best programs and candidates are always those of the bourgeois parties.

            And we’re aren’t even talking about all the facts that the bourgeois newspapers either keep quiet about, or travesty, or falsify in order to mislead, delude or maintain in ignorance the laboring public. Despite this, the culpable acquiescence of the worker to the bourgeois newspapers is limitless. We have to react against this and recall the worker to the correct evaluation of reality. We have to say and repeat that the pennies tossed there distractedly into the hands of the newsboy are projectiles granted to a bourgeois newspaper, which will hurl it, at the opportune moment, against the working masses.

            If the workers were to be persuaded of this most elementary of truths they would learn to boycott the bourgeois press with the same unity and discipline that the bourgeoisie boycott the newspapers of the workers, that is, the Socialist press. Don’t give financial assistance to the bourgeois press, which is your adversary. This is what should be our battle cry in this moment that is characterized by the subscription campaigns of all the bourgeois newspapers. Boycott them, boycott them, boycott them!

            1. Mr. Kurtz, obviously being triggered about something to do with right wing terrorists that has been shown to be true must be a “deep state” plot.

              It amazes me that even when the right gets caught doing what they often cite as the domain of leftists they still try to claim it as part of the left when they falsely try to link it to antifa.

              This is exactly why the president’s rhetoric is so dangerous. These groups are encouraged and inspired by Trump’s own conspiracy theories and rantings. Trump himself spoke about “liberating Michigan” as a call to overthrow their governor. These “militias” took notice of what he said and obviously this right wing militia decided to take his rhetoric seriously.

              This is what happens when you use inciting language, especially when it’s the president’s.

              1. A bunch of beer drinking losers are mad at Whitmer who was just corrected by the Michigan state Supreme Court for issuing unconstitutional tyrannical orders? thats no surprise

                I dont know what makes them “Right wing” other than them being gun nuts apparenlty, and white

                if every white gun nut who is mad at government is a right winger then guess what a lot of ANTIFA are right wingers too. which makes no sense but please search the group “redneck revolt” if you think there is no such thing as a white redneck left wing gun nut. there’s plenty!

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck_Revolt

                I add boggerloo bois to the list. But I would want to see some evidence if I were a judge, and not just talk. The constitutional range of free speech remains wide in light of the cases i have elsewhere cited and dangerous tallk alone is not a crime. there has to be a substantial step. beer swilling pow wows and vague “training” are not enough. there is still due process for accused persons

                and meanwhile there have been TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VIOLENT FELONIES COMMITTED BY ANTIFA IN THE STREETS THE PAST 4 MONTHS CAUGHT ON TAPE, UNPUNISHED. so spare me the worry over this particular nest of nobodies

              2. Moreover consider that Governor Whitmer ABUSED HER POWERS OF OFFICE by issuing overbroad lockdown orders

                per the Michigan Supreme Court

                https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/10/03/919891538/michigan-supreme-court-rules-against-governors-emergency-powers

                What discipline should Whitmer face if she confined hundreds of thousands, millions of Michigan citizens, to their homes, illegally?

                Let’s quit pretending that nobody has a legitimate issue with Whitmer. She wants to issue unconstitutional orders she’s going to make people angry

                people have a right to be angry, a right to say so, and a right to call her a tyrant, I m calling her a tyrant,

                I’ll throw another wild card out there. You can check the MCL and see if a regular citizen has a right to conduct a felony arrest or not. See cite below. And check and see if governors are actually exempt from citizen arrest. I think you will find out they are not.

                so maybe if they were just sitting around talking about arresting her, then that’s squarely within free speech.
                see, watch how this goes under my little screenplay i am writing called “REDNECK RIOT MICHIGAN 2020″

                scene: a dark damp basement. three fat white guys with bears are swilling Pabst. They have on cammies. One of them is wearing a wire.

                Fat guy 1 has a mohawk too. He says:

                Guys I been at the county law library since the old covid lockdown was eased up doin some research. Being as I am a constertooshunal student of laws, and a boner fide free patriot citizen, I gots some questions for you fellers. This regards our lovely wicked witch whitmer. Ready>? Ok they say.

                question: did governor whitmer commit a felony by confining millions to their homes by her unconstitutional edict?

                answer: gee I dont know.

                question. If she did is she guilty of the crime of 750.349b Unlawful imprisonment under Michigan statutes, by her unconstitutional edict that she enforced with the police powers?

                answer & question: gee I dont know. prolly not. maybe? but that’s a felony right?

                answer: it would be.

                question: under MCL 764.16 what would be a lawful citizens arrest?

                HERE THE QUESTIONS ARE CUT OFF BECAUSE FBI AGENTS BREAK DOWN THE DOOR.. exeunt”

                So, is this a criminal conspiracy or merely a conversation among lay people about the scope of laws?

                what will a jury think?

                I guess we’re gonna find out

                meanwhile, if at best these were dangerous anarchistic thinking boogerloo bois, then, well, ok; if the jury is against them, let justice be done

                but when are they going to arrest thousands of ANTIFA who’ve been committing actual forcible felonies on video for months now, instead of just “planning” them?

      1. Chinggis say:

        https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.guns.com%2Fwordpress%2F2015%2F02%2Fsquirrel-hunting-cover.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.guns.com%2Fnews%2Freview%2Fof-pistol-barrels-and-bushy-tails-six-great-squirrel-hunting-handguns&tbnid=e0hdw217rJfmZM&vet=12ahUKEwj_97_a3absAhVxwJcIHSTWBt8QMygGegUIARDNAQ..i&docid=bxCeCDiHc9m7RM&w=410&h=229&q=squirrel%20with%20a%20gun%20image&ved=2ahUKEwj_97_a3absAhVxwJcIHSTWBt8QMygGegUIARDNAQ

    1. Amy Klobuchar says she does not want a “Virtual” hearing for a Supreme Court Justice. She says that the back and forth presentation is important. Amy Klobuchar is indeed spot on. Commit to what?

      1. Trump is currently infectious with COVID. Klobuchar is not. Yours is a false comparison.

        Klobuchar expressing her opinion is not Klobuchar unilaterally refusing to participate if the Senate goes ahead with a virtual hearing.

        1. Trump contracted the Corona virus over 7 days ago. The debate is sceduled for next tuesday. 12 days will have passed since his onset. Easy to Google! According to the Harvard Shool of Medicine contagion lasts for 10 days, but just to be safe recommend 14 days quarantine. How hard would it be to move the debate from tuesday to friday. A lousy three days. Google is a wonderful thing. So easy to get the facts, yet for some so hard to type. Honest discussion is indeed important. However, for honest discussion to occur it must properly sourced.

          1. Your attempt to use Klobuchar as an analogy still fails.

            We don’t actually know when Trump contracted the virus. Both Conley and the WH have refused to say when Trump last tested negative. Conley did say that Trump tested positive on using a rapid test on Thursday, Oct. 1 (a result that Trump did not initially disclose, even though he was on Fox after getting that positive result) and that it was confirmed with a PCR test Thursday night.

            You say “According to the Harvard Shool of Medicine contagion lasts for 10 days,” but the Harvard School of Medicine page actually says “Most people with coronavirus who have symptoms will no longer be contagious by 10 days after symptoms resolve.” (emphasis added)
            https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/if-youve-been-exposed-to-the-coronavirus

            When did Trump’s symptoms resolve? We don’t know for certain. He clearly still had symptoms as of Monday, because his breathing difficulty was clear in the video. We do not know whether he still had symptoms on Tuesday, as Conley didn’t publicly say (he only said whether Trump reported symptoms, not whether Conley saw symptoms). For all we know, Trump still has symptoms.

            That page also says “Here is a more “scientific” way to determine if you are no longer contagious: have two nasal-throat tests or saliva tests 24 hours apart that are both negative for the virus.” Will Trump agree to do this?

            “How hard would it be to move the debate from tuesday to friday.”

            I don’t know. You don’t either. BTW, the debate was scheduled for Thurs., not Tues.

            “for honest discussion to occur it must properly sourced.”

            Yes, so it’s striking that you didn’t include a link to the HSM page or quote it, and your paraphrase was inaccurate.

    2. Donald Trump still wants to have a debate. Amy Klobuchar does not want to have a “Virtual” hearing for the Supreme Court Justice because she wants to delay the hearing. She certainly is transparent.

      1. Thinkitthrough, trump being sickly and infectious does not warrant a in person townhall meeting. He’s already proved he can infect more than a dozen people at the White House. But if insists he should be put inside a booth where his mike can be shut off if he goes nuts again.

        1. Harvard School of Medicine: carona contagion period is 10 days. Easy to google. For others reading this blog do you want inference or fact. I repeat Harvard Shool of Medicine. G-O-O-G-L-E. I typed it with one finger. Follow the science.

          1. Thinkthrough is our usual troll also known as Rhodes, James, Estovir, Princess Trobar, Em, MoFo and many, many more.

            1. Yes indeed, I am a troll. We are all trolls now. A troll with actual esteemed sources is more trustworthy than a troll with only his opinion. There has been a movement afoot libeling me as to having many identities on these pages. A simple study of my punctation, spelling errors and repitition of syntax and comparing them to the other identities to which I am attributed would easily reveal that I am none of those listed. Number one rule of the uninformed: if you can’t refute you must condemn.

          1. They don’t have herd immunity in Sweden.
            They aren’t close to herd immunity in Sweden.
            You know nothing worth knowing, Rhodes.

    3. Health and safety reasons? Put a 360 degree plastic screen around and over both of them. Poor excuse. Let the debates go on.

      1. If we apply the same logic to the population at large as these turkeys do the country would self destruct.

    4. “Trump’s antibody treatment was tested using cells originally derived from an abortion
      “The Trump administration has looked to curtail research with fetal cells. But when it was life or death for the president, no one objected.
      “This week, President Donald Trump extolled the cutting-edge coronavirus treatments he received as “miracles coming down from God.” If that’s true, then God employs cell lines derived from human fetal tissue. The emergency antibody that Trump received last week was developed with the use of a cell line originally derived from abortion tissue, according to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed the experimental drug. …”
      https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/07/1009664/trumps-antibody-treatment-was-tested-using-cells-from-an-abortion/

      Sounds like a good thing to ask about at a debate.

      1. You should indeed go to the link provided by CommitToHonestDiscussion. It is a link to MIT, certainly a trusted source. If you read down a few paragraphs you will find that the fetal cells used for President Trump were from a hampster. A very informative source. Embrionic fluid contains fetal cells. Source: Science Direct magazine. We wouldn’t want to throw the baby out with the embrionic fluid, or would we. Hired year after year for the cherry pickin harvest.

        1. You should read more carefully, Thinkitthrough. Your claim that “the fetal cells used for President Trump were from a hampster” is false. The antibodies are **manufactured** in hamster ovarian cells (not fetal cells), and the hamster cells aren’t part of the cocktail that’s administered to the person. The human fetal cells were used in **testing** not in manufacture.

          “Last Friday, as Trump developed worrisome symptoms of covid-19, the president received an emergency cocktail of anti-coronavirus antibodies made by Regeneron. These molecules are manufactured in cells from a hamster’s ovary, so-called “CHO” cells, according to the company—not in human cells. But cells originally derived from a [human] fetus were used in another way. According to Regeneron, laboratory tests used to assess the potency of its antibodies employed a standardized supply of cells called HEK 293T, whose origin was kidney tissue from an abortion in the Netherlands in the 1970s.” (emphasis added)

          1. So, how do we go from Trump being treated with a cocktail manufactured from a hampster ovarion cell to research on human embryo cells. The article clearly states that without this research Trump may have suffered harsher symptoms. Without question it ties the research on human fetal cells to his well being and states that without human abortion his treatment might not have been available. Yet miraculously a hampster jumps in to the game. The hampster treatment part is in your own source. People can read it for themselves.

      2. A hampster abortion. Quickly, forceps nurse. Forgive me. Holding my sides with laughter.

        1. “hampster” x 2 — by TiT

          lol

          Thinkitthrough can’t read — or spell.

          “Trump’s antibody treatment was tested using cells originally derived from an abortion”

          “…originally derived from an abortion”

          1. Go to commits source (your source). Count slowly down to paragraph five. You will find the cute little hampster. So difficult to read down five whole paragrahs but I know you can do it. Your a big girl now.
            I will give you this. The original research was done on human fetal cell tissue. Research must have been done to find out that they could have used a hampster. Too bad that they couldn’t have used a hampster first. To repeat, embronic fetal cells are found in the embrionic fluid. No abortion required.

            1. Anonymous and I aren’t the same person, and it looks like s/he was laughing because you keep misspelling hamster as “hampster.”

              There’s no such thing as “embronic fetal cells.” Embryonic and fetal stages are different. Fetal cells *can be* found in amniotic fluid (not “embrionic fluid”); however, the cells that were used for testing here didn’t come from amniotic fluid. They came from an aborted fetus.

              1. Your correct. I should have said amniotic fluid. My bad. The premise still doesn’t change. How does a hamster (spelling noted) ovary connect to research performed using a human fetus. Your first response stated that there was no hamster in the article at all. Remember?

                On another note. You stated that you and Anonymous are laughing about my misspelling of the word hamster. I see no evidence on this blog of your communicating such laughter. You must have a private form of communication or you both are laughing inside your head. Note the singular. When unable to refute demean.

                1. If you want to learn more about how human cells are used in drug testing, look it up.

                  Your claim that my “first response stated that there was no hamster in the article at all” is false.

                  Your claim “You stated that you and Anonymous are laughing about my misspelling of the word hamster” is also false. If I note that someone else seems to be laughing, that doesn’t imply that I joined in.

                  1. Iam desperately trying to find the Anonymous post about her laughter in this thred. Checked it again. Nothing there. You somehow just read her (your) mind. Time elapsed: 4 minutes and 22 seconds. Just went back through the thred and not one Anonymous post concerning laughter about my misspelling of the word hamster. One lip silently laughing. It’s ok many people have an imaginary friend.

                  2. I stand corrected. You did not state that their was no hamster in the article. You just conveniently stoped your post just above the part that discussed the hamster. You know that many do not bother to go to the source. Oversight or purposeful. Let the people decide.

                  3. My replies today have all been to your posts. I could not find the anonymous post about laughing at my spelling. You say I can’t search well enough to find a post I made in response to Anonymous. I have not replied to Anonymous in this thread today. I understand, it’s hard to keep track of it all. Anonymous Anonymous CommitToHonestDiscussion Anonymous Commit Commit. Ones mind could be aswirl.

                2. Thinkitthrough says:

                  October 8, 2020 at 6:07 PM

                  “Your [sic] correct.”

                  TiT keeps doing this.

                  1. Commit was correct I did answer one of your posts today. However, in your post there was nothing about your laughter concerning my spelling of the word hamster. CommitToHonestDiscussion got you involved in the discusion lickity split. In our discussions you can’t rebut the premises of my positions so you stoop to petty misspelling or improper use of a word to make your argument. I do believe you are an intelligent person. I think you can do better than the use of the petty to present your position.

                  2. Two commenter’s claim to fame is their spell and grammar checkers. This Anonymous creature makes errors all the time but blames them on other anonymous posters that do not exist. Anonymous has little to say so anonymous looks for errors of this nature especially “you’re vs your”. Anonymous is a small person and has no credibility.

              2. You clearly state that fetal cells are found in amniotic fluid. You also just stated that the cells are from and aborted fetus. I guess that cells from an aborted fetus are not fetal cells. Iam just saying why can’t the fetal cells from ambiotic fluid be used instead of the cells from the fetus itself.

                1. I’ll answer my own question. The aborted fetus cells are from the kidney of the fetus.
                  I still question how the hamster (quickly mentioned in twenty words out of 528) scampered into the treatment of the President in a story about fetal cell research. Maybe the writers of the article had an agenda. When you have an agenda bias confirmation is only the turn of a page away.

              1. Anonymous, when other people have to ask you about your point it means that you are just cutting and pasting. When the kids were very young I remember the white glue, safe scissors and magazines where together we cut and posted. Your growth seems to have ceased at a very early age.

                  1. You have a real problem anonymous and that is obvious to anyone on the blog as you create more aliases to insult and attack. I will repeat what I said above since you don’t respond when facts are provided but instead lie.

                    Anonymous, when other people have to ask you about your point it means that you are just cutting and pasting. When the kids were very young I remember the white glue, safe scissors and magazines where together we cut and posted. Your growth seems to have ceased at a very early age.

                    1. Allan, you are just continuing with your go-to attack strategy: insulting people.

                    2. “Allan, you are just continuing with your go-to attack strategy: insulting people.”

                      Other than cut and paste or talking to yourself I haven’t seen posts of yours that have the minimum quality expected from a child in elementary school. If you have any why don’t you show us so we can see how you DON’T argue your position or provide proof. We have seen you ran away, change aliases or get nasty.

                      Below is one of your nicer comments which is more of a leftwing slogan and my response. Could you follow suit with defense of your position? No. you ran away.
                      —-

                      “Preventing future problems was a reason that they created an NSC pandemic response team, wrote a pandemic playbook, and carried out a pandemic exercise with Trump officials before Trump was inaugurated.”

                      A lot of that playbook was useless. But Trump actually followed the playbook by reassuring the public while providing information. You on the other hand would scream and yell fire in a crowded theater causing people to be crushed to death while running out.. That reassurance is something the Democrats also fought. They made the situation worse and likely the death rate from other causes will eventually exceed the death rate from Covid which for the most part (excepting a few dumb governors) could not be drastically altered by government. Trump also followed the advice of Fauci and others in government. The best decisions were made by Trump and even Fauci admits that.

                      Blame the democrat thirst for power in stopping the proper management of Covid and the destruction of our economy.

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2020/10/07/a-means-of-distracting-the-public-brennan-briefed-obama-on-clinton-plan-to-lie-trump-to-russia/comment-page-3/#comment-2011285

      3. Kind of like how I asked you about that abortionist Ulrich Klopfer and his disgusting collection of thousands of dead baby fetuses that he killed and you ignored it, I suspect if they ask, Trump will ignore that one too

        2. Are you sure I didn’t respond, Kurtz? Maybe I didn’t see it, or maybe you’re misremembering. I have no problem agreeing that it was disgusting for Klopfer to take all of those fetal remains. I want staff at abortion facilities to obey the law.

          1. sorry, I didn’t see it. did you catch it that he was a little boy during the firebombing of Dresden? One suspects that early trauma have perverted his entire psyche

          2. “I want staff at abortion facilities to obey the law.”

            That and a $1.25 will get you a really sh*tty cup of coffee at IHOP.

            Abortionists and their staff have all the ethics and morals of Vlad the Impaler.

            I realize that this concept is impossible for someone as naive and self-absorbed as you are, but what you claim to “want” is irrelevant to the reality of what actually occurs at abortion clinics.

      4. ““The Trump administration has looked to curtail research with fetal cells. But when it was life or death for the president, no one objected.”

        Trump is President and deals with federal issues. Regeneron is a private company.

        Trump also doesn’t deal with hamsters.

  4. Pingback: President Trump Authorizes Release of All SpyGate Documents… Didn’t He Do This Already? – MInTheGap

  5. The entire Russiagate canard was intended to act as a Drogue anchor for Trump’s Presidency.

    https://eacrc.wordpress.com/safety/drogue/

    The Mueller investigation was the Drogue anchor that was deployed as soon as he took office.

    It is important to remember that most of the Republican longtime swamp dwellers were also all in on using Mueller as a Drogue anchor along with the usual Democrat swamp dwellers.

    The reason for that is simple. They all were intent on making sure that they had a control mechanism in place to make sure that the American empire building warfare would continue unabated to feed into the MIC. Because the the big money flows to them through the MIC.

    Just like Bush, Barry was a very good house boy during his 8 years in that regard.

    Barry the Grifter also gave the Banksters exactly what Bush would have given them. (I.E.- A total “Too Big To Fail” bailout at taxpayers expense. While making sure that his alter-ego AG Eric Holder designated the criminal Bankers who caused the so-called “financial crisis” as Too Big To Jail).

    But Trump’s win in November of 2016 was the Black Swan event that neither the long time elitist Democrats or Republicans expected. Which is why the warmongers like Bill Kristol and his never-Trumpers have spent the last 4 years putting so much time and effort into trying to remove Trump, along with their Democrat counterparts.

    Assisting that effort are the TDS/PTS sufferers, who have never known what it is like to not get everything they want whenever they want it, throughout their entire spoiled rotten lives. All while the propagandists in the MSM fed the spoiled little Buttercups exactly what they wanted to hear.

    So, as JT has pointed out before, this entire Russia canard serves to highlight the complete and utter failings of the two Party choose the lesser of two evils system.

    1. But the Mueller investigation was the Trump administration investigating itself, Rhodesy.

      1. Bug, you can call him Mr Rhodes, or, Cecil, if y’all get familiar

        sorry for interrupting guys, carry on

    2. For those who have yet to make the connection, Rhodes is our usual troll who goes by a rotating list of ‘established’ names. Yet he also comments under endless one-day only names. Rhodes strives to be the commenter all comments revolve around.

      1. IOW, once again you are incapable of providing a rejoinder to what I wrote.

        You’re very weak.

        1. Rhodes, why should every comment thread revolve around you’???? How boring!!

          It would be fascinating to see how these threads would look if you disappeared for a month. We might have ‘real’ discussions.

          1. You still have not been able to address a single thing that I wrote, anon.

            Until you do, you’ve got nothing, other than your severe late stage TDS and PTS, covered in weak field fairy sauce.

    1. What has been declassified is not Ratcliffe’s notes, it is Obama CIA Director Brennan’s.

      In what world is Brennan a Trump Tool ?

      We know what Brennan wrote – and he has publicly confirmed that the notes are authentic.
      We know that he considered is serious enough that he informed Comey, Strzok and Obama.

      And we know that occured in July 2016 before CrossFire Huricane started

  7. With all of the opinions supplied here I am having a difficult time getting my head around the facts. As I understand them to be;

    1. The CIA using undisclosed sources and methods spied on the Russians and learned the Russians had concluded that the Clinton Campaign with Hillary Clinton’s approval was going to divert attention from the Clinton private email server issue by implementing a plan to smear the Trump Campaign by tying them to Russia.
    2. Brennan thought this was worthy intelligence to brief then President Obama, FBI Director Comey, and FBI agent Strozk.

    So here is where it gets confusing to me:
    A. The Clinton Campaign directly or indirectly works with Russian Intelligence to set up a smear of the Trump Campaign.
    B. The FBI doesn’t investigate the Clinton Campaign for collusion with Russian Intelligence in developing the Trump smear campaign.
    C. Instead the FBI launches an investigation of the Trump campaign.

    What am I missing? Why would the FBI investigate the Trump Campaign? Wasn’t the intelligence shared by the CIA made available to Obama and the FBI to prevent illegal activity by the Clinton Campaign?

    I can’t put the pieces together. Why did the FBI launch an investigation of the Trump Campaign instead of the Clinton Campaign that was knowingly colluding with forms of Russian Intelligence?

    1. The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

      The co-conspirators are:

      Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

      James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,

      Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,

      Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

      Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

      Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

      Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

      Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg et al.

    2. Because the previous administration had successfully weaponized the FBI/IC/DOJ to use active measures to influence the outcome of the election. And if that wasn’t successful, to set up the new administration for an impeachment trap.

      1. Generally speaking, when one can’t provide an honest answer, they resort to ridicule. A tactic often employed by Marxists.

      2. Almost every fact he listed is demonstrably true.

        The only error that he makes is that it can not be proven that Clinton was knowingly collaborating with Russia.

        In what world is speaking the Truth trolling ?

        If Calvin is not correct – demonstrate that with facts.

    4. It seems to me that the CIA and FBI must have been int he tank for Clinton – this was the “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency – if they couldn’t prevent it, they could at least delegitimize and hamstring an administration run by a non-career politician.

      If there is any other explanation that accounts for everything, I cannot come up with it, and I can (like the White Queen) believe six impossible things before breakfast.

      BTW, love your handle.

      1. If there is any other explanation that accounts for everything, I cannot come up with it, and I can (like the White Queen) believe six impossible things before breakfast.

        Perhaps only through the looking glass would these divergent facts make sense to us all. And like the White Queen, we would next become sheep, in fact, an entire nation of sheep. The goal all along?

        Nice catch on the handle 🙂

        1. Ellen Evans and Calvin N Hobbs are both the same troll commenting as ‘Rhodes’ further up.

          2. Once again we find an “Anonymous” casting baseless aspersions. No answers, no deductions, no help. When confronted with facts, we often see Marxists using tactics of deflecting or resorting to low brow commenting. A Marxist troll, accusing others as being what he himself is.

            I assure you that I am not Ellen Evans nor are we the same pawn on the chessboard.
            You bring nothing to the table but baseless allegations.

            Given the facts as presented in the newly declassified documents, are you asking me to believe Comey suffered from dyslexia thus misreading which campaign colluded with Russian Intelligence? Only through the looking glass could you expect me to believe that true.

            From the beginning of the unfounded allegations of the Trump Campaign colluding with Russia, the actual political weaponization of our intelligence agencies and department of justice to the newly declassified documents proving the exact opposite, one has to ask “Where’s Alice?”.

    5. “What am I missing?”

      The effort by US intelligence to bring down Trump using domestic and foreign operatives started long before the Russians learned of Hillary’s plans. It appears to go back to Dec 2015. The operatives used were Stefan Halper, Joseph Mifsud, Charles Tawil, “Azra Turk,” Alexander Downer, Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, etc. The reason the FBI didn’t go after Hillary was because they were trying to get Trump.

    6. Why did the FBI fail to notify the public that it was investigating the Trump campaign at the same time it announced reopening it’s investigation into Hillary – 2 weeks before the election? Man, these Deep State conspirators must have been the Keystone Cops.

      1. Joe Friday is our usual troll answering himself. He is also Rhodes, Ellen Evans and Calvin N Hobbs.

        As it becomes increasingly likely that Trump will lose, this troll becomes increasingly desperate to monopolize every comment thread.

        1. Joe Friday definitely isn’t the same person as Rhodes. Their politics are very different.

    7. It is not established that the Clinton Campaign “worked with the russians”.

      They did Hire Steele whom the FBI considered to be a Russian Patsy.

      The FBI knew that Steele was likely being used by the Russians – but Clinton did not.

      Steele hired a source that was working for Brookings, and who the FBI consider to be a likely Russian agent.
      Again the FBI knew that – but Clinton did not.

      Clinton is guilty of dirty politics – nothing more. You get to decide about Clinton’s and more broadly the democratic parties conduct by your vote. Aparently very large numbers of people do not care about Clinton’s or the democratic parties poor conduct.

      The serious problem is with the Government – not the Clinton campaign.

      At this point even Horowitz’s claim that Crossfire huricane was barely sufficiently predicated is extremely dubious.

      BECAUSE the CIA, FBI, WhiteHouse all knew 2 things in mid july 2016 – That the whole Trump/Russia Collusion nonsense was politically driven by Clinton. That the Russians were aware of it, that they were likely trying to manipulate it, and that Steele was likely being manipulated by the russians and that his subsource was likely a russian agent.

      There is a basis for an investigation here – but not of Trump.

      The FBI should have QUIETLY investigated the Clinton campaign to see if the Russians had successfully infiltrated it.

      And they should have investigated Steele and his subsource to determine if they were working for the Russians.

      Instead they choose to investigate a bunch of idiotic nonsense – the Steele Dossier, that they KNEW was a politically sourced smear, and that they knew had Russian Disinformation written all over it.

      This failure what all but the most in the tank grasp was highly political, is unfortunately not illegal – that some illegal acts were done.

      What is even more disturbing is the appointment and investigation by the Special Counsel.

      While most americans have not learned the depth of this until more recently – and we are told there is still more to come – what more could there possibly be ?

      Regardless the FACT is that CIA, FBI, DOJ KNEW by mid january 2017 there was absolutely nothing to the “collusion delusion”.

      Comey claims he was unaware of any of this – if so that is massive incompetence on his part, he was briefed.
      Regardless whether Comey knew or not – Strzok knew as did many of those in CrossFire Huricane.
      If Comey did not know – why was he not told by those who did ?

      And everything I am saying of Comey applies to McCabe, and Rosenstein and to Mueller and his team after they were important.

      Steele;s subsource was by the FBI’s assessment long before this started a likely Russian Agent.
      Steele was by the FBI’s own assessment – long before this started a russian patsy.
      Carter Page was a US agent operating against the Russians.
      The Russians were aware of a Clinton operation to sabotage Trump by tying him to Russia and were likely feeding Clinton disinformation

      All of this and more was all known by the FBI – and by members of the Crossfire Huricane team – probably in July 2016, but certainly by January 2017.

      It is not possible to identify the day that Comey knew all of this. But it is possible to say for certain that he SHOULD have known, and that those within Crossfire Huricane who did know were obligated to speak up.

      It is not possible to identify when McCabe knew all of this – but it was his job to know, and it was the job of those who did know to inform him.

      It is not possible to identify when Rosenstein knew – but he should not have appointed a Special Counsel without conducting sufficient inquiries to find these things out.

      It is not possible to identify when Mueller knew – but it is absolutely certain that he KNEW ALL of this long before he issued his report.

      And this information is DAMNING it means that Mueller’s appointment and he entire investigation was improper, unpredicated and likely highly illegal and while he may not have know that day one – he certainly knew that before he indicted anyone.

    8. A couple of other points.

      It does not appear that the Clinton campaign was knowingly colluding with Russia.

      But lets say they were.

      If Russia was providing Dirt to the Clinton campaign that may stink to high heaven, but it is not actually illegal.

      I would note that Trump tried to get dirt on Clinton from Natalia who was presented to the Trump Campaign as representing Russia.

      Natalia did not provide any dirt, appears to have been a setup, and her actual connection to the Russian government is dubious.

      But the Trump’s did meet with her with the expectation that they were getting Dirt on Clinton from the Russian government.

      Again that stinks, but it is not illegal.

      There are lots of people behaving badly. But all bad behavior is not illegal.

      The real problem is the behaviour of our government.

      Instead of investigating Steele and his source to determine their credibility and dropping the whole thing because they KNEW they were dealing with Russian disinformation, they used what the KNEW was russian disinformation to trigger exactly the investigation that both Clinton and Russia wanted and they continued it well into the Trump administration.

      This must never happen again.

  8. A Senator or Congressman need only be a “citizen.”

    The President must be a “natural born citizen.”

    Kamala Harris’ parents were NOT U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.

    If Kamala Harris IS a “natural born citizen,” who IS NOT?

      1. PRECISELY!

        Kamala Harris will NEVER be a “natural born citizen” and Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible for the office of president because Kamala Harris was born of foreign citizens.

        1. You asked “If Kamala Harris IS a “natural born citizen,” who IS NOT?,” and I gave you an example of someone who is not.

          But Kamala Harris IS a natural born citizen. She was born in the U.S. to parents subject to U.S. law.

          Your bizarre personal views about it are legally irrelevant.

          1. No “bizarre personal views,” Missy, just the facts, oh, and the laws which bear; your fair share of affirmative action privilege notwithstanding.

            To wit,
            ______

            Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

            Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.

            – A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

            – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

            – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

            – “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural
            law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political
            economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians,
            international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion,” Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.

            – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

            – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

            – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.

            ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

            Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

            Book 1, Ch. 19

            § 212. Citizens and natives.

            “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

            ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

            Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

            “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

            ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

            To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

            From John Jay

            New York 25 July 1787

            Dear Sir

            I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

            Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

            Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

            which sailed Yesterday.

            Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

            provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

            administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

            of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

            Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

            Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

            I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

            John Jay

    2. But Harris was born on US soil. I loathe her, but she is a natural born citizen, according to US law.

      2. Pay attention here.

        Born on U.S. soil is not the criterion.

        It’s foreign allegiances, stupid.

        Harris is an anti-American foreign hyphenate who loves America’s money and hates America.

        Harris’ parents were foreign citizens when she was born.

        The Founders required a president to be a “natural born citizen.

        The Founders required senators and congressmen to be merely “citizens.”

        “What is the difference between a “citizen” and “natural born citizen?”

          1. I have voted for plenty of Democrats too. Just the ones I know personally, who are decent local public servants. Lucky me I live out in flyover where there still are a lot of decent Democrats. You never see them get elevated to national leadership however. That’s a lock for pols from California and New York it seems.

            My Democrat friends in flyover need to consider joining the Republican party, which needs their savvy and competence and community minded voices in building a better America which serves us all in perpetuating law, order, prosperity, and equal protection under the law, and not the current Democrat leadership’s vision of “some are more equal than others!”

            1. I’ve put some of my own very small money on the table for my good law and order Democrat friends too. They don’t always win the primary; sometimes a big blob of money comes in from out of town and elevates the worst kind of losers above the fray with an injection of advertising that has a tendency to influence fools who know no better

              We can see how Soros understands local politics yet remains a very lively and important venue for “change”

              https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/20/george-soros-funded-das-oversee-big-cities-skyrock/

              his kind of change is only good for global billionaires like him, however. never for the good citizens who are harmed by a lack of law and order.

              Republicans need to wake up and figure out how to recruit more local candidates. It’s pathetic how poorly they compete in certain locales in which they have plenty of voters and yet they can’t seem to find a candidate for dogcatcher. Maybe if Trump wins we will get a ruthless purge of silk-stocking saboteurs from the party who continue to hold us back. I won’t hold my breath, however

              Still we need to turn out the vote in this election up and down ballot 100% the message has to be loud and clear demand for law and order, or it may be the last time it even matters.

  10. https://twitter.com/JameelJaffer/status/1313928202620993536

    Jameel Jaffer:

    “Every journalist who interviews @JohnBrennan should start by asking him why the CIA killed 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi. It would be great if Brennan called torture “torture,” but keep your eye on the ball: Brennan oversaw drone strikes that killed hundreds of civilians.”

    2:44 PM · Oct 7, 2020·Twitter Web App

    1. Yes, absolutely, get Brennan to call torture “torture.” Get Trump to call torture “torture” too.

      Trump has overseen even more killing of civilians than Brennan.
      Trump has dropped more bombs during his time in office than during any four years under Obama.

      1. Trump doesn’t get a pass.

        Clean the whole house. The whole f’ing house.

      2. Then you would be able to document that ?

        According to the UCDP data conflict deaths int he mideast have been slowly declinging since peaking under Obama in 2016.

          1. I asked for data – not a link to one of your own comments in an article that had nothing to do with this topic.

            I provided one of the most accepted sources – what do you have that is better.

            Try an actual source.

            1. Looks like the entire subthread was deleted, so my comment isn’t there now. It was there when I posted the link to it yesterday, and it had links to military data along with an explanation.

              Here are two of those links to start with:

              https://www.afcent.af.mil/Portals/82/Documents/Airpower%20summary/31%20Dec%202013%20Airpower%20Summary.pdf?ver=2016-01-13-143735-713

              https://www.afcent.af.mil/Portals/82/Airpower%20Summaries/Feb%202020%20Airpower%20Summary%20FINAL.pdf?ver=2020-03-12-021511-537

              1. There is not a single statistic in your cite about casualties.

                I provided you with casualties.

                  1. Oh, so we are arguing about bombs. I though we were arguing something important like dead people.

                    As to your link. I did not add up the numbers but it does not sound like it is going to add up to thousands.

                  2. “Here’s the most recent, for 2019:”

                    More cut and paste by anonymous.

                    Tell us what your conclusion is based on the document and point out the significant parts of this document.

                    Generally your cut and paste doesn’t demonstrate what you think it demonstrates so you have to build up your credibility before anyone considers you credible.

              2. Do you see Anonymous how your argument wasn’t focused and in the end you copied and pasted, but didn’t know the topic of the discussion or what was in your copy and paste.

                Thinking isn’t easy and you need more practice.

    3. A ninny:

      “Every journalist who interviews @JohnBrennan should start by asking him why the CIA killed 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi.”
      *************************
      That’s an easy one. His subversive fundamentalist dad, Anwar, put him in harms way knowing full well his activities supporting ouch-Qaeda (formerly al-Qaeda) put a US bullseye on him. Likely it stopped another terrorist-in-waiting.

        2. “Thanks for playing fat-man.”

          The creature Anonymous whines and cries complaining I insult it. Here he is insulting Mepso that he call Mesblow. I don’t see Mespo crying or whining.

          1. No, Allan, some of us just point out that insulting people is one of your go-to strategies. You do it with almost everyone who isn’t a friend of yours.

            1. IT’s reserved for arrogant people especially those that are anonymous or use multiple aliases including anonymous. It is also for those that lie a lot. I don’t insult except in response to insult and those that act like you.

              Take note how you insulted Mespo multiple times. Take note of the words used by the left regarding Trump supporters such as the Hillary word “deplorable”. If you insult people others admire without providing proof you should be insulted.

              Stop whining. Clean up your act. Stop blaming other anonymous creatures for your errors. Stop pretending that you are being supported by others when they are anonymous creatures that you invented because you require friends to back you up.

              Pitiful.

              1. Now Allan makes excuses for insulting people, pretends that there’s a single person posting anonymously, and adds more insults. He also uses another of his go-to strategies: lumping all people on the left into a group and blaming commenters here for a statement made by Clinton.

                1. Everyone but you can see that I don’t answer every anonymous posting. There is another poster who posts differently and confused the issue because sometimes he posted smartly but the subject matter was such that one couldn’t differentiate which alias was which so history of the poster became important to understand his words. It’s not very important to me but it is something that would be better not to exist. Presently I have a pretty exact focus on you and all of your phony friends.There is little, if any, confusion when I respond to you.

                  You make excuses, you create phony icons and you create non-existent friends. I do not need excuses. We have the truth.

      2. So you say those two assassinations were legal? Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son with the same name were both US citizens and never charged with any crime.

        If yes, then you apparently believe any POTUS can legally assassinate any US citizen they so desire.

        1. Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son with the same name were both US citizens and never charged with any crime.

          They weren’t killed in Chicago. They were in Yemen and papa was up to no good.

          1. What kind of jack arse believes the Constitution and its laws cease when Americans visit a foreign country? And BTW, then FBI Chief Mueller told the golden half-black POTUS Obombya that he could kill citizens in the US too.

            1. Princess of Something:
              As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about. A state of war existed between the US and al-Qaeda. Anwar et brat were engaged in that war. As such they weren’t just traitors, they were citizen combatants. Citizen Combatants engaged in acts of war against the country don’t get due process before you execute a death sentence. If the did, every one of the confederate soldiers charging the union line at Gettysburg would have had to have gotten a hearing on their culpability before any US Army soldier could have fired the first shot. That would certainly pass for sanity to the modern leftists but the rest of us aren’t in their death cult. Tally ho!

              1. Anwar was killed in Yemen. He was not charging up the hill at US forces at the time.
                He was not actively trying to overthrow the US government at the time – that is not a goal of Al Queda.
                Their explicit goal is forcing foreign powers out of the mideast. Not the overthrow of foreign governments.

          2. So it would be OK if Trump took out Hunter Biden in Romania ?
            Or John Kerry in Tehran ?

  11. Fox just broadcast a poll showing choice to use in person or mail in, showing Dems favoring mail by 68% to in person at 43%. Cook Polictical Report where did the extra 11% come from all those dead voters? Not even hiding the method to madness. ——— I know don’t get you panties in an uproar it’s a typo.

  12. New England Journal of Medicine editorial:

    “Covid-19 has created a crisis throughout the world. This crisis has produced a test of leadership. With no good options to combat a novel pathogen, countries were forced to make hard choices about how to respond. Here in the United States, our leaders have failed that test. They have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy.

    “The magnitude of this failure is astonishing. According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering,1 the United States leads the world in Covid-19 cases and in deaths due to the disease, far exceeding the numbers in much larger countries, such as China. The death rate in this country is more than double that of Canada, exceeds that of Japan, a country with a vulnerable and elderly population, by a factor of almost 50, and even dwarfs the rates in lower-middle-income countries, such as Vietnam, by a factor of almost 2000. Covid-19 is an overwhelming challenge, and many factors contribute to its severity. But the one we can control is how we behave. And in the United States we have consistently behaved poorly. …”
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812

    1. First, apologize to President Trump and the American people for supporting the Democrat/Russia collusion coup. Then and only then should we move on to your next disastrous, false allegation. We may even find a moment for this bs.

      1. LOL (literally). You telling me to apologize to Trump is as effective as me telling you to vote for Biden as the lesser of two evils because Trump is a menace to our democracy.

        1. Given your propensity to deflect attention away from that, I’m not surprised in the least. You literally are the least honest person on this blog.

          1. I dare you to quote 3 false things that I said but didn’t correct. If I’m as dishonest as you claim, it should be exceptionally easy for you to come up with 3 examples.

            My expectation: you will run away from this challenge.

            I think you’d rather believe I’m dishonest even if the evidence doesn’t support you.

            1. Olly forgets the others on this blog, like Allan, not to mention PCS, DSS et al., that think their insults are arguments.

              Olly can’t find false statements from you, CTHD, else he would offer them. Olly’s bluster exceeds his grasp, and has for years.

              1. Haversham, you think the truth is an insult. Take a look at how you tried to insult John regarding your lack of knowledge that hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite are both bleaching agents. You insulted. I explained and you probably call that an insult.

                CTDHD has lost many an argument because what she said wasn’t true.

                  1. Svelaz, as usual you are late for the party. You were there when I called CTDHD out on her comments about Flynn. She had people searching the FBI file for something she said existed but didn’t. It was a mistruth by CTDHD. Why didn’t you pipe in then and show us the specific words Flynn was supposed to have said? You didn’t. You didn’t pipe in because CTDHD told a mistruth and you couldn’t validate her claim either.

                    Young pointed out some more errors by CTDHD. You had your chance to prove CTDHD right but you didn’t. Why? Two reasons. 1) Young was right 2) You don’t know much of anything. If trapped you probably couldn’t find yourself out of a paper bag.

                    She has been wrong over and over again and currently quotes ignorant people in lieu of an opinion she can’t back up. You are a lazy dimwit so I will tell you once again, pop in when the argument is on going and try to defend those you think are wrong. Make sure you bring proof instead of your usual meaningless words that more frequently than not are wrong.

                    1. Allan uses several of his go-to attack strategies here. He is lying about what happened, he’s insulting, he’s trying to shift responsibility, and he’s try to distract. He was asked for quotes and can’t produce quotes.

                    2. Anonymous, you may like to act like a monkey responding to those not listening to the discussion, but I don’t. I will respond to intelligent questions, not the stupid ones.

                      Once again you are whining while repeating previous claims with nothing to back you up.

                    3. Then demonstrate these things.

                      Do not accuse someone else of lying – PROVE IT. If you do not the moral failure is YOURS.

                      Allan does offer insults some times – so do I, so does every other poster here.
                      But Allan also offers up facts, logic, reason – he does so consistently, and that is NOT true of most other posters here.

                      It is hard to comment on you as there is no means to determine which post by “Anonymous” is you – to be clear you are free to be completely anonymous, but when you do so you have no credibility.

                      But based on my assumptions as to which anonymous posts are yours – I would say that you post nothing but insults.

                      I would welcome an informed debate with someone representing different views than mine.

                      But those on the left do not do that.

                    4. Allan, Anonymous is right that you’re lying about what happened, insulting, trying to shift responsibility, and trying to distract.

                      You can’t produce 3 quotes that were false and you just mouth off.

                    5. Asked and answered without a response to my answer. You are demonstrating an extremely low level of intellect.

                    6. Allan, I may not have as much free time as you do to post on this blog. Some of us have to work you know.

                      All of your ranting still has not provided any proof that CTHD is wrong.

                      You have not produced the quotes or info you say you hand provided. All you did was talk a lot.

                      Prove CTHD was or has been wrong.

                    7. “Allan, I may not have as much free time as you do…”

                      Maybe if you applied yourself a bit more you would be able to do whatever you wanted. That is the advantage of using one’s brain.

                      I think I replied earlier on this subject,

                    8. I have minor concerns regarding the myriads of errors of fact that CTDHD and the left spray out constantly.

                      The frequency of those and the willingness to repeat them after they are informed of their errors makes it plausible to conclude they are just lying.

                      But lying is a serious moral claim – it is more than just an error of fact – a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation for the purpose of deceiving.
                      You can not lie innocently, and you can not lie merely because you believe something that is false.

                      When you accuse another of lying the burden of proof is on you.

                      CTDHD has accused myriads of people of lying. She has not proven that of any of them, and has been proven wrong about most of them.

                      That is a very serious moral failure. That is far more consequential that merely being wrong about a fact.

                    9. John, does “Do not accuse someone else of lying – PROVE IT. If you do not the moral failure is YOURS” also apply to you and your friends?

                      Do you and your friends have to prove it when you call someone a liar or dishonest?

                    10. “Do you and your friends have to prove it when you call someone a liar or dishonest?”

                      Anonymous, The proof is quite obvious when you run away and I have just finished demonstrating that in a couple of posts.

                    11. “John, does “Do not accuse someone else of lying – PROVE IT. If you do not the moral failure is YOURS” also apply to you and your friends?

                      Do you and your friends have to prove it when you call someone a liar or dishonest?”

                      Yes, I just did.

                      When CTDHD made moral accusations and failed to prove them that constitutes proof that she is dishonest.

                      I and anyone else is now free to call her dishonest. Because it has been proven.

                      And for the record, I have no “friends” here or enemies. I aggree with allan when he is right – which is often.

                      I have aggreed with others – including lefties when they are actually right.

                      CTDHD asked kurtz to call out Trump for his insane comments.

                      I have no problem calling out Trump for the actually insane comments he makes – and he does make some.

                      Regardless, do not make moral accusations unless you are prepared to prove them. Doing so is IMMORAL, it is dishonest.

                      Do not call others Nazi’s, Biggots, Racists, hateful, hating haters unless you can PROVE that the are.

                      The entire discussion would cool down 100’s of degrees if you refrained calling everyone you did not agree with a Nazi.

                    12. John, your logic is off in asserting “When CTDHD made moral accusations and failed to prove them that constitutes proof that she is dishonest.” Failure to prove something is not proof of dishonesty. If I say that Hitler was evil and then don’t prove it, that doesn’t make it a dishonest claim.

                      Why aren’t you telling Allan not to make moral accusations unless he’s prepared to prove them? He makes lots of moral accusations without proving them.

                    13. “John, your logic is off in asserting “When CTDHD made moral accusations and failed to prove them that constitutes proof that she is dishonest.” Failure to prove something is not proof of dishonesty. If I say that Hitler was evil and then don’t prove it, that doesn’t make it a dishonest claim.”

                      Failure to prove a factual claim is not usually dishonesty.
                      Failure to prove a moral claim is.

                      If you say your neighbor is a pedophile and fail to provide – that is dishonesty.

                      If you say your neighbor who has been convicted of molesting children is a pedophile – you are saying something that has already been proven. You can call Hitler evil without proof because the proof predates your claim and nearly everyone on the planet is aware of it.

                      “Why aren’t you telling Allan not to make moral accusations unless he’s prepared to prove them? He makes lots of moral accusations without proving them.”

                      I am saying the same to everyone. I am not aware of Allan making moral accusations that are without proof – but you are free to enlighten me.

                    14. “Why aren’t you telling Allan not to make moral accusations unless he’s prepared to prove them? He makes lots of moral accusations without proving them.”

                      Anonymous CTDHD proves my case every time she rants and libels someone. John approaches the subject based on morality. An error of fact is not generally egregious unless harm to another exists. Then an error of fact can be corrected. If the error of fact damages an individual’s character and is not retracted that is known as libel (I like the way john uses the word morality as his descriptive term)

                      The one making the statement will have to prove the statement was correct or pay damages. On the blog no one pays damages in dollars They pay by losing credibility and being told they aren’t moral. CTDHD has never proved herself correct on these libel/ moral issues. It is not up to me to do it for her.

                      If you libeled me in a newspaper, I would show what I considered to be libel. Then you would have to prove it wasn’t.

                  2. Allan, you didn’t respond to Svelaz’s intelligent request that you produce 3 quotes that were false, and you’re continuing with your go-to strategy of insults.

                    1. Why should I respond to Svelaz’s request? When has he ever tried to see if anything he said made sense? His errors are voluminous. His credibility is non-existent.

                      Further, I provided proof in the past so if he or you didn’t listen, too bad. I’m credible. You and he are not.

                  1. Time-permitting? You have tried to post those falsehoods and failed. You are littering the Internet insulting other people while whining and crying that I insult you. What a hypocrite. What a baby.

                    2. Repetition is your only avenue of attack. That is because eventually you run out of pre prepared answers and you have to respond with intellect.

                    1. This is more repetition based on a person that is tied into protecting an ideology rather than a person who thinks for itself. Above you say “Time-permitting, I’ll post a few of Allan’s falsehoods.”.

                      That is a typical excuse from you. You have the time to post all your nonsense but don’t have time to develop critical thinking skills on the subject.

                      Clearly, that shows you to be just another empty ideologue. But that has been known based on your use of an anonymous alias, multiple icons and phony friends.

                  3. I’m busy, Allan, unlike you, but here are a few — all in one comment. I’ll get back to some of the others — time-permitting.

                    On the topic of “falsehoods” by Allan:

                    https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/24/taylor-grand-jury-decision-denounced-by-legal-and-media-analysts-as-raw-racism-or-state-sponsored-white-supremacy/comment-page-1/#comment-2004695

                    Allan responded to CTHD about Breonna Taylor shooting:

                    “Allan says:September 24, 2020 at 12:06 PM

                    A drug dealer was there and the girlfriend might have been aiding him. This was a legal entry. The male had his gun close at hand so he could shoot a cop.

                    You are despicable constantly siding with criminals that have killed or injured others, with little remorse to the tremendous numbers of innocents that have been hurt.”

                    So Allan made a couple of false claims about Walker (who is NOT a drug dealer) — and then lobed a few insults and lies. He was corrected, but failed to admit his error until it was highlighted by Mespo.

                    1. “So Allan made a couple of false claims about Walker (who is NOT a drug dealer) …. He was corrected, but failed to admit his error until it was highlighted by Mespo.”

                      You sound pathetic.

                      I admitted to making an error and still am not sure 100% of the details. I doubt many are. There have been many interpretations of what went down. When faced with a correction from a credible person I admitted the error. Those that lack credibility like yourself are not trustworthy.

                      There is a lot of unproven and proven talk that drugs were involved with some of the people and that both men had been in the apartment. Your description was very thin and didn’t provide any reasonable picture of the circumstances. You are not credible so you either need to demonstrate why what you said should be considered or you have to demonstrate a better grasp of the facts.

                      Suffice it to say this particular claim demonstrates how weak your argument is.

                    2. Ah, it’s always such a treat to hear from the idiot “Allan.”

                      Allan only admitted to his error **after** mespo drew attention to it. Others had already pointed out Allan’s error, but little Allan stood his ground.

                      If you had done your own research — before running your big yap, Allan — you wouldn’t have made such a stupid mistake, buddy.

                      You were called on it, and you should have checked your facts like a man and admitted your error straight-away, Allan, old boy.

                    3. “If you had done your own research ”

                      I repeated what I read in the news and things were changing. Your interpretation of events was incomplete and if I remember correctly you didn’t recognize all the potential drug involvements,

                      You sound pathetic.

                      I admitted to making an error and still am not sure 100% of the details. I doubt many are. There have been many interpretations of what went down. When faced with a correction from a credible person I admitted the error. Those that lack credibility like yourself are not trustworthy.

                      There is a lot of unproven and proven talk that drugs were involved with some of the people and that both men had been in the apartment. Your description was very thin and didn’t provide any reasonable picture of the circumstances. You are not credible so you either need to demonstrate why what you said should be considered or you have to demonstrate a better grasp of the facts.

                      Suffice it to say this particular claim demonstrates how weak your argument is.

              2. Actually those on the lkeft seem to thing that facts, data, logic, reason are insults.

                That demonstrating error in fact or logic is insulting.

            2. Olly:

              “I dare you to quote 3 false things that I said but didn’t correct. If I’m as dishonest as you claim, it should be exceptionally easy for you to come up with 3 examples.”
              ***********************************

              Ooo, Ooo, Ooo … I got this one: there’s three lies in your ironic pseudonym!

                  1. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his “Just War” theory to justify Catholic war mongering. Thomas says Catholics may war when there is no other choice. When/where/under what circumstance does Catholic doctrine prohibit a country from surrendering to its enemies? If Catholics are never prohibited from surrendering than surrendering is always an option to any war. (“For he who saves his life shall lose it, and he who loses his life shall gain eternal life.”) Every one of the apostles died a martyr except Judas and John beloved by Christ. The Church’s greatest era of spreading the gospel was the first 3 centuries when to believe was a mortal crime. (Plato’s law specified the death penalty for the crime of conventicle-private religious gathering.)

                    And another Q: If a Catholic can join the military and still be in good standing with the Church, what about this? The POTUS orders a Catholic pilot to drop a bomb somewhere in the vicinity of the Vatican, the result of which is to instantly convert the entire Vatican and the Pope in it into primordial ooze. How do you and the Catholic Church square that?

                    Among several other renown Catholic apologists I asked chicken hawk Patrick Madrid these questions. Not one of these chicken hawks would reply, because the only answer is to admit that Catholic Church doctrine is a plate of steaming hot feces. I hope you do better but I won’t hold my breath.

                    Be direct in your answers.

                    2. Princess.

                      “Thomas says Catholics may war when there is no other choice” > Not so. it is perhaps more bellicose than you may suspect.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

                      You started not only with misunderstanding the doctrine but also misunderstand the historical context. St Augustine, building on some of the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosophers, first elaborated just war theory, and Aquinas refined it. It continues to be a subject of serious theologians and ethicists today, and lawyers who are involved in the laws of war.

                      But back to the time of the Roman Empire, when St Augustine wrote. It was a nice change of pace idea, not to target and kill civilians. When, the world generally gave no quarter to conquered civilians who were habitually often enslaved or slaughtered. There is no question at all among historians that Catholic just war theory moderated the excesses of war in Europe and has become inspirational for modern treaties we all respect like the Geneva Convention, the Hague, and other laws of war.

                      You really should read up on this and correct your misunderstanding of just war theory

                      Also your insult that the Church is dung is very offensive and needless provocation of Catholics for no good reason. You should temper yourself and not so provoke those you wish to persuade.

                3. Again, another insult by Anonymous and it has nothing with me. Anonymous is naturally an insulting guy and a hypocrite,

                    3. Anonymous, what you just said is that your words are truthful only when you want them to be. At other times you lie. Add to that your multiple anonymous aliases that congratulate you or are forced to carry the burdens of your deceit, what we have here is an amoral person who is totally untrustworthy.

                    5. “Allan has been reduced to a babbling idiot.”

                      We just established that anonymous’s “words are truthful only when you [it] want them to be. At other times you[It] lie[s]. I guess that means just what?

                      Anonymous is proving himself to be a simpleton.

                    6. On the topic of “falsehoods” by Allan:

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/24/taylor-grand-jury-decision-denounced-by-legal-and-media-analysts-as-raw-racism-or-state-sponsored-white-supremacy/comment-page-1/#comment-2004695

                      Allan responded to CTHD about Breonna Taylor shooting:

                      “Allan says:September 24, 2020 at 12:06 PM

                      A drug dealer was there and the girlfriend might have been aiding him. This was a legal entry. The male had his gun close at hand so he could shoot a cop.

                      You are despicable constantly siding with criminals that have killed or injured others, with little remorse to the tremendous numbers of innocents that have been hurt.”

                      So Allan made a couple of false claims about Walker (who is NOT a drug dealer) — and then lobed a few insults and lies. He was corrected, but failed to admit his error until it was highlighted by Mespo.

                      Yes, Allan is “a babbling idiot”…an “insulting guy”…”a hypocrite”…a phony…and the list goes on…

                    7. Anonymous the Stupid thinks that by posting an error I made twice that would count as doubling the error. What a deceitful individual Anonymous is. I guess that was the only *potential* error I made which means I am better than even I thought I was.

                      What has Anonymous proven?
                      1) He is untrustworthy
                      2) He is not too bright
                      3) He has a bad ego problem
                      4) He is not knowledgeable about the facts
                      5) He is unable to debate.

                      Below was my response.

                      “So Allan made a couple of false claims about Walker (who is NOT a drug dealer) …. He was corrected, but failed to admit his error until it was highlighted by Mespo.”

                      You sound pathetic.

                      I admitted to making an error and still amAaaaa not sure 100% of the details. I doubt many are. There have been many interpretations of what went down. When faced with a correction from a credible person I admitted the error. Those that lack credibility like yourself are not trustworthy.

                      There is a lot of unproven and proven talk that drugs were involved with some of the people and that both men had been in the apartment. Your description was very thin and didn’t provide any reasonable picture of the circumstances. You are not credible so you either need to demonstrate why what you said should be considered or you have to demonstrate a better grasp of the facts.

                      Suffice it to say this particular claim demonstrates how weak your argument is.

              3. Mespo,
                CTHD seems to believe honesty is merely representing facts. It’s far more than that. She lies by omission. Folks like Natacha, Fishy, Issac, Paint Chips and perhaps Book are a different breed. They don’t pretend to be anything other than just batsh!t crazy. CTHD is far more insidious than that gaggle. She’s like the blog siren, luring people away from the total truth. I for one am not taking her bait.

                1. Olly, I can’t think of a single time you’ve posted “the total truth” about anything. Either link to an example where **you** did that, or don’t hold me to standards that you don’t hold yourself to.

                  Meanwhile, I wrote “I dare you to quote 3 false things that I said but didn’t correct. If I’m as dishonest as you claim, it should be exceptionally easy for you to come up with 3 examples,” and you’re showing that you cannot do it.

                  1. Keep up the solid posts CTHD. You’re driving the weak minded Trumpsters here like Mespo, Young, and Olly. The personal insults are just more white flags in the face of facts they can’t answer.

                2. Olly:

                  I agree. That’s why her subtle lying is more insidious as you note. It’s also the reason I post a black box warning whenever I see her deceptive posts.

            3. You continue to say numerous false things regarding Trump/russia collusion.

              We have been through this over and over.

              But lets start at the top with what we now know as fact – and what the FBI knew from mid july forward.

              The entire thing was concocted by Hillary to deflect from her email scandal – BTW this is actually legal.

              HFA hired Steele – someone the FBI identified in 2014 as a russian dupe. Steele hired a subsource who worked for Brookings that the FBI identified as a likely Russian agent.

              The fact that Hillary was behind this was know to the Russians, the CIA, the FBI and Obama – in July 2016. The fact that all the participants were tied to Russia was known in July 2016.

              The CIA reported this collabortation between HFA and Russia to Obama and the FBI in July 2016.
              There was no investigation of Clinton/Russia collusion.

              Despite knowing that Clinton was manufacturing this story, and that she was using suspected Russian agents and know russian dupes to do so, the FBI considered that garbage credible and started an investigation that should have died repeatedly – should never have been opened int he first place.

              They hid the KNOW problems with the investigation from everyone for years. They leaked false stories to the press. And after 3 years – NOTHING.

              And you continue to defend this all and pretend it is reasonable.

              This was Nixon’s wet dream. Getting CIA/FBI/DOJ to work together to go after a political opponent.

              YOU are selling this nonsense.

              YOU has said myriads of false things regarding this.

              YOU still beleive an idiotic conspiracy theory that has been unbeleiveably thoroughly debunked.

              Nothing in politics or crime every gets debunked as thoroughly as this has.

              Every media outlet in the world put significant resources to find proof. All the investigative resources of the FBI and DOJ tried to find proof.

              Lots of leaks lies rumours and inuendo which you beleived and sold, and in many instances are still selling.

              This was not reasonable EVER. It was a witchhunt and fraud from the start, those involved new it.

              Without knowing all the things that the FBI. CIA, DOJ, Obama knew – a rational person could grasp from the start this was highly unlikely to farcical.

              And still you both bought and and have sold to others.

              Were going through the same nonsense with you on myriads of other issues.

              Trump’s taxes – there is no way that the NYT got them that was legal.

              They say exactly what any rational person would expect – Trump has excellent tax advisors and therefore pays minimal taxes.
              He is a realestate investor – so he has lots of debt. That is completely irrelevant so long as his assets are greater than his liabilities.

              The fact that he has large debt means that others who do substantial due dilligence have deemed him a good risk.

              There is no fraud or money laundering or any of that nonsense – because no matter what you think of Trump – the lawyers, and accountants and law firms and accounting firms who prepared his returns would have high risks if there was.

              The IRS audits him every year – and has found nothing.

              Yet you are still offering nonsense from reporters who think 2 + 2 = 5, and from law professors who likely do not prepare their own tax return and are clueless.

              You are STILL expecting that you will find proof of criminality and still spewing nonsense. You will not appologize when as it certainly will you prove wrong.

              You are touting mail-in voting – though we know it is the most error prone and fraud prone form of voting there is.

              In NY, NJ, and VA 500,000 votes were thrown out in the primary. I do not know if that was fraud – nor do you. But it is a huge problem no matter what. If it was fraud – it is massive. If it was error – no matter who made the error – it was massive. How exactly do you trust any election outcome when 20% of the votes are rejected ? And why do we trust those deciding which ballots to accept and reject ?

              Further we all already know that if Democrats do not get what they want from this election – they will be challenging it – and if there are problems THEY SHOULD. But you want to pretend that ONLY democrats can challenge a badly conducted election.

              And your still selling this garbage.

              I just provided you with CDC meta analysis on masks – two different sets of studies – in the one masks were found to be 66% effective per encounter in clinical settings – that is not even close to good enough – and that is not the real world.

              In the 2nd set of controlled studies dealing with the REAL WORLD – not only were masks found to have no effect against the Flu – which is much easier to stop, but even hygiene measures and social distancing were found to have no effect.

              And you are still shilling for all of these – not as a choice, but as something you can DEMAND – FORCE others to do.

              Then the CDC comes out and shows that for those under 20 all the shutdowns, and lockdowns are killing more people than C19.

              In the UK where C19 is still running rampant – atleast if you listen to the left, Flu deaths are now significantly higher than C19.

              Sweden is through this. no lockdowns. almost no involuntary measures and for the most part there was some social distancing but almost no masking. And there is no difference in outcomes – except that Sweden is likely done with C19 and we all know it.

              The rest of us have had as bad a negative impact from C19, much worse impact from BAD policies and we are all still stuck in limbo.

              You have been informed – by a source YOU claim to trust and you are STILL selling the same bad policies that have made things worse throughout the world.

              There is a very high probability that broad HCQ/Zinc/AZ use could have reduced infections and deaths by 20%. But you fought that tooth and nail. I would bet you would be fighting Vitamin D – except that it is OTC and there is nothing you can do about it.

              It has taken us 6 months to get the data on Vitiamin D – because you are an idiot and require everything to be proven before anyone is allowed to try it. That guarantees nothing. You are stupidly fighting over vaccines. They will be available soon. Take the vaccine dont your choice. I am not sure what I will do. I do not expect a rushed vaccine to be perfectly safe for everyone. I do expect that for MOST people it will be safe, and that if enough people who are low risk take it C19 will substantially diminish.

              How many people are you going to kill before you decide the vaccine is safe enough ?

              IF what we have now is only safe enough for 10% of people – that is about half of the number who take the flu vaccine and enough to substantially reduce the spread. You claim that is your desire with masks, but are fighting something that WILL accomplish the task because it is not perfectly safe. Grow up life has risks. There is no “perfectly safe”

              Regardless, it is again another area that you are constantly lying about – as well as the left wing mob you are part of that has lied over and over and over about all kinds of things – and you still beleive them.

              At every opertunity you demand Trump condemn right wing violence and then piss on him if he fails to match your formulaic demands.

              Yet there is NO RIGHT WING VIOLENCE – except in your head. Today all the violence is from the left. ?Some idiot is ranting it is not antifa.
              That is an obvious lie, but even so does it matter ? Antifa, BLM, random left wing nut protestors – the violence is REAL and it is from the left.

              You are open about burning down the system if you do not get what you want.

              Sorry CTDHD – you have an enormous amount to appologize for.

              And I have only highlighted SOME of it.

              So why should you be beleived about ANYTHING ?

                1. Indeed.

                  I stopped responding to John a couple of months ago, as I find him to be frequently dishonest, insulting, and hypocritical, and his voluminous comments turn the exchange into an unpleasant time-sink. I remain happy with my decision, just as I’m happy that I stopped responding to Allan, whom I consider to be a dishonest troll. They both continue to reply to me, and I generally ignore their replies unless someone else responds to what they’ve written, in which case I may respond to the other person.

                  I skimmed John’s response enough to see that he did not quote a single thing I’ve said that’s false.

                  1. “I stopped responding to John a couple of months ago, as I find him to be frequently dishonest, insulting, and hypocritical, and his voluminous comments turn the exchange into an unpleasant time-sink.”

                    YEs, it is unpleasant to be called out for the moral failure that you are.

                    You demanded that others here produce examples of YOUR moral failure.

                    I have responded to your throwing down that guantlet.

                    I have demonstrreated that you continue to lob false moreal accusations against others, and that they continue to buy and sell debunked nonsense.

                    That you are not credible and do not have sufficient moral character to slink away quietly or just refrain from continuing to shill exposed falsehoods and continue to defame those who have been right about them.

                    I do not expect that you will respond to me – you are not capable of doing so – not because I am some genuis and you are inept, but because regardless of our relative skills the FACTS are against you.

                    You have defamed others repeatedly, and you continue to do so.

                    Engaging in discussion would reguire you to confront your own moral failures.

                    You issue a challenge – I responded. If you wish to ignore it – that OK.

                    You asked for proof of your moral failure – I provided it.

                    Go back to hiding if that is what you wish.

                  2. You have claimed that I and Allan are dishonest.

                    That would be more moral accusations – and the burden of proof is on you.

                    So just as you asked of others – and I responded – with proof, I ask you for proof of that your moral accusations against me, Allan – pretty much anyone are true.

                    You claim dishonesty – please document that ?

                    I do not beleive I have made any signifcant errors of fact – but I would be happy to know if you think I have ?

                    I am perfectly happy to look at any actual facts you have on any subject we disagree on.

                    But you have never provided facts or evidence of error beyond your own naked assertions of dishonesty or error.

                    When you make a moral accusation – that is NOT ENOUGH.

                    If you call someone else dishonest, a liar, a nazi, a racist, a hateful hating hater – the burden of proof is on YOU and it is high.

                    These are not just accusations of errors – once in a while I make errors, not often, but when I do I correct them when I become aware of them – what of you ? Aren’t you still selling the collusion delusion ?

                    Regardless, if you are going to lob moral accusations at anyone – even those here on the left – you can expect that I will demand that you prove them. Because when you make moral claims – the burden is on you.

                    And because you have made moral accusations of many many others which you have not only failed to prove – but in most cases made no effort to prove – that is my proof that you are dishonest.

                    1. Anonymous (October 9, 2020 at 7:57 PM),

                      You’re right, I don’t have the desire to go ’round and ’round the mulberry bush with John and Allan.

                      I doubt that anyone wants evidence about why I said that I found John dishonest, insulting, and hypocritical, but if someone does, the following exchange that I had with him — starting with https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/26/they-were-right-to-do-it-swalwell-praises-fbi-for-using-campaign-briefing-to-investigate-trump/comment-page-1/#comment-1982945 — captures all of that. This was one of our last exchanges, and a key reason I decided that it simply wasn’t worth continuing to have exchanges with him. He couldn’t even bring himself to admit that he had pretended AOC said something she didn’t say, where he put words in quotation marks that weren’t hers. There’s more evidence in what I think was our final exchange, on this page: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/10/newly-declassified-document-shows-fbi-mislead-senate-intelligence-committee-on-steele-dossier/comment-page-1/

                      I find it ironic that John keeps referring to me as “CTDHD,” his abbreviation for “committed to dishonest discussion,” and also says “If you call someone else dishonest, a liar, a nazi, a racist, a hateful hating hater – the burden of proof is on YOU and it is high.” He argues that I’m dishonest because I haven’t proved all of my claims. Of course, he hasn’t proven all of his claims either. By itself, if no evidence is given for a claim, it only makes the claim unproven, not dishonest.

                      I’m struck that he says things like “you have failed to prove them – that is self evident.” I’m pretty certain that if I made the same claim — that it’s self evident he has failed to prove something — he’d reject it.

                      In our last exchange, he said to me “You still do nto grasp that you are not a credible source and what you say is not trusted because you say it.” The same applies to him: he doesn’t grasp that he is not a credible source.

                    2. “You’re right, I don’t have the desire to go ’round and ’round the mulberry bush with John and Allan.”

                      CTDHD, I don’t blame you. It is hard to defend your lack of morality and dishonesty. You try to do it with shotgun approach but that just leaves a lot of marks in the wall without hitting anything.

                    3. “I doubt that anyone wants evidence about why I said that I found John dishonest, insulting, and hypocritical, but if someone does, the following exchange that I had with him”

                      You start with a link to your own remark ? How is that meaningful.

                      Regardless, the proof that you are honest is not “I say that I am honest”, nor is the proof that someone else is dishonest “I say they are dishonest, or I do not like what they are saying.

                      With respect to AOC you lost the argument -badly.

                      AOC’s precise quote was
                      “There’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,”

                      That statement is actually WORSE. You think it is “dishonest” to only note that she said facts Trump morality when she also said that it is not important to be precisely correct or semantically correct ?

                      Did you study grammar in school ?

                      “This was one of our last exchanges, and a key reason I decided that it simply wasn’t worth continuing to have exchanges with him.”
                      That is correct – you have thin skin are incredibly protective of someone who would not know the truth if it slapped her in the face.

                      “He couldn’t even bring himself to admit that he had pretended AOC said something she didn’t say, where he put words in quotation marks that weren’t hers.”

                      You are correct – I misquoted her, I paraphrased her. Her actual remark is even MORE offensive. I promise never to call AOC dishonest again, In the future I will only call her “incredibly dishonest”.

                      I will never edit her remarks to make her statements LESS offensive than they are.

                      Your “more evidence” does not go to a specific comment and I am not going to search an entire Turley comment section.

                      “I find it ironic that John keeps referring to me as “CTDHD,” his abbreviation for “committed to dishonest discussion,” and also says “If you call someone else dishonest, a liar, a nazi, a racist, a hateful hating hater – the burden of proof is on YOU and it is high.””
                      Correct.

                      “He argues that I’m dishonest because I haven’t proved all of my claims.”
                      In correct. I have specifically said that you are dishonest because you do not prove your MORAL ACCUSATIONS.

                      Error in factual claims is rarely dishonesty.

                      “Of course, he hasn’t proven all of his claims either.”
                      Correct, but I have proved many of them and the rest of the factual claims stand out there for anyone to attempt to disprove if they wish.

                      As I noted dealing with you along time ago. The burden of proving factual claims is a question of credibillity.

                      If you have a track record of providing claims that are false – others should expect you to provide proof for new claims,
                      and you should be expected to provide proof when you claim the statements of others are false.

                      When you have a track record of accuracy the burden of proof is on others.

                      All of those who bought and sold the collusion delusion have lost credibility – you are obligated to prove your claims.
                      Those that have spent years fighting the nonsense of the collusion delusion are vindicated – we have a track record of accuracy.
                      We are not obligated to back up everything we say.

                      “By itself, if no evidence is given for a claim, it only makes the claim unproven, not dishonest.”
                      That is correct for a factual claim, it is untrue of a moral claim.

                      If you think I am wrong about that – write a letter to the editor accusing your neighbor of being a peodophile and see whether there are consequences. Do you think accusing someone of being a pedophile without providing proof is not dishonest ?

                      “I’m struck that he says things like “you have failed to prove them – that is self evident.””
                      I would suggest going back to the actual facts in context.

                      Is it not self evident that the son rose yesterday ? Am I obligated to prove that ?
                      Conversely if you claim that your neighbor is a pedophile – isn’t that a claim that you need to prove ?

                      What you are struck by is that in the real world all claims are not equal, nor are all claimants equal.

                      “I’m pretty certain that if I made the same claim — that it’s self evident he has failed to prove something — he’d reject it.”

                      Probably true – you seem to think the words are a magic incantation. They are not.

                      As I noted it is “self evident” that the sun rose this morning.
                      It requires proof when you claim your neighbor is a pedophile.

                      Your grasp of logic is very shallow.

                      You also do not understand – as I have pointed out to you before that when you burn your own reputation – which you have selling the collusion delusion among other things, that it is perfectly fine for others to apply a higher burden of proof to your statements.

                      And that those who were correct about the collusion delusion and have a track record of accuracy – unlike you and AOC, are not obligated to provide proof of factual claims to those who have a history of error.

                      “In our last exchange, he said to me “You still do nto grasp that you are not a credible source and what you say is not trusted because you say it.” ”
                      Correct I said that and it is true.

                      “The same applies to him: he doesn’t grasp that he is not a credible source.”

                      False, I am not the one who has been selling nonsense. You seem to be infected as most lefties with some bizare concept of equity and a presumption that fairness means uniform treatment – it does not.

                      Get your facts straight and over time you build a reputation for accuracy and are trusted.
                      Make myriads of stupid mistakes and you build a reputation for error and are not trusted.

                      This is quite simple. It is the real world.

                      And you have made things worse for yourself you have moved from factual error to defamation – and that has earned you CTDHD.

                    4. John,
                      As I’ve previously stated, CTLBO is a siren intent on luring unsuspecting victims away from more consequential Truth. She will get you and the blog tangled up in absolutely silly semantic debates. While you labor arguments about her “truth”, time passes and she never has to deal with the “whole” truth. This Lying By Omission on her part is why her handle and tactics have been so effective. Remember in the movie Wargames, the only logical move in Tic-Tac-Toe was to not play the game? Stop playing.

                    5. Olly;

                      I grasp your point.

                      She asked for proof that she was dishonest.

                      That was easy to provide. So I did.

                      She has made moral accusations that she has failed to prove.

                      She botched her own defense by confusing the standard for assertions of facts, and moral accusations.

                      It is extremely hard to prove dishonesty over an error in fact – she parroted my prior remarks to that effect and applied it to moral claims, but did not understand it because she conflates what are in her opinion errors of fact with dishonesty all the time.
                      Regardless, the exact opposite is true of moral accusations.

                      If you call someone a liar, racist, pedophile, the burden of proof is on you.
                      You are given the benefit of the doubt with respect to factual claims – atleast until you burn your own reputation.
                      Conversely when you defame another truth is the only defense and the burden is on you.

                      This was pretty trivial do deal with.

                      And a warning to others who lobg moral handgrenades without proof.

                    6. “As I’ve previously stated, CTLBO is a siren intent on luring unsuspecting victims away from more consequential Truth. ”

                      Olly she fits three or four definitions of the word siren. 1-2: The mythological and non mythological lure. 3 a loud warning sound 4 an amphibian shaped eel, no hind legs to stand on and hold one’s head high, small forelimbs and two ways of lying …I mean breathing. Lungs and gills. That is quite deceptive.

                    8. Aparently you can not keep straight named posters.

                      Do you believe that defaming others is morally wrong ?

                    9. “Allan once again resorts to his go-to attack strategy, insulting people.”

                      Are you unaware of the different meanings of the word siren? I provided 4 definitions for the word siren. Which one do you think is inappropriate?

                  3. Why do I need to “quote” you.

                    Are you denying that you have accused others of lying ? You just accused both Allan and I of lying. Your posts are rife with moral accusations against others – are you trying to escape that ? To pretend it is not so ?

                    Is it note true that just now you called both Allan and I dishonest ? Do I need to quote that ? Provide a link ? A comment number ?

                    Are you entitled to lob moral hand grenades so long as someone does not provide a date and time stamp for precisely when you have done so ?

                    Are you denying that you called us (as well as myriads of other) liars ?

                    This is really simple. You have claimed that people have lied – large numbers of people.
                    When you make a claim of moral failure – it is not the same as a claim of factual error.

                    The burden of proof when you defame another is on you, and there are almost never innocent explanations.

                    It is possible for two people to honestly disagree on facts. It is possible to be honestly wrong about a fact – something you think only those on the left are entitled to.

                    It is not possible to honestly accuse another of moral failure without proving it.

                    So that we are clear I have accused you of moral failure – the failure of making false accusations – you have made accustations – I can not see you denying that. And you have failed to prove them – that is self evident. I have satisified my burden of proof.

                    You have not even tried.

                    I do not expect you to respond. You can’t do so honestly

                2. “Bloviation by John Say.”

                  …And Anonymous just hates insulting people. A bit of deceit is showing.

                  1. Once again, you confuse different anonymous commenters, Allan. The one who has been chiding you about your love of insults isn’t the one calling John a bloviator.

                    You, Allan, deserve whatever insults are cast your way. You are an abusive lying pr1ck. You’ll never be the man your wife is.

                    2. Anonymous keep trying to pretend that you have supporters. It’s great to give yourself a +10. lol

                    3. “you confuse different anonymous commenters, ”

                      You are compelled to say this in an attempt to keep up your charade but you are not credible.. Your statements are based on deceit. You chose a generic anonymous so you could blame another anonymous for your failures. You have also on a consistent basis used the anonymous name with an icon to provide yourself with another identity. To that you added some flashing using multiple icons for only a couple posts.

                      Who can trust anything you say? Your life is ruled by an incompetence, embarrassment and a fragile ego.

                    4. If you do not wish people to be confused. Pick a name, your own or a pseudonym and stick to out.

                      No one will be confused.

                      You are free not to.

                      But you are not free to expect others to guess which anonymous you are or to treat your comments with any credibility.

                      Anonymity is a right, but it comes at the expense of credibility

              2. John say,

                Your rebuttals have quite a lot of flaws in trying to prove CTHD’s posts as lying or false.

                You say just posting facts isn’t telling the truth. But that in itself is not true. Posting facts is just that facts. Not fabrications, exaggerations, or non-contextual statements. Facts are truths. Just as it is to say that 2+2=4 is a fact. If CTHD states someone said 2+2=4 and put the quote of the person saying it as a fact it is the truth. It can’t be anything else.

                In your rebuttal you claim Hillary plotted to have the Russia investigation as a distraction from her email scandal. That’s nonsensical in itself. You weave an intricate story trying to “prove” it true by cobbling together a bunch of conspiracy theories and a few factual events as one giant conspiracy theory.

                You didn’t prove CTHD wrong or that she’s lying. The only reason why so many are trying to smear her as a liar is because she’s the only one who has provided far more details about issues than anyone else AND backs them up.

                Those trying to say her postings are not true or she’s being misleading cannot provide proof that is the case. Instead of providing an actual rebuttal most resort to insults, or bring up a completely different argument, or go off on a rant.

                Allan and Olly1, can only insult and whine about CTHD’s posts but they can’t prove their own accusations true.

                1. Thanks, Svelaz, I appreciate the support from you and others. I do try to be honest. I’m imperfect like everyone, and I sometimes say things that turn out to be false, but I try to acknowledge and correct them when I realize.

                  1. CTHD’s comments have improved since she appeared. I am now willing to take her remarks seriously. I usually do not agree but I enjoy a back and forth exchange of ideas with my fellow Americans.

                2. “Your rebuttals have quite a lot of flaws in trying to prove CTHD’s posts as lying or false.”

                  Not rebutals – proof – the proof CTDHD demanded.

                  She has made moral accusastions of others and failed to prove them.
                  That is the minimum standard to prove dishonesty.

                  A moral accustion is NOT a mere disagreement over fact.

                  But I have gone beyond that and demonstrated that some of her moral accusations are demonstrably false – all those related to the collusion delusion as an example – yet she constinues to sell them. And to defame those who were right about them.

                  “You say just posting facts isn’t telling the truth.”
                  Where have I said that ?

                  “But that in itself is not true”
                  Correct, and I have not said otherwise.

                  “Posting facts is just that facts.”
                  Correct.
                  ” Not fabrications”
                  Correct.
                  “exaggerations”
                  Exagerations are errors – often small ones, sometimes miniscule ones, they are very rarely lies – the left and the assorted fact checkers need to learn that – especially as they apply that standard with obvious bias.

                  Very few statements of fact are true with absolute precision. If I say I did something at 12pm – maybe is was 12:30 – does that matter ? Not often. Maybe it was 12:01 or 12:00.00001

                  Regardless imprecision is rarely a lie.

                  “or non-contextual statements.”

                  What about them ? What do you even mean ? Off point or without full context ?

                  The claim the claim that Trump refused to condemn white supremecists at Charlotte – or in the recent debate is an error of context that is clearly a lie. Sometimes quotes without context are lies.
                  But I have no clue what you are refering to.

                  I have not quited CTDHD out of context – or you. Most of the time when I disect a post. I quote the entire post – as here and go thorugh it line by line. If I ommit some part – rarely, either I agree or it is not relevant

                  “Facts are truths. Just as it is to say that 2+2=4 is a fact.”
                  Yes.

                  “If CTHD states someone said 2+2=4 and put the quote of the person saying it as a fact it is the truth. It can’t be anything else.”
                  I have no idea what you think you are saying. Regardless, you started your statement with a conditional.
                  A bit of logic – A conditional statement can be completely true but entirely irrelevant.

                  Has CTDHD quoted someone saying “2+4=4” and then said that was true ?
                  I am not aware that she has. But if she has, then that remark was true.

                  That does not change the fact that she has accused others of lying and dishonesty – constantly and she has never proven any of that.
                  I am not aware that she has even tried. She has constantly defamed others. Defamation requires proof, or the moral failure is yours.

                  “In your rebuttal you claim Hillary plotted to have the Russia investigation as a distraction from her email scandal.”
                  I do not claim that – that is What director Brennan reported as intelligence that the CIA obtained. Are you following the news ?
                  Brennan’s notes have been declassified – the assertion is HIS not mine. Brennan considered is serious enough that he briefed Comey, Strzok and Obama in July 2016. Are you disputing that ? Do I need to link to the declassified memo ?
                  Do I have to prove to you that the sun rose today ?

                  Keep up. I am not responsible for the fact that you are ill informed. I made statements BASED on Brennan;s statement.

                  My claim is that the FBI/DOJ/WH were aware of this. Not much of a claim – since AGAIN Brennan’s notes say he briefed them.
                  Comey has had a failure of recollection regarding this briefing – he has not denined it, only claimed he can not recall it.

                  Regardless, I am sure FBI records will verify that the meeting occured.

                  “That’s nonsensical in itself.”
                  Take that up with CIA director Brennan, not me.

                  “You weave an intricate story trying to “prove” it true by cobbling together a bunch of conspiracy theories and a few factual events as one giant conspiracy theory.”

                  No conspiracy theories at all here. I documented FACTUAL INFORMATION – provided to the FBI/DOJ/WH or conclusions that the FBI reached that are also documented and have been made public.

                  Brennan briefed Comey and Strzok. The FBI KNEW or should have known.
                  The FBI concluded that Steele’s subsource was likely a russian agent more than a year prior to 2016.
                  I am not claiming that – FBI documents claim that. The FBI KNEW the subsource was a likely russian agent.
                  These are real facts – they are from recently declassified documents – most from the FBI.
                  It is theoretically possible the subsource was not a russian agent – that is highly unlikely – as that is the most likely explanation of why the Russians knew Hillary was attempting to frame Trump – again that is from the CIA not me.
                  Further the FBI evaluation that Steele was likely a Russian dupe – i.e. being fed false information by Russia. Was an FBI conclusion reached more than a year earlier.

                  Both the FBI decisions regarding the subsource and steele himself substantially predate the entire collusion delusion nonsense.

                  You can disagree with those conclusions – but they are still the FBI’s conclusions – from recently declassified FBI documents.

                  Comey, Strzok, McCabe … KNEW or should have KNOWN about Steele and his subsource.
                  It was their job. i can not prove they knew. But are you really buying that Steele came to the FBI with his dossier and the FBI did not pull their file on Steele and review it ? On his subsource ?

                  If these people are not criminally dishonest they are criminally inept.
                  We are talking purportedly the best and brightest, the best of the best.

                  “You didn’t prove CTHD wrong or that she’s lying.”
                  Of course I did. She has accused others of lying and not proven her accusation. That is called defamation it is a moral failure.
                  If you accuse someone of lying and fail to prove it – then YOU are lying.

                  She has smeared all kinds of people regarding the collusion delusion – but more important she has called them and others liars all the time.

                  That is standard behavior for you lefties – lob moral hand grenades – accuse others of lying, being racist, nazi’s biggots, hateful, hating haters, and never prove your accusation.

                  That is serious moral failure. It is immoral and it is lying.

                  “The only reason why so many are trying to smear her as a liar is because she’s the only one who has provided far more details about issues than anyone else AND backs them up.”
                  Are you serious – what details ? What backup ?

                  Absolutely she has chutzpah – she boldly defames people right and left. But she provides no details no evidence.

                  Go read her last post on Allan and I – full of accusations and lots of meaningless nonsense.
                  I do not care if she reads my posts. But when she accuses me or anyone else of lying – she is morally obligated not only to know the facts – to have read the posts, but to be correct, and to prove it. She has failed at that.

                  “Those trying to say her postings are not true or she’s being misleading cannot provide proof that is the case.”
                  Frankly, few if any of her posts make factual claims most are rants.

                  Regardless, she demanded proof of her own moral failure – I provided it. She has constantly accused others – many many others of lying and other moral failures, She has failed to prove it and I used the Collusion delusion as one of many possible specific examples in which not only did she fail to prove it, but in which she was WRONG. And she has made numerous moral accusations many regarding the collusion delusion, failed to prove them. That is a serious moral failure.

                  Or is it moral in your world to run arround making false accusations of others ?

                  “Instead of providing an actual rebuttal most resort to insults, or bring up a completely different argument, or go off on a rant.”
                  I provided an actual rebutal. As noted she has accused others of an assortment of moral failures. And she has failed to prove them.
                  That is the minimum necescary to prove moral failure.

                  Or is it OK to run arround calling other liars without proof ?

                  “Allan and Olly1, can only insult and whine about CTHD’s posts but they can’t prove their own accusations true.”

                  Honestly CTDHD desrves all the insults she gets – there must be a price to be paid for false moral accusations.

                  Or is it OK in your world to run arround making accusations of others without proving them ?

                  If as an example I call you a rapist and a thief and a liar – is that OK ? Is it your obligation to prove me wrong ?
                  And if I am wrong or fail to prove my claim is that just an honest factual error ?

                  Should we all go arround accusing each other of being rapists theives and liars all the time ?

        2. This is the Trump the left doesn’t want anyone to see because they are elitists and Trump is not. This is from a 2019 article in the Washington Post. It is quite different than the lies stated by the left on this blog and elsewhere.

          Forwarded from an article:
          Biden Emerges as A Country-Club Snob, Hypocrite
          —
          “Trump was shut out of all the private clubs, the heart of Palm Beach social life. … So Trump opened Mar-a-Lago as a private club in 1995. Unlike the Everglades or Bath and Tennis clubs, which did not admit Jewish members, and the Palm Beach Country Club, which admitted wealthy Jews, Mar-a-Lago was open to anyone. ‘Basically, he didn’t care who came in as long as they could pay for it,’ explains a Palm Beach social expert.”

          The Washington Post article continued: “Trump’s open-door policy — his was the first club to accept African Americans and openly gay couples — began the slow process to diversify other clubs in town.”

          It’s the same story in New York City, where Trump made money developing, managing, or operating mostly condominium buildings in Manhattan — apartments for people with money but without the references or pedigree or patience for co-op buildings and their arcane interview and approval processes.

          The Washington Post article continued: “Trump’s open-door policy — his was the first club to accept African Americans and openly gay couples — began the slow process to diversify other clubs in town.”

        3. “[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”

          – Ben Franklin
          ____________

          One man, one vote democrazy IS communism and you love it, don’t you, comrade?

          You love the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” right, comrade?
          _______________________________________________

          “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

          – Alexander Fraser Tytler
          ____________________

          Entitled To Vote

          republic noun
          Save Word

          re·​pub·​lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik
          \
          Definition of republic

          (2)b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

        4. When you defame someone and lie about them – you owe them an appology.

          That is what decent moral people do. Though for the most part they do not defame and lie about people

          Nor is this about Trump.

          You, the left and the media have not just defamed Trump, but also half the country. You call massive numbers of others deplorables, you call them racists, homophobes, bigots, liars.

          Yet in issue after issue – they have been mostly right.

          At the presidential debate we were told by Wallace and By Biden that there is some parity between violence on the right and the left.
          Biden has identified Kyle Rittenhouse as a violent right wing militia thug. This is a 17year old medic who has no ties to any right wing groups who sought to protect the property of a friend in a riot – and offered his serivces as a medic to anyone who needed them and was rewarded by being chased, cornered and attacked by a left wing fellon, who he shot in self defense when the fellon grabbed his gun.

          You owe rittnhouse an appology. Bidden owes ritten house and appology. What of Nicholas Sandman – even the ACLU his trying to ruin his life in college. Sandman did not ask to be part of anything. He was minding his own buisiness in DC and was confronted by an indian who lies about his military service and a group of nuts black hebrew jews or whatever they call themselves. Sandman did not ask for any of that and you have ruined his life because you did not like his visage when being confronted.

          The conduct of YOU, the left, the press has been excreble.

          The Biden camp using Rittenhouse in a camopaign add should result in the biggest defamation lawsuit in history.

          You rant about Trump – is THIS what you want as president ? Someone who LIES about 17yr olds who did not ask for any of this ?

          Yes, we all expect an appology from YOU – MANY apologies for all the people you have defamed and slandered.

          Trump is a big boy. He chose to run for president Except that it exposes who YOU really are you owe Trump nothing.

          The rest of the country – should never forgive you.

          An d you have learned nothing from any of this. You have no clue what decent conduct is. What moral behavior is. What truth is.

          This country is being ripped apart BY YOU and your ilk over things that are of small consequence.
          Over issues that are improving well on their own.

          You live in the greatest moment in time so far.

          I have said this with respect to racism – but it is true of most everything. Today in the US you can be openly gay and there is no stigma, no consequence. Democrats had an openly gay Presidential candidate – he was an idiot – like the rest of his peers who were not gay.
          No one attacked him because he was gay. One of the more important members of the Trump administration – one who you have expressed distate for is openly gay. The Trumnp administration has fought for the protection of the rights of gays in other less enlightened nations – most of the rest of the world.

          Today you can be openly trans. There is very little pushback. There are minor issues that we will resolve over bathrooms and kids – resolving the way an issue affects kids is always a problem. It is not going to happen overnight, but we will work these things out, but for the most part people do not care if you are trans.

          If you are a racial minority – your opportunities are greater than ever before. If you finish school, avoid becoming a criminal, get a job – even a poor starter job, do not have kids until you can afford them, do not get married until you can afford to – your future is bright, you are headed for the middle class – and if you are ambitious. hard working, creative – you will do even better.

          NONE of these were true when I was in school. In much of the rest of the world none of these are true.

          And yet YOU, the left, the media tell me that we live in a racist mysoginyst hell hole.

          How much of an idiot are you ? Does your brain work at all ? How do you expect anyone to treat you as credible ?

          Who in their right mind would give you power over anything ?

          And god forbid that you or those like you should EVER get any power anywhere.

          You are the most dangerous people in the world – those whose actions are uninformed and evil but FEEL they are doing good.

          Every blood soaked regime in history was the product of people like you.

          1984 was NOT supposed to be a HOWTO guide.

          1. Get ready for a decisive Trump loss.

            Rant. Rave. Defocus. Distract. Keep doing exactly what you’re doing from an elitist libertarian perspective. Your hallucinatory ‘reality’ will be tested and will have to slide back under the rock which it slithered out from underneath of.

            But look at the bright side…, you’ll have plenty to rant and rave and pout over, which seems very much to be your preferred condition.

            Enjoy.

            2. What does Trump winning or losing have to do with anything ?

              Are you honestly arguing that if you win an election you are entitled to use force against anyone who disagrees with you ?

              I have no idea what the 2020 Election results will be, but I already know that the end of those on the left is near.

              If Biden loses – MAYBE this time the democratic party will grasp that shouting Nazi, Nazi, Nazi at half the country!! is not a winning strategy.

              If Biden wins he will have to live up to his promises – which is both impossibe and would be disasterous.

              Covid will not go away. The trends already in place will continue.

              You noted that Covid is still killing people (slowly) – that will continue until either an effective treatment exists – maybe Vitamin D will fit that bill, if it does – Biden had nothing to do with it. Frankly the left would likely ban it or anything else that might work.

              All of us know that we will get a vaccine sooner with Trump.
              Maybe not safer but sooner.

              If about 20K people die each month from C19 – how many people can a vaccine kill before you use the vaccine early ?

              Left wing nuts are claiming that it will take until next summer to assure that a vaccine is safer – that means about 100K more people might die. What if the Trump vaccine used now stops C19 but kills 50K people – should we go forward with it ? Or Not ?

              We saw what the Obama/Biden economy was like. How do you think voters will like sub 2% growth for 4 years ?

              Over Obama’s 8 year presidency Republicans picked up almost 4000 seats in the federal and state governments

              In the unlikely instance that Biden wins, and Democrats manage a majority in the Senate and hold the house – that will be for 2 years at most.

              I think that it is highly likely that if Biden moves forward to stack the supreme court that the states will convene a constitutional convention.

              Regardless, though I do not expect Biden to win – I do not care much.

              Democrats are not able to effectively govern. They are wrong on nearly all the issue. I will not be happy to see the decline of the country that will occur under democratic rule.

              You disagree – that is fine.

              If Biden is elected I will pray the same prayer I did when Obama was elected – I expect the same results.

              I will pray that one of two things is true. That as president Biden will govern well – using the economic and philosophical principles that we know work – in otherwords that he will turn his back on progressivism. I do not expect that prayer to be answered. It was not with Obama.

              The other prayer will be that contrary to everything that I know to be fact that progressivism will actually work. I have zero confidence that prayer will be answered either – again it was not with Obama.

              What is actually likely is that Biden will govern much as Obama, but he will likely fail even worse and even faster.

              People are less tolerant today than in 2009. We have had 8 years of experience with Obama and lest you forget 4 years experience with Trump.

              Trump did not produce the great economy he claimed. But he produced one that was 50% better than that of Obama – and people will not forget. Biden has a very short period to restore the economy and particularly jobs to Pre Covid levels. The last democrat who had a clue about the economy was Bill Clinton and Biden is no Clinton.

              I will remind you or one of the themes of the Arthurian legends – man bears the seeds of his own destruction.

              If elected biden’s presidency will ensure the rapid demise of the left.

              If Biden is elected – there will be no more tolerance of the claim that sub 2% is the best growth that can be acheived.

              I would also note that in Foreign policy Trump has reframed the world in a way that has made it much safer.

              Biden and the left fixated on TPP. Trump united nearly all of asia to reign in China – very effectively.

              There is not alot of latitude from Biden to reign in Trump’s policies without relatively rapid bad consequences.

              Currently the US is guaranteeing European energy in return for Europe taking the lead in defending itself against Russia.

              Restrict fracking and Russia will re-emerge as a global power, and Europe will be force to kowtow to Russia.
              The mideast will become more volatile because mideastern oil will become more critical.

              If Rusia remerges and the mideast becomes more volatile US will have to redeploy forces from Asia to the Mideast and China will have more power to bring its neighbors to heel and the US will be significantly weakened in Asia.

              There are not many things that Trump has done that Biden can undo.

              I would note that though Obama did not “build the wall” – he did build the cages. Obama had an immigration policy that was as draconian as Trump’s. If Biden relaxes Trump’s immigration policies and 10s of thousands of immigrants rush over the border – and you can expect far more than that quickly, then you will have lots of economic problems as well as very large political problems.

              I doubt that Biden will govern as Trump has. And with few exceptions that would be his downfall.

              As I noted – progressivism does not work. We already know that. Biden winning an election will just allow us to prove it one more time.

                1. Learn something from history.

                  LEftism has failed EVERYWHERE it has ever been tried, often it has failed bloodily.

                  1. John, do you think people like Joe Friday have any idea how many people died (outside of war) because of such “LEftism”? Is it possible they are that ignorant?

                    1. I doubt he knows ho Pol Pot was and probably thinks that Che is some cool T shirt dude.

    2. The NEJM editorial was a train wreck. The NEJM also supports BLM, Gender Theory, Trans Gender political leanings, “systemic racism”, Obamacare, Electronic Health Records, socialized medicine, and the other left wing talking points.

      According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering,1 the United States leads the world in Covid-19 cases and in deaths due to the disease, far exceeding the numbers in much larger countries, such as China. The death rate in this country is more than double that of Canada, exceeds that of Japan, a country with a vulnerable and elderly population, by a factor of almost 50, and even dwarfs the rates in lower-middle-income countries, such as Vietnam, by a factor of almost 2000.

      None of that is true. First of all you never compare countries data side by side knowing full well data collection, diagnostic standards, diagnostic tests, and determinations of death differ country by country. In the USA they differ state by state.

      Why has the United States handled this pandemic so badly?

      This statement comes from their above “data”

      The USA has done quite well considering 200,000 deaths with 10% of the population being infected, according to WHO Executive Director Dr Michael Ryan

      https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/covid-19-world-in-for-a-hell-of-a-ride-in-coming-months-dr-mike-ryan-says-1.4370626

      An estimated 750 million, or 10 per cent of the world’s population, have been infected by Covid-19, World Health Organisation (WHO) official Dr Mike Ryan has said.

      200,000 / 35,000,000 x 100 = 0.57%

      Peanuts.

      NEJM committed medical suicide with this piece. It was egregious but predictable.

      1. Estovir– I agree with you and would add as an aside that the NEJM ran a proposal a few years ago recommending that decisions for ‘aiding dying’ be taken out of the hands of physicians and given to appropriate government officials.

        It seems they were concerned that doctors might be squeamish about killing their patients.

      2. How sad that you think the deaths of over 210,000 of your fellow Americans is “peanuts.” Do you think 210,000 abortions is “peanuts”? Do you think 210,000 war dead is “peanuts”?

        Have whatever opinion you will, but work on your factual claims.

        For example, you claim it’s not true that “the United States leads the world in Covid-19 cases and in deaths due to the disease.” According to you what country does lead the world in Covid-19 cases and in deaths due to the disease?

        Also, work on your math. Ryan’s claim about 10% of the global population doesn’t imply that it’s evenly distributed. We know that it isn’t evenly distributed (e.g., the total number of infections in New Zealand, for example, is much less than 10% of the population). So far, ~7.5M Americans have tested positive. Even if we assumed that half of those infected were never tested, that’s still only 15M, far less than the 35M you assumed, and 35M is more than 10% of our population.

        1. How sad that you think the deaths of over 210,000 of your fellow Americans is “peanuts.
          ***
          He doesn’t really, but compared to the more than 2 million originally expected. . . .

          1. Twaddle. No one expected that. Only a Trump fan would turn the most unlikely scenario into something expected in order to make Trump look good.

            1. “Twaddle”, is that a new word being used by left wing hit pieces or did Anonymous think that word up all by himself?

              What would have happened if the Chinese traveller ban was not put in place? Anonymous, you need to answer that question, but you won’t deal with the question because your responses are ideological not scientific. Biden called that ban unnecessary. Now Biden is telling us his plan would have been better?

              Look at those Democratic states that essentially follow similar Democrat ways of management and add that to NO traveller bans from China or Europe. Are you going to stand there with a straight face and tell us our numbers would have been better?

              1. Allan, why would you insist that I won’t deal with your question before you even give me a chance to respond?

                Trump didn’t ban travel from China. He restricted travel by aliens, with some exceptions. Tens of thousands of people came here from China after Trump announced the restrictions. Most countries eventually put travel restrictions in place, so a better question is what would have happened if Trump had instituted a travel restrictions from China later rather than never doing it. If Trump had waited to restrict travel from China and made no other changes, probably more people would have become sick here and more would have died. But saying that it’s not as bad as it could have been doesn’t mean that his response was a success. I’m saying with a straight face that we could have done much better than we’ve done, and Trump’s choices are a driver in our failure to do better. Also, Biden didn’t say travel restrictions were unnecessary.

                1. “why would you insist that I won’t deal with your question before you even give me a chance to respond?”

                  The Chinese Travelers Ban has been discussed over and over again for months. It was brought up to you many times and finally you have figured out a response. It is nonsensical so read on.

                  “Tens of thousands of people came here from China after Trump announced the restrictions.”

                  I’d like some documentation of that claim. The border could not immediately be sealed and some people had to be let in at a later date, but over all it radically reduced the traffic. Of course Americans had to come home but you will blame Trump for that and claim they shouldn’t have been let back in. (At that point there were 5 documented cases in the US). When people objected to your answer and asked what would happen to the Americans you had an out. Blame the first Anonymous for the stupid answer and then have another of your anonymous’s respond telling you what a good job you did.

                  You are saying the travel ban was not successful policy. Your exact words: “doesn’t mean that his response was a success.”.Then you say ” I’m saying with a straight face that we could have done much better than we’ve done” without saying what we should have done at that moment. This tells us exactly what is in your mind. Nothing. You Covid plan is to plagiarize Trump’s plan while blaming him for the failure and telling the world that the travel ban was crazy.

                  People need to look at the logic of your statements when you are trying to debate a point. Nothing. That is why you either cut and paste or you insult.

            2. Probably true. The two million figure was projected for the world rather than the US. I did not remember correctly.

              1. No, it was projected for the US if absolutely no one did anything at all to try to reduce the spread: no school closures, no bar closures, no restaurant closures, no masks required when you went places, no social distancing, no increased use of hand sanitizers or hand washing, no one spontaneously choosing not to go to the movies, no reduction in plane travel, and so forth.

                But not a single person expected that that’s how people here would respond. Only an idiot would expect that everyone would just pretend that there was no pandemic.

            3. The “Likely scenario” according to all the “experts” was 2-4M US deaths.

              1. That’s quite a claim John. Why should anyone accept it, when you don’t back it up?

                Name some of those experts and give a link or a quote showing they said the “Likely scenario” was 2-4M US deaths.

                1. Are you alive ? Have you been on the planet the past year.

                  This is just ONE of hundreds of links.
                  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/the-coronavirus-could-kill-millions-of-americans-cdc-advisor-says.html

                  If you want more I can give you Much more.

                  The Los Almost model predicted about 4M deaths in February.

                  The Imperial college model that the UK used to lockdown the country predicted 2-4M deaths in the US and up to 2M in the UK.

                  So I have provided exactly waht you asked for.

                  Are you going to apologize for challenging my credibility ?

                  You were just barely short of accusing me of lying. Worse you did so over something that you could have googled and know you were wrong in a few seconds.

                  You owe me an appoligy.

                  And I guess you owe Trump and appoligy for claiming his outcome was worse than experts predicted.

                  But then you lefties forget everything any expert says that is not convenient – even the remarks of experts you constantly cite – when what they say is not to your liking.

                  1. You’ve moved the goalposts, John.

                    You said “The “Likely scenario” according to all the “experts” was 2-4M US deaths.”

                    None of your links said that was LIKELY in the US, and some of your links are not for the US at all.

                    1. You demanded proof. I provided LOTS of proof. There is no moving the goal posts here.

                      A Single link would have been sufficient, A single expert, just the Las Almos prediction would have been sufficient – but I provided you more than a dozen.

                      Yes, some of my links were outside the US. But you should read them. I am near certain that Every single one said US deaths in the millions.

                      I think saying deaths could reach 2.2M unless drastic measures are taking is the same as “likely”

                      Are you now going to make “likely” your argument ?

                      The imperial college did NOT say There could be 2.2M deaths if a blue cow jumped over the moon. They said drastic measures needed to be taken because if we did not 2.2 Million could die.

                      The Los Almos and Imperial college predictions were incredibly important because their predictions of millions of deaths are what drove the US and UK to lockdowns. But for them scaring the shit out of politicians the UK likely would have gone the swedish route and the US would likely have avoided lockdowns.

                      And what is self evident is that you were ignorant of this.

                      These predictions were a huge deal from purportedly reputable experts.

                    2. John, I asked you to back up what you said. What you said was “The “Likely scenario” according to all the “experts” was 2-4M US deaths.”

                      You provide multiple news links, but most refer to the same two studies, Imperial College study and the Los Alamos study, so your links are repetitive. If 100 news reports tell us what 2 studies said, that doesn’t turn it into 100 experts. You should have just linked directly to the two studies.

                      The Los Alamos study indicated up to 4.4 million deaths in Wuhan, not the US. The Imperial College model called 2.2 million US deaths possible but “unlikely.” Did you read the study or only news reports about it?

                      You’ve provided a dozen links showing that your claim was false, that no experts considered 2-4M US deaths LIKELY. Now you’re trying to substitute your own interpretation for what the experts said. That dog won’t hunt.

                    3. That is correct most of the links reference two studies because:

                      1). Those were the most prominent studies and the ones that drove policy in March.

                      2). Those are the ones I search for – Because they were the ones that drove policy and I did not have my head in the sand in Feburary 2020.

                      The Imperial /College study is probably the most important – It is solely responsible for persuading Boris Johnson to flip from Sweden’s approach to draconian lockdowns. Further it is likely a significant factor in Trump buying into recomendations to lockdown for a few weeks.

                      Both studies said that absent draconian measures these were the predicted outcomes.

                      I do not give a $hit about your word smithing whether If you do not act this will happen is the same as likely.

                      If I were CTDHD I would be calling your twiddling over likely as evidence that you are dishonest.

                      Regardless, Those were the predictions that influenced Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.

                      Those were the “experts”. But I am sure if you wish I can find someone who predicted worse.
                      5% of the US population is about 15M people. Fatality rates in China were approximated at 5%.

                    4. “You’ve provided a dozen links showing that your claim was false, that no experts considered 2-4M US deaths LIKELY. Now you’re trying to substitute your own interpretation for what the experts said. That dog won’t hunt.”

                      Really ? You are actually going there ?

                      Unless the links I provide use precisely the words I do you start ranting ?

                      I do not wish to defend these predictions – I think they are completely absurd, and you will find many of the articles I linked say exactly that.
                      But they WERE to predictions of the most prominent experts at the time. They were what drove public policy. They were the projections for the outcome if Government did not act. They WERE what idiots like you were ranting about in March.

                      I specifically recall arguing with idiots like you that this would not occur. I have a bet with another poster on another blog, promising to never return if US deaths reach 2M

                      And they WERE wrong. As the experts have been from the start to the finish of this.

                      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-outcomes.html

                    5. Anonymous, you are always moving goal posts and then blaming one of your pretend friends for the error. John has been quite clear and despite that you have continuously libeled him. That reduces your credibility and moral standing.

                    6. Now you’re doubling down on your mistaken claims, John. You say that “Both studies said that absent draconian measures these were the predicted outcomes,” referring to “2-4M US deaths,” but the Los Alamos study wasn’t even about the US, and the Imperial college study didn’t predict 2.2 million deaths in the absence of draconian measures.

                      Have you READ the Imperial College study?

                      Why do you keep substituting your opinion for what the STUDY said?

                      I do not give a $hit about your wordsmithing either. No wonder people ignore you.

                12. “That’s quite a claim John. Why should anyone accept it, when you don’t back it up?”

                  I notice the back up was provided over and over. Where is Anonymous. He’s gone into hiding again only to scurry out of hiding when the coast is clear. Coward.

                  1. I grasp that those on the left are mostly stupid.

                    But every once in a while one of them says something that is just out of the ball park stupid.

                    I really could not beleive Anonymous claimed that the $2-4M deaths was dubious – where has he been ? Under a rock for the past 9 months. I though EVERYONE was aware of those claims.

                    Those are what Scared Boris Johnson into locking down the UK – he had been persuaded to follow the swedish model.

                    Those are what persuaded Trump to allow the US lockdown.

                    And sorry the left has two choices here.

                    Either Trump and Johnson reduced the number of deaths in their countries by a factor of ten by actually following the advice of left wing nuts, Or the advice of left wingnuts is complete crap and we would have had the same results no matter what.

                    BTW it is the latter that is correct.

                    But if the US had 20K C19 deaths all in NY – the left would still be ranting that it was Trump’s fault.

        2. Comiited to Obfuscation:

          “How sad that you think the deaths of over 210,000 of your fellow Americans is “peanuts.”
          ***************************
          Not sad, just practical. You may want to sit home every Saturday night but the rest of us want to go out, see our friends and live. Everything has risk except the chance of learning anything from your cut and pastes jobs or your mindless Walter “I’m a lawyer” Mitty moves. No risk of learning anything there.

    3. What are stupid editorials doing in NEJM ?

      And where is NEJM with policies that actually work ?

      I previously linked to a meta study by CDC of 14 studies that found that there was not only no measurable benefit to Masks – not even against the Flu which is much easier to deal with than C19.

      But it does not end there. In the REAL WORLD even hand washing is ineffective – even against something that is half as contagious such as the Flu.

      So how is it that the US has failed ? What is it we should have done that would have worked ?

      And the CDC now says that shutting schools is killing more students than C19 would have – by a signifcant amount.

      If you want me to agree that every government policy has been a failure – I am behind you 100%.

      But we all know that is not what you mean. If you or NEJM had power they, you, the media would be celebrating only 200,000 deaths.
      And how it would have been millions but for your total lock down of the country and manditory facemasks and other such nonsense.

      Sweden made almost nothing manditory – and they are DONE with C19. There fatality rate is lower than ours and will not increase.
      Most of Europes fatality rate is rising to and will exceed sweden’s

      I have told you over and over non of this nonsense works,

      The ecvidence is there if you are not blind.

      Frankly this nonsense from NEJM is unforgiveably stupid.

    4. “The magnitude of the [US} failure is astonishing”

      Bull Sh*t!

      COVID MORTALITY RATES:

      UK 7.8 %
      FR 4.9%
      Netherlands 4.3%
      Canada 5.5
      Sweden 6%
      US 2.8%

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/

      If you get the China Virus, get it here if you want to live. But skip New York. Our rates would be much lower but for Cuomo’s sending diseased patients in to mingle with the vulnerable in nursing homes.

      It is possible that we have a lot of cases because we are doing a better job of detecting them. Trump sponsored a major effort on detection.

      1. Do not forget that our numbers are bumped up. I doubt there are many nations if any that would list the person’s death as Covid that the US does. Patient in hospice waiting to die gets Covid and is listed as a Covid death. These anti-American Americans always want to claim America is bad. America is great.

        1. Allan, Thank you. I had forgotten that that was a factor bumping up our statistics. Even with that factor we beat the rest of the Western world.

          It is disgusting how some seem to be slavering at the prospect of making this country look bad. It is surprising to see how many have tarnished once fine reputations in their attempts to do it.

          America is great.

      2. Why don’t you show countries that have done better than the U.S.? Some examples –
        Portugal 2.53
        Denmark 2.22
        Norway 1.86
        Japan 1.86
        South Korea 1.75
        Israel 0.6
        Iceland 0.32

        We were supposed to have been the best prepared country in the world. Our results are only middling when looking at the CFR, which is what you chose, and we’re among the worst if you look at per capita deaths.

        1. Portugal, Denmark and Norway, and even Japan are close to the US and would like have been about even but for the handling of lunatic Democrat governors in places like New York. Moreover, you missed Allan’s point that we are likely counting Covid deaths that may not be counted as Covid deaths all else being equal in other countries. Countries like Israel and Iceland have much smaller populations and less territory to cover.

          1. Allan’s guess might be right or wrong. Other things being equal, the more testing, the lower the CFR, so per capita deaths is more telling.

            1. Go to the fundamentals: If you are sick you want to be someplace where the survival rate is good.

              1. You also want to be someplace where you’re less likely to get sick at all. There are many countries with better stats for both.

                1. There are many countries who were not in the throes of a failed coup d’etat; impeaching a duly-elected president as China released its coronavirus bio-weapon at the request of communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America.

                  1. Most countries are not welcoming Americans right now because of our high infection rate.

                    1. Anonymous, countries do what they do for a multiplicity of reasons. The EU banned American bananas because of their curve. You are very shallow as are your arguments.

                    2. Yes, countries do what they do for a multiplicity of reasons, but Young told me that Iceland will welcome me when it won’t.

                      It’s not shallow of me to note that, and that per capita deaths also matter, and that if you’re going to choose where to be, you’d also choose someplace where the infection place is low, which isn’t here.

                    3. “It’s not shallow of me to note that, and that per capita deaths also matter,”

                      Anonymous, if that is a true fear one should not live in a democrat run state.

                    4. I wasn’t expressing fear, Allan.

                      Per capita deaths vary a lot by state, but not in clean red vs. blue ways.
                      https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

                      We haven’t see the end of the deaths yet. This current new cases map suggests that the per capita death rates in many states will increase significantly in coming months.
                      https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/IMKq_mWEKUU0JM3GqXqzd_pCcnc%3D/0x0:1540×1092/1200×0/filters:focal(0x0:1540×1092):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21943625/covid_cases_map.png

                    5. From YOUR data – the top 4 states in per capita deaths are BLUE.
                      Of the top 11 8 are BLUE

                      That seems to be a pretty clear red/blue difference.

                      New IS cases are occuring almost exclusively in areas that have not had any significan cases before – and they are mostly in smaller numbers. EXCEPT Connecticutt and Wisconsin which are seeing a jump in cases. (WaPo)

                      IS Deaths per day are on a 7 day rolling average significantly below 1000 and have been since June. There was a very small upward Tren in late June but that has reversed long ago an the Trend is a shallow downward Trend (NBC)

                      The daily death rate has been disconnected from the number of positive tests since early June.

                      That means one of two things – either we are far better at treating C19 or we are better at detecting cases than before.

                      Either of which is good.

                      Regardless, contra the media and the left. massive testing accomplishes little. We know that from day one there have probably been 20 new cases for every positive test. That is true in the US and most of the world and it makes the statistical value of case counts nearly useless.

                      .

            2. In any event it is far from the astonishing failure the article claimed.

              The article was pure anti-Trump propaganda of a type that has never ceased. I recall 4 years ago when some media person howled because the media was not invited to a dinner and because he put ketchup on a steak.

            3. It’s insane that an adult has so little understanding of numbers and their meaning. Aside from the great difficulty in cross national comparisons due to data registry, error, definitions etc. there are a multiplicity of problems. We don’t even know for sure if certain populations have a natural immunity which would affect the data. Things like trade and population density affect the data but Anonymous the Sophomoric doesn’t recognize anything that the left isn’t directly pumping into his brain.

              You want numerical comparisons, I will provide them in a f/u posting. These numbers are important because they were affected by democrat stupidity.

              1. Let’s compare different locations in the world. of the non city states Peru has the highest death rate per million.

                In the US, a larger county has many states.

                Peru: 997 per million

                NJ: 1,832 per million Run by Democrats

                NY: 1,715 per million Run by Democrats

                Massachusetts: 1,387 per million Run by Democrats

                Connecticut: 1,268 per million Run by Democrats

                Louisiana: 1,205 per million Run by Democrats

                There is more where that comes from, but take note run by Democrats. Where were Covid patients placed in nursing homes where the most deaths occurred? That happened in states run by Democrats. Where was the transportation system not cleaned appropriately? NY commuters to NJ and elsewhere.

                1. Charlie Baker; Mass. governor >> republican.

                  Not that this matters. Allan is citing population density and where Covid hit first with his observations more than anything else with partisan observations.

                  **The virus does not care about party affiliation**

                  1. I’ll take your word for it, but the state is Democrat. I do not think that party affiliation matters to the virus except for the mistakes made. The biggest mistakes were in Democrat states. Nursing homes and transportation networks.

                    “Allan is citing population density ”

                    As long as you remember deaths per million.

                    I haven’t been responding to you because you are irrelevant. This time you had something useful to say so I responded.

                    For the most part the government is unable to control respiratory viruses except through acting stupid as was seen in NY and elsewhere. You wish to hit the President on irrelevancies that don’t affect the virus. Mostly the states are responsible for care not the federal government which has tremendously helped the worst hit states in a very quick and efficient manner.

                    1. Please consider me irrelevant more often and spare me crazy Allan speak.

                    2. Bug, you are irrelevant. You make too many errors to be credible. However, the correction was appreciated. Thank you.

                  2. “The virus does not care about party affiliation”.

                    Make up YOUR mind. Either it does or it does not ?
                    alot of Blue states had C19 far worse than red states – there must be an explanation.

                    if it is not party affiliation then it must be something – Population density only gets you so far.
                    NY is larger than FL and has slightly fewer people.
                    Many other blue states with higher than normal C19 and death rates are not especially population dense.

                    It is likely that population is a FACTOR.

                    But it is insufficient to explain the results.

                    Other factors must account for the difference between red and blue states.

                    But if government policies are the explanation – that favors the policies of red states over blue.

                    Put simply you can not hypothesize that government failures have caused more deaths without coming to the conclusion that the failures of blue states were worse than those of red states.

                    I have repeatedly offered you the conclusion that government policies had ZERO effect – but you refuse that offer.
                    All that leaves you is Blue states failed.

                2. If you’re going to separate the U.S. into states because it’s large, then you should do the same for other large countries, like Brazil, so you shouldn’t necessarily compare to Peru.

                  If you’re going to call Massachusetts a Democratic state in spite of it having a Republican governor, then you should call Louisiana a Republican state in spite of it having a Democratic governor.

                  You only look at good things Trump did. You ignore the bad things he did and the good things he could have done but didn’t.

                  1. You don’t listen to what others say. Your sole purpose on this blog is to disagree and be disagreeable.

                    Aside from the gross mismanagement by Cuomo and a few other democrat leaders there are other factors that determine the death rate and that has much less to do with the color of the state than it does with factors governments cannot control. I never would have dreamed of attributing the higher death rates to politics. I might have mentioned the errors or what I thought could be corrected but attributing politics to the spread of a virus doesn’t make sense unless people like you and people like Cuomo include politics in their decision making.

                    “You only look at good things Trump did. You ignore the bad things he did ”

                    If you were listening with an open mind instead of one that was shut tight you would have seen that I was not in total agreement with Trump but I understood the political circumstances that littered the entire discussion We have to remember that when the Covid problem started to develop the democrats were trying to impeach Trump while saying and doing the opposite of anything Trump was attempting to do.

                    At the same time instead of noticing things occurring in China that should have been a warning to us the IC was more busy leaking lies about Trump to Congress. Most Democrats couldn’t show open agreement with Trump. Since Trump was being attacked by all sides he didn’t have the ability to look at this type of potential situation from day 1.

                    I blame the democrats in control and those working with them to invalidate the 2016 election for inhibiting our ability to respond to Covid in the best fashion possible. In that fashion I place the greatest blame on the democrats, not necessarily people that vote democrat.

                  2. “If you’re going to separate the U.S. into states because it’s large, then you should do the same for other large countries, like Brazil,”
                    Do you have data on the states of Brazil ? If so I will be happy to look at it.

                    “so you shouldn’t necessarily compare to Peru.”

                    Peru is a country of 32M, I think it is reasonable to compare it to US states of similar size and population.

                    “If you’re going to call Massachusetts a Democratic state in spite of it having a Republican governor, then you should call Louisiana a Republican state in spite of it having a Democratic governor.”

                    Honestly are you trying to claim that Massachusettets is a republicans state ?

                    Regardless I am focused on policies, not partisanship – a few Republican governors – especially in blue states have imposed bad policies.

                    “You only look at good things Trump did. You ignore the bad things he did and the good things he could have done but didn’t.”

                    Nope. I agree there is plenty of bad things that Trump did.

                    He has from the moment of his election tried to push infrastructure spending. I am not keen on the trade war with China.
                    I vigorously oppose ALL the Covid Stimulus spending – do not lock down the country and you do not need it.

                    Trump has failed with respect to Covid – because he has done too much of the nonsense the left wants.
                    The lockdowns were always a bad idea, and Trump got played into supporting short ones and then discovered he was payed and was stuck with them. They were a huge mistake from day one.

                    Trump has increased rather than cut defense spending which I do not support.

                    Trump should have called in the national guard in Portland and Seattle and possible other places to quell the rioting.

                    Trump should have fired Mueller early on. And he should have gotten people into positions to declassify the evidence of this soft coup that took place much sooner.

                    What occured under Obama and extending into the Trump presidency can never happen again.

                    I have plenty of criticisms of Trump – but not a single one of those will improve under Biden.

              2. Anonymous, the deaths per million in the US was 654 a middling number, but what happens when the mismanagement of Democrats is removed from the equation? That 654 number drops significantly and places us at the lower end of the spectrum perhaps demonstrating a more favorable death rate than a number of countries you mentioned.

                You don’t deal with the real virus. You deal in polemics not caring about truth and fact. You are a total waste of time and an intellectual embarrassment to our education system and our society.

                1. Well, Allan, since you’re continuing to insult me and now you’re lying about me, I’m going to treat you as a troll and not respond further.

                  1. That is a good decision because you don’t think and make a fool of yourself over and over again. Take note how I deal with the numbers. You don’t. You are a product of a poor educational system no matter what you are able to do because you are unable to think in a rational way. Your emotions drive out critical thinking.

              3. It’s insane that Allan has so little understanding of numbers and their meaning.

                1. Apparently not proven by your dumb answer to real numbers. To you ‘orange man’ has to bad and can never get anything right. That demonstrates an empty head.

                    1. Anonymous that is a poor answer. You are unable to respond to the numbers. Let’s provide them again. Then you can respond with another foolish comment.

                      Let’s compare different locations in the world. of the non city states Peru has the highest death rate per million.

                      In the US, a larger county has many states.

                      Peru: 997 per million

                      NJ: 1,832 per million Run by Democrats

                      NY: 1,715 per million Run by Democrats

                      Massachusetts: 1,387 per million Run by Democrats with a Republican governor.

                      Connecticut: 1,268 per million Run by Democrats

                      Louisiana: 1,205 per million Run by Democrats

                      There is more where that comes from, but take note run by Democrats. Where were Covid patients placed in nursing homes where the most deaths occurred? That happened in states run by Democrats. Where was the transportation system not cleaned appropriately? NY commuters to NJ and elsewhere.

                      Reply

                    2. Allan,

                      Anonymous already pointed out on October 8, 2020 at 10:39 AM that if you’re going to separate the U.S. into states because it’s large, then you should do the same for other large countries, like Brazil. The state of Sao Paulo is bigger than New York and has a much higher per capita death rate than Peru, but you ignore it. You describe Massachusetts as run by Democrats with a Republican governor, but you say Louisiana is run by Democrats, when it’s run by Republicans with a Democratic governor. You ignore that Trump is the one who ordered travel restrictions and created superspreader events at international airports like JFK in New York You ignore that deaths are continuing, and they’re low in New York but high in lots of other states. Red states didn’t learn from New York. Trump didn’t learn from New York.

                      You’re a partisan shill.

              4. I agree with you with respect to the myriads of issues trying to do comparisons across the world. ‘

                Absolutely any credible analysis of C19 across the world should have numerous adjustments for differences in all kinds of factors from country to country.

                And absolutely the left ignores all that with most of their claims.

                But even so – most of their claims are STILL just made up.

                With proper adjustments – or without them – there is no pattern – either globally or in the US that suggests that ANY policy measures undertaken by any state or nation were ineffective.

                It is self evident in the US that C19 was 4-5 times worse in blue northern states than in red southern ones.

                If we are going to do shallow analysis we can attribute that to red/blue differences. That would be incorrect, but it is the glaringly obvious conclusion if you are unwilling to properly adjust the data. That would also strongly support the argument that all the draconian policies of the left made things WORSE.

                The actual fact is that with few exceptions the outcome differences between blue and red states is best explained by latitude and demographics not polcies. The best data does not show that the policies of the left were seriously harmful – just that they were not helpful.

                But there is absolutely no possibility of massaging the data to get results that indicate that the policies of the left were helpful.

                The same is true doing global comparisons. The EU is not overall doing any better than the US – it is doing worse.
                There are specific nations doing better, and there are nations doing worse – just as in the US.

                In point of fact the one pattern most obvious accross the world is that C19 severity and infection rates appear to correspond incredibly well to Vitamin D levels – there was strong hints of that early on from the data from China.

                To the extent there has been some massive policy failure it is a failure to determine the importance of vitamin D to C19 months ago when it could have saved possibly hundreds of thousands of lives.

                The results for Vitamin d are still very preliminary – there have only been a few really good studies. But the R values for those studies are unbeleivably high and the results are good beyond beleif.

                If these results replicate Vitamin D really is a miracle cure for C19. But even if further study substantially reduces the strength of the results, the reduction would still have to be radical before Vitamin D was less effective than the best treatments we have at the moment.

                We are ranting about the purported failure of Trump – I can list C19 failures I think Trump has made – but almost no one here would agree with any of those, just as I think the claims of those on the left are not merely ludicrously stupid but obviously factually correct.

                There is no data to support claims that any government policy has been effective.

                Sweden is the only country that we are debating officially – but the fact is that most of the countries in the world did not lockdown, do not wear masks and do not enaged in social distancing or disease related hygiene. Outside of first world countries governments are too weak and have too little resources to effectively impose broad public health policies. Is there anyone sane that thinks that outside of developed countries the policies that are advocated by so called experts are being followed ?

                And yet globally to the extent outcomes vary that variation has nothing to do with policy.

                Absolutely we should look at the data and adjust for population density, means of measurement and other demographic features. But one should not be surprised if after doing so the results are STILL that polices have not mattered.

                But those on the left are incapable of grasping how insigificant man is overall, and how we are neither responsible nor able to destroy the planet nor ourselves, nor sav e the planet nor ourselves should nature decide our time is up.

                1. We are pretty much in agreement John.

                  We have to deal with individuals whose critical thinking skills are limited. They cannot get passed the “orange-man bad” idea that fills up the voids in their heads.

                  Have you seen any consensus as to how much Vit D is being suggested by those that link Covid survival toVit D?

                  Are you having trouble with the blog because more than one post of mine didn’t make it and not all the email is making it either?

                  1. The Vit-D studies I cited has incredible P values.

                    While I am not happy with only 2 studies – and it is criminal that in Oct 2020 there are only 2 studies.

                    The results are beyond beleif.

                    I would note that Vit-D was in the cocktail given to Trump.

                    The studies are different.

                    The one claims – with a very high degree of confidence that 77% of people with normal vit-d levels are effectively immune to C19.

                    While that does not surprise me, it is also HUGE.

                    I do not know what the percent of people with normal Vit-D levels in the US are, But I would assume that it is pretty high.

                    Regardless if you multiply the precent of people with normal V-D levels by .77 that would give you a percent of the population that is natually immune.

                    In sweden some scientists were estimating natural immunity at somewhere close to 50%.

                    Add to that the 15-25% that are immune due to getting C19 – either symptomatically or asymptomatically – and you are pretty darn close to herd immunity.

                    Regardless, this is essentially claiming that anything that gets your V-D level to normal is likely as effective (and far safer) than a vaccine.

                    So why is this not on all the news channels right now ?

                    We are demanding people wear masks, social distance, wash their hands – all things with no evidence supporting them.

                    I would also not that the 77% immunity figure is radically different from claims of mask effectiveness.

                    The immunity figure means that if you are V-D normal there is a 77% chance OVERALL that you will NEVER get C19.
                    It is not per exposure.

                    Put differently it is a 77% chance of 100% immunity, rather than a 60% change of acvoiding infection in ONE encounter.

                    The V-D analogue study appears even better – except that immunity is actually far more important than treatment.

                    But the analaogue study results seem to indicate that V-D is a CURE for serious cases -0 though they are careful to only call it a treatment.

                    I Deaths in 79 serious cases, only 1 ICE admission compared to 12 deaths and 50% ICU admissions for the control.

                    Even without other studies this should be on every billboard in the country right now.
                    Every hospital should have the V-D analog and be using it.

                    What bothers me is that these results are almost too good to be true.

                    They are better than is being claimed by anything else BY FAR.

                    And they are something we should have seen 9 months ago.

                  2. I do not tack my own posts.

                    I make them and never look back.

                    Those who link to past posts just anoy me.

                    I do not care what someone said in a past post.

                    Link to reputable sources – to source data.

            4. Allan is doing more than guessing. Anonymous is merely repeating what the leftist political hit pieces tell him to say. I hope in real life he is smarter than he appears to be on this blog.

              1. Allan, when you said “I doubt there are many nations if any that would list the person’s death as Covid that the US does,” that was a guess. I haven’t been insulting you (though some other anonymous commenters have), and you shouldn’t be insulting me. If you can’t control that, then I’ll just ignore you.

                1. Anonymous, keep blaming others and keep making excuses. If any error is ever made I doubt it was significant. If an error was made it was your fault. You chose the anonymous label. You chose to hide behind a generic name and a generic icon along with other icons instead of protecting a singular identity. Start blaming yourself.

                2. This is another posting that seems not to have made it to the blog.

                  Anonymous writes: “Allan, when you said “I doubt there are many nations if any that would list the person’s death as Covid that the US does,” that was a guess. ”

                  Anonymous, It’s an educated guess. I have dealt with this type of cross national comparisons elsewhere. In fact decades ago I researched infant mortality as a lark and for my own purposes. At the time anti-American Americans claimed our healthcare system was terrible and that was why we had such a high infant mortality compared to other western nations. They were wrong and proven wrong, but they continued to adhere to their belief not because it was true rather because it was convenient and they were the typical leftists that never care about the truth.

                  I’ll briefly provide the evidence. The WHO gave the US a low ranking regarding infant mortality. A statistician decided to look at the numbers. I forget his name at this moment but he wrote a book that describes the subject matter.

                  To prove the WHO wrong Infant mortality was divided into 5 groups based on weight. The US was best in the world in all the low birth weight classes. Some nations let the newborns die on the table if they were too short or weighed too little. They were not counted as infant mortality rather they were counted as miscarriages. There were all sorts of poor comparisons in the data management as recently described by Estovir.

                  How can the US healthcare system be so bad if the US was best in low birthweight care? Logically there had to be a better reason than the healthcare system.The correlation of the evidence was not the healthcare system at all which was top notch in this sector rather getting rid of data management problem. The major discrepancy was socio-economic. We had, compared to others, an enormous problem with low birthweight. Some of that had to do with drugs or a young age of the pregnant girl. Another reason was the Calculation by the WHO was not predominantly based on the healthcare system rather a lot of things having little to do with the healthcare system much of it filler that could provide the desired ranking by those who created the rankings.

        2. “We were supposed to have been the best prepared country in the world. ”

          Anonymous, we were but the Obama Biden team left our cupboards empty. They also bungled the H1N1 flu and didn’t do anything to prevent future problems except to make sure the following administrations would be less prepared. Had H1N1 been more lethal like Covid with their type of management we could have lost millions.

          Start blaming the failures. Among the biggest failures this country has ever seen was the Obama Biden fiasco.

          1. The Obama Biden team didn’t leave our cupboards empty, and even if they had, Trump had more than 3 years to fill them. Are you saying that the cupboards were empty and Trump was too incompetent to notice they were empty and do something about it?

            You say that that the Obama Biden team didn’t do anything to prevent future problems, and that’s just a lie. Preventing future problems was a reason that they created an NSC pandemic response team, wrote a pandemic playbook, and carried out a pandemic exercise with Trump officials before Trump was inaugurated.

            Trump ignored their efforts. He even ignored his own administration’s efforts to warn him.

            1. “The Obama Biden team didn’t leave our cupboards empty, and even if they had, “…

              Anonymous, that demonstrates you talk out of both sides of your mouth and you don’t know what you are talking about.

            2. “and even if they had, Trump had more than 3 years to fill them.”

              No he didn’t. The democrats spent the entire administration trying to reverse the 2016 election. i described this in a bit more detail inn earlier reply.

            3. “Preventing future problems was a reason that they created an NSC pandemic response team, wrote a pandemic playbook, and carried out a pandemic exercise with Trump officials before Trump was inaugurated.”

              A lot of that playbook was useless. But Trump actually followed the playbook by reassuring the public while providing information. You on the other hand would scream and yell fire in a crowded theater causing people to be crushed to death while running out.. That reassurance is something the Democrats also fought. They made the situation worse and likely the death rate from other causes will eventually exceed the death rate from Covid which for the most part (excepting a few dumb governors) could not be drastically altered by government. Trump also followed the advice of Fauci and others in government. The best decisions were made by Trump and even Fauci admits that.

              Blame the democrat thirst for power in stopping the proper management of Covid and the destruction of our economy.

            4. “The Obama Biden team didn’t leave our cupboards empty,”
              Correct – they left us in a very low growth unstable economy averaging 1.8% growth.year and we were headed into a recession when Trump was elected. Worse they told us this was the new normal that we could not do better than this.

              “and even if they had, Trump had more than 3 years to fill them.:”
              Immediately after Trump was elected the stock market rose. and the coming recession disappeared. Trump’s average economic growth over the first 3 years was 2.5% – lower than Trump claims but still 50% better than Obama/Biden.
              Current projected 2020 GDP is about the same as 2018. So Trump has been hit with a massive democratic lockdown of the country and still is only going to have lost 1 year of growth. It is likely that even with the Covid Recession that Trump’s 4 year Growth will average atleast as high as Obama/Biden’s average. And Obama was elected after a severe recession. So he started from a valley. that should have resulted instrong growth.

              “Are you saying that the cupboards were empty and Trump was too incompetent to notice they were empty and do something about it?”

              No I am saying that growth – the rate of improvement under Obama was 50% less than under Trump’s first 3 years.
              No one argues that – it is just a fact.

              “You say that that the Obama Biden team didn’t do anything to prevent future problems, and that’s just a lie.”
              No I did not say anything about Obama Biden preventing future problems.

              I said that growth under them was the worst average of any president in my lifetime. And that is correct.
              Growth in Trump’s first 3 years was 50% better.

              I am not saying Obama/Biden failed in the future. I am saying they failed during their presidency.

              “Preventing future problems was a reason that they created an NSC pandemic response team, wrote a pandemic playbook, and carried out a pandemic exercise with Trump officials before Trump was inaugurated.”

              And they might as well have written a harry potter story. First the actual efforts to deal with a pandemic were done during Bush not Obama.
              Next the NSC pandemic team os farcical nonsense.

              Putting half the federal government onto a pandemic team would not have made an iota of difference with respect to C19.

              Further the NSC is not doctors or medical researchers – what exactly do you expect out of them ?

              What is the magic bullet that you think would have prevented this ?

              Every 50 years or so we have something like this. We had a similar epidemic in 1968. The world did not come to an end.
              There is in fact very little we can do about respiratory viruses – while we are learning alot for C19 and will likely be better in the future, none of that learning was going to happen without Covid -whether there was an NSC pandemic response team or not.

              Do you think the DOE should have had a pandemic response team ? the Department of Labor ? Agriculture ?

              We suck at dealing with repiratory viruses – it has taken us decades to do a half ass job against the flu.

              Biden/Obama did a completely $h!tty job with H1N1 which was far less severe.

              “Trump ignored their efforts. He even ignored his own administration’s efforts to warn him.”

              Not True and not relevant.

              If a 20 mile wide asteroid is going to strike the earth – do you think a special NSC team to deal with it will make a difference ?

              No nation in the world stopped C19. However badly you think the US did – no nation did much better.

              The effect of C19 on a country is proportionate to the age of the population, the overall health of the population, The races of the opulation and the level of vitamin D deficiency in the population.

              Those factors predict everything. Not NSC pandemic response teams

              You have incredible faith in government – which has NEVER done anything to earn that faith.

      3. We have a lot of cases (4% of the world’s population and 25% of it’s cases and 22% of its deaths) because our citizens act recklessly – led by our President, who has now turned the WH into a virus slum – and we have inadequate testing and contact tracing. These are both fixable problems with a new president.

      4. We have a lot of cases (4% of the world’s population and 25% of cases and 22% of deaths) because our citizens are reckless – led by a President who has now turned the WH into a virus slum – and we lack sufficient testing and contact tracing. A new president will fix these problems.

      1. Prairie Rose,

        The peer-review process certainly failed in that case, but retraction is the correct response when a mistake is made, followed by a review of the editorial process that led to publication.

        I don’t know what you’re taking as evidence for your claim that “They are not interested in looking at real data.” How did you go about testing your conjecture?

    6. “Here in the United States, our leaders have failed that test. They have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy.”
      ************************
      Doctors aren’t big fans of democracy or civil rights. They like unquestioned obedience … and sick patients with coverage.

    7. “The coronavirus outbreak has infected “34 White House staffers and other contacts” in recent days, according to an internal government memo…”
      https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/34-people-connected-white-house-previously-infected-coronavirus/story?id=73487381

      This is awful. And it only makes me more angry that when Trump returned to the WH from Walter Reed, he took off his mask before going into the WH, increasing the risk for the staff who work there.

      1. “The coronavirus outbreak has infected “34 White House staffers and other contacts” in recent days, according to an internal government memo…”

        And none of them have died. thus, using CTHD’s data, COVID has a 0% fatality rate.
        You have asked for examples of you lying. there ya go

        What really gave away the fallacy of NEJM’s editorial was their juxtaposing USA with China. ooof. that was glaring and practically a crime against science

        United States leads the world in Covid-19 cases and in deaths due to the disease, far exceeding the numbers in much larger countries, such as China.

        No one in academic medicine believes China’s number. Every single study that is published that comes from China is seen as suspect for good reason.

        Months ago I provided data from the CDC that advised caution as to making global determinations on COVID for the reasons I already articulated. It will take literally years before we have any hard data that we can splice and dice with gusto. For now, recent studies have shown that COVID-19 is exactly what both medical experts and lay folks have been saying for months: COVID-19 is a flu-like illness. People who have died had comorbidities. The real disgrace has been how politicians have used it. No surprises there

        And then there are the millions of people who have not had routine blood work for chronic medical conditions, cancer screenings, delayed surgeries, withheld medical treatments due to fears of visiting their physician, physicians employing “telemedicine”, cancelling of appointments by hospitals, etc, which will lead to significant morbidity and mortality rates in the next few years, all due to COVID-19 hysteria. Those numbers are far more significant that NEJM did not mention.

        1. Estovir, you falsely claim “You have asked for examples of you lying. there ya go,” when you didn’t present any lie from me.

          What you did was repeat a quote from ABC News and then bizarrely claim “using [ABC’s] data, COVID has a 0% fatality rate,” when ABC wasn’t suggesting that the infections in the WH tell us anything about the fatality rate. That’s *your* bizarre claim, not a lie from *me*. On the contrary, falsely claiming that you were giving an example of a lie from me — when I didn’t lie — comes across as a lie from *you*.

          “No one in academic medicine believes China’s number.”

          The NEJM didn’t say that they believe China’s number (under 5,000). They said that the US has far more deaths from COVID than China despite China being much larger (their population is ~4 times ours). As long as China’s total death toll is significantly less than 210,000, the NEJM claim is true. I don’t know of any estimate of deaths in China (e.g., from looking at cremations, from looking at excess mortality) that suggests the total number of deaths in China is anywhere close to 210,000. Can you produce even one reasonable estimate of deaths in China that’s over, say, 100,000?

          “People who have died had comorbidities.”

          About half the U.S. population has comorbidities that are significant for COVID (e.g., cardiovascular disease, COPD, diabetes, asthma, hypertension, elderly). What’s your point? Do you likewise excuse deaths from other causes by saying “People who have died had comorbidities”?

          As for all of the side-effects of the poor handling of COVID in the U.S. that you list in your last paragraph, yes, we should absolutely be looking at those too. But be honest about it: they arise from the poor handling, not from “hysteria.”

          1. CTDHD – you are still selling the Collusion Delusion aren’t you ?

            I would be happy to here that you have finally grasped the evidence – that Trump was correct, that this was all a witch hunt from the begining, and that his campaign was being spied on and wiretapped.

            And as we learn over and over and over – the Obama administration – and later Rosenstein. McCabe, Strzok, Comey and Mueller and he team not only knew this was all a fraud, but that the ties to Russia were through Clinton not trump.

            Regardless you owe an enormous number appoligies for falsley accusing them of lies.

            Or is a false accusation of lying not lying in CTDHD world ?

            Need I go on with further proof of your moral failures ?

            Why is it you think that you are free to defame others repeatedly and not accept responsibility for that ?

            You demand examples that you have lied – as if that is somehow difficult to find ?

            Isn’t a false accusation defamation ? Slander or Libel ?

            Is it OK to make myriads of false accusations of others ?

            I have been kind to you – far kinder than you are to others. I have not accused you of lying when you get the facts wrong. It is rare that error regarding facts is moral error. It would be wonderful if we all were able to get the facts straight all the time. But in the real world that is not common. It is one of the reasons free speach is so important – because quite often it is the voices disenting from the edits of the so called experts that are offering the truth. At the very least requiring the experts to defend their claims keeps them more honest.

            Disagreement on facts rarely constituties moral error – something that you, the press and the entirety of the left should learn.

            But moral accusations have no such grey area. If you accuse another of lying – you are either morally right or you are morally wrong. You are either telling the truth or you are lying and the burden of proof is on you.

            You are constantly accusing others of lying – and you have yet to prove someone else has lied. And in fact quite frequently it is clear that you were wrong – very wrong, The collusion delusion being foremost among those.

          2. Why does it matter what ABC was suggesting ?

            The DATA is the data regardless of who says it. The fact that ABC reported facts without reaching conclusions does not make those conclusions wrong.

            Thus far the fatality rate for infections in the WhiteHouse is ZERO. That is a fact – whether you or ABC or the left like it or not.

            Of course infections in the white house tell us something – just as those in Podunk do. The overall fatality rate is the agregate of results from all over – the WH included.

            Nowhere on the planet matches the results from China. Nowhere else on the planet did they weld infected people and their families into their homes to die.

            That might actually be the most effective means of thwarting Covid – is that the one you are advocating ?

            Regardless if you wish to claim that China did better than the US – then you have to take ownership of the policies that they used to do so.

            When China first took this seriously they rigidly quarantined Hubei province from the rest of China – but NOT from the rest of the world.
            If you were in Hubei you were free to travel anywhere in the world that was NOT CHINA.
            After allowing infected people in Hubei to travel the world, they imposed lockdowns in Hubei that were absolutely draconian.
            As I noted littlerally welding people into their homes. They engaged in cell phone tracking that is illegal and impossible in most of the world
            and they locked up everyone who was exposed to anyone who have C19.

            They kept all of this up for over two months and after the Virus peaked and faded they continued the same draconian methods throughout the country at the least hint of incursion.

            Are you advocating that the US should follow the policies of China ?

            If you are not the comparison is useless.

            ————————–

            Do we excuse deaths where there are comorbidities ? Absolutely we do it all the time.

            2.9M people dies in the US every year. They all dies of something – most of them die from mulitple causes.
            The Flu does not kill healthy people. Myriads of other purportedly deadly illnesses do not kill healthy people.

            I would BTW note that the data does indicate that Comorbidites increase your risk, but the largest single risk factor is AGE.

            That is reasonably important and was known when this was in China. C19’s mortality curve rises dramatically with age.

            Myriads of “experts” – though not the ones that your fawn over, have noted this and suggested that should be a clue to the treatment of C19.

            What changes accross the world with age that could be increasing the risk of death from C19 ?

            One of the obvious possibilities was Vitamin D levels. That is probably not the only factor that changes with age, but Vitamin D is KNOW to decrease with age pretty much everywhere int eh world. It is also know to be lower in minorities – which have a higher C19 mortality rate, and it is known to be lower at northern latitudes, and it is known to be higher in nations that eat lots of Vitamin D enriched foods – like oily fish.

            In the US Milk and Orange Juice are Vitamin D enriched – but these are not consumed as much today as in the past.
            The Chinese conversely get very little milk or orange juice in their diet – and had the worlds highest C19 case Fatality rate.

            From late february on Vitamin D should have been critically examined as a factor relative to C19. Yet it has taken 9 months to get studies of vitamin D and even now we only have two. But the results of those studies have both very high statistical significance and results that are beyond beleif.

            Normal C19 levels reduce your risk of contracting C19 by 77%. That means that 77% of that portion of the US population with normal Vitamin D levels is effectively immune to C19.

            If everyone in the US had normal vitamin D levels we would either be at or very near the level of overall immunity needed for herd immunity

            Put differently getting a persons vitamin D levels to normal appears to be a a safe way to acheive the equivalent of vaccintating them.

            Can we blame Trump for failing to establish the importance of Vitamin D until now ? Fine if you wish. But you can not avoid placing even higher blame on all YOUR vaunted EXPERTS.

            Nor is immunity the only study result from recent Vitamin D studies. Seriously ill C19 patients treated with Vitamin D recovered quickly of nearly 100 only 1 ended up in the ICU and NONE died. That is compared to a control group where 50% ended up in the ICU and 12 of nearly 100 died.

            Unfortunately this is not over the counter Vitamin D which takes days even months to raise internal vitamin D levels to normal.
            But it is a dirt cheap and effective treatment with an incredible success rate that we have missed for 9 months.

            Of both of these studiess turn out to be only half as effective as claimed – they are still the greatest failure of modern medicine and YOUR EXPERTS.

            So Yes the US botched handling C19, as did every other country in the world – unless you are going to adopt China’s approach.

            Trump Failed – but a far larger failure was that of the “experts” – and that would include NEJM – that is more focused on political BS than actually trying to defeat C19.

            And that would include YOU for the same reasons.

  13. JT what makes you think the press will get back to being the press after the election? The “press” shed any resemblance to the press years ago.

      1. Anonymous to Anonymous who ever you IS, original your NOT. I’m crying that you don’t like posts that offend you. There are no safe places in this World, grow UP.

        1. Ten Rivers don’t you worry none anonymous says that to anyone they disagree with. They being gender neutral, but anonymous being a fool.

          1. So the fatality rate is low with COVID, but discussions on this forum, likely over 75%.
            This blog has gone to Hades.

            Thankfully millions of Catholics prayed the Rosary today at 3:00 PM EST across the USA. It was beautiful and powerful. #PrayForAmerica

        2. Since you are new to the blog, the anonymous you are talking to is known as PaintChips. He ate too many paint chips with lead in them so he has the effects of lead poisoning. He also uses multiple aliases with many different names. I think the last time a partial list was provided it showed a dozen different names along with different icons. It’s good he hangs around here because that keeps him out of the nail salon and that probably keeps him from being arrested. Some will call him Peter because before the lead poisoning got worse he was known as Peter Hill.

  14. In Turkey’s mind, the email “scandal” was such an important thing. Where has the concern been about private email servers when Trump and his family/administration has used them? Where has the concern been when Trump uses a private unsecured cell phone to conduct government business.

    Face it, this was a manufactured scandal and nothing that had happened in the last four years suggests Republicans or Trump take National security information security seriously.

  15. Russia, Russia, Russia!

    – Hillary Clinton
    ____________

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

    1. Almost 40 years ago I delivered rental furniture to Casey’s condo in San Bruno, CA just off Sneath Lane, 15 minutes S of San Francisco.

  16. And then there’s this:

    “VEEP & CREEP Minnesota Freedom Fund backed by Kamala Harris ‘bailed out registered sex offender accused of raping an 8-year-old girl”

    THE Minnesota Freedom Fund that has been backed by Kamala Harris allegedly bailed out a registered sex offender who was accused of raping an eight-year-old girl.

    – Mollie Mansfield

  17. Trump said be believes the Russians, and his supporters say they believe the Russians. So it seems they have picked a side, Turley and Trump have thrown everything against the wall to see what sticks, and the only thing that has stuck is the willful ignorance of Turley’s and Trump’s cult base that live in a bubble of misinformation and misdirection of the facts.

    1. Exocoetidae, you are a prime example of my previous post. What facts the ones that came yesterday or previously which pinned the tail on the Democratic Donkey?

  18. The smallest effective difference in how facts are presented by the media, create visual clutter effective enough to dissuade further investigation for the whole truth. Minimal contrasts of secondary facts related to the primary investigations obscure a true understanding of the facts. The relative negative perspective of the propagandist regarding anything President Trump, creates a bubble where the truth caroms off it surface producing a safe place for the Liberal to hide with their Patrician self. When truth is emphasized that reflects negatively against your ideas, and you reject the truth, then you emphasize nothing except noisy clutter.

  19. Just another desperate attempt to pivot away from Trump’s failings and the fact that he is falling further behind Biden in the polls. Nothing in this piece changes the fact that the Trump campaign did feed information to Russians who used the campaign’s internal polling information to spread lies about Hillary Clinton on social media in areas where it had the greatest chance of taking hold. That is cheating, and no amount of “investigate the investigators” or other attempted bombshells are going to change this fundamental fact. At this point, no one cares anymore, other than the Fox News disciples who tune in for their daily affirmation.

    We do care, however about our well-being and survival because Trump has decided he has the right to control public health policy (for all of us, apparently, whether or not we agree), and that it’s OK to let people get sick, some of whom will die, as opposed to taking reasonable measures to control the spread of COVID. He actually encourages people not to wear masks, to push in-person school attendance and re-opening businesses in spite of the fact that COVID is surging again in a number of states. He also has decided that he can over-ride longstanding vaccine safety protocols and push an insufficiently-tested vaccine onto the market just in time for the election, thinking that the American public is stupid and don’t see this for what it is. He also has decided instead of priortizing stimulus money to individuals and small businesses, that his priority will be to shove another ultra-conservative onto the SCOTUS, to hear the appeals after he loses the election. Explain to me again, you Trumpsters, why you don’t think he aspires to be a dictator.

    And, Turley, you continue to prove your lack of objectivity. There can no longer be any doubt.

    1. First, apologize to President Trump and the American people for supporting the Democrat/Russia collusion coup. Then and only then should we move on to your next disastrous, false allegation. We may even find a moment for this bs.

    2. Natch asks a good question:

      “explain to me again, you Trumpsters, why you don’t think he aspires to be a dictator.”

      if he wanted to be a dictator here is what he would have done in short order, instead, he never has:

      1. fired Jeff Sessions as soon as he passed on the Meuller “investigation”– but he did not, rather, he let it roll and it essentially confirmed Trump’s position in the end
      2. he would have hired or caused into action wetworkers to eliminate those who perpetrated the Russia hoax. Ten cold bodies of well known instigators starting with Brennan would have sent a powerful message that further seditionist mischief would not be tolerated. Probably if he could have picked off the top 10 he could have easily found another 100 of next tier down, foot-dragging seditionists and saboteurs to execute, too. But they still run around, alive, free, and causing more harm to society.
      3. he would have started a hot war with the PRC. That would have been awful but all the dictatorial powers he wanted were right there for the taking.
      but he only engaged a “trade war” which has benefitted our country on the net.
      4. he would have invoked the Insurrection act and sent the 82d airborne to liquidate the ANTIFA in Portland and thereabouts. For starters. Instead, he merely sent some marshalls and deputies to protect the besieged federal courthouse from the rabid dogs, who suffered all of a few boo boos and some arrests. Piddly, weak, response, hardly dictator stuff.
      5. Confiscated assets of the financiers of the ANTIFA and BLM rioters and insurgents using various legal means. Maybe locked up one very old and yet troublesome bilionaire born in Hungary. Or sent him to sleep with the fishes.
      6. Stripped Silicon valley of its section 230 immunity by executive order
      7. spanked the global mass media by any means necessary and brought them to heel for their crimes against our nation.
      8. Replaced all seditionist generals who dared to oppose the commander in chief

      Those are my top 8. I can think of more if you like? Obviously, he is no dictator. he barely comes up to Abe Lincoln’s boot-straps where executive abuses are concerned.

      1. My God, you are delusional. The US trade deficit reached the highest number in 14 years: https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2020… So much for Trumpy Bear’s little trade wars and tariffs benefitting the country to the net. He’s no leader, a poor negotiator and no businessman. His string of business failures proves this. His trashing of the successful economy he inherited proves this. The economy will not bounce back until the pandemic is brought under control. Trump is clueless on how to do this, but most of all, he doesn’t care.

        The Mueller Report proved that Trump cheated, with Russia’s help, and that Trump obstructed justice. The American Intelligence Community all agree. Dan Coats was fired for refusing to lie about this. Look it up.

        Antifa and BLM are not organizations: there are sentiments. Chris Wray testified to this under oath. Watch some other channel than Fox if you want to learn more.

        Seditionist generals? Are you also on dexamethosone and have brain swelling? How many former CIA, FBI, Generals and other worthy former government employees does it take to convince you that Trump is a cheater, crook, liar, and unfit to serve? Why don’t you believe them? Their oath is to the Constitution, not to an election cheater.

        1. I don’t watch tv. except for zombies. that’s on AMC.

          I take a little bit of the nasal inhaler each day for allergies but it doesn’t seem to affect my mood much.

          I was hoping you would call me a fascist for imagining these things. Can’t I get any respect around here for trying?

          “molti nemici, molto onore!”

          1. I have been telling Republicans including Trump this forever.

            Now i guess I have to tell you.

            Trade deficits do not matter.

            If the US can exachange green slips of paper for goods and china or any other country chooses to just hold on to those green slips of paper then the US is better off.

            There are few things that China or any other country can do with those green slips of paper.

            They can buy US goods and services and the trade defict drops.

            They can buy US property and companies – that does not effect trade deficits – but it is God for the US for China to invest in the US.

            They can buy US debt, again good for the US.

            They can pile the green slipps of paper up and burn them – good for the US.

            They can hold on to them – good for the US.

            There is nothing they can do that is not good for the US.

            Adam Smith 250 years ago noted that in trade nations that horde money lose. They harm their standard of living.

  20. Well, I guess we suspected all along that the Obama Administration was filled with crooks, top to bottom.

Comments are closed.