Never Count Your Chickens (or Your Elections) Before They Hatch

Folks on the Left are getting jittery about Clinton’s prospects in November. Polls continue to show a tightening race and some have Trump leading. Liberals are increasingly anxious about the election, and several analysts are pointing to Clinton’s health as the reason behind the recent plunge in the peso (meaning, of course, that Mexican investors aren’t too skeptical of a Trump victory). Trump continues to draw thousands to his rallies while Clinton was able to muster some 600 at a university with over 30k students.

trump        hillary

However, it is much too early for Trump supporters to play Taps on the Clinton campaign. In spite of her corruption and very obvious dishonesty, she can be a smooth talker, and the pending debates may be just what she needs to revive a campaign that appears to be languishing. She’s been in politics long enough to know how to package herself and can speak competently enough to convince the ignorant that she knows what she’s talking about. The interest in Trump (for better or for worse) will likely draw huge ratings for the debates, so this presents a major opportunity for both sides to connect with undecided voters. If Hillary manages to make it though a debate in a halfway adequate fashion, the press will trumpet her Resurrection and will carpet-bomb the country with expert opinions and push polls to “prove” that the debates were no-contests in Clinton’s favor.

I realize that it’s a common political tactic to exploit your opponent’s weaknesses to the maximum degree, so it makes sense to continue to sow doubt about Clinton’s health, her honesty and her gross incompetence in handling our nation’s secrets. But the Trump campaign will do well to present a presidential Trump (if such is possible, to skeptical American’s who will be listening in). Trump supporters are intensely committed to his victory, but they’ll need the majority of the middle ground to get across the goal line. I’m as right-wing as they come, but if Trumpsters think the cat is in the bag, the Clintons have proved to be cats with nine lives. This one isn’t nearly in the bag…yet. Nobody on either side should forget…

truman

Twitter Vs. Instapundit [UPDATED]
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners September 16, 2016
  • Paul Hooson

    If anything, last week’s Clinton collapse proved how fragile her voter coalition really is. A large portion of her support appeared to be an anti-Trump coalition who do not really like Clinton very much, but Trump much less. It only took a few minor problems, and part of that coalition left Clinton, and she started to fall behind Trump in the polls. My best guess is also that she does not blow out Trump in the upcoming debate, where her election problems will only worsen. Unless Clinton can re-establish herself as the safer “establishment” candidate with voters, Trump probably wins this election despite poor ground operations in states like Florida where Clinton has 34 offices and Trump only 1 by comparison.

    Some Trump voters seem to believe that he can grow into the job. But, his bizarre views on foreign policy that are one part uninformed and one part extreme, don’t seem to worry voters much. And, his economics of opposing Federal Reserve Board interest rate hikes one day and favoring increasing them the next day, where increasing these rates will give those with savings more interest, but could trigger a new recession, don’t seem to shake off voters either. It’s as if he is also made of teflon, which is good sign for Trump, while a few faltering steps for Clinton only caused her poll standings to collapse.

    Overall, I don’t feel that the news is good for Clinton here. She could well lose this election by 10 points or so if this Clinton slippage trend continues.

    • Scalia

      Clinton has by far outspent Trump in Florida, yet it’s a dead heat

      • Paul Hooson

        Voters don’t like her much, and it took very little to give new life to “Clinton fatigue”.

    • Retired military

      Some Trump voters seem to believe that he can grow into the job.”

      Here let me fix that for you

      “Some Obama voters seem to believe that he can grow into the job.”
      As usual the dems were wrong

      • The Presidency is the ultimate OJT job slot. IF you manage to survive the grueling physical selection process, you’d better be adaptable and have sufficient mental flexibility to do the job. Because what worked for your predecessors likely won’t – and current events have a way of making your plans irrelevant.

        Come to think of it – as far as the ‘selection process’ goes, maybe they need to include a 10k walk in the campaigning. I think Trump could do it. I don’t believe Hillary could.

        • Retired military

          Hillary cant make it up a flight of stairs by herself.

          • Well, that’s what those motorized stair climbers are for. They could strap her to one of these…

        • Commander_Chico

          Not necessarily a walking test. FDR would not have passed that but survived almost four terms as president.

          • By the histories, it may have been best if he hadn’t been President. His responses to the Great Depression may well have extended it far longer than it would have lasted if he hadn’t intervened.

          • Commander_Chico

            Ya I know that’s the standard Republican theme now, but spending money on things like the WPA and CCC are accepted as standard cures for depressions now. See Bernanke, “helicopter money.” Depressions are liquidity crisis, you have to put money into the economy. The best way is putting it in ordinary people’s hands to spend.

            I just watched the OECD’s chief economist calling for more government spending to boost growth.

            What most economists fault Roosevelt with now is cutting government spending too soon, not his basic policy.

          • The WPA and CCC were a bit late. I’m currently reading ‘A Square Meal’ – about relief in the Great Depression, and it’s… well, as a parent the political decisions I’m reading about are frankly horrifying.

            At any rate – FDR is what we had. We can’t exactly restore back to 1928 and replay the game.

            If you’re interested…

            https://www.amazon.com/Square-Meal-Culinary-History-Depression-ebook/dp/B018E0YK4O

          • Commander_Chico

            Thanks, looks interesting.

            In many ways, Hoover gets a bad rap, he might have done as well or better if given more time.

          • Three and less than 10℅ of the fourth.

          • Scalia

            But remember that was before television. Photos often hid his handicap or were staged to give the impression that he could stand normally.

          • Wild_Willie

            5 out of four liberals are bad at math. ww

    • “But, his bizarre views on foreign policy that are one part uninformed and one part extreme, don’t seem to worry voters much.”

      Perhaps because they’re not that extreme? Or perhaps the voters have gotten the idea that the ‘enlightened, informed’ actions that Obama has taken have all the logic and cohesion of sticking post-its with random foreign policy ideas up on a dartboard and tossing darts at them blindfolded and over the shoulder?

      And Clinton couldn’t even be bothered to go to Mexico when invited. Yeah, that’s a ‘win’ for her, isn’t it?

      • Hank_M

        She didn’t go to Louisiana either, but she hasn’t missed many fundraisers.

        • Setting herself up for afterward, I think…

          “What? I’m BROKE! Would you begrudge me all that money that’s been donated?”

      • Paul Hooson

        Democrats and Republicans long held a deep respect for NATO and it’s evolving role in peacekeeping in the world. Mr. Trump seems to want to weaken or dismantle NATO, which has usually been the position of far left parties like the Greens and Communists.

        • jim_m

          Yeah that deep respect the dems have must be why they keep cutting funding.

          I’ll be tthat “deep respect” was exactly what prompted 0bama to announce that he would not be extending to Poland our missile defense and especially to announce it on the anniversary of their invasion by the USSR.

          What better way to show your respect than to fuck them over on the anniversary of their being fucked over.

          You really are stupid. You know that?

          • Paul Hooson

            Given the number of ongoing military missions that NATO member nations work in cooperation with the United States,not always official NATO missions, but security enhancing, I think it is very difficult to claim any funding cuts under Democratic presidents. While I personally support expanding the missile defense program to Poland, deep concerns that Russia would aim large numbers of new missiles at Poland made any new missile defense deployment more difficult to justify politically or from a military standpoint.

          • jim_m

            So you are arguing that announcing this as a surprise on the anniversary of Russia invading Poland in WWII was a sign of respect? Much like his snub of Sarkozy when he took office, refusing to take Sarkozy’s calls and instead contacting his predecessor.

            If you think 0bama respects our NATO allies you are sorely mistaken.

          • Paul Hooson

            No. But, any decision that may aim many more Russian missiles at Poland does not enhance her defenses. U.S. military planners are constantly looking at new technology because Putin and his military planners believe Russia’s ability to swipe down all of the American land, sea and air based nuclear weapons in a first strike nuclear war is possible with new Russian technology within as little as the next three years.

          • jim_m

            The decision to not put the missile defense in Poland is a defensible position. However, the rude, boorish and offensive manner in which it was done identifies 0bama as an inept and arrogant amateur as his subsequent foreign policy failures have abundantly demonstrated.

          • Paul Hooson

            I can’t speak to Obama’s timing here. But, military technology needs to evolve to meet and exceed any threat to U.S. security. No nation can be convinced that they could swipe down our nuclear forces and win a war with the United States.

          • Commander_Chico

            Missile defense welfare for weapons films.

        • Dhimmocrats have never respected anything beyond its perceived utility.

          • Paul Hooson

            Plenty of united NATO missions have taken place under both Democratic and Republican presidents.

  • Par4Course

    Each side will have its ups and downs in the 48 days before November 8. Trump needs a solid debate performance, while Hillary just has to show up without a doctor’s excuse. The key states are Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, and the real deciding factor will be which side does the best job of getting its voters to the polls. Hillary hopes her supporters are more willing to go vote than they are to go to her rallies, while Trump hopes his big rallies are a sign his supporters will be enthusiastic on election day.

    • Retired military

      I believe that at least one of the debates will be postponed because of Hillary’s health (although the press will spin it as a different reason – security concerns, bomb threat called in to cover her absence , etc).

      • Scalia

        She just canceled another event without explanation.

  • pennywit

    Between the hatching chickens and the bagged cats, you’re going into sports color commentator territory with the metaphors …

    • Scalia

      Welcome back, pennywit. It’s good to see you again.

      • pennywit

        Indeed. And I’m here to remind you that if your favorite football team is going to make the playoffs, it needs to score more touchdowns and win more games.

        • Scalia

          Well, they scored a hunk of points against the Colts, but as usual, they choked against the Titans. They were at home against a mediocre team, and they gave the game away in the 4th quarter. Same story for some 40 years.

          • pennywit

            Man, you’re a Lions fan? That’s like, Evan McMullin levels of hopefulness.

          • Steelers!

            Well, at least my wife follows them.

            Welcome back, PW…

          • Scalia

            Yeah, we Lions’ fans have been living like that for a very long time. They went to the playoffs a couple of times in the ’80s and several times in the ’90s (even going to the NFC championship in ’92), but they always ended up losing by either getting blown out or inventing unique ways to lose games they should have won.

            That, among other reasons, is probably why I’m extra cautious about proclaiming a GOP victory a little more than a month out before any of the debates. To me, it’s irresponsible.

          • pennywit

            C’mon, Scalia. Say it. “Trump in a landslide, and Lions all the way to the Super Bowl!!” You know you want to.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            “…but they always ended up losing by either getting blown out or inventing unique ways to lose games they should have won.”
            At least you got there. Try being a Browns’ fan.

          • pennywit

            Oh, man. That’s, like, having faith that Vermin Supreme will win the presidential election.

        • Retired military

          Well Hillary gave a speech to a few hundred at Temple college and then to the rest of the week off.
          Trump gave a speech to thousands in a stadium and is continuing to campaign.

          • pennywit

            I’m sorry, that comment isn’t allowed in reply to my comment. Banal sports metaphors only, please.

          • Retired military

            Banal sports metaphors

            Ummm I dont like sports but lets try

            Trump is playing before Super Bowl sized crowds.

            Hillary is playing before T Ball size crowds.

          • pennywit

            Good effort. But let’s try this:

            “Hillary’s been a workhorse this season, but Trump’s a show horse. And these fans love a show horse. But if one of these to wants to get the pennant, they’re gonna have to swing the bat and get some runs!”

            I tried to come up with some dressage puns, but horse dancing is even more ludicrous than this election.

  • jim_m

    There is no need to sow doubt about Clinton’s honesty. Everyone knows she is a profligate liar. The only people who have “concerns” about her lying are people like Bruce who wish she were a better liar. They see lying as a means to an end and therefore acceptable. They just wish she were capable of getting away with it.

    • Scalia

      For people following politics, I most certainly agree that nobody needs to be convinced of Hillary’s dishonesty. There are, however, a lot of people out there who don’t follow politics, but they dutifully vote every four years. Most of them are either not aware of the truck-load of lies she’s told, or they are vaguely aware that somebody somewhere questions her honesty. They retort that all politicians are dishonest, so it doesn’t affect them as much.

      Once people are aware of the kind of liar she is, they agree that hers is a “special” kind of dishonesty—unless they’re Democrats. Before it became obvious that Trump would be the nominee, many, many of them backed Clinton. That’s all one needs to know to appraise the moral character of Democrats.

      • Constitution First

        …And their sycophants in the Lame Steam Media…

      • pennywit

        Although this election is something of a singular event. With both candidates posting high negatives, it’s less that Clinton has a “‘special’ kind of dishonestly” and more along the lines of “Do I dislike Clinton or Trump more?”

        That said, a LOT of people are going with Trump right now.

        • Scalia

          Perhaps you can elaborate a bit. I’m certain that in the 24/7/365 news cycle we can find inconsistencies and truth stretching in every politician, but the lies Hillary has told are ridiculous in the jaw dropping sense.

          I think that ties into your “[d]o I dislike Clinton or Trump more” line. Her lies are so galling and sometimes amateurish, I would think that would offend many people enough to say that they dislike her more than Trump. In other words, a person’s dishonesty can have everything to do with h/er likability.

          • pennywit

            Well, I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you talk about Clinton’s lies. Is there something specific or general?

          • Scalia

            Our boards are full of examples of her lying. I don’t have time to link them right now, but just Google Hillary’s lies….you’ll get a ton of information.

            But all of that aside, I’m just saying that once people understand that Candidate F is very dishonest, they won’t tend to like that person, so I don’t think there’s a disconnect between what I’m saying and what you are saying.

          • Scalia

            For starters, you can check out my Obama video above.

          • pennywit

            By Mercury’s winged sandals! Why does everything have to be a video these days?

          • Scalia

            Oh, c’mon! It ain’t that long. I actually like it because seeing Obama rip Hillary has greater effect that reproducing the text. 🙂

          • pennywit

            If it isn’t Lynx-compatible ….

          • Then you chose poorly.

          • It’s the era in which we live.

          • For me it’s the ‘WTF’ factor of her email security. Okay, I can understand her wanting to evade FOIA – that’s illegal, but I can understand it.

            What I can’t understand is her thinking it was okay to basically run a server that had jack shit for security – and then running all her Secretary of State emails through it. That’s a SERIOUS ‘WTF’ there.

            Was she channelling Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson when he said “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.” – and believing that it applied to all our enemies?

            Then there’s the cover-up, AFTER her email records were subpoenaed. Delete the stuff beforehand, and I can ALMOST believe it was a standard document retention messup. Almost. The ‘deleting yoga emails and things about Chelsea’s wedding…’ excuse was laughable. Congress didn’t care about that – they’d have ignored it. That she deleted so many ‘yoga and wedding’ emails doesn’t look like a concerned mom wanting to avoid embarrassment, it looks like someone burning a paper trail that could cause her problems.

            It all goes against everything I’ve EVER been taught about security and sensitive information handling. There’s no way it’d fly for anyone but Hillary. (Or some other high-level democrat. It certainly seems like the rules don’t apply if there’s a (D) after the name. Look at Andrew Weiner – sexting a 15-year old. Think he’ll go to jail for it? I’ll be surprised if he does – the folks at his level take care of their own quite handily.)

            Everyone’s got different priorities – but for me this single issue knocks her out of the running.

          • pennywit

            I certainly understand that. I’m in a business where I work with a lot of confidential information (but not classified). If a customer did some of what Hillary and her team did, I would probably fire the customer. And in the case of a presidential election, this certainly adds to my dislike for Hillary. But it still doesn’t outweigh my negative opinion of Trump.

          • Scalia

            Ok, please walk me through this. You describe yourself as a fiscal conservative, so that puts you at odds with Clinton and, to a lesser degree, Trump. You also describe yourself as socially liberal. That puts you in Clinton’s camp. You appear to have competent understanding of law (although I admit not knowing what your judicial philosophy is), so I don’t know who you’re more comfortable with as to the judiciary.

            Other than your presumed opposition to The Wall, what socially liberal positions are threatened by Trump? Do you think he’ll bring back slavery, call for Jim Crow, and support crucifixions for gays?

            At bottom, we’ve got but two people with a realistic chance of becoming president. Most Americans apparently dislike both candidates, so there’ll be a lot of nose pinching come November. Other than your greater dislike of Trump, what gives the nod to Clinton in your mind?

          • pennywit

            My biggest objection? I don’t think Trump respects the parts of the Constitution I consider most important.

            * His earliest comments on Muslims — shut them all out, even temporarily, including Muslim American citizens who travel abroad — flies in the face of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

            * In response to news reports that were critical of him, Trump said he would “open up” libel laws so he could sue. This certainly would certainly violate freedom of the press and freedom of speech and upend the VERY important protections in New York Times v. Sullivan.

            * Trump recently questioned whether Ahmad Khan Rahami deserves basic constitutional rights as a prisoner. Yes, Rahami is almost certainly guilty of the New York bombings last weekend. But he’s also an American citizen. He is innocent until proven guilty. He has the right to counsel. And the government imprisoning him may not inflict cruel and unusual punishment on him. Trump seems to think that Rahami deserves none of this. On the other hand, I consider the Fifth and Eighth Amendments rather essential to the administration of justice.

            I am aware that conservatives believe Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have transgressed the Constitution in other ways. I suspect I would agree with some of those analyses, disagree with the others, and recognize that some of those transgressions fall into constitutional ambiguities.

            But these Bill of Rights issues are incredibly important to me. And I consider Donald Trump a greater threat to them than Hillary Clinton is.

          • Scalia

            Some of the stuff Trump talks about is nothing but bluster. He has no control over some of it, and it is highly unlikely that he’ll find a judge worthy of confirmation that would deny citizens their due process rights.

            His early comments about Muslim Americans abroad was walked back pretty quickly. It, of course, demonstrates a penchant for shooting from the hip.

            As to immigration and asylum seekers, our citizens’ safety comes first. Without proper vetting, it needs to stop. I’m all for helping folks if they can be properly vetted. If not, sorry, but my fellow citizens come first.

            I just don’t see the game changer in your explanation.

          • pennywit

            Thing is, I don’t even want Trump in a place where he can try to bring that about. I disagreed strongly with Ted Cruz, but he, at least, understands the need to color with the lines Constitution-wise.

          • Scalia

            Well, yes, but I think that fear is rather unfounded. It’s like a discussion I had with a co-worker many moons ago about our gubernatorial race. She opposed one candidate because he was against abortion. I said, “But that’s a federal issue. He can’t do anything except bully pulpit it.” That wasn’t good enough for her.

            For me, I dislike both candidates rather intensely. The only reason I’m voting for Trump is the hope that we’ll get better SCOTUS nominees. The judiciary is where (IMO) your concern should be. Hillary’s nominees will continue to invent rights, take away existing ones, and rely on foreign court opinions to influence their interpretation of the Constitution.

            Add that to her gross incompetence in securing our nation’s secrets (please don’t tell me you believe that her alleged desire to “not willingly” break the law exempts her from prosecution), leaves me with no realistic option than to vote for Trump. I sincerely see no substantive reason to go the other way.

          • pennywit

            Maybe not a game changer for you, but they’re certainly game-changers for me. I think that Trump’ “bluster,” as you put it, gives us a window into how he would govern and where is proclivities lay. I could have voted for Mitt Romney or John Kasich, but I can’t vote for this.

          • Scalia

            I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think this is merely a matter of taste. The question I’m asking is what the likelihood is that Trump’s bluster will actually result in an actual deprivation of constitutional rights. Given our system of checks and balances, I just don’t see that as a viable objection.

            There is no doubt what kind of judges Hillary will nominate, and there is no doubt that she is, at the very least, grossly incompetent when it comes to national security. I think that should have far greater logical traction.

          • pennywit

            Another issue has to do with Trump’s comments on refugees. I actually work with asylees and asylum-seekers as part of my job. These individuals all have situations that would be legitimately deadly to them if they were forced to return home, or if they had not been able to come to the United States in the first place. Some of them are from the Middle East. When I see comments from Trump and his followers denigrating asylees as a group, I don’t see a faceless mass. I see colleagues.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Then Clinton is definitely your candidate, even if she’s legally wrong:

            “Hillary: The Third World Has a “Right” to Move to the United States….

            In a sensible world, Hillary’s apparent belief that foreigners have a “right” to emigrate to the United States would disqualify her from the presidency. In the first place, she is simply wrong as a legal matter. In United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:

            At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe.

            The ability to control who enters a country is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty. It is appalling that Mrs. Clinton fails to understand this basic fact.”

            http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/09/hillary-the-third-world-has-a-right-to-move-to-the-united-states.php

    • Constitution First

      Why would you need to when you have The Malfeasant Media rewriting history every hour, on the hour?

  • Constitution First

    obama’s resume read: Community Agitator. And that’s what you got.
    Her resume reads: corrupt, dirty, lying, walking security violation.
    Why should the laws of physics change this time around?
    I Still can’t fathom why people will vote for corrupt, dirty, lying, walking security violation.

    • She’s apparently a firm believer in Alinsky – but the problem is after you set the system for a crash what are you going to replace it with? Alinsky’s ideas are great if you’re looking to pull down the establishment – but as any parent knows an angry toddler can break stuff they’ve got NO idea how to repair.

      Which is why they come running to mommy or daddy to fix things.

      The Dems are looking to ‘break’ what they see as unacceptable and uniquely horrible in history. (Never mind the political elite aren’t gonna have a moment’s discomfort from what they’d be glad to destroy for the rest of us…) And what do they offer as a replacement? Bernie offered his unfiltered ‘Socialism’ – we saw how well that works in Venezuela. Hillary’s offering 8 more years of the same we’ve had under Obama, with sprinkles. (Sprinkles of what? Don’t ask…)

      Dems want to destroy. Trump wants to build.

      In the long run, we’d be better off with Trump than Hillary, I think.

      • jim_m

        As far as the left is concerned, Venezuela was and continues to be a complete success. They have received everything they wanted from the socialist government, corruption, enrichment of cronies at the expense of their opponents, making dissent illegal….

        Like all socialist governments, it works for the ruling elite. That is all the left cares about.

        • Retired military

          The left will just tell you that the Venezuala isn’t working because the rich people haven’t had enough money taken from them yet.

  • At this point, I think Hillary’s about out of gas. She doesn’t have much left to run on that’s positive, hopeful, or even possible. (“Free college”? Really? Even my son knows the economics of that aren’t gonna fly.) Add in the lack of enthusiasm that people seem to have for her, and her visible lack of energy – and all she’s really got left is Obama telling people they’re ungrateful sexist bigots if we don’t vote like he tells us. (Yeah, that’ll really get the people to turn out, won’t they?)

    Trump’s got energy and enthusiasm and ideas. Compared to Hillary, that’s a lot better.

    • Hank_M

      That’s an excellent point. She doesn’t have much left to run on. And that explains perfectly her and her media lapdogs bringing up the birther crap again.
      I was gobsmacked it was back in the news last week. Talk about being irrelevant.
      But as you mention, what else is there for Hillary to talk about?

      • There isn’t a heck of a lot.

        Maybe squirrels?

    • pennywit

      RE: “Free college,” nope, not gonna happen. But I think there’s value to states’ ramping up college funding again and forcing colleges to push down the administrative bloat.

      • Won’t disagree with you there – too many layers of administration jacks up costs considerably.

        • pennywit

          PS. If Millennials get free college, I want my student loans forgiven.

      • Brucehenry

        “Free” — that is, taxpayer-funded — college is the norm in many countries of the European Union. You talk as if it’s an outlandish idea. It’s not. It’s been happening for generations.

        • jim_m

          Yes, and their colleges are very difficult to get into. What the dems are offering is free college for everyone and everyone should get in. Very different from the example you provided. But you already knew that because you are a lying scumbag.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually I did know that college is difficult to get into there. What I don’t “know” is that Dems are offering “free college for everyone and everyone should get in.” And you don’t know that either, because it ain’t so, but you will say so anyway, because you….well, we all know why.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            So, who exactly is Hillary excluding from free college?

          • Brucehenry

            Her plan is to “make debt-free college available to everyone.” Note that she doesn’t promise “free” college, and her plan goes on with details about how debt will be alleviated or lessened, including for those already saddled with it.

            https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/

            Also “available” doesn’t mean everyone will get in. Right now just about anyone can borrow enough to go to the 4 year state university my younger daughter attends, so the education is “available” — but not everyone is accepted, depending on GPA, etc.

            So right now college is “available” to everyone who qualifies, but not everyone qualifies, and not everyone is willing to take on the enormous debt involved.

          • jim_m

            So you believe that Hillary is advocating a massive restriction in who gets into college in order to make it fairer for everyone by making it free.

            Otherwise she is advocating a massive, unsustainable boondoggle that would cost trillions of dollars and not deliver any appreciable change in who receives education.

          • Brucehenry

            Read something, starting with the link I just posted.

            My point, directed at Pennywit, was that taxpayer-funded college, in and of itself, is not an outlandish idea. I got the feeling from Pennywit’s posts that he thought it was.

            If you want to criticize particular plans, whether Bernie’s or Hillary’s or anyone else’s, have at it, but the concept itself is not ridiculous.

          • jim_m

            Yes it is, for two reasons:

            1) providing tax payer supported college would cost trillions of dollars. It is unsustainable.

            2) Guaranteed government loans have not made college more accessible to anyone. Enrollments have not expanded. In fact as revenues have poured into colleges they have not increased faculty, they have increased administration, providing jobs for thousands of far left slackers who could never survive in the real world (my disgusting sister-in-law for one).

            Now that I think about it it may not be a bad idea. Force universities to go on the government dole. They will ultimately have their budgets slashed by a federal government that cannot afford them. They will have to live in the same world as hospitals with medicare payments that only cover 45% of the costs.

          • Brucehenry

            1) But yet governments all over Europe do it and have been doing it for generations.

            2) I’m not talking about guaranteed government loans like we have now, I’m talking about taxpayer-funded college like in Sweden, Slovenia, and many other European nations. I’m sure it comes with its own challenges but could hardly be worse than the system we have now.

          • jim_m

            1) DO YOU NOT FUCKING READ? You already admitted that they restrict dramatically who they let in. They ration it out so they can control costs. Very much like they ration out health care. You admit it but you are too fucking stupid to understand what you just wrote.

            2) and I am telling you that unless you are going to take over the universities (which I am sure is the plan) that they will not expand faculty. They are incentivized to be “selective” so they will not expand faculty or enrollment. More easy money for students will only mean that they continue to raise tuition in a way that drastically outpaces inflation so they can capture as much revenue as possible without actually doing any more work.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, “taking over the universities” would be the plan, at least as far as funding is concerned.

            I never used the word “dramatically.” You did. I don’t know to what degree, if any, acceptance rates would be decreased or increased, but I assume a student would have to qualify academically to be accepted. The difference would be that students would not personally pay for tuition, books, etc. That money would come from the government’s general revenues. And yes, it may mean a tax increase.

            In European countries where college is paid for, there is still academic freedom, etc. It’s not on Mars where this happens. You have personally traveled to many of these countries. I recently had a conversation with a young American woman who told me she got her Master’s in Spain. It cost her $5000 over two years, mostly for living expenses.

            (BTW this young lady related an anecdote on another subject. Seems she suffered an accidental scalp gash and went to a Spanish ER. When she was finished being stitched up, she asked where she went to pay. “Pay??” asked her shocked Spanish friend. “You don’t PAY! This is a HOSPITAL!!!”)

          • jim_m

            Yep. I’ll bet those stitches were at the forefront of medicine. Too bad that didn’t work so well for Chavez when he went there for his prostate cancer treatments. He died from a disease that in the US has a 98% cure rate. In fact, EVERY socialize medicine country lags behind the US in cancer survival. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

          • Brucehenry

            But yet it is my understanding that, overall, many have a longer life expectancy than does the US. Maybe I am mistaken.

          • jim_m

            Jesus Christ are you dumb. You do understand that life expectancy is primarily genetic? You do understand that may nations skew their rates by counting infants as still born for statistical purposes even when they die months after they are born?

            We have discussed this ad nauseum and yet you still spout the same discredited, tired bullshit. Remember above when I called you a lying sack of shit? This is more evidence of the truth of that statement.

          • Brucehenry

            Do you think Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Austria, just to name a few, “skew” the statistics regarding stillborn births? Maybe Costa Rica does that, but not the countries we have been talking about, I bet.

            The US comes in at #31. Maybe you think numbers 1 through 30 are skewing their statistics but I don’t, and I don’t think being that far down the list can be blamed on “genetics,” either, considering our populations genetic diversity.

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

          • jim_m

            What about “life expectancy is primarily genetic” did you not understand? You cite a series of nations the majority of which are genetically similar and ALL of which are noted ethnic monocultures.

            Health care does not determine life expectancy. It is far more influenced by genetic factors and lifestyle. The claim that any health care system is the leading factor in life expectancy is deeply ignorant.

            No. Not ignorant. You are just dishonest. This has been discussed over 20 times. You know what I am saying is true and yet you trot out your lies again and again.

          • Brucehenry

            Well you are more conversant with healthcare issues than I so I am at a disadvantage arguing with you about it. My anecdote above was supposed to be an aside. Wasn’t my main point, which, again, was that taxpayer-funded higher education is not an idea from out of deep left field, it happens all over the world and has been happening for generations.

            Perhaps the shift would be too difficult to make at this point in history. If that’s your point, make it, but don’t pretend that an advanced country can’t have such a system. Many advanced countries do have it.

          • jim_m

            Yes they do. And per my point, which you are too F’ing stupid to understand, they have made the decision that to afford it they must ration it and they do so by severely restricting admissions.

          • Brucehenry

            How severely, Jim? What percentage of the population of, say, Denmark has a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent? How does that compare to the US?

          • jim_m

            The pertinent question is how many of them get their degrees domestically.

          • Brucehenry

            So in other words you don’t know but have been typing all kinds of angry insults in all caps as if you did.

          • jim_m

            I have no statistical data but it is wiely known that european colleges are highly selective and many students come to the US for degrees that cannot get into domestic universities.

            Contrast that with the fact that US students who go to Europe are generally considered among the smartest by virtue of their ability to gain entrance. I know no one that went to school in Europe but know many Europeans who went to school here.

            I suppose as someone who failed to exit elementary school you would not be familiar with these things.

          • Brucehenry

            Many of the countries that have a high percentage of college grads in the 25-34 age cohort on this list are the countries I have been talking about.

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

          • jim_m

            Doesn’t say whether or not they are getting educated domestically. Also, this is a recent development as they all lag the US in every other demographic group on the table.

          • Brucehenry

            In any event, while it doesn’t exactly disprove your emphatic insistence of “dramatic” restriction of college acceptance it sure as hell doesn’t prove it either.

            And again in any event, my entire point was that government-funded college cannot be and should not be, in my opinion, be blithely dismissed as something that just “ain’t gonna happen.”

          • jim_m

            Hey as soon as the left is as willing to ration education as they are health care we can have a discussion.

            Seems to me that just as you believe there is infinite money for healthcare you believe that there is infinite money for education and there is infinite capacity to serve everyone.

            Nothing says rube like your idiotic world view.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah Spain is great. Shows what you can do for your people when you’re not burning money on Arab contractors or bogus “missile defense.”

          • pennywit

            I don’t think that four years of 100 percent taxpayer-funded college is feasible in America … and I certainly would not support it for college as it stands now.

          • Brucehenry

            A reasonable position, as you have qualified it. I understood you to be dismissing the concept as ridiculous. Forgive me if I read it differently than you intended.

          • jim_m

            Um yes it is. 0bama has said repeatedly that everyone should go to college and he further expanded that whether it was a community college or a 4 year university, everyone should go.

            And once again we see that you are a lying sack of shit.

          • LiberalNightmare

            You have to go to college. How else can you learn about safe spaces and the latest gender designations?

        • We can see why you would go with:

          It’s been happening for generations.

          since yours is the party of chattel slavery and Jim Crow.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s been more than 40 years since Logic 101 but I’m thinking that one is a “non-sequitur.” Maybe that’s not what you call it, but it’s for sure a “what the fuck is he talking about?”

          • jim_m

            The point being that the claim “it’s been happening for generations” is used to claim that something is the natural state of things and therefore not to be gainsaid. Such is your argument for universal funding of college and was your ancestor’s argument for Jim Crow and slavery.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh. Okay. Whatever.

          • I’d ascribe that you your rather limited education having exceeded your native intelligence.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah well what about Dennis Hastert molesting boys?

          • Not my Representative.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Between Title IX, the Rape Culture, diversity [which now apparently means separate but a little more than equal], microaggressions, safe spaces, anti-free speech regulations, etc., the colleges can’t hire administrators fast enough to keep up with the left’s demands.

    • LiberalNightmare

      The best thing about being a democratic presidential candidate is that every one knows your lying when you make campaign promises.

  • Vagabond661

    So college education is free and you always wanted to make cogs to sell. Problem is the government has enough makers of cogs. The government needs makers of sprockets. They will pay for an education to make sprockets but if you want to make cogs, you are lost in space.

    Surely a government wouldn’t do that though. Make decisions for you, Preposterous, right? Like make healthcare decisions for you, or maybe you have to live in a certain neighborhood so your kid can go to a highly rated school, or a law limiting a drink size, or limit the number of rounds you can have for your gun.

  • Commander_Chico
  • Paul Hooson

    Here’s the latest twist today. Trump made a huge issue about the Clinton Foundation, only able to suggest that “maybe” something was wrong somewhere in the absence of any hard proof. Now, THE WASHINGTON POST has uncovered a check and other evidence that Trump illegally used his Donald J. Trump Foundation funds to settle lawsuits as well as to purchase a $10,000 six foot tall portrait of himself, illegally using $258,000 of charity funds for his personal legal problems and expenses. If Donald Trump is really as wealthy as he claims to be, you wouldn’t think that he would have to misuse https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d3feae496a57bb0a1124fd7d0aba3d9a5b043af6e31d50185bdfd128b539d5a4.jpg $258,000 in charity funds for his own personal use?

    • Hank_M

      Don’t care. Hillary and Bill deducted $1,042,000 in charitable contributions last year — $1 million of which went to their own family non-profit, the Clinton Family Foundation.

      And almost forgot….Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them. The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign.

      • Paul Hooson

        Um, donating to charity is much different than Trump using other people’s donations to pay for his legal problems or purchasing $10,000 six foot tall portraits of himself. Trump’s hand was clearly caught in the cookie jar here.

    • Jwb10001

      I’m pretty sure Trump would be happy to compare his misdeeds with Clinton’s any time. If it’s honesty you’re looking for in a candidate this ain’t the election for you.

      • Paul Hooson

        I agree. I don’t like either candidate very much.

        • Jwb10001

          Why thank you Dr, where did you get your degrees? If you’re done with your diagnosis of Trump’s mental state, can you explain the mental health issues that cause people to lie so much, they lie when the truth would serve them better? If you need a case study I would recommend Hillary Clinton current world record holder for lying. Do you also have a medical degree, I’d be curious to know your assessment of Hilliary’s wandering eye, falling down, seizure I can’t recall anything, problems.