When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

That's still not very clear to me. I presume you see the Reagan administration as the adventurer? The Bushs as retrenchment to establishment interests? Gingrich as another adventurer? The "second rebellion" (not sure who that refers to) as what?

http://bit.ly/1ZCDhG9

What the heck does he know.

Well I wasn't very clear.

The idea of adventure and retrenchment has more to do with the cycles between Democrat & Republican Administrations than a struggle within the Republican Party. Thus Reagan was a retrenchment during which time we laid a better foundation for economic growth. Clinton was adventure, interrupted early by the Gingrich Congress and Bill's facile transformation ("The era of big goverrnment is over"). The Bush Presidencies were something in between and affected by wars. Obama was clearly adventure. Now we will see what follows.

Within that there has been a struggle within the Republican party (mostly in the Congress during the past seven years) that at first reflected the residual differences between the Reagan years and those that folowed. During the current administration that struggle fractured itself over a widening array of often divisive issues involving economic, immigration and national security policies. New alignments among the various traditional constituencies are occurring within both political parties - as we can see among Republicans in the multifaceted Presidential candidate contest, (and perhaps among Democrats to some degree in the Sanders phenomenon), and in parallel separately , within the Republican congressional delegations under Ryan and McConnel. In stark contrast the Obama /Reid domination and presumed Clinton supremacy for the next round has so far somewhat suppressed that among Democrats, particularly in the Congress (though it may break outsoon).

What alignments emerge within the Republican Congressional delegation and between it and the Presidential candidate ultimately result remain to be seen. We have see the Speakership pass from a traditional Bohner to a 'new wave" Ryan while a rstless, turbulent new generation junior delegaation is (or is not) acclimating itself to the new reality. Meanwhile significant changes in the Republican Senate delegation may also occur. We shall see.....

Thanks. What is your take on what happened to Eric Cantor?

Tweet from Rich Lowry

This is unpossible! Or it is sunspots. Or just yer ordinary sometimes up/sometimes down thing. Or all these scientists are just flat out lying because they went to liberal universities.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512

Paul Waldman notes...

I think he was the first easy casualty of the Republican junior delegation uprising. They've tasted their needed blood, now we'll see if they can deal with responsibility. That's Ryan's challenge now. How that and the ongoing primary contest unfolds, and how alignment is (or is not) achieved with the Presidential candidate and the Republican congressional delegation will be very interesting to see.

As the party of the Administration, and with a long-standing presumptive heir apparent, the Democrats haven't had to, or had the opportunity to, face such divisive issues. They may emerge now. Ordinarily I would assume that, given the high stakes involved, Hillary would naturally be immune from serious competition within the party, even despite her limitations as a campaigner. However the persistence of her difficulties and the possibly related emergence of real enthusiasm for Sanders, in an admittedly minority segment of the party, may well lead to some surprises. The still lingering possibility of some detonation of her e mail or Foundation problems may be eroding her standing with hard-to-predict results for everyone.

Probably.





http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

This is very misleading in that the "record" comprises only a tiny slice of the earth's geological history. On a geological scale the earth's climate has never been stable and has experienced extended periods far warmer than anything on "the record".

But you do appreciate, I assume, that Brat is not merely a junior delegate but a rather serious extremist?

Jesus. You're still there? Nine or ten years ago, W said, "Yeah, we're experiencing climate change driven in part by human activity".

But the worst thing about your formulation above is that there is no change phenomena which you cannot ascribe to "small slice of time". In other words, no evidence will be of any importance at all.

Wow, that's a shame.

http://dcwhispers.com/the-clinton-machine-clinging-to-the-past-and-running-out-of-gas/

What a sleeve; took her money, then went public with what was supposed to be confidential about his employer. Says more about him than Hillary.

What kind of people work for Killary? I say it is the company she keeps. Dirty tricks and lies, she is the master.

You're not jury, judge and executioner. Many in this country respect Hillary. Everybody has their own opinion about politicians.

Why?

I may have more disrespect for her personal assistant than I do her. That ain't saying much.

You are drawing conclusions that have no basis in fact. I merely stated that your original statement, taken from a NOAA site,that 2015 was the highest temperature on record, was seriously misleading in that the record in question included only a miniscule slice of the 4.5 billion year geologcal history of the earth. I also accurately noted that there had been much longer periods in the earth's geological history with much higher temperatures than recorded in that "record". I could have also added that, since then, there have been at least three ice ages in between.

None of that proves that we are not in a stage of sustained warming abetted by human activity. However none of the NOAA data proves that we are in such a stage either. The question is should we surrender control of our economic lives to incompetent zealots, who are convinced that doomsday is at hand, and whose prescriptions for what we must do don't make any sense at all.
Consider these facts. Far more reductions in our GHG emissions have been achieved through the use of nuclear power for electrical power generation, and through the transition from coal to petroleum and from petroleum to natural gas (each stage significantly reducing the carbon load), than have been acchieved or even been contemplated through wind or solar power generation. Despite that, these zealots prescribe less nuclear power, less natural gas and more wind and solar - despite the fact that they cost more than three times as much and offer no meaningful hope of near term improivement. That is insanity. No one who advocates that as a solution to a presumed GHG problem should be taken seriously.

Could all these sages be wrong ? The historical answer is yes. The inquisitors who defended Aristotle and condemned Gallileo were the academic elites of that age. There are numerous episodes of enthusiastic public madness in the historical record,m and only a fool believes we have outgrown human nature.

ci
This dude coldjoint is a troll. Please don't repost crap like that.