Donald Trump Continues To Expand His Lead In Latest Republican Poll
Another poll, another Donald Trump lead
Another national poll shows Donald Trump in the lead among Republicans, and Rick Perry seemingly shut out of the main debate this Thursday:
The identities of the 10 Republicans likely to be on stage at Thursday’s presidential debate are coming into focus after another poll on Monday shows Donald Trump running away from the rest of the field and Rick Perry lagging behind his competitors for the final spot.
A new Monmouth University poll has Trump at 26 percent, easily topping his competitors. The next-closest candidates — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — are at 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively.
Both the new Monmouth survey and an average of the five most recent live-caller polls — Fox News’ criteria for whittling the list of Republicans down to 10 candidates for Thursday night’s debate — reinforce the tiers that have developed since Trump upended the race by surging to the top.
Beneath Trump, Bush and Walker are five more candidates who are hovering around 6 percent in the poll average (and scored between 4 percent and 6 percent in the Monmouth poll): pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
Those eight candidates are virtually assured of spots on the debate stage. The race for the final two places is close — but becoming clearer.
The Monmouth poll has New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 4 percent, Ohio Gov. John Kasich at 3 percent and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 2 percent. That puts Christie and Kasich in a tie for ninth place in the average, at 3.4 percent — ahead of Perry, who is at 2.8 percent.
There will be at least one more poll released before the 5:00pm Tuesday deadline that Fox News has established for the polls that it will consider in issuing invitations. Bloomberg announced this morning that their national poll will be released tomorrow morning. In addition to that, and as I said yesterday it is likely that we will see a new poll from Fox News itself in the next twenty-four hours, and possible that we’ll see one from CBS News and The New York Times. Unless there are major changes in those polls, the debate stage seems to be largely set and the only question that remains slightly unknown is who will get the final two spots in the debate. Right now, Christie and Kasich are tied for ninth and Rick Perry is so far behind both of them in the average that it seems unlikely that he’ll be able to wiggle his way into second place. However, Fox has never been clear about how they are calculating the average, how they handling the rounding of that average, and what they would do in the case of a tie for 9th or 10th place. Given that, it’s possible that they could decide to count Perry as being in 10th place even though he’d be the 11th candidate on the stage, although given the time restriction that they’ve put on the debate that seems unlikely at this point.
How much of Trumpmomentum is due to “god, I can’t stand these weasels, so here’s a poke in your eye!”?
Donald Trump now gets more support than Jeb, Walker and Kasich combined. A clown now gets more support than the GOP’s three most viable governors.
45% of Republicans now support a candidate (Trump, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum) only acceptable to imbeciles and mental patients.
And of course James Joyner and Doug Mataconis will both support this party in 16 months’ time. Why? Some possibilities:
1) Because, ewww, Hillary is a girl and almost certainly has cooties.
2) They’re so deluded they think 45% doesn’t really define the GOP. (Ditto 50%, 55%, 60%…)
3) They’d vote for Hitler if he’d cut their tax rate by a point.
4) They’re either imbeciles or mental patients themselves.
5) Both suffer from a genetic condition which has left them with no sense of shame.
Trump will get weaker, the question is how:
1) The GOP establishment, the Kochs and Jeb coordinate against him – this will spur him to go third party.
2) He is weak in debates and makes bad proposals or his flip-flopping and left-wing statements in the past make the base shy away – this will make a third-party bid unlikely.
3) Some scandal or scoop from the MSM makes the moderate conservatives and more careful primary voters move away from him – will almost certainly spur a third-party bid since the die-hards and radicals will support him even more out of disgust with the establishment/MSM/”RINOs”.
4) Some other candidate solidly defeats him on republican grounds – better proposals, rhetoric, pandering and positioning – will almost certainly make a third-party bid impossible.
5) He stays quite strong but lacks the funds to win any early states and peters out in a “fair” fight – probably no third-party bid
6) He messes up all on his own, perhaps by saying something unacceptable in a secret recording – will probably not spur a third-party bid unless he spins it into martyrdom.
…I still don’t get why anyone sees him as worse than Bush, Walker, Cruz or Rubio on the nuttiness/populist scale. Frankly, I would rather see him as president than any of the others save for maybe Pataki, and I say this as a comically left-wing person. He doesn’t seem or sound like he was bred in a corporate/church/think-tank network.
@Castanea:
I think you’ve just described the approach to politics that has worked so well throughout the Third World and led to countries like Nigeria and Sudan being such shining examples of good governance. By all means, let’s support the “authentic” buffoon. Can’t fail.
@michael reynolds:
Really Michael? I mean, really?
I don’t think Trump is “authentic”. I just look at the decisions, rhetoric and connections of Bush, Walker, Cruz and the others as well as their donors and voters. They don’t scare me as much as he does, and not only because his match-ups against a prospective dem in the general are so bad.
I despise and fear him and his supporters. But not as much as the other GOP candidates – that says more about them than about him though.
@OzarkHillbilly: And Michael’s lecturing us about a sense of shame?
@OzarkHillbilly: Anyway, he didn’t say that they were necessarily Nazis. He also allowed the possibility that they were stupid, insane, sexist, deluded, or genetically flawed.
@OzarkHillbilly:
I think Mike is angry because he thinks that James and Doug (who should know better) will most likely enable the crazy party by voting for the Republican nominee out of tribal loyalty , rather than voting for whom he considers the logical choice.Thus the intemperate language.
I can understand his frustration, because I think that is exactly what they will do.
It’s a valid question.
Consider that when Hitler rose to power people did not know he would start a war leading to something like 50 million dead. People did not know the end result would be German cities burned to the ground, German women raped en masse by Russian troops, or Dachau or Auschwitz or 40 years of occupation.
All anyone knew going in was that Hitler wanted to 1) Re-arm and assert German Exceptionalism and 2) Scapegoat Jews.
His support came in two flavors: 1) Oligarchs and 2) Nativist thugs.
And who supports the GOP today? Is it oligarchs and nativist thugs? Why, yes it is.
Now, I have no doubt that at some point James and Doug would at least consider joining up with Count Stauffenberg, but as we know: kinda too late then. See, the time to stand against evil is not after evil has been given power and done its damage.
The GOP wants to forcibly deport 11 million people – men, women, children, including children whose entire lives have been as American citizens.
The GOP wants to find a way to return to overt oppression of gays.
The GOP rejects science in favor of mystical theories.
The GOP wants war with Iran.
So that’s ethnic cleansing, the oppression of any and all minorities, rejection of
Jewish Physicsclimate change, and aggressive war on a flimsy pretext. Yeah, you’re all right: no parallel. Nope.@michael reynolds: Now now, let’s see how this all unfolds. It’s too premature to make sound judgments yet. People definitively betting now are most likely losing money.
I have a theory in the back of my mind that American elections are the way they are so as to disempower the wealthy by draining their coffers every two to four years in pointless expensive media buys for longshot candidates that are only meaningfully distinct from other ideological competitors by an iota.
@Castanea:
No, he sounds like he was bred in the tank they use to hold the slaughterhouse washing water in before it’s filtered back to potable. Being non-corporate doesn’t make one good.
@Tillman: This is exactly why my belief is that it’s only bored corporate tycoons (the Koch Brothers, Carly Fiorina) who get involved in politics. The more intelligent (or less bored) realize that fiddling around in politics is an inefficient use of money and effort.
I mean, just look at it: a bright, eager youngster has the chance to get involved in politics or involved in business. If he decides to go the corporate route, yes, it is quite possible that he won’t make CEO of a major corporation, but the chances are high that even if he loses in the competition he’ll end up as VP or something equivalent. For a politician, there’s no fallback position. You try to become POTUS, you fail, and the best you can usually end up is as a ghost haunting the talk circuits and pundit shows. How many failing candidates for POTUS have ended up with successful second acts? Bloody few.
For me the Trump candidacy is like being tickled. I was amused for a time, but it is now getting obnoxious. Dear Republicans: please stop, the joke is getting old, and you need to start being a responsible part of the national discussion.
I see the many governors running for the GOP nomination to be highly productive and effective managers of complex territories, administrations, laws, people, economics and situations, and even knowledgeable of foreign relations, the one supposed qualification of the Democratic frontrunner.
At the moment, I see Trump as an effective debate quasher, but as yet devoid of rational plans for the nation should he become the nominee. I see Hillary as the anointed queen of clubs, and also devoid of rational plans for the nation, beyond her leftist push, and following her own nose.
May God help us!
About voting for a Hitler.
There’s a lot of talk about the rise of far right-wing parties in Europe, but none of these parties have won a plurality of votes or seats in a parliament or are close to do it. Fidesz in Hungary (won a plurality of votes in 2010 and a plurality of seats in 2010 and 2014) could be considered the exception depending on how extreme one would consider them to be.
Then compare the views of the major conservative parties in Europe with the views of the GOP, which currently controls both houses of Congress and could also win the Presidency in 2016.
I’d argue that the GOP is currently a lot closer to Fidesz than for example Conservatives in the UK.
@mannning:
You keep typing “I see”…but apparently you need glasses…badly.
Walker, for instance, has wreaked havoc on his states economy. You see that as effective management?
Hillary on the other hand, far from being devoid of rational plans, is the only serious candidate to have done a series of in-depth policy speeches on topics ranging from the economy to foreign policy and gender.
It’s your choice to cut and paste your opinions from “Hot Air”….but it wouldn’t take much research for you to realize that they are nonsense.
And please….please….don’t drive with such bad f’ing eyesight.
@michael reynolds:
I disagree, because mainly conservative media is so utterly in control of the Republican party. While ideological, they are still business oriented, and they know any real deportation nonsense would end in disaster for US businesses. They see it just as nativist bullshit designed to rally the troops.
The war on women and gays is harder to unpack. Mainly it’s designed to weaken Democratic voters, like the union-busting and public education bashing. And Wall St is for pro-gay rights, so there would be pushback there from the conservative side. The war on women is “revenge” for what white males see as an assault on their inherent right to be treated as Barons on their own estates.
All the science bashing is kowtowing to the Christian Right and/or the petroleum industry. The agitation for war is simply the military industrial complex getting itchy for a reason to justify its existence. They don’t REALLY believe they’ll be a war, and if there is, it won’t last very long. Besides, for conservatives, war is entertainment.
I don’t think Doug and James care about taxes. But they do hate Hillary. It’s not about supporting the conservative candidate, but punishing liberals. Even if you punish your own country and yourself with the misrule of a non-governing, grifting, racist party, it’s worth it as long as HRC never touches the levers of power. The dismantling of the ACA? Worth it. The repeal of the Voting Rights Act and 4th Admendment? Worth it! War with Iran or the Hitler of the week? Totally worth it!
But the icky liberals ALWAYS must be punished. Always. No matter what the cost.
The Republican base seems to be the USA’s equivalent of suicide bombers.
Required reading for the current Republican mindset:
“They Don’t Give a Damn About Governing”
OT….a well-regulated militia my arse….
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/08/02/police-father-shoots-daughter-during-gun-safety-lesson/
@michael reynolds:
I have no idea where Doug’s head is these days. James, I suspect, believes this is all campaign rhetoric, they wouldn’t actually do any of those things. I don’t think I’d have to dig too far to find Germans saying the same thing about Mein Kampf.
I suppose this is all pushing Godwin’s Law, but being PC and ignoring the obvious parallels gets frustrating.
@C. Clavin:
You may be right, but I think not. Left is more your style. I happen to believe that experience in real governing is the only good training ground for the presidency, and even that is not a sure-fired qualification. But it does help a lot. Being First Lady and Secretary of State is simply not equivalent exposure to governance as is four or eight years, or more, as a state governor. One can have policy speeches drummed up be any number of hacks, and it means very little when actually governing, particularly when one fails to keep electioneering promises as Dems are wont to do.
@mannning:
Um…George Bush 43 was a Governor, wasn’t he? So much for that theory.
I noticed that you failed to address the Walker failure.
@mannning: Um, Brownback? Bobby Jindal?
Both running the states they are in charge of into the ground.
@gVOR08:
I have no idea where Doug’s head is these days.
It must be hard for Doug facing the fact that Rand Paul, the “libertarian” Republican in the race, now commands the support of a margin of error’s worth of Republicans.
There is nothing libertarian about the GOP. And yet I’d say there’s a 90% chance Doug will vote for whoever the GOP nominates. Because why? Because he agrees with the GOP on civil rights and gay rights? Nope. Because he agrees with the GOP on foreign policy? Nope.
So, why is Libertarian Doug still playing for Team Red?
@C. Clavin: Here’s another one…
(Honestly, how dumb do you have to be to not realize that just because you have a CHL for one state it doesn’t mean you can automatically act like you have a CHL in a state you are visiting? Considering where she showed up, I’m surprised she didn’t get shot.)
@michael reynolds:
There’s a difference between saying that libertarians will drop everything else in their program in exchange for a drop in the marginal tax rates (as I sometimes do) and going full-out Godwin (as you did). It’s over the line on your part.
@mannning:
That may be true, but she was a Senator as well. (Indeed, she’s more qualified now than she was when she ran last time.)
I would caution the right from going the “executive experience” route this time. That’s had diminishing returns since 2004….
You can’t win claiming Hillary doesn’t have a record. The only way to win is to run against her record.
@michael reynolds:
No Michael, it is not a valid question. We DO know what happened after Hitler came to power. And you are saying that knowing all that, James and Doug would vote for him anyway just to get a slightly better tax cut. Hells bells MIchael, why don’t you just come right out and call them brown shirts marching the Jews to the ovens? At least Huckabee didn’t try to hide behind mealy mouthed rationalizations.
@michael reynolds: T
One more thing Michael, I notice missing from your list the extermination of an entire race of human beings. In other words, as disgusting as I find more than a few of the positions of today’s GOP and the people they are pandering to, they’ve got a long ways to go to reach Hitler’s level. The fact that you can’t see that very simple fact and instead project your own dire delusions onto James and Doug makes me wonder if maybe you suffer from a genetic condition which has left you with no sense of shame.
Trump dodges the Manchester Union Leader event tonight…… aide says he’s too busy running his business.. Multi-tasking not his “wheelhouse”?
@OzarkHillbilly:
I think you’re misunderstanding what Michael is/was saying. He’s saying – I think – that we don’t have the power of hindsight, but we do have an idea of what’s ahead. And anyone who would vote for a Jindal, or a Walker, or a Bush, knowing their foreign policy prerogatives, is partially responsible for whatever happens.
Do you think George Bush would have won in 2000 had he said “I’m going to invade Iraq for no reason”? No. THAT’S the point. Many of us thought the Dick Cheney was dangerous BEFORE he was elected VP. The fact that it played out like many of us thought is no great solace. I think that Bush, Jindal, Walker, Rubio, Kasich, Perry, Fiorina, Cruz, Huckabee, Graham and several others are DANGEROUS for the good of the nation.
Anyone who votes for them – and if god forbid they win – doesn’t get to say “Gee, I wish I would have known we were going to go to war with Iran. I wouldn’t have voted for them”. But if any of those guys (or lady) wins, we ARE going to war with Iran. They’ve said so. And Iran is much larger and much more sophisticated than Iraq or Afghanistan.
You’ve been warned. The GOP base has a a racist, xenophobic, dangerous point of view as it’s core.
@EddieInCA:
But it’s still not Hitler. Make the point without it and it’ll be more effective.
“You went full Godwin, man. Never go full Godwin.”
@OzarkHillbilly:
I dunno, I think this is a logic error on your part — you’re saying, essentially, that you can’t compare someone to Hitler unless they do the same worst thing that Hitler ever did. Unless, that is, they are just as bad as Hitler in every way, then all comparisons are invalid. But Hitler and the Nazis, of course, weren’t just about the Holocaust — they didn’t, in fact, even start their full-on extermination campaign until almost ten years after they came to power, and when they did, they tried to do it as secretly as possible.
People who were denouncing and fighting against the Nazis in real time in the 1930s and 1940s weren’t doing so, in large part, because of the Nazi extermination campaign against the Jews — most of the world didn’t really know about or understand it until the death camps were liberated. It was their warmongering and aggression and repression of democracy and prejudice, etc. etc., that first made them monsters in the eyes of the world — not the Holocaust. Recognition of that was largely a post-WWII phenomenon.
MR, the part you’re missing is that Hitler spelled all his future plans out in detail in Mein Kampf, years before he came into power. And both James Joyner and Doug Mataconis would have been politically interested enough to have read his creeds beforehand. So your excuse “people didn’t know beforehand” doesn’t cut it.
@Mu:
See: Cheney, Dick.
See: American Century, Project for a New
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Not that easy Mu. Not that easy at all.
@Mu:
What future plans are you referring to? Because there is nothing about a full scale Holocaust in it. It might have been something in his mind already, but again, there are no plans for it in the book. He was arguing for removing citizenship from Jews and mass deportations though…
@OzarkHillbilly:
Well, let’s take a breather here to notice that it was set in a comedic format. But I’ll defend it as though we’re all blind to that.
No, it is not “over the line.” The GOP has decided that the way to deal will illegals is to round up 11 million people and shove them across the border. That is ethnic cleansing. These two people, James and Doug, now support a party that advocates ethnic cleansing.
True or not?
Because if it’s true that they support a party that proposes a national campaign of ethnic cleansing, then I am in the right.
If you think it’s not true, then perhaps you could explain the difference between what Trump et al propose and what we call ethnic cleansing.
Americans have an enduring blind spot about themselves. This is the country that engaged in massive ethnic cleansing and outright genocide. We are the country that kept a particularly brutal form of slavery going far longer than the rest of the ‘civilized’ world. We are the country that launched an aggressive war of conquest on Mexico and kept all we stole. We are the country that dropped incendiaries on Japanese civilian populations long after Japan ceased to be a threat.
But Americans still have this, “Aww, aren’t we cute and special?” attitude, this sense that of course we would never elect a fascist or a communist or a Nazi.
And yet, of two political parties in this country, one is calling for ethnic cleansing. A Trail of Tears Part 2, but with a much bigger budget.
And James and Doug still support that party. They support a racist, homophobic, sexist, nativist party dominated by oligarchs. The GOP sends signals that are in now way more subtle than their counterparts in 1930’s Germany.
@Mu:
As PJ points out, you are wrong on the facts. Hitler was already in power for several years before the Final Solution was even considered. See: Wannsee Conference.
James and Doug rarely write about tax rates. I don’t think they are that important to them. I suspect that like many of us, they mostly decide who, or which party, they want to vote against.
Steve
@EddieInCA:
And among the other signatories:
Jeb!
@Lit3Bolt: This is a feeling that I have had for a considerable time–Conservatives so want to be in control of the nation that they are willing to turn it into a third world level economy so long as they will be in charge of it.
@michael reynolds: “of two political parties in this country, one is calling for ethnic cleansing”
Which combinations of drugs and alcohol are you enjoying this evening, michael?
@mannning: Hillary is a diehard center-right hawkish corporatist. Anyone asserting that she is a leftist automatically forfeits any right to have their political opinions taken seriously by rational persons.
@michael reynolds: For my money, I see a distinction between ethnic cleansing and Trail of Tears. Ethnic cleansing requires the final solution as the defining element and ultimate goal. Quite bluntly, what we did to the Native Americans was fairly thoroughly evil, but going to the final solution would have involved a completely different process.
I’m not seeing any final solution component in round ’em up and deport ’em. It’s more of a pipe dream. As policy, it evil enough to do, but it ain’t Hitler or Stalin.
@PD Shaw:
How is calling for dragging 11 million people across the border not ethnic cleansing?
@Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker:
The Nazis started in their own country and nearby conquered areas with ethnic cleansing, concentrating Jews in ghettos, and in camps. The einsatzgruppen slaughtered in Russia but extermination was not the policy until 1942.
Things escalate. Once you’ve dehumanized a population, scapegoated them, denied their rights to due process, you make worse things possible and even likely. The Nazis started out thinking they might ship Jews out. Then decided to ‘concentrate’ them. Then enslaved them and cranked up the killing factories.
Would all the illegals go peacefully? Might some not resist? And if they resist would we not send in SWAT teams to drag them out? What if some were armed? How many tens of thousands of SWAT raids are Republicans contemplating? What will Americans do, suddenly change their minds and admit that they’ve begun an atrocity? Or would they double down? Would they start to blame the illegals for their own deaths?
In fact the GOP’s plan would be worse than the Trail of Tears. The GOP is pushing for a crime against humanity. And James and Doug support that party.
@OzarkHillbilly: Yeah this comment was too far for me. I disagree with Doug and James a lot but I don’t think they are this radical.
@michael reynolds:
Not seeing it. You’re taking the rhetoric of the surprise front-runner candidate of the GOP, who has no support whatsoever from the establishment, and treating it as the same fervent gospel as any white power believer.
The Republicans can’t get anything done. They’ve had a majority for many months and the only thing they can seem to agree on is that Planned Parenthood is worth dismantling the government over. They tried to get their own version of immigration reform passed early 2015 and it failed completely. You know there would be overreach and they’d “accidentally” deport US citizens along with their parents or grandparents and that would hit the news big time. “GOP Sends Babies to Face Bullets” would be the headline. The backlash would be immense, the Democrats would roll in 2016, and they know it would backfire, even if they could do it.
My prediction is that the GOP is going to try to do its best to lay low after 2016. They’ll contest it tooth and nail, but their obstructionist, Do-Nothing, Know-Nothing agenda has worked wonders for them. Everything is shaping up for the 2020 Census. If the GOP can hang onto the levers of power until then, then they can ensure they’ll remain in power for another generation past their expiration date.
But don’t take Fox News kabuki rhetoric for an actual governing agenda. They’re not the Illuminati and can’t coordinate well enough among themselves to agree to anything, let alone the deportation of 11 million people. The only way it could happen is if they rolled out the Army, and there would be 100 horrific Youtube videos every day. Hell, that would be so bad even China would stop trade with us (not to mention the world appreciates US agriculture, and would be very concerned about anything that would harm it).
@michael reynolds:
The differences between the Nazis and the Republican Party are pretty serious. The Nazis rode actual culture into power. The Nazis could point to Wagner and distorted Nietzsche; they had scientists like Werner von Braun who willfully worked for them. The GOP has nothing basically, other than a collection of eighth-rate idiots who run states that most of the best and brightest have no desire to step foot in. Honestly, imagine some home-schooled Christian imbecile made science adviser trying to get MIT geneticists to start researching eugenics.
I don’t disagree that a more sane GOP President could end up trying to cleanse immigrants, legal or not, from border states. Or that an unprovoked attack against Iran could happen. Or that the federal government will then try to prevent scary-looking people to vote in swing states in the next election.
And I’m quite sure that if any of this happens, Doug and James will disagree with it (maybe) but would both rather let a thousand Mexicans be deported in SWAT raids than be seen in public protesting this.
But calling the GOP Nazis gravely distorts who these people are and where they stand in the world.
@Modulo Myself:
And they also had Heidegger.
@Modulo Myself:
Well, he was a boozy beggar.
If we’re through talking about Naziis, could I point out that the Monmouth Poll mentioned in the Original Post has Mr Trump with an amazing turn-around in his favorability/unfavorability ratio? He’s 35% negative/52% positive. Reading the comments here and there on Trump-themed articles on Breitbart & Redstate you find that the crowds there think they’ve got a future President on their hands.
@Gromitt Gunn
You will find that in the end, HC would govern from the dem left, badly at that. Her changes to Obama’s poiicies will be minimal. Thus, she is not getting my vote, ever.
@mannning:
Some of your earlier statements don’t really hold water, but that’s both believable and a valid reason not to vote for Clinton.
Although it also pretty much sums up why Clinton should win the election easily. A majority of people (and a smaller majority of voters) support Obama and his policies over the Republican alternative. Supporting Obama now and the GOP candidate in 2016 doesn’t make a lot of sense, when the Democratic nominee probably has 95% or more of the same policy positions as Obama.
And Trump gets 26% in the latest Fox News poll. Bush gets 15%, so Trump’s lead is outside of the margin of error which is +/- 4 points. Don’t think any other candidate has had a lead outside the margin of error.
Considering how narcissistic Trump is, I have high hopes for him mounting a third party bid, especially if he feels that he’s been mistreated during the debates.
Also, there was a Reuters/Ipsos poll with Trump at 30% and Bush at 11%…
The Republicans aren’t Nazis. But they can do a hell of a lot to mess up the country just being Republicans. GWB showed that, and frankly most of Republican presidential candidates don’t even rise to the level of GWB.Think about that for a minute: every Republican candidate this cycle seems worse than GWB, with the possible exception of his brother , who aspires to be a copy of GWB.
Despite that, it still seems quite likely that James and Doug will vote Republican next year, for reasons of tribal loyalty(although they will profess dislike for the Clintons).Michael is mad about that, hence the extremist rhetoric.
Oh well, people are going to do what they do. For the rest of us, we have to vote sensibly and hope that there are enough of us to outweigh the foolish tribalists.
b@Modulo Myself:
Or a governor of FL banning use of the term Global Warming. Or an industry association succeeding in banning research potentially harmful to the gun industry. Or Christian climate science deniers chairing the science committees in both chambers. Or trying to ban the teaching of the foundational concept of biology, evolution. Nope, can’t imagine any of it.
@michael reynolds: I don’t agree with you. The guys babbling at the top of the Republican Party platform may babble about “deport them all!” and may get the Great Unwashed base of their party jumping up and down on the basis of it, but it’s all a “wouldn’t it be nice…?” daydream they know full well isn’t going to happen.
(Their base, on the other hand, is stupid enough to believe that they could carry it off. That’s why they’re the base and haven’t accomplished anything in their lives–lack of understanding logistics is the least of it.)
There’s a great difference between imagining your ex-wife dead and actually going after her with an axe. The Nazis actually put Mein Kampf into action.
@mannning:
Jesus-gawd…I hope so.
Fairly stable Middle East and an historic and substantive agreement with Iran; acceptable gas prices as a result; my 401K has more than recovered from the Bush Contraction; millions with health care that were free-riding on the system before; my friends are free to marry who they wish; I can get stoned at their wedding reception; Obama has done as much for the environment than any previous President; Dodd-Frank is hugely underestimated in it’s effectiveness; the US economy is outperforming all other major economies; and the student loan system has been overhauled.
If Clinton continues Obama’s policies this country will be in terrific shape.
@Modulo Myself: This right here should discourage any comparison between the Nazis and the GOP. The Nazis were so utterly evil they had Martin Heidegger on their side. (Apologies to continentals, but Heidegger causes me headaches. He’s like if Aristotle took too much DMT.)
The GOP’s answer to Martin Heidegger is *drum roll* David Barton. Barton doesn’t cause me headaches, but my sighing-to-breathing ratio does go up so maybe he’s more dangerous in a subtle fashion.
@michael reynolds:
Well, because it’s neither ethnic nor cleansing. No one wants to get rid of people based on race, and no one wants to get rid of all people of a race. I assume that even Trump doesn’t want to relocate all people of Mexican descent.
@Modulo Myself: That home-schooled Christian kid has got a better chance than most of becoming an MIT geneticist.
@Pinky: …how is this not racial?
Like it’s not ethnic cleansing by any stretch, if we’re presuming the Milosevicean phrase here. (I’ve always assumed that phrase came out of Yugoslavia.) But then you say there’s no racial element to this at all?
@michael reynolds: I see your point, but you don’t usually slippery slope as much as you are doing on this one. I will end by saying that I do admire your fervency on this topic and that your heart and soul are in the right place. Fight the good fight!
@Tillman: Because no one’s talking about deportations by race or even nation of origin, but by immigration status.
@Pinky: Trump hasn’t been talking about illegal Mexican immigration this whole time? He’s proposed building a border wall with Canada and making the Canadians pay for it?
@Pinky:
While you defend this, I’ll just point something out.
Much has been made about Francisco Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who shot a woman in San Francisco.
Sanchez had been deported 5 times previously. And if I were to believe the right, who are doubling down on the deportation stuff, a 6th time might have saved a woman’s life.
Which is to say that the people who are talking only about deportations have not yet found the solution to the problem they want to solve. Deport them. Deport them again. And deport them again.
It works so well.
Everyone upstream.
Let me state this clearly. I’m not saying GOP = Nazi Party.
I am saying that the majority of the GOP support ethnic cleansing. Yes, it is ethnic cleansing they’re talking about. The plan to forcibly deport 11 million people is ethnic cleansing.
I don’t say that Doug and James support this specific policy. I say that they support a party made up of people who support ethnic cleansing.
Now, you people can Godwin me all day long, but what I’ve just written in the above paragraphs is true as a matter of simple fact. Yes, this proposal is ethnic cleaning, yes it is supported by Republican candidates and by Republicans themselves and yes, Doug and James support the party of ethnic cleansing.
How do you think atrocities get started, people? Do you think it all starts suddenly one fine day? One day everything is just swell and the next day it’s kristallnacht? No, that’s not how it happens. First there must be the identification of scapegoats: Jews, Indians, Mexicans, doesn’t matter. The scapegoat is blamed and dehumanized over the course of some time. And once we are convinced that 1) The ‘other’ is a problem, and 2) They aren’t quite human, we set the stage for atrocity.
I wish, rather than endlessly throwing Godwin around, some of you would take a look at the history of Armenians, or the Tutsi, or the Indians or the Jews. Not just the end-stage, but the steps that got us to the end stage. Rather than endlessly telling me how X was different from Y, spend a few minutes looking at the similarities. History does not teach us through a series of identical events.
Indians ≠ Armenians ≠ Jews ≠ Tutsi ≠ Cambodians ≠ Mexicans. You’re all absolutely right that there are differences, details, excuses, explanations, all wonderfully different. And yet, all the same in the essentials of scapegoating and dehumanization. Are Mexicans being scapegoated and dehumanized in the US? You have to be deaf, dumb, blind and dishonest to deny it.
Which brings us to the inevitable “it can’t happen here” argument. Let me be clear: I don’t think it will happen here. But to blithely assume that it can’t happen in the same country that brought us a whole bunch of dead Indians and black slaves and a whole lot of strange fruit in southern trees, is just smug complacency. If it doesn’t happen here it will be because good people stand up against it.
Which brings me back to my starting point. Good people need to stand up against extremism, in this case Republican extremism in the form of calls for ethnic cleansing. Good people need to step in before the boulder is rolling down the hill, before we’re all standing around pretending we never noticed the stink wafting from the camp. They can start by not belonging to the party of ethnic cleansing. Kind of the bare minimum there. No need to become one of the Righteous Among Nations, just maybe grow enough balls to quit your party when it starts to call for children to be dragged away from their fu*king homes.
@James Pearce:
Perhaps you can enlighten me on Clinton’s senate career. I don’t recall any particular accomplishments of note she had, besides voting with the Dem masses.
In my view, there is so much to do over the next presidency to straighten out the nation, and perhaps several terms further, from the current mess it is in, that both executive experience and a good grasp of the foreign arena is needed, plus a dedication to open government and honesty in dealing with both the administration and the public. That is something we haven’t had for a long time. We do not need liars in high office this time around, and we do not need an administration that overreaches in regulations and executive orders either, plus we do need more faithful adherence to the Constitution. It seems that many on the Dem side are hell bent to bury the Constitution step by step. I see Clinton as following the current path to socialist hell.
@michael reynolds:
“I don’t say that Doug and James support this specific policy. I say that they support a party made up of people who support ethnic cleansing.”
You did not start this off by saying they would vote for people who support ethnic cleansing. You said “They’d vote for Hitler if he’d cut their tax rate by a point.” Hitler is hardly the only person in history guilty of ethnic cleansing. What the GOP is proposing is far closer to Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears than Hitler.
@michael reynolds:
“Deport all people of Mexican ancestry” = ethnic cleansing
“Deport all Mexican illegals” = an immigration policy + racial profiling
“Deport all illegals” = an immigration policy
The Nazis and the Serbians weren’t looking to deport undocumented people, or looking to deport undocumented people based on their ancestry. They were looking to deport or kill people based on their ancestry. They were looking to make the act of existing as a particular ethnicity illegal, not the act of entering a country without proper documentation. An ethnic German whose ancestors had legally resided in Austria for generations could move around Germany; an ethnic Jew whose ancestors had legally resided in Germany for generations couldn’t move around Germany.
@Tillman: My last comment was directed at you as well. I think that the first sentence fits 0% of Republicans, the second 1% of Republicans, the third 30% of Republicans, and most of the rest would favor stronger policies and more rigorous implementation of the current laws.
@mannning:
Someone else should do that. I’m not a Clinton supporter.
Well, this is where we disagree. I don’t think the country is in a mess and think Obama has done an admirable job.
You are more free today than you were in Bush’s day to buy guns, to marry who you want, to smoke what you want, and if you want to inject your religion into your business, you can do that too. I don’t mourn incandescent light bulbs or trans fats. I don’t yearn for more wars in the middle east. (Although I do encourage vigilance, in addition to all the other war-like slimy things most liberals can’t stomach. ie, drones, ie, arming the rebels)
I have reservations about Clinton’s presidency. I think for the next 4-8 years I’ll be scolding all the social justice warriors for their Soviet Realism tendencies. I’ll be talking them out of all their little goofball schemes. (Which probably won’t involve shutting down the government to defund Planned Parenthood.)
I don’t expect, nor do I want, transparency, honesty, or any of that other feel-good crap. I just want competence.
And I’m glad to see so many people recognizing that there is such a thing as “too far”.
@mannning:
This is where conservatives lose us. What mess? See, for instance @C. Clavin:. C. is right. All you cite is “overreaches in regulations and executive orders”, “faithful adherence to the Constitution”, “the current path to socialist hell”. All vague generalities straight from the Conservative Echo Chamber. To score any points with us utilitarians you have to flesh this out with examples and arguments. You would have to, for instance, explain why “socialism” in the form of getting millions of people health insurance is a bad thing. You’d have to explain why cutting power plant carbon emissions is bad. You’d have to explain what harm is done (beyond offending you) by recognizing gay marriage. And on and on.
There’s a reason people talk about “inchoate rage” on the right. None of it seems very well thought out or specific.
You can’t just say
@mannning:
Nothing but talking points with absolutely no substance.
I get that you have Obama/Clinton/Democratic Derangement Syndrome. Doug suffers from the same malady.
But without anything but vague generalities it’s really hard to understand what you are talking about….for instance; what it is that is so upsetting to you about an economy recovering faster than other major economies? What is it that is upsetting to you about getting free riders of the health care system and reducing the rate of growth of health care costs?
Maybe you want to consult with the right-wing echo chamber and find out what it is you are supposed to think?
Get back to us.
@James Pearce: And competence is NOT what we seem to have on the Republican side…
I don’t like Hillary, but she at least has a foot in reality and isn’t going to Bomb bomb bomb Iran the first day of her Presidency, so there’s that.
The Republican side is running around screaming its head off to attract the John Bircher nuts the party has morphed into.
Heck, if I had been born in the 1950s, I probably would have called myself an Ike Republican. And if you read even further back, there were periods where the Republicans were for high tariffs. When did THAT leave the party?!
@mannning:
Um……
Under the Obama Presidency we have seen something like 60 straight months of private sector job creation and a net reduction of public sector jobs. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. Obama’s signature accomplishment delivered millions of customers to private sector insurance companies.
Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of Socialism?
@Pinky: I mean, I feel like that’s the optimistic take, but I see what you mean.
@C. Clavin: @C. Clavin:
Frankly, I do not need any right-wing group to spell out what I believe! My list of deficiencies of this administration currently runs to about 50 items: far too much to list here. I suppose the most obvious one is the doubling of the national debt, for one idiotic thing, which, together with deep regulations of small businesses, will retard our growth for years. Then, too, I do not appreciate being led down the garden path by Obama’s lies, again too many to list. It seems that Dems are paralyzed by fear of the GOP taking us to war, which will be done anyway by Clinton, or the GOP, if the situation calls for it! The latest order from Obama is still another attempt to destroy the coal industry…and the list goes on and on and on… Between the Gramsci and Alinsky rules, we are being led to an European form of socialism by a ragtag group of progressives that do not know the end result of their finagling.
@mannning: Despite your apparent admiration of Walker you must have misssed when his office tried to get rid of the open records laws the state has had. They also moved to remove oversight from the WEDC. So he has demonstrated neither competence nor transparency. The guy is a disaster that despite having executive experience if you for a moment examine his record it is abysmal.
@mannning:
More vague talking points but to choose one:
Do you understand that the doubling of the national debt is a function of Republican programs, policies, and obligations that continue to add far more to the deficit than anything Obama has done or spent?
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Bush tax cuts, the Bush Contraction; all of these continue to drive the deficit…which in spite of that has been reduced at a faster pace than at any time since WW2.
It appears the facts don’t match your ideology.
@Pinky: “And I’m glad to see so many people recognizing that there is such a thing as “too far”.”
And lovely to discover that you can recognize it, too — albeit, only in other people.
@mannning:
If this didn’t actually occur, how would that affect your thinking on the matter?
@michael reynolds: You’re eightyish percent right but said it fifty percent wrong. That sums up my reaction to most of this.
@grumpy realist:
I’m a liberalish dude who desperately wishes he could be a Republican. But I’m content to oppose them until they pull their heads out of their asses.
(I’m also content to oppose liberals who indulge the silly.)
@mannning:
And which opposing candidate is poised to propel this particular sea change?
I’m still with John Calvin: If I’ve fallen into a river, it would be better to be rescued by a heathen who can swim than by a bishop who can’t.
@James Pearce: Well, transparency and honesty would be nice, but competence has to be the first order, I agree.
@mannning:
If foreign policy is a concern in 2016, the current GOP opposition to the Iran agreement should disqualify most of the field.
Secondly, I don’t believe the executive experience is a serious concern, unless you would vote for a Democratic Governor over a Republican Senator, if those were the candidates. It might be consideration during the primaries, but not the general, where the party is much more important.
@Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker:
To a certain extent, sure.
Transparency leads to shamelessness. And honesty can be strategically disastrous. it’s not that I believe opacity and dishonesty are virtues. It’s just that I don’t think transparency and honesty are too terribly important.
@David M:
Spoken like a true Dem. Don’t need to stop Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions cold, and most certainly don’t need any executive experience in the WH! Wow! Let HC run the nation from her home server, and “what does it matter”?! I suppose that goes along with never even trying to pay off the national debt, a true unemployment nearer to 12% than 5%, disarming the public, bending the Constitution to Dem will, abortion on demand, amnesty, redistribution of wealth, pacifism, a significantly reduced military, no real plan to defeat ISIS, and, again, on and on…Oh! And lets close Gitmo, while we are at it and send the inmates home, recognize regimes that hate us all over the place, and piss on our international friends of long standing yet again. Great ideas! But, then, ideas have consequences, don’t they?
@mannning:
lolwut?
(My previous response was actually trying to engage productively, but that now appears pointless.)
@mannning:
I’ll refer you to your previous comment.
@mannning:
And yet you simply parrot the right wing entertainment complex talking points…even though they have no basis in fact.
Paying off the debt. What a joke. Democrats handed over a surplus and Republicans used it as an excuse for more tax cuts and exploded the debt…something we are still paying for.
You should stick to commenting on the Hot Air site…where the chorus all sings the same nonsense.
@mannning:
These are your issues?
And you support Republicans? Good luck with that.
@mannning:
And how would you like to do that? How, specifically, would you propose that we do this, short of a full scale war? Such a war would be the start of a much larger conflict, with China and Russia possibly backing Iran. Your position is one of a child. Pakistan has nuclear weaons.. Russia has nuclear weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons. China has nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. All told there are more than 15,000 Nuclear weapons in the world. Between the USA and Russia, there are more than 14,700. Everyone else has less than 300. Grow up.
Obama has proven that you don’t need it. He’s owned the GOP the last 7 years. Meep. Meep.
What does this even mean? Are you implying that as president, she wouldn’t work from the White House? Your comment is some serious Palin-speak.
You mean the debt that exploded under Reagan, Bush, and Bush II. What about the Deficit that Clinton, Bill, turned into a surplus, only to be sqaundered by Dubya and a GOP Congress. Crickets….
Perhaps you should look at a trendline for the past six years. Regardless of what metric you use, the unemployment rate has been going down. Oh, unskewed polls!!!! Look!!!!!!
Who, exactly, has proposed this? Who, exactly, has succeeded in disarming the public? Gun sales are at record highs.
How does one bend the Constitution to their will? That’s an asinine comment. We have a system of laws, of checks and balances. If your side can’t win, it usually means that the other side has more people on it’s side. And they vote.
You mean the law of the land? Change the law if you don’t like it. Petition your representative(s) to outlaw abortion in all instances.
Oh, you must be taking about Ronald Reagan. Because Clinton and Obama certainly didn’t sign or approve of Amesty.
On this we agree. I find it shameful, embarrassing, and un-American that the middle class in this country is having their wealth redistributed to the wealthy in this country. By every metric, the wealthiest have done better under Obama than any other group. It’s ridiculous. I’m glad we agree.
Yeah. Because drone strikes all over the middle east, killing Al-Queda guys one by one, and killing BinLaden and sending him to a watery grave, and killing all sorts of innocents in deadly bomb strikes is what Pacifism is all about.
Yada, Yada, Yada….
Oh, you mean, let’s keep prisoners locked up forever with no trial and no rights – even if they’re 100% innocent. Nice.
You’re a sad, pathetic troll who is regurgitating talking points. Stop it. Grow the eff up and look at the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.
@EddieInCA:
It’s no use, man.
I mean, you and I know that the immigration reform plans floated over the past ten years are rather punitive, less punitive than deportation it must be admitted, but definitely not amnesty.
Has this stopped the right-wing from calling it amnesty though? Nope.
One might think they just don’t know what they’re talking about. The other possibility is that they know what they’re talking about, and choose to talk about it dishonestly.
I can’t say which one fits Manning. Neither are very flattering.
@James Pearce:
Watson says:
57% dupe
29% troll
11% disinformationist
03% bot
@DrDaveT: 100% BS?
This is the problem I encounter time and again when debating these issues with right wingers. I don’t know if I’m dealing with ignorance or dishonesty.
It’s like there is no other mode.
@EddieInCA: I admire your industry perseverance, although I suspect it’s for nought. I’ll add a technical note and hope @mannning: picks up on it.
The BLS publishes 6 unemployment rates. The “official” rate is U3, people without jobs and actively looking. Whichever cesspool of the CEC fever swamp Mannning is reading is presumably referencing U4, 5, or 6, which add people who aren’t actively looking or are part time.Yes those are higher numbers. And always have been. U3 is the number consistently used for “unemployment” under Obama, W, Clinton, HW, Reagan, and so on.
My point stands:
Here is a chart for U1-U6: http://esoltas.blogspot.com/2013/11/do-u1-to-u6-tell-us-anything.html
Notice the trend since GW Bush and the GOP wrecked the economy. By every measure, the trend is good since halfway through Obama’s first term. That’s long it took to turn around the damage. Since then, positive direction in U1, U2, U3, U4, U5 and U6.
@EddieInCA: Trying to amplify your point, not argue with it.
@gVOR08:
Thank you. Context is sometimes lost via the interwebs.
@EddieInCA: Eddie, you complained about manning’s right-wing talking point.s Which of your rebuttals do you think weren’t left-wing talking points?
@Pinky:
What’s your point? That left-wing talking points are more accurate than right-wing ones?
@Pinky:
Um, all of them?
I think you’re unclear on what “talking points” means.
If you go listen to FOX News, you will hear certain arguments repeated over and over. They are based on made-up “facts” that people could check if they had the will and the energy. When you hear someone repeat one of these arguments in public, you know where they got it.
The rebuttals to these arguments are based on actual facts, that anyone can verify with a little research. There is no central repository of rebuttals; people who take the time to reply generally do their own research. Not every rebuttal looks alike. They are not “talking points” in the sense of “positions provided by a central source for other people to repeat when questioned”. Honestly, I wouldn’t know where to go to find Democratic “talking points” these days.
The conversation took a profound step into the abyss when Mannning hijacked the thread and the wingnuts stopped beating up on Michael. At least, that was thoughtful.
Thank you for your predictable and rather hiarious reactions. You have been so long mesmerize by the progressive propaganda machine that Truth has covered up its head and cried. A rather defensive display at that. All of the dirty tactics the left uses were on dispay! Marvellous!
TaTa
@mannning:
This is just getting bizarre. Apparently even replying factually is more than the GOP commenters like mannning or Pinky can handle.
Maybe Trump’s appeal is that he just doesn’t acknowledge that opposing views even exist.
@EddieInCA: Your table only runs to 2013- here is some updated data, which shows that U-6, the widest possible measure of employment declined from 12.4, Manninng’s obsolete talking point, to 10.5 in the space of one year (it was 17.4 in summer of ’09, and if current trends continue, should be around 9 when Obama leaves office. This would be just around the historical average (the lowest its ever been was just above 7% or so- when Clinton left office..). In other words, the u-6 rate doesn’t tell the story Manninng thinks it does.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate
@Pinky:
Ok- let me take one.
Manninng said that Clinton-OBama will be “pacifists”
David pointed out that Obama is using drones all over Eurasia, sometimes in morally dubious ways.
The only way you could possibly make the argument that’s a “left-wing talking point” is by deciding that facts that contradict you are propaganda.
Seriously- the whole “I am just an honest observer bemused by all the partisanship” schtick is wearing thin, and is not fooling anyone.
@humanoid.panda: Pretty much a dead thread, but I’ll go meta for a moment.
When I first became aware of Pinky here, he was doing a Miss Manners act. You’re mean to diss this conservative argument, you should respect it because….well just because.
Rove’s faith based v/ reality based comment contained a lot of truth. Pinky and Manning are faith based. They believe what they believe because they believe it. Their conservative creed says such and such is true, therefore it is. And they believe the “liberal” commenters are no different. (There’s a Dunning-Kruger component to this.) When you say Obama isn’t a pacifist, look at the large number of people he’s had killed, they don’t recognize that as a logical argument based on known facts. They think you’re just reciting your creed as you received it from Rachel Maddow or the NYT. And worse, you have the arrogance to claim your creed should take precedence over their creed.
The one that jumped out at me was the false dichotomy of this particular treaty or all out war. I’ve never heard a non-partisan make that claim. It’s every bit as silly to say that opponents of the treaty want war as to say that supporters of the treaty want a nuclear Iran. That being the lead-off rebuttal argument, I looked at the rest of it to see if it was just talking points, and it was. The mention of unskewed polling out of context is a hack move. He deflected the question about the current debt to talk about the debt of 30 years ago. Ditto amnesty. And some things he simply said he didn’t understand.
I wouldn’t usually call someone out for using talking points. But to use them and then complain that the other person was using talking points, that’s just wrong.
@DrDaveT: I was replying to Eddie. Eddie used talking points to rebut talking points, then complained about talking points. If you want to have a serious discussion about any of the issues that manning or Eddie raised, good.
@Pinky:
Pinky says:
Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:29
I responding specifically to mannig’s point on “stop Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions cold,” Since he didn’t take a crack at it, why don’t you? How do we do that, short of all out war? If we don’t do this deal, they move ahead with Nuclear Weapons sooner rather than later. So I’ll ask you. How do we stop it? How do we stop their nuclear ambitions cold? This treaty pushes their timeline for a weapon back at least a decade by most accounts. How do you propose we accomplish the same thing without war? I’m genuinely asking.
I used the comment “unskewed polls” to show the unseriousness of GOP voters when confronted with math that doesn’t agree with their belief or point of view. manning claimed that unemployment numbers used by the government were phony. I pointed out that the unemployment rate, BY EVERY METRIC USED or possible, is trending down. This despite severe job cuts in public sector jobs over the last five years. manning’s position is factually, FACTUALLY false. But, like “unskewed polls guy”, he believes what he believes. And if you think that is a hack move to point that out, then you have bigger issues.
I did no such thing. I pointed out that the debt is nothing new, and that the debt has EXPLODED under Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2. Those aren’t opinions. That’s fact.
Amount Added to the Debt for Each Fiscal Year Since 1982:
Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.
FY 2014 – $1.086 trillion.
FY 2013 – $672 billion.
FY 2012 – $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 – $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 – $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 – $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama’s contribution to the debt.)
George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton’s last budget, FY 2001.
FY 2009 – $1.632 trillion. (Bush’s deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 – $1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 – $501 billion.
FY 2006 – $574 billion.
FY 2005 – $554 billion.
FY 2004 – $596 billion.
FY 2003 – $555 billion.
FY 2002 – $421 billion.
Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 1993.
FY 2001 – $133 billion.
FY 2000 – $18 billion.
FY 1999 – $130 billion.
FY 1998 – $113 billion.
FY 1997 – $188 billion.
FY 1996 – $251 billion.
FY 1995 – $281 billion.
FY 1994 – $281 billion.
George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan’s last budget, FY 1989.
FY 1993 – $347 billion.
FY 1992 – $399 billion.
FY 1991 – $432 billion.
FY 1990 – $376 billion.
Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter’s last budget, FY 1981. Also see Did Reaganomics Work?
FY 1989 – $255 billion.
FY 1988 – $252 billion.
FY 1987 – $225 billion.
FY 1986 – $297 billion.
FY 1985 – $256 billion.
FY 1984 – $195 billion.
FY 1983 – $235 billion.
FY 1982 – $144 billion.
Those are facts. Obama and Clinton were more fiscally responsible when it comes to the debt than Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 were. That’s a fact. And you’re saying it’s me that doesn’t understand? Really?
Reagan signed legislation that provided Amnesty. True or False? Um. True. Obama has done no such thing. That you and so many other GOP hacks call what he proposes as “Amnesty” doesn’t make it so. Words have meanings.
Nice try. Problem with guys like you is even when you get your ass handed to you, you don’t know it. It’s sort of sad actually.
@humanoid.panda:
Please show me where I said explicitly that Clinton-Obama would be pacifist. No, I listed pacifism as a central characteristic of much left-wing politics. I also believe that atheism seems to be rather central also, which lends support to the idea of abortion as not being against the Ten Commandments; :”the baby is a viable person only when it is taken from the hospital!” Ye Gods!
My listing was a very partial set of things I disapprove of as being far too left for my taste. I find this medium to be not very amenable to immediate and detailed discussions on a rather large number of topics, and thus I have resorted to identification of negative topics more than descending into the details. If you want to call them “Talking Points” that is fine, and I will have to go see what the Hot Air site has to offer, since it is said to be my source for TPs. LOL! They may be kindred souls, who knows?
Of all the topics I have listed the national debt bothers me the most, since by 2020, or even earlier, just the interest will be about a trillion dollars a year, which is not payable in any practical sense, and we have had 7+ years of an administration that doubled the debt left by the previous administration, rather than instituting any attempt at effective fiscal solutions. My grandchildren will reap the benefits from this serious abdication of responsibility. A good example of spendthrift policies and not putting first things first, and not even trying to live within our means, which also happens to be a very sore point indeed with me against the Bush crowd.
Quite a few economists are now predicting a catastrophic decline in our future, along with the rise of the Chinese Yuan over the dollar.
Did someone above dismiss executive skills along with truth and honesty as being unnecessary? There it is! Hilarious! No wonder Obama can get away with so many lies!
@EddieInCA: Now, you see that? That was a comment that included arguable positions. I used to enjoy arguing about politics. Now it seems I spend all of my online time pointing out how people are making bad arguments. Manning gave talking points; you gave talking points; I called you out on it; you made a comment that was less evasive and could be the first step in an actual conversation. My work here is done. I’m off to learn why Fox News is wrong for inviting leading candidates, and why Stan’s search engine can’t find any Republicans critical of Trump.
If the numbers given by I believe Eddie above are correct, the measure for Obama’s national debt increase is somewhere above 52% through 2014. if you include fiscal 2015, and by the end of 2016 it will be even higher, but probably will not exceed 65%. So doubling was incorrect, I think. The real point is, holy cow!, an increase in the range of 50 to 65% is fiscally irresponsible, no matter who incurred it! This includes the Bushes in my opinion, as I alluded to earlier.
Yes, I do believe the dichotomy of negotiate as has been done, or war, is not the only path. But in the end, we have to take a hard stand somewhere, and we missed that point during the recent negotiations. We ended up with the certainty that Iran will achieve nuclear weapons after ten years, it seems, whether we inspect to infinity or not. And, of course, nothing has been done to rein in Iran’s support to ME terrorism, it being declared off limits to get just so far. I believe we have been out-negotiated yet again by superior negotiators.
How much further would we have gotten if we had held up the threat of conflict or war, or else accede to our demands? I don’t know, but I do believe that was not even hinted at during the negotiations. Would a stronger hint have been possible with the group on our side? Probably not. We are fearful of Russia and China. So the goal stated earlier by Obama to deny Iran the weapons has been negotiated away.
What this seems to conclude is that our supposed partners were not fully signed up to stopping Iran cold. Thus there were two or more further negotiations that were not carried to the limit–with Russia and China particularly, both of whom are really hard negotiators. So we actually had three problems, not one, that needed to be handled somehow, and they were not able to do so as far as we would have liked after a protracted time.
So now we will eventually have to live with a nuclear-weaponed Iran. Will Israel? And, if Israel attacks Iran, what will we do? Many say they won’t attack, but what if they did?
@mannning:
“This includes the Bushes in my opinion, as I alluded to earlier.”
And then of course, there’s Reagan, who nearly tripled the national debt. He deserves his own category in fiscal irresponsibility.
@mannning:
One thing that consistently is ignored by opponents of the Iran agreement is that we didn’t give anything up to get the agreement. It costs us nothing, and carries virtually no risks compared to the status quo. Right now Iran has enough nuclear material for multiple weapons and a breakout time of 3 months or less. They’ve agreed to surrender almost all the material, shutter the centrifuges used to make the material and allow inspections of the entire process. That takes the breakout time up to around a year, and will keep it there for longer than 10 years.
It’s a significant achievement, and a very one-sided deal in our favor.
@mannning:
If higher deficits are actually a concern, then the obvious path is to support Democrats. Over the past 3 decades, they’ve consistently been the party that was willing to address is responsibly, rather than pay it lip service while making it worse. Here’s a quick list:
Dems: Obamacare, Deficit Reduction Act in 1993
GOP: Bush tax cuts, Iraq, Medicare Part D, Medicare Advantage
Now were you really being honest about wanting a lower deficit?
@David M: Over the past three decades, most of the work to bring down the deficits has been done on the Republican Congress’s watch. Not as much as they should have, for sure, and they definitely blew it with Medicare Part D.
@EddieInCA: By those figures, President Obama has added more debt in 5 years than Bush did in 8.
@Pinky:
That doesn’t contradict the point I made, and is borderline misleading. Each party has made choices that had a major impact on the deficit. The GOP has consistently made choices that increased it. The Democrats are the ones who have made the hard choices and actually been responsible. Obamacare is a good example, as it could have been a lot more popular if it was just free stuff for everyone and didn’t try to reduce the deficit.
@David M: That’d be true if the Obamacare enrollment were sufficient to fund it, but I haven’t seen any numbers to indicate it is.
@Pinky:
That doesn’t really make sense, the deficit reduction isn’t dependant on enrollment.
@David M:
Two thoughts: 1) I consider Bill, Hillary, and Barrack to be consummate liars, so I discount most things they say, which means I cannot vote for any such Dems; and 2) I also have little faith that either party can muster the guts to make real inroads into the national debt over the next 20 years.
On the subject of lying, few of the candidates have a clean record, which puts me into a funk. My real impression of the parties is that I have found out more critical lies from Dems than Repubs, but that may be because I have been more exposed to Dem lies than Repub lies over the past few presidencies. For me, it is a shame that virtually all politicians lie at some time or another, which makes me an idealist, but at voting time I do have to vote for someone…
On the Iran agreement, I am convinced that they will proceed in secret to spin and make use of their processed uranium on non-inspected sites and to hell with the agreement. On their military bases they willl have the freedom to do as they wish as I understand it, so in your eye, US! While it apparenty costs us nothing, we will get nothing out of it either, while they will receive a whopping bonus for their patience, and the means for further destabilization in the ME. Not a good deal.
@mannning:
God forbid you should evaluate politicians on what they do, as opposed to what they say. I know, that’s crazy talk…
If you can cite any set of Dem lies that, collectively, outweigh the Big Lie that ended with us invading Iraq, I’d love to hear them.
Democrats lie about peccadilloes. Republicans lie to get hundreds of thousands of people killed. If that difference doesn’t matter to you, just say so.
@Pinky: You do realize that “Obamacare enrollment,” is not at all an income stream for the government, right? People enroll in insurance plans, and pay money to their insurance company- the government doesn’t get any of that money. Obamacare reduces the deficit by a) imposing some taxes and fees and penaltiesand b) cutting some spending on Medicare and c) hopefully, bending the curve on health costs.
It would do you some good to actually know something about the topic you want to opine about before you starting opining about it.
In fact, lower enrollment in ACA-compliant plans would probably reduce the deficit- as that means that subsidy payments would be lower, and more money would be gathered from the individual mandate. Yet again- the ACA is a very specific set of policies, good or bad, not a green monster that ate all that is good about America.
@humanoid.panda: This is the interwebs–a fact-free zone. Pinky don’t need no stinking informations in order to have opinions and criticize others when the disagree!
@mannning:
We can monitor all of it, that’s the point of the agreement. The goal of the negotiations was for Iran to stop their military nuclear program, which this does. Your objections would apply to any deal, not just this one.
@David M: What’s amazing is her thinks that you can easily hide large quantities of highly radioactive material that requires specialized equipment to further enrich…
@mannning: Perhaps you and our fellow commenters here will remember the scorn that our friend Tyrell drew onto himself when he mentioned that the Renminbi would become a major currency used by the IMF. As you say, “Quite a few economists (ed–none are named) are predicting (ed–no predictions are actually cited) a catastrophic decline in our future (ed–well no one ever made that prediction before!) along with the rise of the Chinese Yuan over the dollar.”
Let me skip over the part about the dollar’s strength over the Renminbi being something of a problem for exporters of American goods and get right to the point: You and Tyrell can rest easy. It isn’t going to happen for over a year.
http://www.newyorktimes.com/2015/08/06/business/international/imf-report-recommends-delay-in-elevating-chinas-currency.html?ref=business
@Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: “Pinky don’t need no stinking informations….” Of course, not! The facts she hoovers up from HotAir are just as good as your freaking facts. Don’t we hold these truths to be self-evident that all facts are created equal?!
@mannning: “Of all the topic I have discussed the national debt bothers me the most…” But you will not realize that the most significant aspect of the debt is what percentage of the national product it represents. If you doubled your income, perhaps you would worry less about your student loans, eh? Well, let me refer you to a graph:
http://www.research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9XE
@David M:
It is my understanding that we cannot monitor their military bases at all, per the Ayatollah.
@JohnMcC:
By predictions I have seen, federal expenses will rise substantially over 2015 – 2025. Look at cbo.com for a long term projection. The dip in yearly expenses goes away real soon now.
@JohnMcC:
The chart at cbo.com also shows the huge rise in federal indebtedness over the period, which is the basis for my concerns. I wish I were young enough to have a student loan, LOL! My BS degree in physics dates from 1957.
@JohnMcC:
I won’t enter into a “My economists versus your economists argument.” That is hopeless. So are most predictions of economic activity beyond a year or two; they seem to do about as well as the weathermen, but with a few outstanding exceptions. At almost any point in time there are at least three groups of economists: 1) Things will be great!; 2) Things will be about as usual, with a few ups and downs; and, 3) A catastrophe is coming real soon now. I discount both (1) and (2) for what I see as excellent reasons.
I have a strong belief that we will face a very significant downturn in the next few years, and it most probably will be triggered by our loss of the reserve currency role of the dollar, either directly or indirectly (perhaps gradually, too) by bilateral or multilateral agreements between many nations. The most telling one is the current agreement between Russia and China, but many others are either there now or soon will be.
Another possible outcome is the turning away by our key creditors if they believe we are on a no-win path, which would be devastating to our economy. Yet another problem is the bundling of auto loans just as was done by housing financiers, with disastrous results.
Then, too, there is the Trillion dollars in student loans that are outstanding, and scant hope of them being paid off because of the jobs market. Perhaps a final blow will come if we are somehow dragged into another ME war with the huge outlays that would entail.
Further on the path is China’s strong acquisition of Gold, apparently some reported and some not, which I cannot confirm. The cbo.com chart, incidentally, tells a very disturbing story about our possible future.
@mannning:
As has been widely reported, there will be inspections at Iran’s military sites.
On the subject of fiscal responsibility, here is a chart showing the progress made on Medicare. I seem to recall that there were some reforms that were supported by only one party, and that the other party has been desperately trying to roll back ever since. I wonder if the GOP cheerleaders will try to spin this or just ignore it.
@David M:
Just the statement that “there will be inspections at military sites” doesn’t cut it for me. Are we, the US, or the UN, able to inspect any military site in Iran and any time, without prior notice, or with the stated 21 days notice? I doubt that, but time will show up the deficiencies clearly. Otherwise, I suggest that there are massive holes in the agreement relative to Military installations which Iran will take full advantage of over time.
Wide dissemination of a statement may not be a true statement either: the current administration has been known for using false statements to get their way, viz “you can keep your doctor’ etc. or “the Benghazi episode was caused by an anti-Islamic film.” Further, I would want to know the Iranian version of the agreement, and what they believe they signed up to, since it could be different in subtle ways, to our detriment.
Does the agreement handle the introduction of new vast sites by the military? Are we absolutely sure that we know all military sites in Iran? Are we even sure that we know every nuclear site? An entire set of complexes could be built or completed over the next few years that we do not know about, cannot detect from recon, that do not radiate significantly, and are under military control. If these questions are covered in the agreement, I have not seen or heard of it. If they are covered, I would be happy to know it! If we are totally dependent on the Iranians for such information, good luck!
One thing I do not know today is the recon coverage and capabilities we now have when observing activities in Iran. Always has been a closely held intel show, and I have been away from it for many years. I would be rather certain that Iran knows the paths and timing of our satellite systems, and would assume that anything above, say, a square inch or so in size would be seen and analyzed periodically. So the game of deception would have to be rather good, which I give the Iranians credit for up front.
@mannning:
Again, you appear to be objecting to the concept of having any agreement with Iran. I have to conclude at this point you wish for a full scale invasion of Iran.
@David M:
Nah, I just believe that there are big holes in what we have agreed to with a very slippery customer. When I was working for an European company for ten years, we had extensive contracts with Iran, which were enormous headaches because of the devious interpretations of words in contracts, and other written materials. Mistrust was earned the hard way. My current take is that the agreement will eventually be approved, rightly or not, and we will discover the holes downstream. Knowing Iranians, I am rather sure there will be holes exploited. I only wish for extremely thorough inspections all over Iran, which I believe we did not get, to protect us.
@mannning:
You’re not familiar with the basic concepts of the agreement, but you are sure it’s inadequate? That only makes sense if you would object to any agreement.
Arms control and non-proliferation experts are satisfied with the inspection agreements, shouldn’t you be deferring to them given your admitted lack of expertise and knowledge?
It seems that most posters here charge anyone that disagrees with the agreement want war, which is ridiculous on the face of it. What some of us want is assurance that Iran will not have the bomb, and in my view, the agreement does not go far enough to provide that assurance. Perhaps there will be further negotiations as things evolve that will stop the holes, so we don’t have to go to war. Talk can be better than war. But, there is the chance as well.
@mannning:
What’s your actual, detailed alternative, and how would you get all the parties to the current deal to agree to it?
The holes you keep referring to either don’t exist, or would apply to every possible deal.
Bless them, but never believe they are better at hole filling than the Iranians are at exploiting the holes.
The Iran deal, explained in clear language by a nuclear expert
@David M:
It is the old situation in the legal field. Should you write laws or contracts down to the very last possible situation or should you write them in a more general way and TRUST that it will work.
As I wrote before earlier, I see the situation as a failure of negotiations with our partners first, for not establishing the goal as total dismemberment of Iran’s nuclear war potential, and agreeing to the penalties of Iran’s failure to accede to the details. Then I see the failure of the negotiations with Iran to close the holes I believe exist. But, we are now kinda stuck with it, unless we want a war, which I don’t, and most of us don’t want. So, we simply have to punt and pray, and hope that their very elusive punt returner can be stopped before he scores.
@mannning:
How would that be accomplished? How exactly would this go beyond the current agreement?
Your citation article was very persuasive that we have done the job, but even that expert showed that Iran could cheat.
“It makes the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon in the next 25 years extremely remote. It would require a Herculean effort of subterfuge and clandestine activity.”
So I will take some comfort from that paper, and retire. I see no other avenue of solution, so what is done is done. Cheers!
@mannning: So I can infer that you are predicting that the GDP of the US is going to decline. I certainly would take that bet — particularly since I am watching the Kiddie Table debate of the R’s right now and don’t think they have a snowball’s chance in Tampa.
Who wins the presidency will have little or no effect on the coming decline that some predict will exceed 40% loss in the markets, and a currency debacle. If the Dems win it will be tax and spend again right up to the collapse, and if the Repubs win they will be loath to enact what is necessary immediately to at least attempt to soften the decline, although I am not sure that any legislation or executive orders would be of use.
Some have predicted the year 2017, give or take a few months, as the most likely for the collapse, so there would be time for something to be done, but the political and especially the Dem climate in the US over 2015-2017 is most definitely not ripe for austerity solutions at all. There seems to be a magic National Debt number of 20 to 24 trillion dollars that would ensure the fall, but I am not sure of the reasoning. I believe we are at about 18.5 Trillion now, and growing.
Since I most probably will not be around to collect and spend any bets in a few years, I will pass on that chance to fatten a useless purse.
Incidentally, I just read Obama’s speech in defense of the Iran agreement. It is most persuasive on the face of the statements.
Now we have the Iranian support for terrorism to defeat around the ME, and I do not believe it will be defeated with words.