Trump vs. Clinton I

tvc1It isn’t hard to see that the Liberal’s are scared shitless about losing this election, which they will and badly.  Tonight, the lifelong liar meets the negotiator in a battle many people see as Good vs. Evil.  While my support is for Trump, I see him as a centrist rather than a true conservative, I also see Clinton as the worst kind of Liberal that should be in jail, not debating tonight.  Never the less, we still have to have an election.  October is just s few days away, and with that usually a surprise comes with it.  I’m gonna predict that October will bring many surprises, some of which may not be good.  Enjoy the circus and celebrate.

In celebration of the continuing illusion of choice, here are 28 things we won’t hear tonight:

  1. The government is not our friend. Nor does it work for “we the people.”

  1. Our so-called government representatives do not actually represent us, the citizenry. We are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests whose main interest is in perpetuating power and control.
  1. Republicans and Democrats like to act as if there’s a huge difference between them and their policies. However, they are not sworn enemies so much as they are partners in crime, united in a common goal, which is to maintain the status quo.
  1. Presidential elections are not exercises in self-government. They are merely business forums for selecting the next CEO of the United States of America, Inc.
  1. No matter which candidate wins this election, the police state will continue to grow. In other words, it will win and “we the people” will lose.
  1. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
  1. Twenty years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: “What’s the difference between a politician and a psychopath?” The answer, then and now, remains the same: None. There is virtually no difference between psychopaths and politicians.
  1. Americans only think they’re choosing the next president. In truth, however, they’re engaging in the illusion of participation culminating in the reassurance ritual of voting. It’s just another manufactured illusion conjured up in order to keep the populace compliant and convinced that their vote counts and that they still have some influence over the political process.
  1. More than terrorism, more than domestic extremism, more than gun violence and organized crime, the U.S. government has become a greater menace to the life, liberty and property of its citizens than any of the so-called dangers from which the government claims to protect us.
  1. The government knows exactly which buttons to push in order to manipulate the populace and gain the public’s cooperation and compliance.
  1. Fear, which now permeates the populace, leads to fascism.
  1. If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.
  1. America’s shadow government—which is comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes right now and operates beyond the reach of the Constitution with no real accountability to the citizenry—is the real reason why “we the people” have no control over our government.
  1. The government does whatever it wants.
  1. You no longer have to be poor, black or guilty to be treated like a criminal in America. All that is required is that you belong to the suspect class—that is, the citizenry—of the American police state. As a de facto member of this so-called criminal class, every U.S. citizen is now guilty until proven innocent.
  1. Any police officer who shoots to kill rather than incapacitate is no longer a guardian of the people. By appointing himself judge, jury and executioner over a fellow citizen, such a police officer short-circuits a legal system that was long ago established to protect against such abuses by government agents.
  1. Whether instigated by the government or the citizenry, violence will only lead to more violence. Anyone who believes that they can wage—and win—an armed revolt against the American police state is playing right into the government’s hands.
  1. “We the people” are no longer shielded by the rule of law. While the First Amendment—which gives us a voice—is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled.
  1. Government eyes are watching you. They see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet. Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.
  1. By gradually whittling away at our freedoms—free speech, assembly, due process, privacy, etc.—the government has, in effect, liberated itself from its contractual agreement to respect our constitutional rights while resetting the calendar back to a time when we had no Bill of Rights to protect us from the long arm of the government.
  1. Private property means nothing if the government can take your home, car or money under the flimsiest of pretexts, whether it be asset forfeiture schemes, eminent domain or overdue property taxes. Likewise, private property means little at a time when SWAT teams and other government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, wound or kill you, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family.
  1. If there is an absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off.
  1. Parents no longer have the final say over what their kids are taught, how they are disciplined, or what kinds of medical care they need. From the moment they are born to the time they legally come of age, young people are now wards of the state.
  1. All you need to do in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, question government authority, or generally live in the United States.
  1. Americans are powerless in the face of militarized police.
  1. Despite the revelations of the past several years, nothing has changed to push back against the American police state. Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
  1. Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, and forced inclusion in biometric databases are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.

    Finally, we all bleed red. And we all suffer when violence becomes the government’s calling card. Remember, in a police state, you’re either the one with your hand on the trigger or you’re staring down the barrel of a loaded gun. The oppression and injustice—be it in the form of shootings, surveillance, fines, asset forfeiture, prison terms, roadside searches, and so on—will come to all of us eventually unless we do something to stop it now.

  1. Welcome to your real world!


  1. ENJOY! 😀 😀 😀 😎

  2. Tonight, the lifelong liar meets the negotiator in a battle many people see as Good vs. Evil.

    They’re both life-long liars.

    They’re both life-long negotiators.

    Neither of them are “good” nor “evil.

    And “many people” are idiots.

  3. While my support is for Trump, I see him as a centrist rather than a true conservative, I also see Clinton as the worst kind of Liberal that should be in jail, not debating tonight.

    Trump is all over the map. It’s impossible to know if he’s a centrist or a libertarian or a liberal because he’s taken virtually every position on virtually every issue in this campaign. The only things he’s been consistent about are “Muslims are bad, m’kay” and “WALL WALL WALL WALL!” and “China took our jobs!”

    He also, by the way, is a (probable) criminal who should be in jail, not debating tonight, having (possibly) committed perjury or attempting to buy influence from elected officials and illegally using his charity to pay fines for his other companies. (this, my father-in-law, who is a pro-Trump lawyer, concedes is “almost definitely criminal,” but he’ll still vote for Trump because Clinton yada yada yada yada). This is to say nothing about his bribe of a Florida AG to drop an investigation against Trump U, nor the fact that his Trump U was almost certainly a criminal scam to begin with and ignoring the plagiarized lesson plans.

    So, let’s not pretend he’s pure as the driven snow, shall we?

    • Turned out the timing on the Florida AG thing was all wrong. That’s why it went away. Surprise, NYT straightened that out. Trump U, another dumb vanity project. How’s but Clinton U and the 16 Million to the :”charity” that netted the 55 mil contract approved by state? No hard and fast on anything pertaining to using the charitable trust to pay fines.

      Influence elected officials? Like Hillary?

      We can play this game all day

      • We can play this game all day

        That’s my point!

        G-Man seems to be portraying Trump as this white knight while Hillary is the evil sullied politician.

        As I said (above):

        They’re both life-long liars.

        They’re both life-long negotiators.

        He’s a little less polished, a little flashier, a lot more charismatic. She’s smarter (though he’s no idiot, popular lefty opinion notwithstanding), more policy driven, more specific. He has swaths of business experience, while she has political experience.

        Big Business or Big Politics, they’re two sides of the same coin. Rules and tactics vary slightly, but to cut it in either, you’re going to leave a wake of disreputable activities.

        They’re both sullied. They’re both “playing the game.” They both have ulterior motives (in fact, I think they only have ulterior motives). They both have massive egos (pretty much a requirement in order to believe you are qualified for POTUS).

        The main differences are (A) temperament / tactics and (B) idiology.

        (A) she’s calmer, more thoughtful, less rash, less impulsive and, while still a total liar, at least less casual about it. He is a juvenile, name-calling, bully – though I can’t rule out that this is a brilliant and deliberate tactic. Regardless, he only seems to know one response to perceived slights and that is to attack – and that is not a character trait I like in the guy with the nuclear football.

        (B) She’s a center-left technocrat. That’s not to say that she wouldn’t sacrifice her ideals in a heartbeat on the alter of her ambition (she would), but given her druthers, she has 40-ish years of political history saying where she (generally) stands. And, generally, it’s fairly decent. Perfect? Hell no. But I’m a realist, and she’s not terrible. More business as usual. Bill Clinton part III, or Obama part III, whatever. Is it great? Eh, it’s ok.

        Trump, however, is all over the place. I have no idea where he stands on anything except “Wall good,” “china bad,” and “no Muslims until some vague ‘figuring out of things’ that might not happen in our lifetimes.” All I can say for sure is that he’s a serial liar who says whatever he needs to say at a given moment. I suspect he’s actually fairly moderate with a few wild views and that he’d be very good to the wealthy – but beyond that…? Who knows?

        I’d rather vote for an acceptable if imperfect candidate than a loose-cannon of an unknown wildcard.

        The devil you know, you know?

        • I have no clue where you get the idea that she is calm. Everything I have ever seen dictates otherwise.

          All of a sudden Trump will blow up the world! Well, I have heard that one before, twice. Goldwater did not get the chance and as he aged became the “beloved elder statesmen” and Reagan did the exact opposite of what was expected .

          I remember a very pro Israel friend once telling me that only Menachim Begin could negotiate with the PLO because he was tough and no one would expect him to negotiate. Ditto with Nixon on Red China. Ditto with the staunch ant-communist Reagan on Russia and I see the same in Trump.

          Her whole tenure at State was an unmitigated disaster.

          Human nature does not by and large change, whether you are negotiating to build resorts or to sign peace treaties. There is no SPECIAL government personality that you take on by being in and around government no magic that you are born with . So, if you want to see how Trump might do, look at his deals. Did they work by and large? And, I will tell you, there is nothing worse than sitting through a real estate negotiation. Nothing!

        • I see Trump as maybe getting some changes done that can positively affect all of us economically. Your probably too young to remember the “Giant Sucking Sound” debate. That was about NAFTA and the “giant sucking sound” was about jobs leaving the U.S.

          Ross Perot was a businessman, like Trump. Perot was spot on about NAFTA, Bush 1 negotiated it and Clinton signed it. Hitlary supported it. This is a big reason why we are a “service” based economy instead of a “manufacturing” based economy. We were a much better nation when manufacturing was the king.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Gman… Father when he was still amongst us, rarely ever got angry. One of the angriest I ever saw him was when Ross Perot was running for President. He had apparently several run in’s with Perot when Ross was still in sales at IBM……My fingers would auto-censor what he said. I could only imagine what he’d be saying today about Hillary though, when most of his IBM career was working with government defense contracts.

            • It doesn’t seem that being nice and being successful go hand in hand to often. I can accept that as far as what a President should be, successful and a freaking prick when needed.

            • Got a old High School friend, big shot bank lawyer who feels exactly the same about Trump as your Dad did about Perot.

              You do not have to be liked……but you do have to be respected.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                In sales, salemen would move from account to account. The deal was that the replacement sales rep usually took over at a point and completed the project. The sale commission would then be divided proportionately by the effort and time reps spent. Perot was smooth….he’d convince the customer that everything the previous person did was all wrong. Claim he’d have to start over at square one, thereby nullifying all work done by previous sales reps and claimed the whole commission. Dad said, that if Perot had not left IBM and started his own company somebody would probably would have done some serious bodily harm to him.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Never in all her days has Hillary been a center left technocrat.

    • Checked your links….Salon dot com………..Freaking laughable.

      • Rich coming from the guy who posts Breitbart links…

        But fine. Pick a different link. I just pasted the first ones that came up.

        Point is, they’re both fairly scummy.

  4. I’m gonna predict that October will bring many surprises, some of which may not be good.

    Headline: “Trump crushed to death by falling giant marble bust of Trump in the Trump Boardroom of the Trump Plaza broadcast live on TrumpTV. Hillary still polling at less than 50% vs Trump’s corpse.”

  5. Trump- Riding the crest of the populist wave at the moment. Check Teddy Roosevelt for comparisons.

    • Is “populist” code for “just tell the people whatever it is that you think they want to hear at the moment”?

      Did I miss a memo?

      • This populist code is “fed up with lying bitches”. It’s quite easy.

        Tonights drinking game….one shot every time Hillary lies. Have an ambulance sitting in the driveway for alcohol poisoning 😀

      • No, it is people who see an ever shrinking future for them and their kids.

        Gotta get out from behind the good life and visit the real world every now and then. That’ why I liked the Chairman Mao idea back in the late ’60’s. Every five years take the lawyers and intellectuals and professors and the politticiams out and give them a sabbatical in the rice paddies.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          That’s a capital idea….send them though to the Nike plant in Indonesia, or to some places in Colombia, where worker complaints are resolved with a 9mm.

          The lower end jobs that the migrants of the past got in the mills etc are being sent elsewhere. Those were the 1st steps in our ancestors rise out of their entry level position. Then the next level jobs are being replaced by visa’d workers. Any job that is data related and able to do via communication links is at risk…period.

          • All jobs are at risk.

            Computers are getting smarter and smarter. They will supplant us all in time.

            Within the decade, almost all the fast-food service jobs will be gone.

            Within a decade after that, all low-end service jobs (hair cuts, cleaning/janitorial, retail).

            By the end of 2040, there won’t be anyone working agricultural or manufacturing other than management and the people maintaining the robots. All drivers, cabs, ubers, etc will be fully robotic as well.

            Next mid-level service jobs: plumbing, auto mechanics, etc.

            After that will come the low-mid level financial service jobs and routine medical and legal.

            Next will be the senior financial and medical and legal.

            After that, the uprising begins. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

            • After that, the uprising begins. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.All they would be are different looking overlords than you have today. Hence the difference between Liberals and everyone else, Liberals have no problem with being ruled over, the rest would prefer to be free to think for themselves 😀

              • Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.

              • Mathius says “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.”

                Somehow I imagined you singing that in your best Janis Joplin imitation. 😉

  6. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

  7. I hereby predict that anyone who was for Hillary before tonight will all agree that she won the debate handily. I further predict that anyone who was for Trump before tonight will probably say he won tomorrow.

    Not the subtle difference in degrees of brainwashing!

    • I’ll take that action.

      One of them is going to blow the other out of the water. I agree that the hardliners will always think it’s their guy/gal, but for the majority, there’s going to be a solid winner here.

      She’s going to pit “safe bet policy wonk” against his “bombastic big ideas, big personality.” One of those is going to rout the other.

      He’s going to call her a liar and crook. She’s going to call him a liar and a con man. (they’re both going to be right). He’s going to say she’s “business as usual,” and she’s going to say his a “dangerous reactionary bloviating windbag*.” (they’re both going to be right). He’s going to lie (excessively and brazenly) and get away with it (like always) and she’s going to call him on it to no avail (like always). He’s not going to know something he really should (it won’t matter) and she’s going to be overly nuanced and technical (and put people to sleep). He’s going to hint at, if not directly support, conspiracy theories (health, Clinton Foundation) and he’ll bring up Bill’s infidelity (because, why not). She’ll point out that these have been discredited or are irrelevant (and no one will care because the headline will be “Trump brings up Lewinski!!!”). She’ll bring up Trump U, the AG bribe, the Muslim ban, Russian links, whatever, it doesn’t stick to him, so why bother?

      He doesn’t play the same game that “regular” politics plays and unless Clinton figured out how to counter that in the last few hours, it’s not going to be pretty.

      The question will be which comes across stronger: “he’s an irrational wildcard who can’t be trusted and doesn’t know the things he should know to be seriously considered” or “she’s a bitch and a crook who is so bogged down in the details she can’t make the case for the bigger changes that the country needs.” I think emotional appeal comes across far better in the context of a debate with minute-long soundbite Q&A&responses. And that heavily favors Trump since she has the charisma of a turnip.


      If he wins tonight, it’s going to be curtains for Hillary. She really needs to demolish him tonight. To show he’s an dangerous uninformed lunatic. And he’s lowered the bar so far, all he needs to do is pronounce his name right and (preferably) avoid calling her a bitch on national TV or shouting any racial epitaphs. Although, truthfully, that might help him. A “draw” is a major Trump victory.

      If Hillary destroys him, he’ll shrug it off, blame the moderators, say the fix was in, claim he was the real winner and the media is biased, whatever. It won’t matter. I’ve spoken to too many H supporters who think she’s a lock. They think this is going to be like a game of Jeopardy! where the candidate who knows more wins. And it’s not. They think her win is a given, so winning won’t move the needle. Short of making him cry on stage like a six year old girl, there’s nothing she can do to turn her win into anything substantive.

      Mathius prediction: on a purely logical basis: Hillary shutout. In terms of “really” winning: Trump walks away with the prize. (post-debate polls show a +5 swing for Trump).


      *if she actually uses the exact phrase “dangerous reactionary bloviating windbag,” finish your beer.**

      **I’m assuming you, like me, will be playing a drinking game with tonight’s show.

      • When it comes to debates, Hitlary should destroy him, but………… Trump is a master negotiator who will counter punch with some good and REAL facts. Hiltary will fail miserably trying to challenge facts.

        I think both will stay the polite course and stick to policy’s, as much as would like to see Trump call her a compulsive liar, I’m not confident that will happen. He will throw some zingers though.

        Hiltary’s health will be watched closely, she hasn’t been doing well lately.

        Hitlary’s death tax issue might get her, we all know that the loopholes will never allow the taxes to ever achieve her claimed nonsense. I’m sure Trump knows all about those loopholes, as does Hitlary.

      • No sir… the FBI……tonight is already done. I am not watching it at all….I am going bowling.


    This is what Trump wants to get fixed Mathius.

  9. Tonight’s drinking game:

    1. Every time Donald Trump refers to the success of one of his businesses or his negotiating acumen, drink.

    2. When Hillary Clinton directly or indirectly calls Trump a bigot or a racist or calls his supporters bigots or racists, drink.

    If Trump follows up this accusation by countering that Hillary is actually the racist because he loves minorities more than she does, do a shot.

    3. If Donald Trump mentions Bill Clinton’s affairs in the Oval Office, drink.

    If Trump accuses Bill Clinton of rape and Hillary Clinton of helping to cover it up, do a shot.

    4. When Hillary references Trump’s bankruptcies or refers to his businesses as unsuccessful, drink.

    5. When Donald Trump uses the word “HUGE” drink.

    If he refers to his huge penis, do a shot.

    If he refers to his huge penis, stands up, drops his pants and swings it around like a helicopter, this may seem uncouth, but it probably wins him Florida – finish your drink.

    6. Every time Hillary Clinton mentions Barack Obama, drink.

    7. When Trump visibly reacts with a face of disbelief to something Hillary says, drink.

    If he leaves his jaw hanging open for more than three seconds then you have to do a shot.

    8. When either candidate calls the other a liar or accuses the other of lying, drink.

    Note: this will be enough to get you drunk by itself.

    9. When Trump mentions Hillary’s emails, building his wall, or Benghazi drink.

    If Trump refers to Hillary as the worst secretary of state in our nation’s history, do a shot. (If Hillary responds, “Name three secretaries of state in this nation’s history Donald,” finish your bottle. Because Trump won’t be able to name three.)

    10. When Trump uses the word “great” as in make America great, make great deals, or describes himself in this manner, drink.

    If he uses the word great two times in the same sentence, do a shot.

    11. If Hillary begins to cough and/or passes out, drink.

    If they cut to commercial break and when we come back Hillary’s body double is there debating, do a shot.

    12. When Trump mentions a building he has built or his daughter, drink until the count of five.

    This is the number of biological children Donald Trump has.

    13. If Trump references Hillary’s health, stamina or energy, drink.

    If he flexes and kisses his bicep immediately after doing so, do a shot.

    14. When Trump uses the word “disaster” to refer to anything Hillary has done, drink.

    95% of all Trump comments include the word great or disaster. This is scientific fact.

    15. Drink when Hillary says, “Black Lives Matter.”

    When Trump responds by saying, “All Lives Matter,” and “Blue Lives Matter,” finish your drinks and demand that social media die.

    16. If Trump calls Hillary a bitch or a cunt, finish your drink and just pass out.

    (blatantly stolen from online)

    • You have a problem…..I did not leave you enough grog to play. You will probably have to go to Buck’s and drink his foo foo drinks with little umbrellas.

      • Buck’s foo foo drinks!? Really now colonel?

        I’ll have you know I watched the debate with a double scotch, neat. And now I’m heading home…stupid delayed train…

  10. Just A Citizen says:

  11. With all this stuff going on, I had to sit down and think of just who I am…..and it was not easy…

    I was born a white male and that apparently makes me a racist.

    I am a fiscal and a moral conservative and that apparently makes me a fascist.

    I am a heterosexual and that apparently makes me a homophobe.

    I am non-union and that apparently makes me a traitor to the working class.

    I am spiritual and identify with no religion and that apparently makes me an infidel.

    I am older than 65 and that apparently makes me an old man ( I prefer seasoned citizen ).

    I think and I reason and I believe very little of what I read and hear on the media and that apparently makes me reactionary.

    I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive American culture and that apparently makes me a xenophobe.

    I value my safety and that of my family and I appreciate the police force and law and order which makes me a right wing extremist.

    I believe in hard work , fair play, and fair compensation according to each individual’s merits and that apparently makes me anti-socialist.

    I acquired a good education without student loans and no debt at graduation and have been debt free all of my life and that apparently makes me an elitist and some kind of under achiever.

    I believe in the protection and defense of the homeland by all citizens which apparently makes me a militarist.

    I believe in owning guns and that a well regulated militia happens to mean “we the people:.

    And now, to confuse everything, I am not sure which bathroom to use anymore…..So please help me…just who am I?

    Oh…wait….that makes me a Texan……………whew!!!!

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Doesn’t that make you feel so “deplorable”?

      FYI…..Can’t get the pain killers I need until after Oct 5th, so I hit my local around the corner,…..regardless I was toast 1/2 hour before the debate and am disqualified from the drinking games because I failed the substance tests, before the actual competition.

      Didn’t watch any of the debate and neither did anyone at the bar. But the regulars we had some discussions about the candidates. Conversation slowed if an unknown customer came in because we didn’t want to affect the owners business….findings are

      1) Any military person, past or present despised Hillary especially about the email BS, regardless of her past history for decades.
      2) The young folks, like in the “carding age” let me see you id age…..didn’t have a clue about anything. They knew nothing or followed the seriousness.
      3) Even the military folks and those that said they’d vote trump, were not pleased for any number of reasons, but were absolutely adament that Hillary belonged behind bars, and even if she doesn’t the fact that she claims she doesn’t remember at least 12 security classes and signing that she understood…etc etc etc….just for that doesn’t belong a president
      4) back to # 2. with all the information available from so many sources, good bad or otherwise, the youngters are not taking advantage of that….Almost to a 100% marks, they say they don’t know anything about that. I don’t follow history, I know nothing about what brought us to this point. That is sad…..It’s not that anybody was going to jump on anyone but were legitimately looking for counter explanations or debate……NOTHING came back from anyone under 25.

      Sorry….I believe we need an amendment to the constitition… No poll tax, no really needing property…just a test that you really have some reasonable understanding of what is going on….plus that you identify as an AMERICAN…not a somoli american, not a mexican american, not a german american not a afro american,,,,just an AMERICAN which even with all our aired faults are the most hybrid culture in the world, regardless what anyone else says.

  12. True to my word, I did not watch the debates nor am I going to listen to any of the news until I see who says what on here….running a little experiment.

    • Clinton came in a little stiff.
      Trump came in a little aggressive.

      They settled down eventually.

      He seemed a little scattered, a little defensive. A little evasive.

      She seemed like she was doing a deliberate impression of a disappointed grandma and it came off, to me, maybe just a touch flat or condescinding (though maybe that was the goal – to piss Trump off?).

      On balance, she did marginally better, got in a few better shots. Nothing significant.

      The narrative, Mathius predicts, will be of Clinton eviscerating Trump (that will be the term they use), and it’s not accurate. At best it was 60/40, and more importantly, she needed a big win because of the expectations game, and she gave us a small “win.” Not enough.

      I predicted post-debate polls at Trump gaining 5 points. I’ll amend to “no change.”

      The left seems gloat-y. I’m not sure what they were watching.

      • Disagree Mathius – I don’t think Clinton eviscerated Trump, but she did a lot better than a 60/40 split. Despite a few moments where she seemed condescending (or just plain fed up with hearing some of Trump’s meandering nothingness), she did better than any prior debate I’ve seen her in.

        • It’s the first time in years that she’s been able to have a debate without having to defend her left-flank.

          I really loved the exchange:

          CLINTON: I have a feeling that by, the end of this evening, I’m going to be blamed for everything that’s ever happened.

          TRUMP: Why not?

          CLINTON: Why not? Yeah, why not?


    • First thought right off the bat…RED…Red, Hillary? It was way too much red. Like Satan red.

      Thought Trump started off strong. She says spend hundreds of millions on solar panels…he said we already tried that and it failed. She says stop and frisk is unconstitutional, he says WRONG. I’ll take his word since Rudy backed him up and he would know. He asked why , after 30 years , are you just now offering solutions? She rambled about being a senator, like that was an escape hatch for not having solutions til now. I thought that being a senator is the perfect place for coming up with solutions. He nailed her on TPP and Nafta. That got her angry. her reply…That’s your opinion.

      Seemed like after the first half hour it got flat. They both rambled. Trump got stuck on Sean Hannity for a minute there, that was bad, but his point was that he didn’t support going into Iraq.

      Trump held his own against a seasoned debater. I’m thinking he’s holding back for some serious kill shots in the next debates.

      • oh yeah, Fox just reminded me…Trump to Hillary paraphrase…You’re trying to act holier than thou, doesn’t work. LOL

    • I figured they would both have moments where they came off bad and they did. I figure we’ll be hearing non-stop about Trump not paying any taxes and saying not paying contractors is just business.

      Hillary had moments of looking Presidential and calm to looking defensive, condescending. a little nuts a couple times, and a very bad actor at others.

      But my overall impression of Trump, which I will admit surprised me, was of a tough President who actually cared.
      Hillary looked like a politician.

      Have no idea how undecideds will feel-mainly because I don’t know how at this point one can be undecided.

      • a little nuts a couple times

        I thought, in the beginning, while she was reciting her memorized openings, that it seemed like her human-emulation program was malfunctioning. It was bizarre.

        I’m still going to vote for her, but I’m not entirely convinced that she’s not a robot or a lizard-person wearing a human-suit.

      • Have no idea how undecideds will feel-mainly because I don’t know how at this point one can be undecided.

        Me neither.

        My guess is that 90% of undecideds are either completely and totally politically oblivious and aggressively disinterested (the way I am aggressively disinterested in the Kardashians) or they’re lying because it’s “cool.”

        I find my like of Clinton to ebb and flow, but my dislike of Trump stays pretty constant. I imagine it’s the same on the other side. Unless she gets caught killing and eating her staffers, I’m likely to continue supporting her over him.

        • He, He -I see we’ve both thought about this-Mine is-the only way Hillary would get my vote is if I thought her opponent was the antichrist.

  13. By the way, there were a few bald-faced lies in there. What do y’all have to say about them?

    Trump claimed he never supported the Iraq war.

    He claimed he never said climate change was a hoax.

    He claimed he never suggested that the US might negotiate down its debt to play creditors less than the full amount owed.

    Don’t get me wrong, there were plenty of lies and shadings of the truth to go around, but I want to know what you guys think of the fact that some of these are dead-to-rights, fact-checkably, certifiably false. The tweets are right there. There’s no gray area. These are out-and-out lies. Are you guys ok with this?

    And what does it say about him that he’s so comfortable with lying he does it even when he knows he’s going to get caught?

    • No different than Clinton on the lies…..both are pathological

      • But to answer your question…..since I did not see the debates and I am specifically not going to watch any news for now….I will answer your question…..You appear to be ok with Clinton….I am ok with Trump. I actually want the appearance of a loose cannon in the WH….I am not bothered with his finger on the button as much as I am bothered with Clinton on the button.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          The candidates that ran on, I kept us out of war, I will not send our good american boys to where ever….lied through their teeth. Wilson and Johnson most notible. The candidates that were branded as warmongers, loose cannons, etc that actually gained the highest office had the most peaceful tenures in office……we are if Hillary gets in will see a complete replay of the cold war against Russia….not against the Islamic radical nations, who seriously vow to destroy us and the west. Just look at the MSM daily….Russian this Russian that, demand that Russian planes are grounded

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        d’accord…..nobody was happy about the choices in toto. The people seriously have to ask….do they believe they are better off than they were a few years ago. Do they believe that another 4-8 years with someone vowing to continue and double down on the past, I’ll say 16 years, truly want a continuation or are willing to risk a potential change?

        Merkel says…..there is NO PLAN to bail out Deutche Bank. With what anyway? They’re in a negotiated settlement phase with the US government for a potential $14B on the meltdown in ’08. With the biggest bank in Germany collapsing the ECB is toast.

    • Mathius. On Hitlary’s E-mail issue answer. Forget all the lies she said as things played out, she knowingly tried to bypass Federal law and admitted she made a mistake. The fact that her “mistake” involved issues of National Security that were likely hacked, her JUDGEMENT at this point in her career is unacceptable. That should be the #1 issue with her, lack of good judgement.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        The NSA has got to have 100% of her emails. by the way….where’s Julian Assange’s information?

    • Regarding Iraq….I didn’t fact check, but all I’ve heard him saying for a year is that he didn’t support going into Iraq. If he approved earlier, that’s news to me.

      • After further review….Trump to Cavuto in 2003:

        Donald Trump: Well I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing we’re going in, we’re not going in. You know, what happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? I mean he would go in and attack. He wouldn’t talk. I mean we have to, you know, it’s sort of like either do it or don’t do it…. Well, he’s [Bush] either got to do something or not do something perhaps. Because perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. Perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations. You know, he’s under a lot of pressure. He’s, you know I think he is doing a very good job but of course if you look at the polls a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the, the Iraqi situation is a problem and I think the economy is a much bigger problem.

        • I want to know why he clings to MacArthur and Patton. Georgie Patton worked for IKE who was the overall strategist.

          Doug MacArthur was a brilliant strategist who was constantly shooting himself in the foot because he thought that he was God’s brother by another mother. To this day there is no excuse for the airplanes lined up on the ground in perfect rows AFTER he knew about Pearl Harbor. Then there was the issue of the “other” American Army in the Philippines on the other island that was basically ordered to surrender without firing a shot. Lastly we have the wilful ignorance about Chinese troops in Korea.

          It is lucky that neither Hillary nor her staff no diddly squat about military history cause if I opposed him, I’d pound him into the ground for singling out egomaniacs as role models.

  14. I saw basically a clusterfuck. Trump was Trump, much like the Primary debates. Hitlary was smug and somewhat condescending. What will resonate? Her email stuff was on purpose and Trump proved that well. Politicians talk and do nothing! That one is as true as any statement coming from a nominee I’ve heard in recent times. Hitlary had her moments as well, but nothing that is truly memorable. Trump missed several open doors.

    Trump jumps 2-3 points in the polls (at least the honest ones). Speaking of the polls, everyone notice how Trump’s numbers rose after the credibility of the polls were questioned?

    Trump will be a decent President. Congress is still the same corrupt Congress, so he can’t do to much damage. He will be able to get things done, that’s his nature. Hitlary is an establishment shill and her plans will NEVER improve anything, especially economically.
    Trump was also right about the economic bubble and I think he gave us a warning about what is to come.

    The moderator was handled well by Trump. Some questions were stupid, like the birther question. He answered that already and there are far more important issues to debate. I give the moderator a C-. At one point it seemed that Hitlary had previous knowledge of a question. Just body language observation.

  15. I watched the debate. Once again I am highly disappointed. Neither one showed a strong command of the facts and the condition of the country although I would have to give Donald some credit for bringing up the profit repatriation and debt. His explanations however, were not good nor clear enough for ordinary people to understand the significance. Most of Hillary’s comments were just canned answers well delivered but meaningless. Trump tried to point out that she has had plenty of time in DC to fix some of these problems but only made thing worse.

    Trump should have taken great exception to the birther question posed as being a racist attack on the president. Challenging the constitutional qualifications of any candidate or sitting president has nothing to do with race. If it is racist, then he should have labeled Hillary’s 2008 campaign as racists as well. Personally, I do not know where Obama was born. The BC is a fake, he did live in and did have citizenship in Indonesia. He did state in his book fly lief that he was born in Kenya, His college records remain sealed. These issues are ever bit as troubling as Donald’s taxes and Hillary’s emails.

    Trump did score in my book when he put nuclear weapons ahead of global warming as threat #1. As for whether or not he supported the war in Iraq, he should have said it is water over the dam, he had no vote on the issue unlike Hillary, the important part is what we do from today forward. I personally disagreed with going into Iraq but once there gave it my support and hoped for a speedy solution, knowing full well we would be there for a generation. Unfortunately we pulled out, created a vacuum and then armed the rebels in Syria who turned out to be ISIS. The latter is another point Donald missed.

    Donald did imply that the email server was intentional and not a mistake. He should have hammered that harder. With 16 yrs of experience in the WH and Senate, she knew the rules. She flagrantly violated those rules and got caught. But obviously she had a get out of jail free card. If we lived in a sane world, she would not have been on that stage.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Based only on the comments here tonight, I’d say that nobody woulkd be swayed from any point of view they previously held. The object was to sway those 15% that are with Gary Johnson or the “greens” I can’t help but feel the “libertarian” vote could possibly swing towards Hillary if they didn’t vote for their candidate. It’s just not in their definition as a libertarian. The Greens if they don’t vote for their candidate will go with Hillary. If all was even coming into the debate and the vote was soon, Trump by a couple %. If the Wikileaks has some teeth when released….the margin will be larger….bottom line we are so polarized right now across all spectrums of this nation, even if by some miracle the truth in all things came down and bit us on our collective asses the results will be within a couple percent.
      Comey laid out a dead bang case of all of Hillary’s vioations of the law and didn’t even touch a ton of them. Because they were not disclosed yet. Like the flagrant destruction of supoened (sp) material and evidence. Anyone that has ever worked anywhere near the government, as many of us have will not change our vote towards Clinton. Any military past or present will say NO MAS..Even the oppressed blacks have got to ask themselves, are we better or worse off now or before before we sold ourselves to the Democratic party. If the answer is honest, even if 10%-20% vote Trump, he will win.

      What are these people like Comey so afraid of. Their job????What’s it worth if you sold your honor out. He’d have been a HERO if he did his job and did a true honest investigation. Is Obama going to have everyone arrested…..he’d be impeached 1st.

      • I don’t think Comey was protecting Hillary. I think he was protecting Obama. We have since learned that Obama was communicating to HRC using a pseudonym. It was not stated if this was done on a private or government account. We know others in the administration also followed this practice to avoid FOIA searches. I think Comey was afraid that if all the information came out that it would create an unnecessary constitutional crisis so close to the end of O’s term. He laid out all the negative info on HRC in the hopes it would scuttle her run for the WH but as we see the MSM interpreted it as no foul. We have a bunch of gutless wonders running our government. I vote for our Col.

      • Donald has always maintained that we should have kept the Iraqi oil. Instead ISIS now uses it to fund their mission. In a similar vain, Afghanistan had large deposits of rare earth metals. Once again we failed to secure those for our use. Instead we let the Chinese get the contracts. China has large deposits of these materials already so they do not need them, except due to environmental concerns, they are practically the sole supplier of these materials. Hence they now have a virtual monopoly and we let it happen. Rare earths are needed to make many specialty allow, optics and high technology materials. They are strategic commodities but we no longer think strategically.

  16. Deutche Bank……..I wonder if anyone remembers my prediction on Deutche Bank earlier this year when it was discovered that the EU was combining and co-mingling assets between banks. I also reminded everyone that if an asset is lost, the repercussions would be devastating. Well, sir, Duetche Bank has a problem…a massive one. They are about to have a run on the bank. They do not have the cash nor do they have the assets to sell fro cash. As of today, they are 4.4 BILLION short. They are bankrupt. Most of us saw this years ago…that is, everyone except the US government.

    Merkel is not going to bail them out. Germany cannot…as they do not have the assets either. All of the EU assets are paper assets…..nothing hard and certainly no cash.

    The EU needs to crash anyway….it has been operating on a prayer and luck. Well, they have luck and all of it bad. American 401(k) investments in the Central Banks are about to go under. Cash reserves have been pulled out of Deutche Bank by the millions in the last three days. Germany’s cash reserves for its entitlement programs is gone and the next step is confiscation of cash in bank accounts. Negative interest rates have doomed the EU.

    It is going to be interesting to watch….

    Now, my next prediction is also coming true…..the Mexican Peso is falling out of bed. The investors, in the last three weeks has pulled out approximately $245 million from bond and hedge funds in Mexico. The peso is now 19.4 to the dollar and declining rapidly. Venezuela has cratered totally with school children reportedly fainting in school from lack of food There is no help to Mexico from there nor Brazil nor Colombia. Both countries dying on the vine due to devalued currency.

    The Colombian Market has just lost $550 million in investment pullouts and Brazil has shut off its gold manufacturing for foreign investment.

    All of these socialist countries are failing and failing fast. Venezuela has already confiscated the savings accounts of off shore holders….which I think is funny as hell. So, Venezuelan shelters in the oil and gas industry has produced losers. Cars and planes have been confiscated and people are dying of hunger. Too frigging bad.

    In short, foreign currency is not a wise investment anywhere…and that includes the Swiss Franc and the Krug……but this is nothing new to the investor but it should be a strong indicator on the election. IF the EU craters in the next 30 days…..Trump skates into the White House. He is the only one that understands this.

    The US is not in a position to strengthen the EU…it would be a devastating. There is no other currency out there strong enough to support the EU except the dollar. Soros had reported losing 6 billion yesterday alone…..Most of it on paper but paper backs notes.

    Going to be interesting.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      You and I have been about one paragraph apart on following the troubles with Deutchebank. The irony of this all is a few years ago when the ECB was looking for loans to deal with Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland they can and had a meeting with the Fed and Obama. Obama came on afterwards and said ” This will not cost the US taxpayer on dime” That is the money the Fed printed and loaned to the ECB was what 1-2 trillion? Gone within 2 years. So what if the ECB defaults on the notes.

      I through it was 20:1 in Mexico yesterday.

      Soros….he was and is a subversive anyway….hope he loses everything. His goal was to bring down the west at any cost.

      Brazil, with the impeachment and scandal of the pay to play of their new enlightened socialist president….

      • The peso bounces around more tha a Saturday night whore on a trampoline. It depends on where you go to get your transactions…..Here is today’s example. In San Miguel Allende, the dollar equates to 20.20…..that has never ever happened before. Go to the local banks here and you will see that it takes 21 pesos to get one dollar. Go to Mexico exchange houses and you will get only 18.8 pesos….

        Mexico is in trouble but no one wants to recognize it.

  17. The Trump warning last night of the potential collapse was mostly glossed over by everyone. He tried to say that the Fed and Yellin have engineered everything to remain ok till Obama gets out. Then, watch out.

    Looks like Trump pulled off the ropa dope thing again. By not losing his cool, he won! I can’t see it. It was a very lackluster performance and far less than I expected from him. There was a whole bunch of stuff that he could have just shrugged off.

    She DID get under his skin on the housing discrimination ’73 thing, The birther thing and the stiffing suppliers and sub contractors thing. He did not lose it but there were far better ways to address it.

  18. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Contained in this article is the writeup on a promotional booklet sent out by Obama’s publisher. The particular book promoted was never published, but later went on to publish “Dreams of my Father”.

    At this juncture debating who said what when about Obama is a waste of breath and serves only to distract from the larger issues at hand.

  19. I still have not turned on a news channel on the radio nor TV……SUFA is responding as I knew it would… surprises.

    What I have found interesting in talking with friends this morning…especially at the Fort Worth NAS Joint Reserve Base,,,aka JRB…..the Hillary supporters said she killed it….the Trump supporters said he wins……

    Mathius……I have a question for you before I watch the debate for myself and listen to all the pundits out there. As I can ascertain, your vote for Hillary is understandable given your work position….nothing with her changes and it is work as usual…that interprets to status quo. I can see Buck’s position to be the same because of his line or work as well…nothing changes and it is status quo. Both of you pretend…yes I said pretend…to be the greater good types but you are not. That is ok with me because you are consistent and that is your choice. Status quo with you and Buck is obviously more important than country. ( My interpretation, of course ). I say that because both of you write off the breaches of security that is criminal ( just because there is no prosecution does not mean there is no criminal intent…it simply follows your belief in selective enforcement…I get that ). There is no doubt now that her illegal,,,,yes, illegal…computer was hacked and that information was compromised. I am also perplexed at the fact that you see her sale of the Uranium to Russia while SOS as no big deal when it is now proven most of it went to Iran. I do not get your position on this. I also do not understand your position and acceptance of the Clinton foundation….but that is also your choice.

    So my question is this……why does not the breach of security…ALONE…dissuade you from voting for Hillary? And you cannot say you do not have the proof because I quoted and sent you the exact wording straight out of every manual we have. But you give a pass on this….or……you just do not see it as a problem.

    Like I said before…..keeping the status quo with me is just fine because I will make out like a bandit….and I will continue to do so….Hillary is as predictable as the rising sun in the East….and the IRS code will stay the same. The only people that get hurt with Hillary Clinton will be the middle class…..both you and Buck know that the elite folks ( wealthy ) will still avoid taxes…will not pay the inheritance tax that she claims she wants ( and will never get ). My tax rate right this minute, when I file my tax returns in a couple of weeks ( October 15 )….is going to be 9%….That will not change with Hillary but would change with Trump’s tax plan…so I lose with Trump but I still want him… I was wondering why National Security with you is not a priority for voting?

    • I was thinking about the “greater gooders” after doing some thinking while out marking trails to tree stands and blinds. The whole “greater good” mantra is a huge Liberal LIE. It is not supported by any facts, and in fact, the facts support the total opposite. With all the stuff about not standing for the National Anthem, this should be so clear to even the stupidest of people. Black Americans are WORSE off under Obama. Black Americans are living in hellish circumstances in Democrat controlled cities and towns and it’s being ignored.

      If the Greater Good mantra had any truth to it, the Greater Gooders would wise the hell up and never vote Democrat again. But, they won’t. So the LIE will continue and Black Americans will continue to be oppressed by Liberal Progressive political rule. Shameful!

    • Colonel:

      A few points:

      1) The E-mail scandal. I’m not going to get into it in detail now as I just don’t have the time, but while I don’t believe what she did should rise to the level of criminality or disqualification for office, I’ve long said that her handling of the situation is a major problem. She mishandled this from the beginning and someone on her staff should have been fired over it. It does raise concerns about her – I’ve never been a huge Hillary supporter — but just not to that level of disqualification, and especially not when compared to Trump.

      2) Trump’s taxes. I still cannot believe how poorly Trump has handled this situation. This was such an obvious issue throughout the campaign. I believe Hillary hit the nail on the head on two points — his charitable donations were not nearly as large has he likes to claim, and he is likely paying no (or very little) taxes. Assuming the latter is true, he should just come out and admit it and turn it into a positive — “You’re absolutely right! Of course I’m not paying any taxes. I’m making YUUUUGE amounts of money each year and yet pay nothing. And this is exactly what is wrong with our country’s tax code and needs to be changed…”

      3) Greater good / status quo — I can’t speak for Mathius, but I am not a status quo type of guy. I strongly believe we need to make changes in this country. Remember, I supported Bernie in the primary.

      • Someone on her staff should be fired-What, they put a server into her house without her knowledge?

        She broke every rule in the book-she did this with full knowledge that she was doing so.

        And she did it with Complete Indifference to the possible consequences -I personally would say her actions may well have reached the level of depraved indifference—Just because she wanted her E-Mails to remain private for political reasons.

        So I just got to ask-what level does her actions reach? For anyone else losing the right to hold governmental office or even a governmental job would be the minimum punishment.

        • So I just got to ask-what level does her actions reach? For anyone else losing the right to hold governmental office or even a governmental job would be the minimum punishment.

          Well, for starters, how about an actual conviction for such crimes?

          But I think what you’re missing is that Buck (I think) and I are saying is not that she’s innocent, nor that, in a normal election year would this not be a “disqualification,” but rather, this year, the choice is her or Trump. And given that choice, Buck and I will choose her – warts and all – over Trump.

          Because she’s not great.

          But Trump is terrible.

          • Don’t think that was Buck’s point-But to answer your question 1.I’m more surprised when the powerful are prosecuted than when they aren’t. 2. I’m not an idiot 3. I don’t believe hillary is an idiot.

            The point here is that the E-mails are a big deal and Hillary’s guilt is obvious. The only other conclusion is that she is a complete idiot . The dems. should have disqualified her and nominated another candidate.

            • 1. Sadly, agree.
              2. Happily agree.
              3. Neutrally agree.

              You say “big deal” they say “minor scandal blown out of all proportion.” For my money, I just don’t care about the emails. ::shrug::. Not a significant issue for me. I have other priorities. For you, it might be more important, and then you would vote accordingly. For me, I have different priorities, and this just doesn’t rank high enough to sway my vote. C’est la vie.

      • Buck, here is what I do not understand.

        You said…1) The E-mail scandal. I’m not going to get into it in detail now as I just don’t have the time, but while I don’t believe what she did should rise to the level of criminality or disqualification for office, ” Now, I notice that you used the term “should rise”….but I quoted on here the exact wording and it does rise to criminal and disqualification of office. I gave you the exact wording and quoted the source. So, please bear with me, I just do not get it. Mathius tried to argue the point with me that it does not rise to that level, yet she gets a totally free pass and peons like myself would have lost security clearance right off the get go and been relieved of command and would have gone through an article 32 investigation resulting in discharge from the Army. I have seen it many times and sat on many a courts martial. Disqualification from being the POTUS is the inability to maintain a security clearance.

        2) Why are Trump’s taxes, which I do not care about, are even an issue. But…will have to give you this….the Dems have managed to make taxes and bankruptcy a more important issue than National Security and the being responsible for the murders in Benghazi. I actually do not expect you or Mathius to understand National Security nor do I expect you to understand the issue of Benghazi….but I also did not expect you to follow a party line.

        3) Yes, I remember you supported Bernie as well but his policies were not greater good either. But that is ok… is your choice.

    • As I can ascertain, your vote for Hillary is understandable given your work position

      No. As far as I can tell, Trump would probably be better for me work-wise (at least short term).

      If nothing else, Hillary’s platform explicitly mentions wanting to expand Form PF filings which already make me want to shoot myself. Trump wants to (I think?) repeal Dodd-Frank entirely.

      Both of you pretend…yes I said pretend…to be the greater good types but you are not.

      Is that so?

      it simply follows your belief in selective enforcement

      I have been rather clear – repeatedly – and at great pains that I am NOT ok with selective enforcement.

      I think this willfully misrepresents my views.

      you see her sale of the Uranium to Russia while SOS as no big deal when it is now proven most of it went to Iran.

      First I’m hearing of it, so I’m not sure how I see it as “no big deal” when I don’t currently hold any opinion of it – including whether it’s true or not.

      why does not the breach of security…ALONE…dissuade you from voting for Hillary?

      Because Trump is so much worse.

      If I had another (viable) option, I’d take it. She’s not my first pick. She’s not even my third pick. Or my 20th, necessarily. But Trump is a shitty option and I’ll choose the lesser of two evils, thank you very much.

      My tax rate right this minute, when I file my tax returns in a couple of weeks ( October 15 )….is going to be 9%….That will not change with Hillary but would change with Trump’s tax plan

      Are you seriously suggesting that Trump is going to raise taxes on the wealthy?


      so I lose with Trump but I still want him…..

      I lose with Clinton, but I still want her.


      And ultimately irrelevant since this election will not be decided by New York or the occupied territory of the Republic of Texas Texas.

      so I was wondering why National Security with you is not a priority for voting?

      It is!

      But an email server isn’t as big of an issue as the guy suggesting that we should be encouraging a nuclear Japan/Korea as if that’s not going to kick off an arms race.

      An email server isn’t as big of an issue as the guy denying climate change (and then denying he denied climate change).

      An email server isn’t as big of an issue as the just treatment of Muslims and the cultural value of not being a bigoted asshole.

      An email server isn’t as big of an issue as not starting a trade war with China.

      An email server isn’t as big of an issue as getting into a diplomatic pissing match with our biggest trading partner over making them pay for a useless wall.

      An email server isn’t as big of an issue as suggesting that we partially default on the national debt(!!!).

      An email server isn’t as big of an issue as suggesting that we shouldn’t support our NATO allies.

      Et cetera.

      Is Clinton a good choice? Meh. She’s ok. Not great, fine. I’d rather Bill Part III. Or Bernie. Or Warren. Or Stein. Or, hell, Gary Johnson, even.

      But in the real world, the choice is Clinton or Trump. And I’ll choose Clinton 100 times out of a 100 in that match-up.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Here is a perfect example of what I have been saying about your arguments:

        You. “An email server isn’t as big of an issue as suggesting that we partially default on the national debt(!!!).”

        Actual available information:


        Trump floats comments designed to force broader discussion of key issues, like the US acting as the world’s policeman without full compensation. The DNC blows this into talking points claiming he wants Japan to have Nukes and to abandon NATO. You then repeat these talking points as factual. Begs the question; where do you get your news and information.

        I am not going to discount any source, except perhaps Daily KOS. Because I am finding more and more often that few sites are truly objective. It is taking more time to find the truth anymore. And even then my confidence in the findings is much less than it used to be.

      • Mathius says: I have been rather clear – repeatedly – and at great pains that I am NOT ok with selective enforcement.

        I think this willfully misrepresents my views.

        Ok, I do not wish to “willfully misrepresent”….I have interpreted your view that you cannot enforce all the laws on the books because there are simply not enough assets to do so, therefore, you pick the ones that you want or need to enforce…therefore selective enforcement is ok because there is no other choice.

        So, if that is correct, then selective enforcement is ok. I see no other interpretation and no gray area.

        Now, one other matter…as I said Hillary Clinton is business as usual. I would suggest this if you have not done so….Both economic packages are readily available in full. My accountants have been through them and their advice is stick with Clinton because your returns will be better. Trump will cost you.

        But, if you support Hillary then do so….I find your comparisons of the server to be rather academic…they are talking points. But, you support Clinton and that is that and I respect your choice….

        Finally…..”the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

        But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

        At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

        Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

        As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

        And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

        I do not know how you missed this……

        • Ok, I do not wish to “willfully misrepresent”….I have interpreted your view that you cannot enforce all the laws on the books because there are simply not enough assets to do so, therefore, you pick the ones that you want or need to enforce…therefore selective enforcement is ok because there is no other choice.

          So, if that is correct

          It’s not.

          So let me try to make this crystalline clear:

          We have too many laws on the books.

          Therefore you pick the ones you want to enforce we are all, effectively, criminals.

          This is fine NOT ok.

          Therefore selective enforcement is ok we should get rid of the excess laws.

          because there is no other choice.

        • But, you support Clinton and that is that and I respect your choice….

          No you don’t…

        • I do not know how you missed this……

          There are too many conspiracy theories circling around about Mrs. Clinton for me to keep tabs on them all.

          I’ll do a little digging on this when time permits. Thanks for the primer.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Re: Trump’s temperament.

    Anyone from his past writing and telling things like this?

    Like I said before Mathius. Your ignorance of who Hillary Clinton is can only be deliberate.

    Trump missed his chance, as I figured he would. As I have said before about this years candidates, a very sad day for America.

    Buck. If you truly supported Bernie you are part of the problem. That being a complete disconnect between what is reality and the Socialist dogma. Good grief.

    More interesting observation is how people continue to cling to their picks despite the fact their picks violate their own stated desires for political solutions. Mathius lays out his view on many issues then votes for Clinton who opposes ALL OF THOSE VIEWS. This begs the question why?

    Oops. Maybe Clinton does share your belief that the borders should be open. Only her reasons are the belief it will secure a Democratic Party majority for the next hundred years. Don’t believe me? Ever see Democrats calling for increased immigration from Europe?

    How could anyone think Clinton a “technocrat” or even a “policy wonk”, like her husband was. Her only attempt to dive into the weeds at a policy level was her involvement in health care reform, while first lady. It was a disaster. She showed no understanding of the issue and then she overplayed her hand. She thought she could just shove it down the country’s throat because the Dems held a majority. This is what you can expect of her if POTUS.

    Note to Buck: HRC was either in charge of the email decisions, which makes her culpable, or she was not, which makes her incompetent. So yes, it is DISQUALIFYING.

    • More interesting observation is how people continue to cling to their picks despite the fact their picks violate their own stated desires for political solutions. Mathius lays out his view on many issues then votes for Clinton who opposes ALL OF THOSE VIEWS. This begs the question why?

      ::raises eyebrow::

      Care to elaborate?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        If I had the explanation I would probably make millions on the rubber chicken circuit.

        Confirmation bias does not explain it, because it is actually a symptom in itself.

        You continually portray Clinton in a moderately obnoxious light despite all the evidence she is full blown obnoxious.

        This is why I keep saying your ignorance must be deliberate. The information on the Clinton’s is out there in the public arena. Just like the email stuff. Yet you constantly discount this information. So you tell me why.

        Perhaps you simply find Trump obnoxious so you fall back to your standard position of voting for a Democrat. This requires you rationalize in some way your choice. Because if you were true to who you are you wouldn’t vote for either of these schmucks.

        • ::sigh::

          Because if you were true to who you are you wouldn’t vote for either of these schmucks.

          If I were true to who I am, I’d probably have to burn the whole thing to the ground.

          I don’t want to vote fore either of these schmucks.

          I want to vote against the worse of the two.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            You have NOT made the case convincingly to me that you have made the correct choice based on your goal.

            Your decision does not appear to be fact based but is supported by the rhetoric of others. Those on the “farther left” side of this fight.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            “If I were true to who I am, I’d probably have to burn the whole thing to the ground.” Which begs the same question of you as you asked of SUFA the other day. Why don’t you burn it down? Why don’t you do something?

            “I don’t want to vote fore either of these schmucks.” Then don’t. No matter what you claim you are voting for someone. Because……

            “I want to vote against the worse of the two.” Voting for one to oppose the other gives sanction to the one you voted FOR. You are giving credibility to the very thing you want to burn down.

            • I was being mildly facetious with my burn it down comment*.

              That said, you are correct that a vote against one is a vote FOR the other. But if you are offered a choice of a being hit with a bat or run over with a truck, you cannot stand on principle and say “neither!” Well, you can, actually, but then you lose the right to complain when someone else chooses the truck.

              I’m not thrilled with Clinton. She’s…. … acceptable. Barely. Maybe. It’s borderline.

              But Trump is not.

              You guys keep throwing out Clinton’s email server has a disqualifying action. I, however, consider Trump’s race-bating** comments on Muslims and suggestion that we ban them from entering the country (until [vaguely non-defined figuring out of something]) to be disqualifying. Full Stop.

              I consider his Wall to be stupid and needlessly combative as well as wildly impractical and insulting to our biggest trade partner and Mexicans in-country (both legal and otherwise). If not disqualifying, it sure makes me want vote against him.

              I consider his aggression against free trade and his desire to effectively start a trade-war with China to be horrifically short-sighted. If not disqualifying, it sure makes me want vote against him.

              I consider his denial of global warming (and then denial of his denial) to be dangerous and willfully cavalier about the welfare of the planet and future generations. If not disqualifying, it sure makes me want vote against him.

              I consider his relentless pandering of conspiracy theories (birtherism, Cruz-Zodiac-Killer, Clinton-health, etc) to be unbecomming of a functional adult human being, especially one elected to lead the country. If not disqualifying, it sure makes me want vote against him.

              I consider his juvenile name-calling and overt bald-faced lying to be petty and unworthy of the office. If not disqualifying, it sure makes me want vote against him.

              So, yea. I’m going to vote against him. And I don’t care who I have to support in order to do so. I’d be perfectly happy voting for Hannibal Lecter if he was running as the opposition.


              *or was I?

              **Yes, I know Muslim isn’t a race

              • Well, sir, at least you are giving reasons…..

                I cannot vote for Clinton because I pointed out the exact disqualifying action, verse and note and gave you the reference..(server)

                I cannot vote for Clinton because I happen to believe in EQUAL trade and no trade deficits…period. I cannot vote for Clinton because of her foundation and acceptance of donations that keep trade deficits going. She is crooked as is husband Bill.

                I cannot vote for Clinton because she wants and likes open borders which are a disgrace and a DIRECT CONFLICT to our National Security. I do not expect you to understand because you have a closed mind the the problems at the border.

                I cannot vote for Clinton because her vile comments and the fact that if you disagree with her you are racists… begats the other.

                I cannot vote for Clinton because she backs allowing anyone to enter the country from combative countries without vetting.

                I cannot vote for Clinton because she does not believe in the right to work.

                I cannot vote for Clinton because she supports socialism over free trade,

                I cannot vote for Clinton because China is a HUUUUGE problem.

                I cannot vote for Clinton because she is more on the take than anything Trump has done in business. She is bought and paid for and that makes her a whore.

                You see, my friend, this is the place the country is in right now. You do not like Trump. I accept that. I do not like Clinton…accept that. You have your reasons….I have mine.

                BUT despite that are still my friend and I will break bread anytime.

              • I do not expect you to understand because you have a closed mind the the problems at the border.

                I’m not oblivious to the problems at the border, nor of excessive illegal immigration (I am from Los Angeles, after all).

                But (A) as a matter of principle, I do not believe that the government has a right to restrict the flow of human beings across some fictitious line in an effort to protect benefits for one group of human beings at the expense of another. If anything this is uber-free-marketeering, and you should applaud it. If we’d just abolish the war on drugs, all the associated violence would evaporate overnight. Your objection is not to border issues, but that we have created such violence and that the borders we have aren’t constraining it well enough.

                And (B), living in the real world were (A) above does not apply, I recognize that Mexico is not going to pay for a giant wall. They just aren’t. So we’re going to build it. And man it. And maintain it. And… what? You’re smart enough to know how impossible a feat it is to effectively monitor a 2k mile border. Tel me you honestly believe we can this is a viable option?

                And (C) I recognize that the current functioning of the US economy is completely depending on cheap immigrant labor. That, if we got rid of all illegal aliens (ignoring the massive expense and moral qualms), it would destroy the US economy. Who is going to pick those strawberries? I’m sure as hell not going to do it. Will you?

              • I cannot vote for Clinton because she backs allowing anyone to enter the country from combative countries without vetting.

              • I do not like Clinton…accept that. You have your reasons….I have mine.

                I do accept that.

                I doesn’t mean I won’t try to change your mind or use you as a resource to learn more and see things from a different perspective.

                You seem to forget, friend, that SUFA is enemy territory for a big government tax-and-spend big-city liberal like myself. Remember why I am here. I am here to learn, to test my thinking against those who disagree. I do not want the echo chambers of the left any more than you want the echo chambers of the right.

                Huffington Post has nothing to offer me.

                I am here to have a fair fight. The outcome may be a draw, but it is still beneficial to all involved.

        • This is why I keep saying your ignorance must be deliberate. The information on the Clinton’s is out there in the public arena. Just like the email stuff. Yet you constantly discount this information. So you tell me why.

          Let’s say it’s true.

          Let’s say it’s all 100% true.

          She knowingly and deliberately circumvented national security law to set up her server (I, personally, think this is probably true).

          She did it for some sneaky reason to hide something she was doing (I, personally, think this is probably false).

          Her server was hacked (probably false).

          Et cetera.

          It STILL pales in comparison to the toxic sludge that comes out of Trump’s policy-hole.

          And let’s say she is a bitch (as opposed to just a strong personality).

          And let’s say she is super obnoxious.

          It STILL doesn’t matter because (A) Trump is still so much more repugnant to me and (B) I’m not voting for someone to be my friend – I’m voting for a chief executive.

          That always got me – how people said they’d vote for Bush because they’d like to grab a beer with him. Who gives a shit? I’ll vote for an ax murderer if their politics align with mine.

          She aligns closer to my political leanings. Ergo she gets my vote. Full stop.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Finally, you admit the real reason. Except of course for the fact that Trump is more aligned with your politics than she is.

            He doesn’t want to use our military to impose democracy upon the world. She does. He is willing to let the Middle East figure it out on their own. She is not.

            He supports a Govt. health insurance option, combined with expanded private competition. Is this not your view?

            He supports spending on infrastructure, another shared goal.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Mathius…your statements:

            “She knowingly and deliberately circumvented national security law to set up her server (I, personally, think this is probably true).

            She did it for some sneaky reason to hide something she was doing (I, personally, think this is probably false).”

            The 1st one is INTENT which Comey says that she didn’t have therefore a pass was given. It was deliberately set up with full knowledge of herself and now known to also include Obama. Comey in his 5 hours of testimony said that she shared information with the highest national security classifications with people NOT authorized to be anywhere near this information. Just think back just a tad and the name Genearl Petraeus comes to mind. Yes he left some classified documents in his possession after leaving the CIA. He should have turned in ALL 100% of the government documents. Yes he showed them to a person, his mistress, who had the clearance to see them, but lacked the authorization to see them. He screwed up and was lucky to not have beensentenced to prison, but has a felony conviction and paid heavy fines and will NEVER EVER be in a position in the government again.

            Hillary on the other hand swore under oath that she did not have any government documents in her possession. False she still retained 10’s of thousands after leaving office. She claimed that none were classified….false again….tried destroying said documents and equipment even after supoenas were served, during the course of the investigation.

            The 2nd point can not possibly be false, because it contradicts your (probably true). She set up the server to bypass and hide and obstruct Congressional oversight and FOIA requests. These are safeguards built into our constitution and laws to protect our nation and its people against illegal activity by our leaders.

            Your 3rd point…her server probably was not hacked……If the administrators of the server had to ask on blogs how to erase information on the hard drives, they were incompetant and the server most likely was hacked. Hillary is constantly claiming the russians are hacking with impunity systems all over the world….her server would have been a minor speed bump.

            Back in the stone age of my military service, way before emails and personal computers we in certain services could just about tap into anything we wanted to. Including phone calls. Today the intelligence gathering capabilities are so much more advanced than 45 years ago with more access points due to the internet. If our NSA etc can get into anything, so can our oppostion, they’re not stupid.

            • If the administrators of the server had to ask on blogs how to erase information on the hard drives, they were incompetant and the server most likely was hacked.

              As a CTO, let me assure you this is perfectly common.

              We techie people are constantly googling how to do our own jobs.

              You shouldn’t read into this.

              Hillary is constantly claiming the russians are hacking with impunity systems all over the world….her server would have been a minor speed bump.

              You’d be surprised.

              As long as it had a good firewall (almost certain) and had the updates installed, was running current anti-viral, and she wasn’t downloading anything questionable onto it, it could very well have been fully secure.

              The number one – BAR NONE – vulnerability of a computer system is the people using it. Full stop.

              If she’s the only one using it, and she doesn’t do anything stupid (like plug in unknown USB drives, or listen to the Indian guy who calls saying he’s from Microsoft), and she’s just using it to send/receive email, and it’s stored in a secure location, then it could very well be the case that it’s not really hackable.

              That shouldn’t be read as “it couldn’t have been hacked,” but as someone who does this for a living, I’ll tell you that your assertion is off. A standard system, properly configured, with up-to-date security and simple-demands could be highly secure.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      This is taken from an article detailing the sequence of events concerning the “illegal” and totally unauthorized, email server

      “Comey also admitted that Hillary shared top-secret information with people who didn’t have top-secret security clearance. He then said that if she had done all of these things while working for the FBI that she would have faced discipline and been fired. His exact words were, “She could be walked out.”

      The bottom line is this: Hillary Clinton sent and received hundreds of e-mails with classified material over an unsecured private e-mail sever. That is a crime under the Espionage Act. She shared top-secret material with people who didn’t have the clearance to view that stuff. That is also a crime. She then lied about this under oath before the US Congress, which is a felony”.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Ludwig von Mises once explained:

    Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.

  22. Ok….my interpretation of the debate. Just finished watching it……no blood lost. I found it interesting that there were no questions about Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, immigration, or emails. However, I do not know why anyone expects unbiased news commentators or debate officials. I think that Trump missed some opportunities…and I think that Clinton’s answers were too rehearsed but when you know the questions ahead of time ( and I think she did )….it is easy to answer, However, the body language of each did not reflect Presidential presence.

    I do not know who won or lost but what I saw was schoolyard bickering back and forth and no problems solved.

  23. Mathius….I have actually seen the border plan….or a border plan…..( actually, I do not know who presented it )…..but this wall…….is built in certain areas and a virtual wall in other areas….like the Texas border for instance. Trump cannot build a physical wall because 95 % of the Texas border is private property. He can build and I have seen plans of a virtual wall….which we, Texas, has already practically done without Trump. NO one, including me, is against Mexican workers picking strawberries. Quite the contrary…..however, I do not believe and never will believe in open borders. Want to pick strawberries…you are welcome. DO what Texas does in its “valley” of strawberries. The workers line up, get work permits on a daily basis, workers are picked up each and every day and transported to the fields and taken back to the border at night. They are paid $15 per hour plus lunch and dinner….the going rate for Mexican labor at the border.

    Texas is being quite successful in border security and the other states would do good to follow it. Our border crossings have reduced 85% and we are still working on the other 15%. That is why California sued Texas because of our policies creating a bigger drain on California resources. We have no shortage of Mexican labor down here….none at all but you better have a work permit or you will be arrested, finger printed and taken to Ojinaga. You come are a felon.

    So, I am sure that Trump’s wall is not a physical wall…our deserts and arming and supplying the border ranchers have done just fine. We also have a very unique drone system financed by Texas and a very good ground detection system at known crossing places. We are doing just fine and do not need Trump.

    As to Mexico paying for it…..I do not know. I think that a renegotiation of NAFTA would go a long way. Free and EQUAL trade. Do you have a problem with free and equal trade?

    • The workers line up, get work permits on a daily basis, workers are picked up each and every day and transported to the fields and taken back to the border at night. They are paid $15 per hour plus lunch and dinner….the going rate for Mexican labor at the border.

      (A) Doesn’t this feel like Big Government to you? Why should some official have to give a human being permission to work in exchange for wages?

      (B) $15/hr… wow.. That’s actually higher than up here. Who’d a thunk? We’re usually around $100 / day for an 8-10 hr day + lunch (no dinner). I mean, not that I would know, but that’s what I’ve heard.

      • We have two choices in border control. It is an acceptable compromise. In 2015, we reduced our crime rate over 50% since we started this program that I reported on here over a year ago. I will admit that having 4,000 Texas Guard troops on the border has a pretty good effect. IS it big government to me? Yes. Do I like it ? No…but there is no other answer. The reduction in crime is directly attributable to our own border security. So, I happen to believe in borders and border control. The other thing that I feel has contributed to our success is the fact that we have no sanctuary cities ( including our experimental liberal enclave of Austin ). We enforce the laws that are on the books….both Federal and State.. That actually works. We also require ID’s….and that is picture ID’s on the work permits that are renewable and stamped, just like a passport. Your tax money is not involved….Texas foots this bill. So, you actually have no say…

        Secondly, if you want the best and most loyal workers, you pay them fairly. $15 per hour is what the going rate is…..but in exchange for that we get great workers. And it is amazing how many welfare workers do not want to work for $15 and food. It is still cheaper and they are not employees and they get 1099’s every single day. Of course, they do not pay their taxes but no one seems to care in Washington but we do give them 1099’s. Real simple to do now days with wireless computers and printers that are in the fields.

        In addition, we enforce the laws on companies that hire laborers and pay cash under the table. They have their state charters revoked. So, you do not go to the Lowes and HOme Depots any longer and find day laborers just sitting around.

        It works well for us.

        • What would happen if, instead of driving them back to the border each night, you let them stick around and work the next day, too.

          Say, make that day pass into a week pass?

          • Good question. We were doing that and providing temperature controlled shelter, rest rooms, three hot meals per day and medical. The farmers were sued because somebody in Washington did not like them sleeping in tent cities on private property. Called them “slaves”… the farmers said ok.

            However, it is more practical to provide one week passes…..but ……the farmers were stopped. I am sure that there is a way to do this. But the farmers cannot afford to pay them and then pay motel charges as well.

            I have something in mind as a business person. Putting a plan together.

    • He can build and I have seen plans of a virtual wall

      What in the Sam Hill is a “virtual wall”?

      And if you just mean someone’s monitoring it, what give Big Government the right to watch someone’s private property? Seems like you Texans would have a problem with that.

      • Sam Hill? I never understood where that came from….sorta like the phrase “hang loose”…how may times does loose get hanged…sheesh….

        Ok…Virtual wall is this….here is what we have done. My sector that I am an adviser for is 312 miles. There is not one single physical wall along this entire sector other than barbed wire fencing. However, it is manned day and night by drones with infrared sensing. It is patrolled, day and night, by armed National Guard and ranchers. The river is patrolled by air boats armed with m 60 machine guns and grenade launchers all with night vision. Known crossing points have ground sensors in them to pick up foot traffic.In addition, we have rattlesnakes, scorpions, mesquite thorns, and ranch employees that love to bite, sting, stick and shoot. In my area, Del Rio to Presidio, the geography is the wall. Even if you manage to penetrate and get past the river, you have miles and miles of desert terrain that is not friendly. We used to find dead bodies all the time…now we do not find many.

        Ranchers are equipped with satellite communication/GPS technology. If they see unauthorized anything, they simply punch in a code and a helicopter and drone appear shortly thereafter. In the 1800’s, the Federal Government established several forts along the Texas border to protect against Indians and raiders from Mexico…we have simply taken up positions in the old forts and, with helicopters can be anywhere within minutes. The ranchers are appreciative because they no longer are losing cattle and line shacks. We no longer have to provide armed guard to rural school buses.

        We are doing nothing more than enforcing the laws in the books. So, with technology and and enforcement of the law, using our own troops….we have effectively created a “virtual” wall.

    • Do you have a problem with free and equal trade?

      Depends on your definition of free and equal.

      • Free means free….( are you sipping your grog?) Free, in trade means, no tariffs, no rules, no regulations. Equal means the same….no deficits. You trade ten widgets with me, I trade ten widgets with you or something comparable.

        • Equal means the same….no deficits.


          We buy more than we sell.

          What are you going to do about this? Have a quota system? Nope, sorry, you’ve imported too many TV’s. No more until you buy some of out sneakers.

          We buy more than we sell.

          We, the People, want to buy what we, the People, want to buy. How, short of tariffs and quotas and trade wars and currency manipulation, do you expect to get it into equal?

          Minor tangent: China doesn’t have the environmental or worker regulations we do. One of the reasons their factories have anti-suicide nets and their cities are so polluted they have to wear masks. We could get rid of our regulations and follow the same path, but I for one do not recommend that. So, how do you suggest we compete on an even footing?

          • You compete on even terms by not having tariffs that artificially raise the prices of imports or exports because of labor differences. This has to work on both sides. If market demands more of something….fine….but if you have a TV made in the United States that costs..300 bucks….and you manufacture Tv’s in Mexico for $120 bucks… not place tariffs on them to bring them equal to American made simply because labor costs are low somewhere else and/or vice versa.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Here’s an off the wall thought and question. If a US company sets up a manufacturing company in China for example. Why is selling the product manufactured there and sold here considered a trade deficit? A manufacturing fee is paid (cost) to the manufacturing site, but the overall trade revenue should be counted in the country where the business is incorporated in. The US is the biggest or close to the biggest consuming nation in the world. But we have this huge trade deficit just because our business have set up manufacturing elsewhere. If that was the case the US and EU would have huge trade surpluses.

            I’d like to see a list of chinese products actually designed, built and sold for US or EU consumption. In other words a unique chinese product that we have to have. Like silk as an example. Spices in the islands, or opium from India and china etc.

            • Dale,

              AWESOME thought/question! Thank you!

              There probably isn’t much in the grand scheme of things that is fully Chinese. The world is very globalized these days.

              It’s designed in Cupertino California, sourced in Indonesia, assembled in China, shipped by the Russians.for sale back in the US. Who “wins” that exchange? Hell if I know.

              But in the iPhone example, above, Apple might receive $700 for the phone from consumers, but have to shell out $450 of that to the manufacturing / distribution web. As such, that money “leaves” the country.

              Of course, it winds up in the pockets of foreign workers who turn around and buy coke and pepsi and nike and iPhones of their own. And some of that winds up back here and some of it doesn’t. And it bounces all around the world.

              This globalization allows each country (and the respective people) to contribute where they are the most advantaged. The result are global goods produced more efficiently and cheaply.

              It is certainly true that the money doesn’t all stay domestic. If you’re going to nit-picky, the balance of trade means that more money flows out than flows in. That’s true, and it’s undeniable.

              But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad thing either.

              I’d recommend a short read from our friends at the Cato Institute.

              Nations do not trade with each other; people do. America’s trade deficit with the rest of the world is only the sum of the individual choices made by American citizens. Those choices, to buy an import or to sell an export, only take place if both parties to the transaction believe it will make them better off. In this way, the “balance of trade” is always positive.

              The only reason the U.S. trade deficit is bad news is that so many people believe it is bad news.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                It was globalized as far as it went thousands of years ago. Rome had a very large trade going with Asia. They were with items unobtainable in Europe. Like spices and sild etc.

                Just read an article that came out of London. In an ancient Roman cemetary skeletons were foung that were “Chinese” and of “African” lineage. Archeologist were stunned and were at a loss to explain it.

                Guys like Ballard are so smart they’re stupid. A few years ago he was loaned the NR1, a navy nuclear research submarine. He did some further exploration of the mediteranean. He was SHOCKED at the number or ancient wrecks between Sicily and north Africa, mainly Carthage. Thousands of them. He praddled on about how the ancient mariners always were believed to hug the coastline and never crossed open waters. Hell, you can see Tunesia from Sicily on a clear day. There was one battle during the Punic wars between Carthage and Rome that over 60,000 sailors died on the southwest side of Sicily. The Carthaginians did not sail their fleet around the western med to get there.

                I hope you pulled the 450/700 cost to manufacture an iphone out of thin air? I can see a total cost including software and applications etc adding up, But the hardware, no way.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                This also includes the costs to manufacture the componants that go into an iphone


              • Just had to have a new electronic key for my Dodge. They charged me $ 325. The fob is $ 7.00 on E-bay the rest? Labor! Hah!

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                To match the microchip that is in the fob and ignition to be able to start the vehicle. Supposedly its an anti theft precaution. Luckily when one leg of my Dodge truck failed years ago warranty covered it.

            • Great question……if you get rid of government imposed tariffs….I think it would work…but to put economic restrictions and quotas on anything….like Japan, for example, has a strict quota of how many American made cars can come to Japan but there is no quota to the imports to the United States.

              Here is another example that I can give personal knowledge to…NAFTA is actually a one way street…..for MExico. I will give you actual examples. We have a small trucking company that pulls tanks. Edible foods and alcohols in liquid bulk. I load a truck to Mexico of liquid sugar. I can only take it to the border. American drivers are not allowed into Mexico. I have to contract with a Mexican carrier to take my load into Mexico. They get half of the revenue. If a Mexican truck comes north, the Mexican driver can bring it all the way to destination. They do not have to contract an American company to do so. THey get the full revenue. They also do not have to speak English, read road signs, nor have a drivers license. THeir trucks do not have to pass DOT specifications but ours do.

              That is a trade deficit.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                If your tanker trucks are hauling liquid alcohol ie tequila, I’ll bring a truck loaded with limes and we can arrange a meeting?

                I totally agree. If a country like Mexico restricts trucking as in your example, turn about is fair play. Same restriction imposed on them. Same with the Japan thing. Absolutely true.
                Try getting a work visa in India. few and far inbetween, much less in the EU in this day and age.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                I’d like to see the only variable in the global trade be the cost of labor. As an example a company wants to be able to bypass, “good” workplace regulations, like a safe place to work, or environmental protections. Of course that lowers the cost to manufacture if moving to a place that has no such restrictions. Mathius you commented on the ungodly pollution in China, but count India there also. Workplace safety, you comented on suicide nets. I say….you want to move and build a factory in China, it will be built with the same regulations we have here or in the EU. Making the labor the variable. to build the factory and man the lines….if not that product is not sold here….period. You absolutely do not rememebr the days in LA in the 50.s 60 and early 70’s pre air pollution controls. Ask Gman about Pittsburg or Gary Indiana. Or Scranton PA. That cleanliness does come at a cost and overall is a GOOD for our health and well-being What about the chinese? don’t you care about their well being as a globaist and liberal who believes in social justice… you don’t, you just care about the cheap TV from Mexico

    • So, I am sure that Trump’s wall is not a physical wall

      “On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful Southern border wall,” Trump said. “Mexico will work with us. I absolutely believe it.”
      Donald J Trump
      Phoenix, AZ


  24. One last thing, Sir Mathius… asked for a citation above…the only one that I can offer is the FBI that says it is impossible to do any worthwhile vetting as the records do not exist. To which I answer….then do not let them in.

    • To which I answer: Unless you have evidence to the contrary, a human being in (ostensible) pursuit of a better life is innocent until proven guilty.

      You’re dramatically more likely to die in a car accident or raptor-training accident or of cardiac arrest than being blown up by a sleeper agent disguised as a Syrian refugee. They present such a tiny marginal risk that trampling the Pursuit of Happiness of the vast majority of these innocent men women and children is unwarranted.

      My ancestors did not have to provide records at Ellis Island.

      • No sir and your ancestors did not have a history of terrorist activity…and, in today;s time…one innocent death due to a Syrian terrorist that infiltrates with thousands, in my opinion, trumps ( no pun intended ) innocence. And to assume women and children are innocent…is fools folly. Most probably are….but are you willing to bet your life on it.

        • No sir and your ancestors did not have a history of terrorist activity

          My ancestors were worse than terrorists. They were European Jews.

          Talk about being undesirable.

          in today;s time…one innocent death due to a Syrian terrorist that infiltrates with thousands, in my opinion, trumps ( no pun intended ) innocence.

          Well that’s a question of basic social values, I guess.

          You say one bad apple overrules 1,000 innocents’ rights.

          I say 1,000 innocents’ rights are worth persevering and we risk the bad apple and deal with him accordingly if/when the need arises. We have plenty of criminals in this country. Why should he be special?

          And to assume women and children are innocent…is fools folly. Most probably are….but are you willing to bet your life on it.


          And the lives of my wife and children.

          And my dog.

          Because I am far more likely to die of heart disease or a drunk driver. Terrorism doesn’t even constitute a rounding error in terms of the risk I take each day when I step out of the house. I’m not going to waste my energy cowering over what could be, nor am I going to use that as justification for depriving thousands of innocent-until-proven-guilty men, women, and children of the right to the pursuit of happiness and sanctuary from the devastation from which they are fleeing.

          Where the roles reversed, I would feel the same.

        • one innocent death due to a Syrian terrorist that infiltrates with thousands, in my opinion, trumps ( no pun intended ) innocence.

          Just a thought.

          The leading cause of death in America is heart disease. It kills 614,348 Americans each year according to our friends in the CDC.

          It therefore follows that 614,348 innocent deaths exceed the rights of 614,348,000 people.

          That is nearly double the population of the United States.

          That oddly specific number is due, in large part, to diet, lack of exercise, and excessive weight.

          It therefore follows, eo ipso, that it is appropriate for the government to ban red meat and institute mandatory exercise programs for all Americans.. twice over.

          • Isnt that what you are doing in New York?

            • Over my dead body.

              But that doesn’t explain your justification.

              If I can trample (other person’s) rights because some fraction might kill someone, why cannot I not trample (other other person’s) rights to guard against (other threat) at the 1:1000 ratio you provided?

              If you can do it to them, I should be able to do it to you, no?

              That’s Mr. Black Flag’s “Freedom for me, but not for thee” mantra.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Eating fat and sugar is “self inflicted” damage.

                Allowing criminals to enter without vetting is NEGLIGENCE by the Government.

                YOU believe in man’s right to organize a Govt. Then you get borders and with borders you get regulation of immigration. Once you support Govt. you accept that Govt is responsible for maintaining security, including who gets in and who has to leave.

                And if you cannot adequately vet those entering then they don’t get to enter.

                So if you want these people to come here, put up some money and organize people to vet them.

                I am curious how you assign Rights devised by and protected within America to those who are not Americans.

                While the Founders believed God endowed all men with these rights they also accepted that Governments get to regulate who is and is not allowed into a country. They believed that allowing people to immigrate who did not share these values would threaten the values themselves. They were correct in having such a concern, as History has proven.

              • My justification…..well, like I said before…since we have a stated on going problem and a war with radicals who appear to be, in the vast majority, Muslim fanatics with a stated desire to bring us down….you bet I have absolutely no problem whatever in denying entrance until they can be properly vetted. They are NOT innocent until proven guilty when you do not know whom you are letting in….forget percentages…just one is enough to justify my stance.

                And, given the fact that I have seen children as terrorists before, pregnant women as terrorists before, and mothers carrying their babies as terrorists before,,,,,,I have no problem.

              • Excuse me, For Christ’s sake, this is not 1910. Just the other day you were telling us all how ordinary jobs will disappear within your lifetime. And you WANT to import hundreds of thousands if not millions more of unskilled people who will be unemployed?

                Get real or get your head out of wherever it is. There is NO requirement to bring in thousands upon thousands more of poor people and there definitely IS in American History the precedent to shut the dammed door. We did in 1918 and did not reopen it for thirty some years.

                The libs, the left, bemoan our surplus of poor people. We just keep bringing them in. Even if the new immigrants manage to get ahead, it is at the cost of…..BLACK PEOPLE.. Only a fool would argue against those statistics.

                You want it both ways and cannot seem to understand that. How many extra rooms do you have? Lotta Syrians need shelter, maybe they will even cut the grass and wash the windows in return.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            And an admitted 150K-200K are KILLED by doctors and medical profession with mistakes. That is dying under a physicians care by their error and NOT the malady you were being “treated” for.

            The red meat analysis has been debunked and and withdrawn by the FDA. That was a byproduct of a hurried, “we have to do something” study outside of Boston in the 50’s. A balanced diet is the best. Not loaded in carbs as the FDA set down in the 70’s

            I do not in anyway refute though the lack of exercise especially today as a major health problem. The replacement of “fats” with sugar in most of our products has lead to the epidemic of diabetes. The use of preservatives in just about everything that gives shelf life to food products longer than military issued MRE’s

            Jobs in general used to be much more activity involved. With the computer life became a sit on your ass lifestyle. Fear of injury and other things keep kids locked up instead of out being active. Even a parapalegic at our school went to gym class.

            1st three years of school we walked at least 2-3 miles each way. Winter we used sleds and skis, In CA the next 3 years I was bused close to 30 miles each way. Waste of time so we moving into LA city limits. The next 6 years the trip to the junior and senior high schools were 3-3.5 miles each way. We walked or rode our bikes. To be bused one had to live 15 miles away…, maybe a few blocks is the limit before mandatory busing kicks in.

            • We are definitely becoming more sedentary.

              And I certainly do not eat well by any reasonable standard.

              And, while I appreciate the input, this is off the original point: D13 believes it is acceptable to impair the freedoms of thousands based on the fact that it might cause a few deaths. He gave me the 1:1000 ratio. So I want to know why it’s not then reasonable to use this as justification for government mandated exercise and healthy eating.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Again. One is self inflicted and the other is the responsibility of Govt.

                You play this game often in your arguments. You take the percentage as the key issue. It is not the percentage of people dying.

                It is those who die from acts of aggression by others. Especially those who we do not have to let live here.

                During WWII should we have allowed Germans and Japanese to immigrate to the US without vetting? Per your standard, we should have let all of them in who wished to come and of course assumed they were all innocent until we had absolute proof otherwise.

                I think your problem with this issue goes to your previous statement about treatment of the Jews in the past. I recall you said that this history causes you to think of comments like Trump’s as similar. But they are not similar, unless you ignore how many people would like to cause real damage to the US in the name of their Islam. Globally it is a small percentage, but in real numbers it is in the millions.

                Another question on this theory of open borders. Why is it only immigration into the US that your tribe argues for? Why do they never howl about the closed borders and tight controls of Canada and Mexico??

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                When I worked in the EU in 2001, your computer would go into standby every hour or so and a message popped up to take a break and go for a walk. I was tasked to reduce costs to do business in the EU. However, we were given a list of “cost” items that were sacred and mandatory by EU law. These were untouchable. Bottom line was it cost 4.3 times more to do the same business in the EU as it did here in the US. We ultimately kept moving operation to NON EU countries. As they joined the EU they were moved further afield, like India, south africa, singapore, china brazil etc. Eventually even here clients that stayed in the US entirely like financial organizations, and anything that touched the government in any way had to be run on SECURE networks and could not be “offshored” Clients were given a price structure, If they wanted all service provided in US operations centers the cost was high. If they didn’t care off it went.

                I’ll interject my point of immigration here. I do believe in immigration, We all are immigrants including the indians came from somewhere else. However, i do not believe in unrestricted immigration. even though the odds of being a victim of a terrorist attack, or even a victim of a violent crime, that is unless you live in certain districts is very low. I admit the statistics, why make potentially so many suffer for just a handful……where I’m heading is the overall loss of freedom and privacy all in the name of protecting us against this miniscule statistic. Is being demanded by the people and the government is providing, our biggest loss is what AMERICA was and I hate what it is becoming.

                Like why are all new cell phone built so you CAN NOT remove the battery. Battery ceases to be chargable and it’s requred to buy a whole new phone is one reason…good for business, but the biggest one is that you can not disable your phone by removing the battery and can be tracked anytime any place, whether it’s on or off. All in the name o making you safer from this negligable statistic.

                I would rather have much stricter vetting and a thusly removing the governments excuses and justifying the removing of our rights one step at a time. The banking transaction laws of 10K allegedly to protect us from the terrible drug dealers. That one plausible excuse. But then literally the thieves that have cost us hundreds of billions by their continuing nefarious business dealings and then get bailed out by us the people, that’s far more criminal.

      • Yes Mathius, many people came to our shores without papers (WOPs) however, at Elis Island they did register, and did get a thorough health exam. If sick they were quarantined. If incurable, shipped back. I am also sure they got thoroughly quizzed and if the inspectors got a hint of untruthfulness, they again got rejected. Even during colonial times, ship manifests of immigrant names were recorded and filed. The door was open since we had a whole continent to fill but they still had to stop and say hello.

  25. Wow….Michael Moore just blasted the left and told Clinton supporters to quit the end zone dance on the 50 yard line. Trump won the debate and you do not see it….

    Michael Moore

  26. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Mathius….I know at one time you indicated your age. Back in ’80 Carter tried to do what Obama has done with Cuba. It is commonly named the Mariel boat lift because of the port most of the migrants left from. In a matter of months 125000 Cuban made it to our shores mostly to the Miami area. If you remember the days it made a hash of the area. Certain stats say that it made no difference, but stats are like models. However an expert on the affects of “immigration” who has made some very good analyses, found in reality the damage to the population and workforce occured at the low end, These are the people that had the entry and non skilled jobs that are in any ecomomy. By dumping 125000 and the majority DID NOT have a high school education devastated that end of the workforce already in Miami……..The government tried to vet as well as they could but Castro emptied his prisons and rid his country of the undesirables. About 2.3 % got snagged and deported, but many leaked through. The unfettered immigration ended quickly. This is nothing but a repeat performance by the current administration and the results will be the same. The low end workers predominantly blacks will get hammered due to the other available cheap workforce brought in by their government, who claim to be looking out for them and their well being. Much less the criminals that did leak through caused another whole set of problems. I know Clinton did the same thing with Cuba but also included Haitians. My son spent about 2 years of his second military hitch guarding the “detained” Cubans and Haitians at Guantanamo, before they could be repatriated back to where they came from.

    At least under Carter and Clinton while it was a nice gesture under humanitarian cover, when the States and people said NO MAS the programs ended. This administration is saying F!!!you, i’ll do what I want..

    • If I remember correctly we were unable to deport them. Castro did not want them back. If you found a source, let me know. A lot wound up in US prisons and got lost in teh system.

      My answer was take them to Gitmo and open the gate. Nobody wanted to hear that back then.

  27. While I’m sure it will be dismissed out of hand by many here, I strongly recommend you watch this past Sunday’s John Oliver on the various Clinton scandals. About to watch the next segment on Trump’s scandals now…

    • Take away from John Oliver (paraphrased):

      You can and should be irritated by Clinton and her scandals, but if you are you should be absolutely outraged by Trump’s.

      I’ll let you all stew on that one – I have abusy day at work and then off for a long overdue trip!

      • Trump’s stuff have nothing on scandal’s by supposed trusted political figures, especially those in high ranking positions. Business people do business and as long as they are within the law, there is nothing to see.

        • “Business people do business and so long as they are within the law, there is nothing to see.”

          Do you truly believe this? How someone conducts business is completely irrelevant as long as they act within the law? Ethics don’t matter?

          • I actually watched the show you mentioned, for those who would like to see it :

            Now, he’s funny and a decent comedian, but he is clearly a Liberal hack. Ethics matters, but nothing that Trump did (or didn’t do)EVER resulted in the deaths of Americans under his charge, then lie about it to the families of the deceased. Screwing someone in a business deal pales in comparison.

          • If ethics is the key, then both are disqualified. Famous Amish business saying: “I won’t cheat thee but I may out wit thee.”

          • ““Business people do business and so long as they are within the law, there is nothing to see.”….. Yes, Buck, I do believe this. And I believe in following the law. I also believe that business ethics is totally subjective. For example, if I own rental property and someone does not pay the rent, I throw them out. Period. It does not matter to me what their circumstance is…business is business.

            You mentioned business ethics… it unethical to file a bankruptcy to avoid losing money? If you think so, then change the law that allows this. Dodd/Frank is perhaps the most unethical bill ever passed in my life time. This bill perpetrated the largest and most incredulous fraud since the establishment of social security and created more bankruptcies to avoid paying debt that I have ever seen….AND all at the expense of the middle and lower class.

            Business is a big boys game… not think that it is not a major league issue. Is not venture capital and hedge funds not one of the most unethical issues ever devised? Yet everyone plays it and profits from it. I have bought several business’ for profit. I have bought competition and then closed it and sold off assets. To some, that is unethical….but to me,,,it is a business proposition. I bought something I wanted, the person who sold it got his money…it is no different than buying a can of beans.

            In your position, is it unethical for you to do estate planning for an individual who you consider unethical? Or is it business is business. You may not like him but after all, as long as you follow the law and you get your commission or hourly rate into your partnership, where is the problem? I am quite sure that you do estate planning and tax planning for people who park their money offshore or create corporations in Delaware to avoid taxes elsewhere… that an ethical dilemma? I am sure you have done the same for people who have filed bankruptcy or established trusts to avoid taxes or protect assets from bankruptcies. To you afford them the same criticism as you do Trump?

            I have heard people down on Trump because he took advantage of the burst housing bubble and bought houses that were vacated. I did the same….why is that unethical? Why is taking legal advantage of a situation, regardless of the situation, an ethics issue? You may disagree with it and you may not like it but business is a big boys game. I would do business with Trump or Mark Cuban in a heart beat,,,but, going in, I know that I am in an arena where there are no rules and no gloves are on. If I get hammered, shame on me for trying to play in that arena.

            If a business man, any business man/or woman for that matter, gets a reputation for filing bankruptcies or gets a reputation for unethical practices…the market place will correct. No one will do business with them. If Trump decides to build another Tower in New York City why would contractors do business with him if he is so bad. He does not seem to lack getting contractors to build his things.

            I have heard people say was unethical for him to build his casinos in New Jersey, run them into massive debt and then bail out and either sell them or file for bankruptcy and close them. Why is that unethical? It may be a lousy business practice and it may have created hard feelings, but I really do not know of any major business out there that has not used the law to its fullest extent to expand….I can give you several examples. Proctor and Gamble is well known for its use of imminent domain…Archer Daniels Midland is well known for forcing family farms out of business and then buying them up for taxes…Exxon/Mobil is well known for its use of imminent domain and manipulations in Congress for their declarations of oil reserves, and values and escaping the EPA super fund on injection wells.
            Kraft foods is well known for its use of debt/leverage to spin off unionized plants and then reopen them under a different subsidiary. As a matter of fact, I haul edible foods in liquid bulk for their plant in Jacksonville, Illinois….I followed their example and closed the only unionized truck terminal I had and re-opened one week later under a new corporation and hired whom I wanted. That was the Teamsters Union. I did it for the sole reason of saving money and getting rid of high cost union drivers. Is that unethical? It is a cost of doing business.

            Labor unions are the most unethical entities around but you support them. I know of NO labor pension fund that is fully funded. I will offer examples here as well…The Teamsters Union is underfunded, the OCAW is underfunded, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Laborers International Union of Northern America, the International Association of Machinists, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the National Plumbers Union are all underfunded. Want my citations? Form 5500 is required to be filed. The information is there. I look for those companies that are 65% underfunded or less ( the ones that I mention above ) and use that information to run non union competitive trunking into them. Is that Unethical?

            My whole point is…why is Trump considered unethical when using the law? Please…do not use the lame excuse of he is running for President…if you use that one, then you have to throw in the Clinton;s. Nothing is more unethical than selling your office. One thousand Trump bankruptcies does not even come close to that.

            However, my diatribe is not actually on Trump. It is the thrown around use of the word ethical. That word is totally subjective…..Now..if you wish to use the word illegal and unlawful….ok. But, look at all the people ( including me ) and probably you Buck, if you are in the stock or bond market, that do business with those companies. If you buy stock in a company that does what you consider unethical things, are you not just a guilty?

            So….my argument……yes, business ethics do mean something….but WHO gets to define the ethical boundaries and decide? If it is lawful….LAWFUL… may not like the law but is it unethical within the law?

            And yes, you hit a hot button with me…because I am a businessman and more so now since my dad is gone and I am basically out of the military….I do not plan to retire, I plan to take what I have a grow it and use firms like you to protect my assets and do estate planning to avoid paying as many taxes as I can within the law…..

            So…let us define ethics and see if we can come to some common ground.

            • Too long…too busy…didn’t read but glossed over…

              My only point at the moment on this — ethics do matter. And I’m not trying to suggest Clinton gets a pass. Ethics matter in politics. Ethics matter in business. Just because you follow the law, does not mean you are an ethical person. Ethics and Law are not synonyms.

              Bankruptcy might be legal, but given circumstances it does not follow that it is always ethical. Not paying vendors might be legal in a certain circumstance, but it does not follow that this is ethical.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Nor does it follow that these are UNETHICAL.

                Simply claiming lack of ethics is not enough. A real case should be made. This requires proving that some ethical standard actually existed among the people that was violated.

                Not just some standard created by Democrats when they are running for office against a Republican.

              • My main complaint is that I have been on the wrong side of a business bankruptcy and of stiffing suppliers. As an employee it caused me some cash losses but I was as close to the top as you could get and the bankruptcy and attendant problems with suppliers were NOT the result of anything the business owner did wrong. When the banks panicked in 1989 and in 2007, all credit dried up to the bad and the good. People were left holding the bag including my company.

                Now the collapse and the fraud were deliberately perpetrated by some fraudulent hucksters but the people caught in the aftermath had their reputations ruined for no good reason.

                For me to make a call on bad guy-good guy, I’d have to see the circumstances of each case and the timelines regarding financing. My spectacularly decent human being boss in 1990, had he finished construction three months earlier, would still be in business and be the toast of the Bronx today. Instead he is a pariah because he had completed construction after Freddie Mac shut the door and after they defaulted, yes I said defaulted, on three approved mortgages for him. That left him with three completed buildings, fully occupied in 21% construction financing!

            • Just A Citizen says:


              In a place where objective morality is applied then the law would necessarily be in sync with ethical standards. So complying with the law should be sufficient.

              In my book, unethical occurs when business uses govt. to destroy competition. Thus the use of eminent domain to secure property when owners will not sell. This is my complaint against Trump.

              Not his loose use of debt or his filing for bankruptcy. Not his refusal to pay contractors if they did not meet the contract specifications.

              Now Trump and his minions should have known the Dems would attack him on these issues. They started on him years ago. Yet he did not prepare to counter these arguments very well. He now suffers the result of his lack of preparation.

              And yes, I know no matter what he said they would still attack these points. But there would be good sound bites available for the public to see.

              Just like the Miss Universe person. He could have addressed this before with comments about the pageants contracts and the ONE YEAR commitment to “maintain the brand”. Gaining large amounts of weight violates that commitment. Just as getting caught in an extra-marital affair would, among other potential violations.

              Now that the female media is all over him on this issue he should ask one of them if women are really so frail that they cannot have anyone mentions their weight? If women are supposed to be equal to men then why can’t they take the same kinds of criticism.

              Perhaps we should not allow a woman in the White House if they are that frail and insecure.

              Followed by: “The women in my life are not like that. The women I have done business with are not like that. The women I hired and promoted are not like that. So is this an affliction unique to women in the Democratic Party? Or could it be that this is a truly Trumped up issue. by Hillary Clinton. You know her. The woman who destroyed the lives of women that got in her way. The woman who pays her female staff less than the men.”

              • JAC, I think you need to explain this a little further for me to understand…something is not connecting….- In my book, unethical occurs when business uses govt. to destroy competition. Thus the use of eminent domain to secure property when owners will not sell. This is my complaint against Trump.

                Do you have the same issues with the companies that I listed and I left out one of the most prolific ones…..Cargill, Inc. A privately owned closely held corporation. Eminent domain is a favorite of theirs using the FDA to do their bidding. Case in point…Wichita, Ks. I also haul corn syrup oil for them out of Wichita. I am personally aware of their taking over a family farm of 400 acres just west of Wichita because they wanted to experiment with a hybrid corn that would produce a greater sweetener than the HFCS they were currently producing. They made an offer to this family that paid them a premium 150% for their land. They did not want to sell….they wanted to continue to sell their corn to Cargill. Cargill suddenly stopped buying their corn, and goes to the FDA with their offer of 150% using the “greater good” issue. Need their land because of its close proximity to Wichita and their labs to plant and produce hybrid corn… is that what you mean by using government?


                Do you mean using the courts to declare eminent domain for expansion.

                This is where you will define the word…ethics? If it is, then my next question will be….if you support these companies by purchasing their products….are you guilty of same?

  28. Just A Citizen says:


    Sorry, just had to share with you.

  29. What is coming up next? Supposedly, some of the questions for the next debate are coming from the “most voted up” online through the “Open Debate Coalition”. Sounds great, except that it’s already being reported that questions concerning Benghazi and emails are being deleted, despite high vote totals. Today’s folks like screenshots a lot to use as visual evidence, which is beginning to hit Twitter and other social media sites. It’s early yet and it can still be fixed if called out and made public. More to come as details become more available.

  30. Clinton on TPP (from the Clinton News network, no less)

    She is the worst kind of liar…..she don’t care if she is caught.

  31. Dale A Albrecht says:

    One of the target States that Hillary was suppose to come to is NC because it’s a “Swing” State. Well she blasts McCrory on the “bathroom” bill. I sure hope the opposition doesn’t make a big scene so Hillary’s advisors make a shift in their campaign this last month.
    That issue will be enough to swing the State well away from her and will lose. Even though we shift back and forth from dem to repub, the State is relatively conservative from a moralistic viewpoint. Very heavy on the church attendence. It certainly is the last issue I’d be wailing on, if at all.

  32. Just a thought on Trump’s taxes. First, I really could give a crap about his taxes. Second, so what if he didn’t pay any Federal taxes some years? Why would Hitlary open herself up to being crushed over this issue, when it’s the Federal governments own tax codes that permit the loopholes that people of wealth can exploit, the very SAME FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that the bitch has been a big part of for 26 or so years. Frankly, if I can do my annual taxes and end up NOT PAYING a dime, damn straight I’m happy about that.

    In short….Trump is SMART for not paying taxes. Maybe he can use that fact to show how screwed up the tax codes really are, not to mention how bought and paid for the politicians are for allowing it to legally occur. Great reason for a flat tax, NO loopholes.

  33. Hillary brought up Alicia Machado, who won the Miss Universe pageant owned by Trump in 1996, during the debate on Monday night, claiming that Trump once called her “Miss Piggy” because she gained a lot of weight while representing the pageant.

    Hillary said that Machado (Miss Venezuela) has since become a U.S. citizen and would take revenge on Trump by voting for Clinton.

    So Hillary’s latest devastating attack on Trump is to say he was judgmental of beauty….in a beauty pageant he owned.

    Scandalous. However will Trump recover from this knock-out blow?

    The whole stunt was designed to play into Hillary’s “feminist” image and portray Trump as anti-women.

    Donald Trump once called a woman overweight vs Hillary Clinton repeatedly threatening Bill Clinton’s sexual abuse victims.

    Which story is the media interested in and which one won’t they touch? No prizes for guessing the correct answer.

    But that’s not even the worst part of it.

    Machado, who is now a fully signed up Hillary campaign surrogate, was accused of driving a getaway car to aid her boyfriend in a plot to murder his brother-in-law at the funeral of the dead man’s wife and then threatening to kill the judge who was in charge of convicting Juan Rodriguez Reggeti.

    Despite giving conflicting stories on where she was at the time, the judge said there was insufficient evidence to prove she was at the scene of the crime.

    The attorney also alleged that witnesses saw Machado drive her boyfriend away from the scene of the crime, and that her boyfriend had snatched the dead woman’s 11-month-old son as well.

    A month later the judge went on national television to allege that Machado had threatened to kill him.

    Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television that she threatened ‘to ruin my career as a judge and … kill me’, the Associated Press reported.

    When CNN’s Anderson Cooper confronted Machado with her own sordid past, she didn’t try to deny it, simply waving her hand and scoffing, “I have my past, everybody has a past, I’m not a saint.”

    Yeah, not everybody’s past includes being accused of acting as an accomplice in an attempted murder, Alicia. That’s kind of out of the ordinary.

    Machado’s past also involved going on to do anal porn scenes for cash. Sounds like a classy lady.

    But wait, that’s not all.

    The former Miss Universe was also reportedly the incubus for the child of a notorious Mexican drug kingpin.

    “On June 25, 2008, Machado gave birth to her daughter, Dinorah Valentina. She issued a statement that the father of Dinorah was her best friend Mexican businessman Rafael Hernandez Linares after Mexican news sources, quoting the Attorney General, reported that the father was Gerardo Alvarez-Vazquez, a drug lord.”

    This little detail was once included on Machado’s Wikipedia page, but has now been scrubbed clean, along with information about her alleged involvement in the attempted murder – right at the same time Hillary adopted her as a campaign poster child. What a coincidence.

    “Now keep in mind, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is using Ms. Mexican-Gangland-Murder-Piggy/Porn-Star, in her commercials too,” writes the Conservative Treehouse.

    Machado is also vowing to vote for Hillary to support “women workers” (because she’s such a great role model for women).

    Machado is now doing the media rounds and will appear on Good Morning America today.

    And that’s ALL Hillary’s got on Trump. Calling an overweight woman overweight 20 years ago. A woman who was accused of being involved in an attempted murder and threatening to kill a judge as retribution.

    And the media treats it like it’s a huge scandal.

    Meanwhile, Hillary’s decisions led to dead Americans (Benghazi), a ruined country (Libya) and the international migrant crisis.

    But Trump is bad for being judgmental of beauty….in a beauty pageant he owned.

    And people wonder why 94% of Americans distrust the mainstream media.

    To see videos within article and links:

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I like the way people think what is a serious scandal….I watched the comparison and how they trivialize ones that actually endanger our nation.
      The Clinton WH had and did use the IRS “filegate” against their republican enemies. The same charge that was also included in RMNixons impeachment list of crimes. Clintons said, I’m sorry and returned the files and Nixon resigned. And absolutely was used by her boss in the WH.
      As to Whitewater…..everyone involved in the scandal went to prison including theLt gov under Clinton, with the exception of the two principles. and Hilary was the attorney for the whole deal. Papers Starr was looking for turned up in the WH private apts after the statute of limitations expired rendering what ever the document disclosed as inadmissable in court. So said Janet Reno the AG and they were never released. I would have thought willfully ignoring a supoena would have at least brought a charge of obstruction of justice.
      Little is mentioned of the miracle windfall involving her 1st training in wall street investing, guided by Tyson Foods executive. Tyson paid an astronomical fine for that innocent attempt to go around campaign financing, much less insider trading.

      At no time does Trump have blood on his hands. How many thousands died in Egypt when the WH and State dept demanded that mubarack must go, enabling although briefly the Muslim Brotherhood to seize control. Libya…..tens of thousands, Syria,,,,hundreds of thousands, Iraq,,,,,a shit load……mynarmar, which she declared now a civilized state, Ukraine and counting….laid the groundwork for the Iran nuclear deal as per her listed accomplishments…… no way does this let Bush 2 off his actions.

      Her brilliant and decisive tenure as Secretary of State has left a trail of totally destroyed States. There is NO single true accomplishment that can be held up as one that people will applaud. Least of all the refugees being displaced by the continued bloodshed in those countries. By no means were they great places to start with, but they sure as heck were far from the condition they are in today.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I forgot….the comedian who did the scandal comparison, made a great deal about Trump’s apparent inability to understand a blind trust and also his son,….he forgot to mention that even though Bill said he would step out of the foundation if Hillary was elected…… he neglected to mention that Chelsea who also is involved with the foundation, which is a family business, would remain continuing her role in the running of the business……selective editorializing.

        • Liberal’s usually fail to tell the whole (correct) story. Too bad Trump had to debate both Clinton and Holt, quite sad how low this country has fallen.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            I would assume that the MSM is not going to do some homework and broadcast the minor yet significant distinction about “stop and frisk” That it the practice being constitutional, but ruled in the how it was wrongfully applied in NYC of late.

        • I agree there are some issues with the Clinton Foundation that absolutely should be addressed.

          But there is a major difference when it comes to the need for a blind trust and management of the entities between the Clinton Foundation and the Trump business empire — the Clintons do not personally benefit from the Foundation. The Trumps do – it is a for profit business which the Trumps own, not a non-profit organization.

          • Buck…are you serious. You do really believe that the Clinton’s do not benefit directly from their foundation?

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            What are you smoking or drinking about the Clinton’s not personally profiting from the foundation. Who pays their salary and income. Chelsea sure as hell does not do it for free and neither does Bill.

            Sure technically the foundation is a non profit, but all alleged income is distributed to expenses which includes salaries and then some to the charities themselves. The return to the shareholder as in the distribution of the profits in a normal corporation via dividends etc,,,,it’s the profit the donors make from the connections the foundation sets up through their multiple government entanglements and contacts….not limited to the US government..You mean Bill and Chelsea and Hillary when she was free to do so…..did not keep any portion of the fees paid for their speeches to the very same donors that made millions on the deals made…….one biggy is the nuclear deal… the campaign is claiming that Hillary had nothing at all to deal with the sale and approval of 20% of our nuclear processing to Russia and she was the head of the State dept and she knew nothing…..that is something that is signed off at the highest levels of government, not some low level staffer.

            • As I said, very short on time, so I glossed over details — yes, a private foundation pays a salary to its board members. And as I also said, there are issues with the Clinton Foundation that must be addressed. Requiring a blind trust is not remotely one of them.

              This is very different from a for-profit family-run corporation where all profits accrue directly to the Trump family.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      When interviewed by CNN the lady claimed she was “surprised” that Clinton brought up her name and defended her.

      That is why, of course, CNN already had her scheduled for interviews the day after. Because nobody knew she would be mentioned. By the way, Clinton had mentioned her before in the campaign. Trump should have had a canned answer ready that would not offend LATINAs.

      And that is the target Gman. Not just women but Latin women. Clinton is trying to score a twofer.

  34. Fully explains “Stop and Frisk” and the SCOTUS decision that makes it legal. Trump was correct in what he said, despite having to debate TWO people.

    Donald Trump was right. Hillary Clinton was wrong. Lester Holt should apologize for interfering and trying so hard to help Mrs. Clinton support her incorrect statement that stop and frisk is unconstitutional.

  35. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Just to change the subject a little. I wonder what the child stars, grown up now, are so afraid of after having been raped by a number of high level A listers in Hollywood. Obviously one is caught and that is Cosby. I know being a Hollywood star expecially as a youngster exposes them to all sorts of predation. The studios, even the parents and guardians pushing them. No surprise so many wind up disfunctional. Take a child and young star named Amanda Peterson, who died a few years ago from a drug overdose. She quit Hollywood what seemed to be out of the blue years ago. She told the reason was the rapes by the bosses commited upon her. I truly hope the scandal is not covered up and blows the doors off the Hollywood scene. As adults, do as you damn well please but the predation on children. This is just like the church scandal with the diocies moving the known pedephiles around. But the government was wanting to discredit it’s competitor in society. Whereas the government is alway trying to enlist the hollywood elite to bless their policies. Hummm…they both are peddling a fantasy world.

    • Remember the scene in “The Godfather” right before the horses head when Tom is leaving the mogul’s home?

      • It does go on in every business though. When the wife and I celebrated anniversary 2 in ’75 we went to “Windows on the World” at the WTC. I was a little taken aback by the wait staff. All male and all pretty damn gay. Dad was the head bartender at the St. Moritz then and I brought it up to him. Seems that there was a “casting couch” in the Matrie D’s office for new waiters.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Absolutely….the young child star being scuttled out of sight…..are these people so afraid of losing their precious careers? Just like the government employees. Knowing full well the actions being demanded of them by their superiors is illegal, but continue them anyway. To say the State Dept did not know…BS the lack of emails turned over by them to the investigations was an aiding and abetting the use of the “ILLEGAL” private server totally to hide any and all actions from Congress and the people of the United States. The hundreds of times these people used the 5th amendment about self incrimination….why use it if you did NOT violate the law. Of the thousands of emails the FBI has turned over with so much redacted for security reasons flies in he face that a “few” emails were classified. All of the intelligence folks testifying claiming that they could not discuss any of the emails due to their classified content in an open hearing but wanted them closed.

    • Dale:

      Something new and totally wonderful from the folks at The world’s most expensive aircraft carrier ever can now probably spend its career at dockside surrounded and protected by Littoral combat ships that suffer engine failures too.

      Somebody should be keelhauled or make that somebodys! By the way this is a great source for info that rarely makes it to the general public. An industry paper that tends NOT to candy coat things. You could probably get a free subscription (hard copy) based on your IT background as could the Colonel because he …..was a colonel. I’m living off my kids.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I couldn’t open up this document, but looked up other articles on the troubles the Ford is having. Go directly from shipyard to museum…and collect $13B plus in the process. In one article which was published by the US Naval Institute which resides at the Naval Academy went so far as blaming Rumsfeld for the problems. That is to say, that while he was Sec Def he directed that new advanced systems be explored, developed and used, i’m sure when applicable….like function. The Navy at his time is planning to go back to the Nimitz catapult and landing systems for the future ships in the series because they can. The Ford is probably to late.

        In one of the articles it refered to the new Queen Elizabeth Class carrier the British are building. The F-35 variant they were planning on using for the carriers use has been changed to the VSTOL or VTOL version, because the F-35 could not carry a full load of air to air missles as designed due to the shock of take off and landing in either the older steam systems but also the newer versions which were going onto the Ford.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I believe I brought up the new DD1000, Zumwalt destroyer. Much ballyhoo about its ground breaking designs and capabilities etc etc etc. stealth destroyer at just under 700 feet in length designed for close in support…..why be stealthy you can see it from shore. They were to be $4.0B each with the $9.0B development cost spread out over the planned 32 ships in the series. Programmed canceled after the 1st one was commisssioned and trialed. I believe it even missed it’s commissioning ceremony in baltimore because it was put into drydock in Norfolk because of hull leaks while it was on its way to fleet week and it’s coming out party They have continued the construction of the remaining two, I’m sure that were mostly built….When I worked at Bath Iron Works we had at least 6 ships in some state of construction up through sea trials and commissioning and delivery.

        The overall Naval plan was to have right around 300 active ships available for duty. Well the last three classes have failed…..wait and see the new subs, might make 4.

        • Keep trying with the I could not believe that the power plant problem was found when it blew up!

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Stephen….tonight I ran into three navy fairly senior guys from officer to master chief. They were TDY from San Diego doing some work at Cherry Point MCAS. They had a new anacronym (sp) TTTD. “Tied To The Dock” when describing the fleet and all the new classes coming.

            They also has harsh words about the inclusion of all genders real or imagined. they totally hated the so many of the shore billets mostly in the gedunk etc being filled with ladies who are pregnant and did not opt out of the service cutting short their contract of 4-6 years of “ACTIVE” duty. They all were getting out within a few months. They were all gray hairs but far fewer than I have and at least 15 years younger.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              What the subliminal message was…..the ladies were NOT doing the jobs or tasks they were contracted and trained to do therefore pushing that extra work to the men who could not opt out. Equal gender stuff. BS on that. I only saw the beginning 41 years ago…they said I would even recognize anything today.

  36. Anyone else notice how it’s okay for the dems. to criticize cops but it’s not okay to criticize Islamic terrorists.

    • Explain please??????

    • Since when has it been “not okay to criticize Islamic Muslim terrorists”?

      Criticize away.

      • We do when appropriate, only to have your ilk scream ISLAMAPHOBE. Where the hell have you been?

        • Maybe you’ve been doing one of the following:

          A) Saying “Islamic” instead of “Muslim” since “Islamic” isn’t a real word. It’s like of like how “your ilk” seem to love saying “Democrat Party” because you know it’s nails on the chalkboard to us.

          B) You’ve been conflating radical extremists who’ve hijacked the religion with the religion in general. This would be like us insisting on referring to the KKK as Christian extremists which, while technically correct, isn’t really “fair” to the billion+ Christians who would prefer not to be painted with that brush.

          C) You’ve been criticizing Islam itself rather than the radicals within the religion?

          D) You’ve been suggesting that we should ban all Muslims until [insert vague non-defined figuring out of something or other].

          Maybe that’s what my “ilk” has been screaming about?


          And for the record, I have no ilk. It’s why I am immune from US law – I cannot be tried by a jury of my peers because I have no peers.

          • I see Mathius, you are a legend in your own mind, just like the rest of your ilk 😀 😀 😀

            As far as Islam, it’s no damn religion of peace, even without the extremist’s. But regardless, your ILK (yes I’m repeating ILK because it fits) on the Liberal left (although you seem to be seeing the light more and more, so your ilk is getting smaller, only 20 million or so) have this infantile habit of calling names when someone says something outside of the damn ILK’s beliefs. Just ask your candidate and what all of us deplorables are, she got at least one “ist” or phobe” for all of us. And yese, you are HER ILK 😀

            • Let’s get one thing straight: There is no such thing as a “religion of peace.”

              Islam certainly does not fit the bill.
              Nor does Christianity.
              Nor does Judaism.
              Nor does anything else.

              Maybe some of the Easter religions that more resemble philosophies than religions.


              Religions are neither peaceful nor non-peaceful.

              PEOPLE are peaceful.
              PEOPLE are non-peaceful.

              Lest we forget, I have read – cover to cover – the big three. I, personally, spent dozens, perhaps hundreds, of hours slogging through and trying to make sense of arcane texts.

              Trust me when I tell you, that if I wanted to find the good in any of them, I could.
              And trust me when I tell you that if I wanted to find the bad in any of them, I could.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            The name democrat is much more appropriate than democratic, which implies a process. Especially after the rigging of the primaries this presidential campaign season for Hillary and against Sanders by the party leaderships own documents.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            From the “Free Dictionary”.

            Is·lam·ic (ĭs-lä′mĭk, -lăm′ĭk, ĭz-)
            1. Relating to or characteristic of Islam or its adherents.
            2. In accordance with or permitted under the shari’a: Islamic banking.

      • Why are deflecting?

        • Add a you in there.

        • What am I deflecting?

        • Mathius is absolutely correct here…

          I and all other liberals I know are 100% ok with criticizing certain police officers and certain police actions and criticizing terrorists (Muslim, Christian, or otherwise). Not sure where you came up with this idea that we are ok with criticizing the police but not terrorists…

          • Love you guys but I don’t know what to say-BS comes to mind or is it just denial. Forget I asked the question. Any discussion of this is gonna go nowhere.

            • LMAO! Care V. They will call you a “Debateaphobe” BWAHAHAHA! 😀

            • I just want to know where you came up with the idea that we are happy criticizing cops (I have a close family member who is a cop by the way) but refuse to criticize terrorists.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Buck…I’m being totally sarcastic with what I’m about to write. I can see why a police office will not criticize terrorists. it has unleashed unlimited budgets and tools that heretofor would have been declared illegal to use due to invasion of privacy and the peoples constitutional rights, all in the quise to protect us from terrorist but have mostly been used against the citizens of this country, even for making a deposit or withdrawal in and around $10K as an example. .

              • Things like this:

                I can post links similar to this, like refusing service to cops at different establishments. This is done primarily by black Americans…..who primarily vote Democrat. I have seen the hypocrisy many times on many sites.

              • G-man,

                Is it possible you’re painting with a too-broad brush here?

                Maybe your statement shouldn’t be “it’s okay for the dems. to criticize cops but it’s not okay to criticize Islamic terrorists.” but instead:

                “it’s okay for idiots to criticize cops but it’s not okay to criticize Islamic terrorists.”

                Dems and Red Shirts both have more than their share of mindless idiots with an axe to grind, a point to make, or a score to settle.

                I don’t think it’s fair to generalize because some proportion of people who happen to be Democrats hate cops (and who know, maybe those individuals have their own good reasons for their personal views) – to take that and extrapolate that it’s the de facto Democratic position to bash cops and defend terrorists.

                That’s just silly.

              • Mathius, The head jerk of the Democrats, Obozo, is right there at the front of the problem. It can’t be a broad brush when it starts at the top and is shown full steam at the bottom. That’s your ILK friend, not mine. Even Hitlary is in this basket of whackballs leading the pack. It seems your a bit out of touch today.

              • G – what are you talking about!? You are making no sense here…

  37. Down here, JAC. The points that I am trying to make is that all I read on here is how “words have meanings.”

    Ethics is thrown around quite a bit and business ethics seems to be thrown around quite a bit with varying degrees of definitions. I would like you to take the time to address my post as to the specifics that I mentioned. You are not going to hurt my feelings if you think that what I have done is unethical….if you think so, please tell me why it is unethical. And, I would like you to extrapolate as well on people who own stocks and bonds or represent people or companies who violate their definition of ethics but over look it if profit is involved. This is by no means a disrespect to anyone on here….( I did single out Buck as an estate planner and tax professional )…..

    I will not buy into any explanation that “they did not or would not know” about business dealings of a client they are about to take on because I will guarantee you that law firms and accounting firms will perform due diligence. There is no insulation there and there is no client privilege to fall back on….ethics is ethics. Business is Business.

    So, when the stones start flying at the glass houses….I submit that the “thrower” of those stones better look closely. I guarantee you that the millions of people that own stocks in companies that carry out eminent domain or so called unethical behavior do not turn their stocks back in and cash those dividend checks just fine. They are equally guilty in my book.

    • The whole “ethics” argument is only brought up when it benefits the Liberals. It’s obviously completely ethical for a politician to openly lie, over and over, and over and over again even when proven to have lied to begin with.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      OK, lets first get definitions out of the way. Following are three commonly used, webster, ??, and Wikipedia.

      Full Definition of ETHIC
      1. 1plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
      2. 2a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction b plural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group c : a guiding philosophyd : a consciousness of moral importance
      3. 3plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness)

      (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles:
      the ethics of a culture.
      (used with a plural verb) the rules of conduct recognized in respect to aparticular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:
      medical ethics; Christian ethics.
      (used with a plural verb) moral principles, as of an individual:
      His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
      (used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing withvalues relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness andwrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of themotives and ends of such actions.
      Compare axiological ethics, deontological ethics.

      Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrongconduct.[1] The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, “custom”). The branch of philosophy axiology comprises the sub-branches of ethics and aesthetics, each concerned with values.[2]
      As a branch of philosophy, ethics investigates the questions “What is the best way for people to live?” and “What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?” In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtueand vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
      Three major areas of study within ethics recognised today are:[1]
      1. Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
      2. Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
      3. Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action[1]

      As I stated, ethics is a part of the field of moral philosophy. For our purposed, the challenge of identifying a proper code of conduct based on what is right and wrong. To hold any value as an ethical standard, such standard has to be understood and widely accepted. Like NOT KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE.

      Now notice that the focus of ethics is on behavior. But these definition exclude a very important point which used to be included in them. That is that ETHICS deal with the proper way in which humans deal with each other. This has faded with time as things like “ethical treatment of animals” and “animal rights” were invented by @#4%&*@@!.

      For the purpose of our discussion I use ETHICS as those rules which govern how we as people interact with other people. While ethics is often considered as moral philosophy I view it as a branch of that field. First comes the moral principles and standards and then the ethical. The second must be consistent with the first.

      Moral standards or principles are broader statements of what is right and wrong. Such as the moral principle of “do not initiate force”. The corollary ethical principles would include such things as not killing innocent people, not committing fraud, not stealing and not lying.

      All of these are types of force used in human interactions. All are designed to prevent people from being able to use reasoning to determine truth. Propaganda, for example, is a form of coercive force.

      Within this do you have any questions or need clarification???
      P.S. Because I am mostly concerned with rules governing our interactions with each other, that would fall under the field of “applied ethics” described in the WIKI definition above. That is the area which I think we are discussing. If we need to move backwards to the others just let me know.

      • I am going to look it up but I am under the impression that a blind trust is required of all Presidents.

      • Sorry JAc…..thanks for the school lesson but your long definition is still purely subjective. And you keep going back to this mantra of initiation of force. Every single decision could fall under that definition if the other person does not like it. I looked at all the definitions also…except WIKI ( For the future, Wiki is not a trusted source as far as I am concerned )…however,…under your interpretation when you use the word moral that cannot be realistically defined.

        To you, as I read it, anything considered an initiation of force is considered unethical. But initiation of force can be construed on just about anything.

        So, if you see the use of….lets see…..the hostile takeover of a company by buying up enough stock to control a company and institute a takeover that the others do not want…and then selling off the assets. Would that be an example of initiation of force in your mind and, therefore, unethical behavior?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          The words “moral” and “ethics” have been defined for a long time. The definitions of those words are not subjective in the sense you are claiming. They are what they are and have not really changed much for over two thousand years.

          What you are claiming is subjective is the actual moral or ethical principles.

          You asked me to define ethics. I have. All three provided are virtually identical. Although WIKI includes the three areas of philosophy of ethics, where as the others do not. In this case the WIKI definition is sound, valid and long standing.

          I used non initiation of force as an example. I have not as yet proposed any particular standard or principle. I have not stated my view on any of your examples yet. If we cannot even agree on what the word ethics means then no need to go farther.

          For the record, Coercion………….IMPOSING your will upon others, AGAINST their will.

          Also. Do not dismiss Wikipedia out of hand. I am aware of how it can be manipulated. But most “definitions” are easy to check and are usually not manipulated. It is easy to figure out if you look at the footnotes and see who is providing updated information.

          So if you think the words moral and ethics are subjective provide your definition of the words. Curious how you think it will differ.

          And yes, when we finally get to actual ethics, that is standards, you will find my use of non initiation of force to be far broader than say Black Flag’s.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Another word defined before we can go forward:
          From “The Legal Dictionary” While this is the “legal” definition I think it does a great job of capturing the “nature” of coercion.

          The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another’s freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim’s reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.
          A defense asserted in a criminal prosecution that a person who committed a crime did not do so of his or her own free will, but only because the individual was compelled by another through the use of physical force or threat of immediate serious bodily injury or death.
          In the laws governing wills, coercion is present when a testator is forced by another to make provisions in his or her will that he or she otherwise would not make if permitted to act according to free choice. It is an element of both duress and Undue Influence, two ways in which a testator is deprived of his or her free choice in making the will. If coercion is established in a proceeding to admit a will to probate, the document will be denied probate, thereby becoming void; and the property of the decedent will be distributed pursuant to the laws of Descent and Distribution.
          Coercion, as an element of duress, is grounds for seeking the Rescission or cancellation of a contract or deed. When one party to an instrument is forced against his or her will to agree to its terms the document can be declared void by a court. A marriage may be annulled or a separation or Divorce granted on the grounds of coercion. The coercion of small businesses by a cartel to fix prices of particular items supplied to them is a violation of antitrust laws, which are intended to prevent the restraint of competition in commerce. Laws regulating labor-management relations are violated by coercion when the employer coerces employees not to join a Labor Union or when a union representative pressures, uses physical force, or threatens an employee into joining the union.
          Coercion is recognized as a defense in prosecutions for crimes other than murder. If an accused can establish that he or she committed a crime as a result of the coercion imposed by another the defendant will be acquitted on the charge as a Matter of Law. He or she will not be excused for the crime if there was only fear of minor physical injury, damage to reputation, or property loss. The person who coerces another to commit a crime is guilty of the crime committed. The coercer can also be prosecuted for the separate crime of coercion.
          Coercion by law is the rendition of a judgment or a decree by a court, tax assessment board, or other Quasi-Judicial body for an amount of money presently due that mandates the sale of property owned by the defendant to pay the judgment.
          West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
          coercionnoun blackmail, bondage, brute force, command, compulsion, constraint, constraint by force, control, dictation, duress, exaction, exigency, force, forcing, illegal compulsion, impelling, insistence, intimidation, moral compulsion, necessity, negative compulsion, oppression, oppressive exaction, pressure, prevailing, prohibition, repression, strong arm tactics, threat, undue influence, unlawful compulsion
          Associated concepts: coercive conduct, duress, extortion, coercion of employees

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            JAC…good definitions……what I wonder is how then Patti Hearst was convicted after being kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Front. held captive under god knows what condition, yes is shown in a bank robbery holding a machine gun, but arms arm immobilized, but still convicted. Much less all the psychological stuff that was current about the Stockholm Syndrome……That girl was coerced. To be truthful, she paid the price of her Father’s and Grandfathers sins especially William Randolph Hearst.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              As I recall, the prosecution was able to show that her claim of coercion was filled with holes. Or at least convince the jury is was hot air. I also recall she got off pretty light for the crime she was charged with. Will have to look it up later to refresh my memory.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                There was no doubt that she was kidnapped and held for a long period of time. What stuck me was that regardless of there being “holes” in the coersion defense, i did think it strange that the prosecuter, and jury didn’t seem to considr that she could have been totally changed by her incarceration….It has happened to a lot stronger people, who had been trained to resist.

                I do not believe they ever tried to say that she was in on the kidnapping or proved anything of the sort. If that was so, then I’d go with there could not be coercion….it was a long time ago and as you have to go back and refresh the memory. I was there in CA during that time and remember when they got the gang.

          • Ok, JAC, for the sake of argument, I will accept your premise…..I can see your definitions can fit almost anything anyone does. I think that I can tell where you stand on business decisions. I make them without out conscience or moral conviction…as long as I am legal.

            I can see you saying that if I move in somewhere and purposely take a loss to drive someone out of business….that fits your definition of coercion. So almost anything competitive can be called coercion…almost anything competitive can be called immoral or unethical.

            I can tell by your answers already that you have a very broad scope….but I will play by your definitions. I am quite sure that you will find my stand on business decisions to be ruthless. I do not make decisions on emotions….I take a pencil and I write down pros and cons as I see them as it relates to MY bottom line. If the pros outweigh the cons, and I am legal according to law and regulations, I pull trigger and do the deal. Now I have standards that I follow and they are subjective in nature.

            As I said before, I look around for weaknesses all the time. If I can exploit a weakness, legally, and come out on top…that is the business world. It is cut throat and it is nasty. However, that is not the point that I was after anyway.

            I was trying to refer to anyone who claims that someone or some entity is immoral or unethical and condemn them but will still represent someone that does that for profit. If you have a 401(k) and you are a participant in a stock of a company that employs these ruthless tactics as I described, then they cannot claim immoral or unethical if they keep their stock and dividends. If they truly believe one way and that way is violated by a company they like…they should divest themselves from that company because if not, they cannot claim immoral or unethical without being that way themselves.

            I picked on Buck because he despises Trump for his legal business dealings. I do not know if Buck does this or not, but if he represents a company that does the same things that Trump does….then Buck has no standing.

            If Kraft foods uses the government to expand or do their bidding against an “innocent”,,,say by eminent domain…and you buy their products….you support them. I do not see any other answer.

            So, I will accept your definitions for the purposes of this exercise. And the only reason that I want to delve into this, is how I hear about Trumps dealings and how people hate him for it…but if he is legal and not violating law…..i do not get it. If he violates the law, that is what courts are for.

            You definitions will fit perfectly when dealing with labor unions and the right to work. Strikes that are designed to put economic pressure on a company is coercion, creates duress, creates violence, and creates damage is a perfect case of coercion and immoral and unethical behavior but they are legal. Buck will, of course disagree with this as this is a stance of Hillary Clinton. But this is for a later discussion.

            You and I will undoubtedly disagree but I know that you and I can do this amicably.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              How can you tell all this when I have offered ZERO opinions on what the proper ethical standards should be.

              And once again, my definitions are THE definitions of these words. There is no room for interpretation or subjective changes.

              Again, you are arguing about specific concepts of ethics. You are not arguing over the DEFINITION of what ethics are, or morals.

              Before I go into the weeds where you want to go we need to make sure we are talking the same language.

              A moral or ethical standard is NOT A DEFINITION OF ETHICS.

              I will ask you one thing however. Are ALL laws moral or ethical?? In other words, does making a rule a law make it ethical in your view?

              I will also offer up one key point which you seem to have confused. ETHICS are principles which guide or govern personal interactions. How we treat or deal with others. As such they are specific to the people who are interacting. Now take that idea and apply it to your burning question about hauling for Cargill or working for some other company that has acted badly.

              And just to give you a sneak preview, or something to ponder over your morning Dr. Pepper:

              “Ok, JAC, for the sake of argument, I will accept your premise…..I can see your definitions can fit almost anything anyone does. NO, THEY CANNOT.

              I think that I can tell where you stand on business decisions. NOT SURE BUT I DOUBT IT. I make them without out conscience or moral conviction…as long as I am legal.

              I can see you saying that if I move in somewhere and purposely take a loss to drive someone out of business….that fits your definition of coercion. NO, IT DOES NOT.

              So almost anything competitive can be called coercion…almost anything competitive can be called immoral or unethical. AGAIN, NOT TRUE.

              The reason you failed in these assumptions is you did not closely study the legal definition of coercion I provided. You seemed to have missed the critical factor which must exist to make an act one of coercion. I will give you another chance.


    This scenario may be a good one to discuss lethal force vs non-lethal force. As a past firearms instructor in the USAF, we didn’t teach shoot to wound and I know of no police agency that currently does. That being said, when a cop shoots, it should result in a death or seriously wounding the person, period. Police also now have tasers, but are not intended to be used against and armed person and correctly so.

    I have posted many videos of cops just plain being wrong and abusing their authority. Other times I have supported the actions based on the evidence provided. We hear the “mentally ill” excuse, yet every Liberal Progressive in country is mentally ill, so that excuse holds no water 😀

    I have a grand idea to fix this. Make public service commercials and fill the airwaves with them telling people when they are being ordered to do something by the police to just do it. Let’s deal with any Civil Rights violations after the fact. Let’s face it, putting sports stars, movie stars and everyday people in a good commercial telling people to do as instructed and stay alive would make a difference, I believe.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Mental illness is a legitimate concern when it comes to how police handle people. Far to many PDepts have ignored this.

      People with actual mental illness or impairment do not necessarily understand orders and can freeze or freak out when confronted by officers waiving guns and screaming at them.

      The city of Portland Oregon lost a multi million dollar law suit over such a thing. They now train officers to recognize these people and they have psychologists on staff during each shift to assist officers in the field.

      • While I agree, it’s not like those with a severe mental illness has a big tattoo on their forehead, nor does it mean that they are not violent. But I do agree that this is one area cops could use some better training. Still, a man or woman with a gun in hand, mentally ill or not, is still a problem for cops. As every scenario is different, the outcomes will also be somewhat different. Still, I’m in full agreement about this type of training.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Anyone with a gun is a potential problem. Including the police, obviously.

          The issue as I see it is that police are becoming to consistent in their response to this apparent threat. Surround, scream and then shoot to kill.

          How many could have been avoided by backing off and establishing a safe zone. Especially when a parent is there telling them the kid doesn’t understand them because he has Autism or is Retarded.

          I am presuming this is a TRAINING problem and maybe a POLICY problem at the local or state level. Then of course there is the issue of WHO is being hired in LE agencies these days. What do you think will happen when all these snowflakes become the majority in the force? Will they curl up and cry or lash out and kill because of their prior stress induced by the not so politically correct?

          • The only answer I have about the mentally ill is better training for cops. With each person and each situation different, it’s just a sucky situation all around.

            1. Most of the recent death by cop issues that have been protested have been overblown by the media. It all started with the Trayvon Martin case, which found the shooter innocent.

            2. Outright lies started the Black Lives Matters movement, it’s nothing but a Marxist terrorist group, funded by George Soros (this is verified by financial documents.

            3. At this point, it’s a minority of police that have been found to be wrong. In Baltimore, all 6 cops charged ended with no convictions.

            4. Better training in dealing with mentally ill people is needed, but will only stop a small percentage of cop killings.

            5. WE have to accept that we live in a freaking police state. Comply or die. It’s not hard to see this. People need to be educated on this, that part isn’t being presented, because the powers that be don’t won’t that truth to get out.

            6. The violent culture of the inner cities will never get fixed with our current government, EVER. The statistics tell the true story. Political correctness is only making things worse.

            7. Government is the problem. I’m going all out Black Flag just yet, but damn close. Just like free trade, let the people fix the problems, government only makes matters worse.

            • Whoops, I’m NOT going all out Black Flag just yet 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Part of the problem is the reliance on “conviction” to determine if wrong doing occurred. This is the complaint from Black folk.

              All to often the cops get off, even when it goes to trial. Is it because the jury really thinks they are innocent of acting badly? Or is it because of the LEGAL structure that has developed around “justified cop killings”.

              This again goes to we the people, since we have the ability to change this at the local level. The police must be held to the SAME standard as the rest of us when it comes to killing somebody.

              I agree with your idea of a mass media campaign telling people to suck it up and comply with police orders. Meanwhile working to reduce the jack booted tactics and personnel so that serious LEO’s can get back to peace keeping.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Getting away from the shootings. To take a twist on your first sentence….Isn’t the lack of a charge and conviction Hillary’s defense that she did nothing wrong or illegal. Regardless of what the law says and her proven actions relating to those laws.

                I’ll go back to the killing of the guy out in the LA area a few years ago. The whole interaction was filmed by bystanders….an action I can not at all defend. When 5 police officers literally beat a homeless person to death, If they backed off nothing would have come of it. No charges were filed. Then the killing of a homeless guy camping in an area where he should not have been living…ok who was being harmed. Only the guy the police shot and killed.

                I would not in any way want to be a police officer today. But they are the front line of “policing” law and order. They must be held to a standard equal or greater than the general population if they want respect. This is where leading by example is paramount It is a must and comes with the job….just like our LAWMAKERS in office must be held absolutely to the letter of the law… excuse they wrote it.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        My neighbor and I were having a conversation about this very subject the other day. He and his wife lived in Zurich for quite a few years. He said that there was a park that had the nickname of “Needle Park” in reference to the rampant heroin use there. Apparently there had been quite a bit of violence akin to what we are seeing here for any number of reasons.

        JAC to your point about learning how to recognize and handle issues with mentally impaired suspects of some event. Lets roll drug addiction into the illness category for discussions sake because to many people say its a mental illness just like alcoholism, whichthen become physical issues. Apparently the city spent a great deal of time and effort training their officers and the shootings like we are having dropped significantly.

        That does not mean, that some of these shooting were not absolutely required , but also instigated to further the cause of BLM.

        In the side articles of one that Gman posted was continued revelations on the recent shooting in Charlotte. Even though the press reported that the couple had a loving and caring twenty year relationship…..she had a restraining order against him, because of physical violence against her and one of the children and threats to kill her. In the compalint also was the notes checked by her that he was dangerous and had a gun and the type was written in the space available. she said a 9mm Black?

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    In the words of Charlie Stella…………Badda boom, badda bang.

    In response to the Trump camp praising the GOP nominee’s supposed discipline, Chelsea Clinton said in an interview that the whole storyline is a “distraction.”

    “My reaction to that is just what my reaction has been kind of every time Trump has gone after my mom or my family, which is that it’s a distraction from his inability to talk about what’s actually at stake in this election and to offer concrete, comprehensive proposals about the economy,” she said in an interview published Tuesday by Cosmopolitan, “or our public school system, or debt-free college, or keeping our country safe and Americans safe here at home and around the world.”
    Challenge accepted.

    While Trump has no intention of engaging with his daughter’s best pal, the missive did rile up Clinton rape victim, Juanita Broaddrick, who ripped a hole right through the middle of Chelsea’s pity party, with a series of tweets.

    “[Y]ou said you don’t remember a time in your life that your parents weren’t being attacked,” Juanita Broaddrick said in a series of tweets addressed to Chelsea Clinton.

    “There’s a very good reason for this — your parents are not good people,” she said.

    “Your father was, and probably still is, a sexual predator. Your mother has always lied and covered up for him,” Broaddrick said on a Twitter account that has been verified as belonging to her.

    “I say again ‘I was 35 when Bill Clinton Raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. It never goes away,'” she said.

    While the Clinton News Network (CNN) has been running stories on Trump shaming women for two days, they somehow overlooked Ms. Broaddrick’s little response to Chelsea.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    GAWD……….these darn racist and misogynistic Trumpsters are enough to drive one insane…

    Oooops…… bwahahahahahaha

    • She nailed it.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Great message…obviously she has to be put back in her place (sarc)

      In all the reading and listening I’ve done these past several months while I have been severely limited on what I can physically do……this is the 1st election in generations that the Democrats DO NOT have a lock on the Black vote. They may not like Trump personally, but he sure is talking a different message than the Democrats which has hurt the Blacks far more than they’ve gained…..I’ll toss in anyone who Hillary says is deplorable and due to circumstances have had limited opportunity in life….black, white, asian hispanic you name it.

      THe percentage that truly will vote for change will shock the democrats and will turn the election toward trump. He will then have to deliver…..The minorities and disadvantaged are being told we can expect more of the same and unlimited refugee relocation who directly compete for their jobs, if they vote for Hillary…..why would they honestly do that? They’re cutting their own throats.

  41. There will be a new article posted this morning to continue the conversations 🙂

%d bloggers like this: