« Syria/Iraq Roundup - 17 December 2016 | Main | Operation "Borders of Hatay" - an SST war game. »

17 December 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

different clue


It doesn't take very many people to vary from their traditional usual-suspect voting patterns to change an outcome.

Here in Michigan, I have read that Clinton lost Michigan by 20,000 votes; thereby losing all of Michigan's electoral votes. I also read that 80,000 Democratic voters found Clinton so distasteful that they left the "president" bubble altogether blank and unfilled entirely . . . even while voting for strict party-line Democrats in every other line and marked bubble. If everything else had been the same, with just the one single difference that those 80,000 "no vote for President" Democratic voters would have voted for Clinton, then Clinton would have won Michigan by 60,000 votes and taken all the Michigan electoral college votes.

Eric Newhill

Tyler, One more month all that is wrong will be righted; to include Turkey's insolence and this Jihad/Caliphate nonsense generally. Trump and Putin; Gods right and left hands.


kao, I realized he was a difficult person and Yoko Ono herself is pretty eccentric too (women is the nigger of the world, wasn't it?). Yes:

On the other hand necessary to have the FBI watch him? ... and of course the nutcase.

... needed to let David's note somewhat enforced by Fred's response sink in for a while. ;)

Eric Newhill

P.S. and there was just a truck attack on a Christmas market in Berlin with at least 9 killed and 50 wounded.

By the time Trump and Putin work out their plans, NATO won't lift a finger to assist Turkey, IMO. Deplorables, worldwide, are sick and tired of Jihad and sick and tired of the limp wristed confused responses to it.

It's damned ridiculous that the countries that simultaneously defeated Nazi Germany (the best military force on the planet when WW2 commenced) and Imperial Japan can't annihilate a bunch of backwards maniacs riding around in the desert with machineguns screwed to the roofs of Toyota pickup trucks. Once the will and vision are organized and Borg colluders purged, the IS is on it's way to becoming a footnote in history books and Erdogan will get the Saddam treatment.


kao, the Jesuits are interesting circles. One of them brought Zen from Japan over here. He studied with a Zen master over there. ... I volunteered in their academy here in C. for a while.

I am aware it is completely different over here. But some of the stuff vaguely reminded me of Berlin and the poor Profs that had their seminars taken over by one or the other post SDS political camps. Usually by the leader within a group of followers. ...


Agreed on the older you are, etc., you voted for Trump. This my also be due to watching the big box stores open, the mom and pop stores get shuttered along with a lot of other small businesses; watching our children, after receiving their college degree, remain at home. In the years since 1980, rents went off the roof, while opportunities for Americans, dwindled. There are other factors, but those of us, who are a bit older, have watched a steady decline here, while the msm, tells us how great everything is.

Agreed also on most of Trump's cabinet picks, especially Tillerson. I was reminded of this comparison of the major oil companies, in the low profit 2015. http://www.oilfieldexpat.com/?p=894

Hopefully, Tillerson whose work at Exxon Mobil put him in contact with many state players, around the world, in addition to his much bandied about relationship with President Putin of Russia. (good article from the NYer on his background: http://tinyurl.com/Tillerson-bio

As for Fillon, let's hope he wins his run off, and can help Chancellor Merkel gracefully center her policies, but I will not hold my breath on that.


Actually, until I witnessed the antics of the Democrats, and the MSM's slanted reporting, as I said, I was leaning towards Bernie Sanders. Though, fiscally, Sanders made me a bit, queasy. Believe it or not, many of Sanders' policies like reigning in some of the ridiculous trade deals, and his original stance on immigration before he watered it down to run on the Democratic ticket, rather similar to President-elect, Trump's.

Absolutely agreed on where the violence came from, as the investigative documentaries by Project Veritas proved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

I apologize if you do not like my use of the left. Perhaps the terms, 'left' and 'right' are overused. To clarify, personally, the term 'left' not only applies to Bernie Sanders and his supporters (of which I was once one), because, Mrs. Clinton used and is still using, to this minute classic tactics of 'leftist' organizer, Saul Alinsky. As you know, they corresponded, and Clinton went on to write a 92 page homage to Alinsky, while at Wellesley.

That said, I was disgusted when her campaigns tactics against Bernie Sanders came to light. I continue to be amazed at her inability to take responsibility for her own actions. At this point, from the 'there were no classified emails on my server' to the the paid for rioting, to leaving her supporters to fend for themselves on election night, to the endless recounts, and now the blame it on the Russians (sans proof), I just feel like the Hillary Clinton machine, formerly known as the Democratic Party and their incessant collaborators, the main stream media are very sore losers.



That's exactly the point. It's not a huge difference, BUT, the bottom line is that, according to the rules, that's the difference that counts. On one hand, I think anyone who tries to delegitimize the results by nagging about them is nuts. On the other hand, it is equally true that, assuming Trump is serious, he'd have to deal with huge numbers of people who voted for him not because of his programs, ideas, or whatever, but because he had an R next to his name. Or, as someone put it, Trump enjoyed electoral advantages of being both an independent (vis a vis "Trump voters") and a major party candidates (vis a vis "Republican voters"). Now, he has to deal with the consequences. This will be interesting. Hopefully, not too much, though.


And after you read this article (OK, blog post), then read these words from Trump’s speech last Friday in Florida:

"You people were vicious, violent, screaming, 'Where's the wall? We want the wall!' Screaming, 'Prison! Prison! Lock her up!' I mean you are going crazy. I mean, you were nasty and mean and vicious and you wanted to win, right?' Trump said to the crowd of thousands. 'But now, you're mellow and you're cool and you're not nearly as vicious or violent, right? Because we won, right?’"

different clue


It's quite all right. I wasn't giving voice to any sense of personal insult. I was expressing a sense of philosophical-ideological unease at seeing situations possibly misunderstood and opportunities possibly lost because of mistaken ( in-my-view) non-differentiation between different lefts. ( And Bitter Berners like me would say the Clintonites are a velcro-decoy faux-left devoted to leading people over the buffalo jump . . . and not really leftists at all).

I can understand the view that any user of methods devised by the leftist Saul Alinsky must be a Saulinsky Leftist her own self. But I think that view may be mistaken. Aulinsky wrote his methods down. They can be understood, weaponised and used by anybody. Tea Party elements used Alinskyan methods to disrupt the Democrats' "sell Obamacare" Town Meetings, for instance.

And the current propaganda-field being generated around Putin, Trump, hacks and leaks, etc. is part of the Democrats' use of McCarthyist methods learned from the Republicans of McCarthy's day who first pioneered them. They can be used by anyone who cares to use them . . . right, left, anybody.

(I personally think that Clinton's primary source of inspiration is Richard M. Nixon. Her coverupping and paranoid self-pity are Nixonian all the way).

mike allen

David Habbakuk -

Well thank you, but I can stand on my own without your plea.

I am glad you think of me as a godsend though. I will try not to disappoint you in the future.

mike allen

A crook? If you expect me to eat that insult on a good woman without comeback then you should ban me. Mrs Clinton has a thousand times more ethics and morality than President elect Trump.


mike allen

Well, the US Attorney for the southern district of NY and his sitting grand jury will deal with the question of her virtue. pl



You did point out the politics without principle which seems to apply rather aptly to the lifelong politician who lost; however you left compassion out of that list of clergyman standards.

mike allen

Colonel -

She would love a day in court. But I predict it won't happen unless that US attorney hurries and convenes the grand jury before late January. After inauguration Trump will squash it in order to keep a cloud of doubt over the Clintons and to try to burnish his own image as magnanimous.


mike allen

Trump would not have kept this man on as US Attorney if he intended that, and a large number of donors are preparing lawsuits for embezzlement against the Clintons. pl

mike allen

Colonel -

I hope he goes forward with it myself. It will give her a chance in open court to disprove all the BS.


"The older you are the less likely you went to college(university)."

According to the 2010 census (think that was the year), ages 54-64 had the highest education, meaning university.

Dr. Puck

I don't blame the poor for being poor. I also rarely ask a question that I don't already have a strong clue as to how it may be addressed in a studious, non-ideological way.

It would be the case that the trajectories of economic inequality since the end of WW2, at which point the US had the most fully functioning industrial and agricultural economy in the world, are well studied in non-ideological terms.

My own summary is: it is a complicated subject matter concerned with many domains of change. So, it would be that Walrus writing "'as the paths available to a better life are systematically closed off.'" begs the question,

How did this used to work? How did it work between 1945-1960? Between 1960-1980? Etc..

In fact, how would leaders of a political economy manage an economy if its only goal--yes, a simplification for the sake of a thought problem--was some realizable and modest version of the American dream?

This 'so-called' dream boils down to the practical situation of the householder. Rent or mortgage, food, utilities, transportation, insurance of several kinds, savings to insulate one from precarity and sudden structural expenses. Should we add college education for two youngsters at a state school?

Crunch those numbers.

Contrast this all with what we have today, the left/right battle between, to simplify, the nanny state and a kind of arch calvinist "personal responsibility." The thorns here come out of that ideological battle being many leagues different than what is posed by the thought problem, "how would you manage an economy to support it providing a decent householder's economy all up and down the continuum of skills and experience?"

And let's assume the aptitude is strong and hard working and able to commit to not obtaining the goals 'all at once.'

Shall we deconstruct why it has come about that the CEO is to be valorized for nowadays making 300 times the average wage of his average employee, or, why it is, per Piketty, that the holders of capital, and paper (!) no longer are very inspired to leave the precincts of rent seeking, or the casino, for the more uncertain territory of the so-called "supply-side," and the construction of 'final goods' capacity prior to the arrival of demand?

But I simplify, right? The process through which winners and losers are determined does offer the story about consequential effects come to be absorbed by the working class.

However, in noting this I am reminded that, for example, the response to the housing crisis was itself a compromise, but, that many argued for ideological (?) reasons that what was required was the redemptive violence to livelihood that could be accomplished by complete foreclosure of the householder's distressed equity, and the 'salutary' collapse of the not-so-humongous enough to go righteously kaput, banks.

So, the counsel was for vast creative destruction. (Those people are now in charge of the American economy. Just sayin'.)

I despair of the dialing down from the pragmatic recognition that the stability of an economy is discoverable in the stability of the average, or mean, householder's economy. It seems to me recognizable that team Trump, and GOP Inc., understand that the economy is not going to be maneuvered to return to the year 1951.

What would a coherent non-ideological argument promoting the growth of the mean householder's wealth look like? And, poverty? Seriously, like the poor householder in East Cleveland? For example. . .


Look toward the bottom of that list and see if you can make out the shape of future economic policy, or its color.

Eric Newhill


There was a discussion here before the election wherein I (and a couple others) said that the polls could not be believed because, for one thing, they showed, for example, 37% Ds and only 25% Rs in the sample, whereas the best intel has the % Ds and Rs in the population to be much closer; maybe only 1% more Ds. So no surprise that Clinton was ahead in the polls by a few points. If one were to have representative sampling the race would be tied or Trump ahead.

You and someone else argued that party affiliation is "attitudinal" and that it isn't important to have representative sampling along party lines. The stated party affiliation is just how people are feeling at the time of the poll (to which I replied "nonsense"). It's all there in the archives of this blog. In fact, a few commenters went so far as to say that I was "certifiably crazy" for suggesting that such sampling errors were a serious issue.

I'll drop the whole thing now and never bring it up again. I just find the revisionism interesting and wanted to poke you a little to see how it would play out. Human psychology fascinates me.

Sam Peralta

...Or be convicted by a jury!

Considering all the shenanigans by the Clinton Foundation and their pay-to-play schemes the US attorney should have a field day calling the Saudi sheikhs to the witness stand.

Your "genuine American heroine" was so inspiring with her heroism including coming under fire in the Balkans that she couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for her in Michigan and Wisconsin.


"I don't doubt the truth of what you say as per California. Not at all. But it is not a complete account of boorish behaviour in the immediate aftermath of November 8th. According to media reports I've sampled since the election, incidents of attacks on minorities in the wake of the election were widespread and not infrequent."

Indeed, there were many reports, I heard them, too. However, it's often a good idea to follow up on news reports because as time went on, many of those same reports turned out to be hoaxes perpetrated by followers of Mrs. Clinton:

Here are a few of them:










Agreed, and agreed. I think the comparison of Mrs. Clinton to former President Nixon, is apt. When I saw her say, 'I don't know why I am not 50 points ahead' I was reminded of Humphrey Bogart's great portrayal of Captain Queeg in Cain Mutiny.

different clue


About OBOR . . . I would propose a new acronym which better suits the reality of what China is working to achieve. That new acronym would be . . . COBOR-CPS. Which stands for China's One Belt One Road Co-Prosperity Sphere. China hopes to turn every place reached by its OBOR into a source of raw materials for China and a captive market for Chinese goods. They plan to achieve the "captive" part by exterminating every thing-making industry they can in every country their OBOR touches.

We in America have already received a taste of that Chinese approach due to MFN for China. Whole industries dismantled, packed up into crates, shipped to China, and remantled there. OBOR membership for America? Wouldn't China just LOVE to build a road under the Bering Strait to Alaska! For myself, I would like to see America aVOID becoming China's New Overseas Tibet.

different clue

Sam Peralta,

I think Clinton lost a lot of votes in Michigan when she promised that "when elected" she would appoint Bill Clinton to be in charge of the economic recovery plan and program. That promise brought back bitter memories of Clinton's aggressive and successful support of NAFTA, WTO Membership and MFN for China. It was an unforced error on candidate Clinton's part, and a significant own-goal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad