Search This Blog


Wednesday, September 28, 2016

The Veto Override - 2

The House just joined the senate in overriding the Obama veto of JASTA.  Obama could only get about 25% of the members of his own party to support him.  If you even needed proof of lame duck status, this is it.

PS -- JASTA is now law.  That's good.

Another Day, Another Lie Disclosed

At the debate on Monday night, Hillary Clinton announced that the crime rate is much lower than it used to be.  That was in response to Donald Trump talking about a wave of crime sweeping the country.

As if on cue, the FBI released the crime statistics for 2015.  Murders were up 11% in 2015 over the year before.  That's terrible.  It's almost unprecedented too.  According to research reports, the murder rate has risen by 10% or more only twice in the last 55 years (the period for which the statistics are available.)   That means that the rise in the murder rate was extremely high last year.  Even worse, there have been more murders across the USA so far this year than last year for the same period.

There you have it.  Trump was right.  Crime is getting much, much worse.  And what was Hillary's response?  Just the usual phony argument.  How predictable.

The Veto Override

The senate voted almost unanimously to override president Obama's veto of JASTA.  That's the bill that allows people injured by terrorism to sue states involved in that terrorism.  There was only one vote in support of Obama, and that was from Harry Reid, the Democrat leader of the senate.  There was, of course, also a senator who missed the vote, and that was Tim Kaine, the Democrat candidate for vice president who stopped doing his job as a senator as soon as he was asked to run for VP.

There was no question that this vote would come out this way.  The House should override Obama quickly as well. 

It's hard to believe that even someone as dense as Obama could have vetoed the bill in the first place.

The First Real Indicator Of Debate Results

After the presidential debate on Monday, there were a whole host of online "polls" in which people could vote for the winner.  In nearly every one of those polls, Trump won big.  Putting all of them together, more than five million people voted and Trump won by double digits.  There were also two instant polls that were supposedly "scientific".  One was taken by CNN and it showed a massive Hillary win.  The second also showed Hillary winning, but by a small margin.  These polls, however, were supposedly taken Monday night after the debate which leads one to wonder how many people who got called at one in the morning by a pollster actually answered the questions.  The CNN poll, for example, had a very flawed sample.  The respondents as a group already had Hillary 29% ahead BEFORE the debate.  No wonder that Hillary supporters thought she won.  It was like polling delegates to the Democrat National Convention as to whether they preferred Hillary or Trump.

Today, we got the first actual poll results.  The source is the LA Times poll which has an unusual methodology to be sure.  It polls the same group of nearly 3000 people in groups of 400 once per week. In many ways, it is like the country's biggest focus group.  Nevertheless, it does provide us with information about the trends in the race.  Today's figures showed that Trump increased his lead by 1%.  That may not sound like much, but since this is a tracking poll in which only 14% of the responses change on a particular day, it is major.  We've been told by the media ever since the debate that Hillary won.  That's wrong, at least as far as the American voters are concerned.

There will be many more polls, of that you can be sure.  Still, it's time for the media to stop its claims that Hillary won.  The reality is that the same pundits who told us that Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders easily, the same pundits who proclaimed Jeb Bush the front runner and likely winner, the same pundits who said Trump had self-destructed about fifteen times, the same pundits who proclaimed Rubio or Cruz or Ben Carson the likely winner are now telling us that Hillary won the debate.  At least they are consistent -- consistently wrong.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

There's No Way To Reason with the Climatistas

A few days ago, I listened to one of the endless debates on cable news.  This time the subject was global warming.  One participant talked about how an American city was almost destroyed by a "climate change event" when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.  Then he spoke about how the Northeast was swamped by another "climate change event", tropical storm Sandy.  No one even stopped the discussion to call this guy out for spewing such an amazing lie.  They all just continued on with the talking points.

There's no denying that hurricane Katrina was a very serious storm that caused major devastation.  There is, however, nothing that ties that storm to climate change.  The same is true of Sandy.  These are two storms that hit nearly ten years apart.  Thirty years ago (and earlier) when there was no fear of global warming, hurricanes and storms hit the USA all the time.  Some were worse than Katrina.  For example, in 1972, hurricane Agnes came up the Chesapeake Bay and then went along the course of the Susquehanna river in Pennsylvania.  Cities and towns were swamped.  Damage was enormous.  In one town every one of the nearly 6000 houses were flooded except for two.  Hurricane Andrmingew hit Florida 25 years ago and caused massive damage.  There's no point in listing them all.  The reality, however, is that hurricane activity has been greatly reduced in the last decade.  We are now in the midst of the longest stretch of time in recorded history without a major hurricane hitting the mainland USA.  In short, there is no uptick in storms due to global warming; there is a major decline in storm activity for whatever reason.

Then there's the issue of the atmospheric temperatures measured by a satellite system put in place to document global warming.  The problem is that the satellites are documenting that there is no warming over the last twelve years.

These facts don't stop the constant claims of global warming enthusiasts.  The true believers in global warming, however, obviously don't believe in science.  When the observational data conflicts on a consistent basis with a theory, it means the theory is WRONG.  Sadly, one cannot reason with people who won't listen to reason.

The Morning After -- As Expected

It's the morning after the first debate, and everything is pretty much as expected.  So far, I have read columns explaining why Trump won big, why Hillary won big, why Trump is a monster, why Holt was unfair (although there are no columns praising Holt), and why Hillary is a monster.  For the most part, if you told me only the name of the pundit, I could tell you what's in the column.  So is it always.  The quick polls on line have all gone to support Trump.  Those include polls like the one for Time magazine in which over 1.5 million have voted and some others where the participation approaches one million.  These are unscientific, however, to say the least.

Through all of this, one thing keeps bothering me.  Why did Hillary Clinton choose to lie about something that is so clearly known to the country.  She denied ever calling the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty the "gold standard" of trade deals.  There's video of her saying just that, and it has been played millions of times on TV.  All she had to say is that she changed her mind when she saw the final product, but she couldn't just say that.  She had to lie.  It's a character flaw that is a killer for me.  I don't care if Hillary had more specific policies memorized to repeat on the debate stage.  If this had been a collegiate debating tournament, she would have won because of those policies, but it was a presidential debate and all she brought was list after list of policies.  Most people listening understand that even were she to win, most of those policies would never get passed and the few that did would be changed in a major way.  We were watching to see just who Hillary really is.  And she told us the answer:  she's a pathological liar.  Even when the truth is harmless, she just has to lie.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Tonight's Presidential Debate -- Wow

The first presidential debate of 2016 just finished.  While the partisans will offer opinions about why their candidate won, if we put aside the spin, the result was pretty clear:  Ultimately, Trump won.  he did not win on debating points if we rate issue by issue.  We got to see Hillary Clinton speak about specific policy points on many topics, but when it came down to it, she decided to lie.  Hillary actually denied calling the Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of all trade deals.  It just brought into question everything else that she said.  On top of that lie (and many others), Clinton came across as smug.  She seemed to be going for "jovial" but we got forced smiles and some condescension.  We saw Donald Trump come on strong on many issues, but with less specifics than Hillary.  Trump, however, got to his big themes.  He kept pointing out that despite all her nice talking points, Hillary had held power and not achieved anything much.  He said that she had experience, but not good experience.  He hung the Iran nuclear deal around her neck and she accepted it.  Since the public views that deal as something quite negative, that will not help her.  On the other hand, Trump had to deal with his tax returns and the birther issue which were raised by Holt, but the moderator stayed away from Clinton's email scandals, her near indictment, and the Clinton Foundation slush fund and all of its problems.  On these questions, Hillary had (like on most issues) what seemed like preplanned answers.  Through it all, however, Trump kept painting Hillary Clinton as the insider, the continuation of the Obama policies, the politician.

Hillary Clinton's goal, however, had to be to get people to view Trump as not up to being president.  There were questions that Trump did not answer as well as some would like.  A fair observer, however, would not think that Trump was un-presidential.  He handled a stressful situation and some tough questions with a steady hand.  We never saw anything, despite major goading by Hillary, that seemed like a flash of temper or loss of control.  He kept his cool.  That, more than anything that was said, was the biggest victory for Trump.

We will soon see who the polls anoint as the winner of the confrontation.