Trump on Global Warming : “hoax,” “mythical,” a “con job,” “nonexistent,” and “bullshit.”

Donald Trump: The real estate mogul has repeatedly written tweets skeptical of global warming. Trump has called global warming a “hoax,” “mythical,” a “con job,” “nonexistent,” and “bullshit.” He views policies created to fight global warming as hurting U.S. manufacturing competitiveness with China.

Here’s Where The 2016 Candidates Stand On Global Warming | The Daily Caller

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Trump on Global Warming : “hoax,” “mythical,” a “con job,” “nonexistent,” and “bullshit.”

  1. omanuel says:

    My concern is that Trump might be a “stalking horse” for Hillary whose job is to eliminate all viable Republicuan candidates and then drop out of the race before the general election.

    • omanuel says:

      False pride and blind ignorance produced this dilemma for all mankind:

      1. We are designed for instinctive self-survival.

      2. AGW and united opposition to publcation of conclusions to the last-half of my fifty-six year (1960-2016) research career lead to one inescapable conclusion:


      I.e., our very survival depends on successful evolution from selfishness to humanitarians.

      • Kim says:

        Will never happen. People will always try to hijack the system and use it to their own selfish advantages. This is why capitalism works. And it is why communism always destroys itself. The more bottom up and the more individual based the system is the more effective it is. Top down assumes a single person who knows everything, has best judgement and controls everything – wrong assumptions and very inefficient.

    • Latitude says:

      So you think that Trump’s ego…he’s always been a winner
      …and he will drop out like some loser

      That has to be the lamest excuse I’ve seen yet.

      • omanuel says:

        I hope my instinctive doubt of Trump’s intentions are wrong and that Trump is as honorable as Ted Cruz.

        What recourse will we have if Trump eliminates Ted Cruz in the primary election and then bows out (dies or vanishes) to allow Hilary Clinton to win the general election?

        • It is rather unlikely that Mr. Trump will do this on his own, but the possibility does indeed exist that he might be “persuaded” to do so.

        • annieoakley says:

          IF Ted Cruz were honorable he would understand that he is not eligible to serve as POTUS as he was born in Canada, to a Cuban father. He has divided loyalties and may not act in the best interests of the US and her citizens,

        • That’s the worrisome part, Annie. Imagine that Castro’s Cubans attack from the Southeast and we fall back to Fort Collins to consolidate. Just as we get ready to counterattack, Trudeau’s Canucks will attack our rear from Alberta. What will Cruz do? Will he shoot at his crib mates from Calgary or his cousins from Matanzas?

          And what will happen if Romney’s Mormons rise in Utah and put us in three way pincers? They’ll seize Grand Junction and occupy all mountain passes before Hickenlooper finds the National Guard phone number. We’ll be trapped here in Front Range with the only escape route to Northeast. What do you think the treacherous Cornhuskers will do? They are chomping at the bit to get back at us. They’ll take Sterling and Greeley faster than anyone says “Ralphie”.

          Will Ted Cruz fight and defend Colorado at Wellington or will he run back to Texas and let Cornhuskers, Cubans, Canucks and Mormons partition the state? I’d feel better if he were a proud, honest, naturally born Native American warrior like Cherokees Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren.

        • Ayla says:

          That’s a pretty well thought out scenario, Colorado Wellington.

        • SxyxS says:

          i do not know wether your comment is sarcasm
          BUT your honorable Cruz’ wife is
          member of the CFR and part of Goldman Sachs(who are the lords of the global warming co2 climate stock exchange in Chicago)

      • DougM says:

        The fear I have is that the MSM has been holding back on Trump (hence the “herky-jerky coverage we’ve seen so far), allowing him to proceed to get the nomination. Then once in the general election, they will pull out all the stops and utterly destroy him, which leaves the door wide open for Hillary to waltz right into the WH.

        There are a lot of people who are not engaged in the debate yet, and are waiting to see how things shake out. Once the two main candidates have been decided upon, then these people will start to pay attention, and the MSM will put all of its effort in to making sure Hillary wins.

        Dems and “progressive” media are playing the long-game…

    • pyeatte says:

      Highly unlikely, <<1% of that. Actually, that does not even make sense – Trump wants to be President due to the horrible economy. There is no way he would drop out if he gets the nomination.

      • annieoakley says:

        @ Colorado Wellington: I believe you are making fun of me, with contempt, not addressing the problem Cruz has. I am not amused,

        • Dear Ms. Annie,

          We’ve been on friendly and neighborly terms for quite some time and I have always treated you with proper respect. I certainly don’t harbor contempt for you and I have expressed none. I have only lightheartedly attempted to elaborate on the possible consequences of the divided Cuban-Canadian loyalties of a dishonorable candidate.

          You wrote:

          ”If Ted Cruz were honorable he would understand that he is not eligible to serve as POTUS as he was born in Canada, to a Cuban father. He has divided loyalties and may not act in the best interests of the US and her citizens.”

          It is a great American tradition to throw mud at the opposing candidates and once upon a time our ancestors dueled over such slights. In contrast, even the most disrespectful discourse I’ve seen on this blog doesn’t reach the level of passion shown by political rivals in the early days of our Republic. I do not wish to abridge your right to engage in this time-honored pastime, ma’am, but I respectfully insist on equal rights for myself. I’d like to point out that my rejoinder was rather good-natured and conciliatory, but then again, you were expressing doubts about Mr. Cruz’s honor, not mine.

          That said, I admit I must work on my manners when speaking to a lady and leave no space for suspicion that I was making fun of her. I will try to better myself next time I descend from the woods.

          Yours truly,
          Colorado Wellington

          P.S. I chastise myself for not responding earlier but I haven’t seen your complaint in time as it was mistakenly addressed to another gentleman.

        • P.P.S. Please forgive my poor penmanship above. The italicized text should have stopped at dishonorable candidate. The rest was supposed to be in normal script.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      @omanuel – In your scenario Trump doesn’t have to step down. He could declare the Republicans are in default of their agreement (he’s already said they are) to support him and run as an Independent. The three party race would produce the same results as it did for Wilson when Roosevelt started the Bull Moose Party. Wilson was elected with only 40 percent of the votes.

  2. daveburton says:

    The support of a buffoon like Trump gives legitimate scientific skepticism a bad name.

    • RAH says:

      The support of Trump is a manifestation of the anger IMO. People are pissed. They are pissed at Obama and the progressives. They’re pissed at an ever growing government. And they’re pissed at the Republicans for failing to effectively oppose any of it and in fact for facilitating it. They are hearing a guy which manifests their own anger and they Love it. It is a gut reaction and I understand it but strongly believe they’re dead wrong and will come to regret their reactionism.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “will come to regret their reactionism.”

        No more than they are currently regretting their past inaction.

        • RAH says:

          The Republican establishment did that for themselves. The press tells them that conservatives can’t win and the Republican establishment pretends to believe them and thus put up empty suits like Romney and McCain.

        • gator69 says:

          Obama wasn’t an empty suit? If you like your socialist country, you can keep your socialist counrtry, just stay home on election day.

      • annieoakley says:

        Trump has bypassed the Power elites in DC and taken his message directly to the people who have been ignored or lied to for many years now. People are FED up with this charade and thrilled to find a voice for their frustration. Trump is a voice with power too. He gives the common man a bit of hope for the future.

        • RAH says:


          Don’t disagree except I don’t believe that Sanders support is based on anger with the Party establishment as much as Trumps is though there certainly is some lack of enthusiasm among the democrats for Hillary. But I think that some of that is from the more pragmatic that believe that Hillary is damaged goods and her past is going to catch up to her before the general election. Sanders is an up front Socialist and so in certain parts of the Country would be expected to carry the primary especially with democrat participation in the process being down so much.

          The Republican establishment ignoring their electorate set the stage for what is happening now with Trump. The Tea Party came about from that dissatisfaction with the Republican machine and it’s departure from conservative ideas. What was the machines reaction? They derided them and tried to destroy them and eventually just ignored them instead of listening and changing. So now we have what appears to be a demigod emerging who’s stature has grown because he is playing so strongly to many of the very same fears about the direction of the country the Tea Party was expressing. The problem is that Trump does not have a Conservative record. He couldn’t possibly have had one and be successful in his business where he got started along the East Coast. So the question is, will he do what he says he’s going to do? I seriously question if he will in many cases. In some cases it will be because he wants to but lacks the political backing and acumen to do so. In others it will be because he never intended to do what he has said he’ll do.

        • RAH says:

          Agreed. But now your saying a Conservative can be elected?

          I will be voting for who ever the Republicans put up because elections are not usually about voting for who you want but much more often about voting against who you don’t want. I still support Cruz but would vote for Trump or even Rubio if they are the nominee because I abhor any possible democrat nominee. It’s as simple as that. And that philosophy more often than not is what I use when filling out my whole ballot for all offices at all levels. Only rarely are there times when I am fully behind a candidate on all the important issues and thus completely for him/her. I am generally voting against what I judge to be the worst of two evils.

          Picking up your marbles and going home because you didn’t get exactly what you wanted is juvenile and does harm. Voting for a candidate that doesn’t have a chance in hell of doing anything but siphoning votes from what would be the lesser of the two evils is stupid IMO.

        • gator69 says:

          I believe a Constitutional conservative or Libertarian conservative could get elected, but only if conservatives as a whole show up to vote. There are conservatives who swore to me weeks ago that they would vote for Trump if he was the R candidate, who are now telling me that they will not vote for Trump no matter what.

          Conservatives are their own worst enemy when it comes to Presidential elections.

        • Latitude says:

          So the question is, will he do what he says he’s going to do?
          RAH, he has firmly convinced both the republican and democrat parties that he will.
          …Koch brothers are spending $75 million to stop him.

        • So, we’re against the Koch brothers now?

        • Latitude says:

          Make sense….they are spending $75 million to stop Trump…it’s just a fact

          However, Trump has said he wants to stop free trade deals, close the border, stop illegals, etc…Koch are very rich political buyers and have a lot of influence in the republican party….

          Who knows, maybe the Koch make a lot of money on these free trade deals, open borders, etc Nabisco, Ford, Carrier, etc moving jobs to Mexico, etc

          I dunno….maybe the Koch were more comfortable continuing the Bush/Obama platform

          …and they think Trump as a threat < pure projection on my part I know nothing of how they make their money

          …or simply thinking they can buy the republicans and democrats and can't buy Trump

          who knows!

      • RAH says:


        Who said Obama was an empty suit?

        • gator69 says:

          The press tells them that conservatives can’t win and the Republican establishment pretends to believe them and thus put up empty suits like Romney and McCain.

          Most rational people say Obama is an empty suit, but he still won an election, thus proving an empty suit can indeed win an election. The press is right, a conservative cannot win an election.

        • RAH says:

          That’s exactly what they said when Reagan was running. I said that McCain and Romney were empty suits and they both got their butts kicked. An empty suit has a much better chance with democrats that with Republicans. Obama is president because he is a leftist black man that gives good speeches (with a teleprompter) He had no other significant traits to recommend him when he was elected POTUS.

        • gator69 says:

          This is not the same country that elected Reagan. The press is correct. And I would not put Romney and McCain in the same class as Obama, who was a nobody.

        • RAH says:

          It’s not the same country that elected Reagan but there is a very good chance it is a country that will elect Trump or Cruz who both are spouting very conservative lines. Or are you saying that Hillary is going to be the next POTUS?

        • gator69 says:

          I’m saying that if we do not coalesce behind whoever the R is, and that if conservatives sit at home as they did for the last two elections, we will have anothe D in office.

          Conservatives are their own worst enemy when it comes to Presidential elections.

        • I disagree. I say Leftists masquerading as conservative leaders are our worst enemy, because we’ve been conditioned to fall quickly for their cheapest tricks, and they seek nothing less than our compete annihilation as a relevant power, and to steal our children and raise them as their own. (For them it’s personal, because they see us as having deliberately destroyed their dreams, their security, and their livelihood for many generations.)

          And also because they always argue that if they wear our colors, that means we always have to support them, which amounts to robbing us of the sole, tiny power we have to try to purge them from the positions of trust they’ve attained amongst us. And this is a very potent argument they use, because it plays on the individual’s instinctive fear of going against the group, and thus being banned from receiving support from any group members, and thus having to fend for ourselves (which as everyone knows, is nearly impossible, such that a categorical social ban of this nature is tantamount to a death sentence.) This is an extremely diabolical tactic, and would never be accepted by a truly freedom-loving people. And ultimately, it’s because we’ve lost our way, that these enemy tactics are effective on us.

      • Robertv says:

        We The People only have freedom if it is in the interest of those in power to gain more power. Presidents comply orders from above and if they don’t, will be eliminated. Anybody thinks that Trump can change that?

    • You need to get off this buffoon crap. He didn’t build an $8,000,000,000 real estate empire by being a fool.

      President Trump will fire everybody at NOAA and GISS who tampered with the data.

    • Latitude says:

      dave…this country is run by the mob…and both political parties are in on it.
      Republicans do not care if it’s Hillary or Rubio…their boy of choice. Both are game players. And both will get the job done they want done.

      The rich are making money off the middle class in this country..these trade deals, China, Mexico etc are making them billions, and the rich control our politics.

      The one thing Trump has stuck to…is destroying those trade deals.

      That’s why both the republican and democrat parties are against him. That buffoon, as you call him, scares the living crap out of both political parties…..because he’s out to destroy their gravy train.

    • Andy DC says:

      The pseudo intellectuals in the main stream media have called Trump a buffoon from day one. Maybe that is why he is doing so well. Trump connects with the average person, on a personal level and promises to actually try to do something, while the others continue to parrot the same scripted talking points we’ve heard over and over for the past 40 years. That has gotten us nowhere, why not try someone different for a change?

    • wizzum says:

      He’s fooled you so who is the buffoon Dave? The media, the left and self righteous pricks everywhere have underestimated his abilities and political savvy since he entered the race and just now it is dawning on them that he will will in a landslide.

    • zzzak says:

      So he’s a buffoon worth ten billion, what are your achievements, probably fuck all.

      • Henry P says:

        the reason why Trump is rich is because ordinary people like you [with no money] suck up to him and fall for his tricks. He has hooked you, too….

  3. Marsh says:

    Although Trump is viewed as a free radical and people worry over his methods ; he is right when it comes to the key issues; as to where the Nation went wrong & a new directions needed. Trump calls AGW fraud for what it is… I would say he is a straight shooter compared with other politicians & Trump is a totally different to Obama ; that has to be good..!

  4. Latitude says:

    Trump scares the hell out of both parties…republican and democrat
    Republicans did not pick Trump.

    …and that’s the biggest endorsement I’ve seen yet

    • annieoakley says:

      Good for you.I agree. His rallies have thousands of supporters. Far more than even Bernie who is the only other candidate even close to Trump in terms of numbers attending a rally.

  5. Steve Case says:

    Does Trump have America’s best interests at heart? Or is like President Obama who thinks that America is to big for its britches and ought to be knocked down a peg or two.

    Hillary is Richard Nixon in drag, and Bernie is just another smug liberal.

    • We’ll see about Trump but we’d be fortunate if Hillary was like Nixon. There was way more to him than being tricky. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt and the rest of the mess would not have happened the way it did. And Bernie’s smug but not a liberal. He’s a good, old-fashioned Commie.

      • RAH says:

        Nixon wasn’t really as bad as he’s made out to be. His crookedness was small time compared to what we have dealt with in more recent times. IMO the worst thing he did was start that crap of implementing price controls on petroleum. Yea that’s right. Nixon did it before the peanut farmer it’s just that Jimmy boy took it even further and did so during a period of economic “malaise” and “stagflation”.

        Think about it. What is Carter known for.
        Billy his hick brother and Billy beer.
        Being attacked by a vicious bunny rabbit.
        Having “lusted in his heart”
        Wear a sweater and turn your thermostats down to 68 F
        Cutting defense so close to the bone that E-4s qualified for food stamps and front line combat ships could not leave port due to lack of spares. And then when he needed them he wondered why the Iran hostage rescue mission failed. It was the images of the burned corpses at desert one that angered me so much while I was living in San Diego and was getting ready to start a great paying job as a welder and fitter at the ship yard there that motivated me go down an start the enlistment process.

        • omanuel says:

          Henry Kissinger ran the show while Richard Nixon played the role as President (a ploy repeated later while young Bush played the role as President).

  6. eliza says:

    I would love for Trump to win the election but he can’t. You need all the Latino votes you can get plus others. Rubio would trounce any Democrat. BTW Rubio is also a skeptic/not interested in AGW. Cruz would be the best. he may have a chance against the democrat nominee.

  7. eliza says:

    re above versus this (BTW I would really wish Trump could win it ) but all stats are against
    maybe he can win over more in the future lets hope

    • Latitude says:

      the only place they pulled numbers…that is not a liberal sink hole….is FOX

    • Latitude says:

      point is….if you go on MSNBC, CNN, NBC, USA today….and ask
      “If you voted republican, which candidate would you pick?”

      …you’re going to get the most liberal democrat candidate……Rubio

    • RAH says:

      I don’t believe that crap from the press about Trump or any other Republican not being able to win for a minute because the Democrat primary turnout numbers have been miserable while the Republican numbers are record setting.

      • Rah, if Trump is nominated, you’ll see record-setting numbers of people turning out to vote against him. People from across the political spectrum will unite in opposition to him. That may the only thing we will all agree on, but we will agree very strongly on it.

        You don’t see those people in the current numbers, because most of them aren’t typical Republican primary voters. Take me, for example. I have been voting since the early 90s, am conservative, and have voted for many Republicans in past general elections. But for the first time, I have registered Republican and am about to vote in my first Republican presidential primary (indeed, my first presidential primary, period) for the sole reason of the extreme need that Trump be defeated. And I am far from alone in this regard.

        The Trump supporters may have managed to achieve what no one else could: creating a scenario in which Hillary Clinton has an excellent chance of winning. (Which was very intentional on the Clintons’ part.)

        The fault for a Clinton victory, if it happens, is almost entirely to the Trump supporters, for forcing on us a nominee whom actual conservatives have no choice but to work to defeat, and in so doing, turning Hillary from a candidate with little chance of winning into one who’s almost impossible to defeat. They should be ashamed of themselves … but most of them, even if they were capable of shame, are not even capable of understanding why.

        • Latitude says:

          You mean like when the republicans ran McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan….so Obama would win?

        • Dave G says:

          So you are to blame for the Bush’s Romney’s and McCain’s.. Thanks for informing us.

        • RAH says:

          Richard T. Fowler says:
          Rah, if Trump is nominated, you’ll see record-setting numbers of people turning out to vote against him. People from across the political spectrum will unite in opposition to him.
          Richard, I don’t think so. Like I have written elsewhere, I believe the vast majority of people vote for someone and not against someone. If their candidate is not in the race a lot of them stay home. The miserable turnout at the democrat primaries and Trump winning the primaries with record turnout for the Republicans would also indicate that your overstating what will happen if Trump is the nominee.

        • Dave G, no. If we put up a socialist/Leftist/Leninist candidate, the people to blame are those who vote in the primaries to put him up there. That vote is a vote to surrender to the Democrats, and is unconscionable. People — and I include Republican primary voters in that — need to understand that we conservatives are not required to be united with Leftists either inside or outside of our party. That means we have the legal power to politically strike you “moderates” if you suddenly, out of the blue and in violation of what we thought we’d agreed on, abandon us on the core issues on which we supposedly were going to be united. The message has been sent loud and clear: DO NOT do that again, or we will make sure you politically regret it, again. If you now do it again, you cannot claim you didn’t know. Essentially, folks like RAH with his comment here are suggesting that the “moderate” and Leftist Republicans can play with matches, and they’re not likely to burn the house down. Yes, they are, and what’s more, if they do burn it down, it will be their fault, not the fault of those of us who told them not to play with the matches or they’d burn the house down!

          I think it’s important to state that I don’t speak for all strategic boycotters. Different people boycott for different reasons. But generally speaking, what is causing a major boycott these days is the issue of compromising with the Democrats. Which just happens to be one of Trump’s signature issues. (What a coincidence!)

          I think that most of us are still willing to meet you part way. It’s really your side that’s blocking a compromise here, because for me and others, Cruz is a major compromise. But you’re essentially saying that the primary voters can do whatever they want, and I still have to support them. No, I don’t, and I don’t want to, because it produces even worse results for me vis-à-vis what I want and what’s important to me. What’s the point of having elections if, even when you win, you still lose? Now you’ll say we’ll lose worse with Hillary. That’s your view, based on your principles and what issues are important to you. My view is (again informed by my point of view on the issues and their relative importance) is that in the longer run, we lose worse with a Leftist or unprincipled Republican in office than we do with Hillary. This is because they will succeed in redefining our ideology to exclude our core principles, and then we’ll never be able to get a conservative elected. Hillary is failure for four more years. A long string of unprincipled Republican nominees is almost a permanent failure (at least for us), because even if another one gets elected, I doubt we can ever recover from that in terms of the damage it does to the conservative movement. Now, you may be someone who supports that, I don’t know. But even if you are, you would surely admit that if my assessment is right it is strongly in conservatives’ interest to take the necessary measure to stop that. It is an existential crisis for us. So don’t expect us to hear you when you argue that we have an obligation to assist in our own destruction … a destruction which we believe to be conducted consciously and deliberately by our enemies in both parties.

          Considering all of the foregoing, and the generational challenge we face as conservatives, the Republican candidate, whoever he is, has to make the sale for conservatism in the general election if the party is to have a way forward longer-term. And he can’t do if he’s not conservative. I am unabashedly conservative (though I do see that term somewhat differently than the majority), and on the core issues, I will always vote accordingly. The fault for disunity lies not with folks like me, but with those who make no reasonable effort to compromise with us during the primaries, but simply shout that we’re obligated to capitulate on everything during the general election. Respectfully, that’s delusional, and continuing to insist on that position will only cause even more separation from you, as it should. You and all the others who are saying this, are the cause of the problem, but unless you own up to it (which of course would require compromising with us, which you are no longer willing to do), the problem will continue to get worse. At the end of that road lies a three-major-party system in which the Democrats always win the White House, and have much greater success in the Congress than presently. People like me can live with that, because we see no difference between that and your “solution”. If you can’t live with it, then you what you need to do is stop advocating that we blindly support the leader no matter what he says or does. That’s the Fuehrerprinzip in action, and whatever you may think, you will NEVER convince most us to get behind it. You are totally dreaming if you think you will. From our point of view, that is the key thing we’ve been fighting within Leftism all these years. And by identifying yourself with it, you expose yourself for what you really are.

      • I don’t think many Republicans who voted in the primaries for McCain or Romney were hoping to make Obama win. But in the case of Hillary, we know what they wanted, because Trump told us! So, no speculation necessary.

  8. Merillion says:

    Donald Trump is absolutely right about “global warming.” But I have recently discovered that there is one dire result of global warming (only one), & have just posted it on my blog.

  9. PJ London says:

    It really doesn’t matter to me who wins the debate, but with Trumps’ pointing to Cruz and to Rubio and saying “Liar, Liar” can you imagine what the Presidential debate would be like with Hillary?
    Trump certainly won’t need to prepare a speech or any sound-bites.

  10. markstoval says:

    Trump on Global Warming : “hoax,” “mythical,” a “con job,” “nonexistent,” and “bullshit.”

    As one who comes from the Rothbardian wing of the libertarian movement, I think the Trump phenomenon is wonderful. What?!? An anarchist loves Trump? Sure, and I’ll tell you why.

    Trump is tapping in to a great reservoir of resentment towards the ruling overlords in the Imperial City. He is leading a Populist movement much like Pat Buchanan did before him. He is smart enough to see that going against conventional DC “wisdom” and opposing unrestricted, illegal immigration is what people want. He also can see that the wild and crazy and stupid policies to minimize CO2 are wildly unpopular and to oppose CAGW is a winner.

    Trump also is very, very anti-PC. He just says it like some guy having a beer with friends. Sure, he sometimes says things that make you wince, but he just keeps being un-PC. That is also a winner this election cycle. Does Trump have some bad ideas? HELL YES. But he is not in the pocket of the overlords and that is what the people are responding to.

    As the police state grows in power day by day, we see that the rulers spy on every single thing you do (hell, I bet they may even know who is constipated and who is regular). If the people are to do anything to “send a message to Washington” this cycle offers that chance. Unfortunately, I don’t think that The Donald will be allowed to both win and serve. (they are just arrogant enough to kill him in Dallas)

  11. Henry P says:

    I also think that Ted Cruz is the better person to beat any of the democrat candidates.
    what is the score so far?
    [i don’t follow the US news that much]

    • Latitude says:

      49% Trump,
      16% Marco Rubio,
      15% Ted Cruz,
      10% Ben Carson and
      6% John Kasich.

      With an even split on people that say they won’t vote for another candidate.

      • Henry P says:

        we shall after tomorrow.
        with Trump heading for a win it will mean a democratic win in the end…I am sure.
        especially with people like Bill Nye.
        They are the problem. He used unsubstantiated graphs that prove nothing.

  12. When asked about global warming Trump addressed the room with “Does anybody in this room still believe in that?” as if it was the dumbest thing he knew of.

    Trump in 2016.

    • RAH says:

      The very presence of posters at this blogs makes it clear that they believe the issue of “climate change” is an important one. But it is far from the ONLY issue. I trust Cruz on that issue as much as Trump and trust him more than Trump on many other issues. Cruz has walked the walk for some time on the climate change fight and others certain issues. Can’t remember Trump trying to do anything about about the issue except say a few words, until he became a candidate.

      • Steve Case says:

        And then there’s the matter of winning in November.

      • Actually, he still has only words. And he says he’s perfectly capable of changing into whatever he needs to be.

        I suspect that that last statement I cited is just a Trumpian way of saying he couldn’t care less what we want, and he won’t tell us what he really wants, because we haven’t yet nominated him. ‘Information is for winners’ … and we’re not considered “winners” until we’ve signed on the dotted line and handed over our nonrefundable payment. “We” have to pass the bill to see what’s in it. It’s the classic con.

  13. RAH says:

    Completely off topic but some here my like to know.

    I renewed my US passport and it took 5 1/2 weeks to get it through the normal channel. The State Department says they are covered up and expect it waiting times to get longer than that this year and possibly up to 8 weeks. Though for my trips to Canada I don’t need a pass port but instead could get a FAST pass (for commercial drivers) or use the Nexus pass. I like having a US passport so that if we do decide to take a cruise or go somewhere other than Canada or Mexico, I’m ready. The pass port card and the passport book cost me $140.00. The card alone, only good for border crossings into Canada and Mexico is $100.00.

  14. Frank K. says:

    While we talk here about the disgruntled Republicans, Trump, Cruz etc., the real story in my opinion is the HUGE fight that is occurring on the Democrat side. Bernie Sanders is not going to fade away into the sunset, and it would not surprise me to see him and his supporters go Independent in the general election. And after all, Bernie Sanders is NOT a Democrat (he’s got that big “I” next to his name in the Senate).

  15. aeroguy48 says:

    The way I look at Trump, he being a businessman and outsider, he knows about budgets and not to over run them. The Department of Energy’s budget is $80 billion, much of that subsidizing failed wind and solar power malarkey, much $ could be saved by slashing the DOE’s budget. The Department of Education’s budget is $110 billion, with him stating to get rid of Common Core and returning education control locally. More $billions to be saved. He says he will kill obamacare, remember 16,000 IRS agents were funded and hired to enforce obamacare. Even more $billions saved. Donald trump has spoken about personal experiences of how the EPA’s policies have styfuled private business. More $billions saved reining the evil EPA. Trump told Sean Hannity recently he opposed Baseline budgeting~ the insidious method of the Federal government to grow automatically.. Baseline budgeting is how the politicians trick the populace into ‘savings’ this phantom savings only slows down the growth of government. Right now IMO the most important issue is slowing down the Government. I think Trump has the experience and exposure of how harmful the Federal Government has become and the only one who has the cajones to do anything about it.

  16. Just when I thought I could not like the man any better than I do already he comes up with the supremely and ironically apt “bullshit” for predictions of climate change!

  17. robbo bad wolf says:

    as an aussie ,,, i hope to god you get Mr Trump ,
    if not you are dead in the water ,,, the other muppets are out for them selves ,

  18. 4TimesAYear says:

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

  19. Robertv says:

    At least 18,849+people saw this. Maybe Trump is one of them.

  20. L Garou says:

    Another endorsement for Trump!
    These days, what isn’t?

  21. The 2nd Amendent says nobody is going to ban guns and the 14th says nobody is going to ban abortion, so those are decoy hobgoblins. But “the World is a rotisserie” scares may allow looters in congress and the Senate to fine industrial nations for not being communist. All of the countries not penalized by Kyoto and other such money grabs are totalitarian dictatorships–which is why they are a century behind in development.

    • Ted says:

      The following is the complete text of the 14th amendment:

      “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

      Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

      Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

      Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

      Exactly which part of that guarantees the right to kill unborn children?

      If you want to murder babies, there’s not much I can do to stop you, short of killing you. But don’t lie to me, and pretend that your right to murder is permanently enshrined in the highest law of the land. At least be a fucking man, and admit that you value your own convenience over human life. Don’t hide behind some bullshit you made up about a document you’ve plainly never read.

  22. Henry P says:


    I have been following the discussions here with interest.

    As I am currently not a citizen of the country where I reside there have actually been only a few times that I voted. However, in all cases that I did vote, I felt betrayed afterwards, as the party/person that I voted for, actually traded some of my ideals/principles with other parties in order to rule [gain power].

    From those few experiences I did have on voting, I concluded that it would be much better for people to be able to vote on issues, rather than for people and parties.

    With the increase in connectivity [internet] that we currently have it should be a lot easier now to be able to vote on issues.You tune into the discussion in parliament/congress and you vote when or before they vote. Just so they know [in parliament / congress] how we feel….. How difficult can it be to get this simple idea applied?

    Unfortunately, I am sure that we will never get this simple principle of democracy in place, at least not in our lifetimes. Perhaps in Utopia (Heaven).

    Lately, more and more money and power is getting into fewer hands, ultimately leading to…….?

    Do your arithmetic.

    • Very well stated, Henry, and I agree 100%!

      I would mention that in my state of Florida, as well as many other U.S. states, there is a degree of “voting on issues” at the state level, but it is heavily restricted and regulated, including (in Florida) a 60% supermajority requirement. Because of these rules, in Florida for example, it is usually very expensive to shepherd one of these issues through the process all the way to the end. And at the end of it all, the Legislature has much de facto power to overturn things that we vote for. So after you get it passed, assuming it’s something “they” don’t support, you have to gear up for a massive Supreme Court fight which of course = lots more dollars down the black hole.

      The high rate of failure of good issues (and the curious success of most of the really bad ones) is very depressing and makes me wonder whether we’ve achieved any net gain from the process in Florida.

      • Ted says:

        “So after you get it passed, assuming it’s something “they” don’t support, you have to gear up for a massive Supreme Court fight”

        Sorry to break this to you, but Diana Ross and her band of 9 robed misfits already ruled on those future fights. In 2013, they ruled that “private citizens” don’t have standing to defend a ballot initiative in court. Only officially sanctioned state representatives have standing. As such, ANY ballot initiative that your state government doesn’t like can be simply voided by the state refusing to defend it. This was one of the two cases in which the supremes redefined the word “marriage,” after every single state level vote to that point had gone the other way. The case in question was from California, who, like everyone else, voted to retain the millennia old definition of the word.

    • ”Unfortunately, I am sure that we will never get this simple principle of democracy in place …”

      I wouldn’t be so sure, Henry. Also, be careful what you wish for. Some cures are worse than the disease. You may want to read the inscriptions on ancient ostraka to ponder where it may lead us.
      ?????????? ????????

      Here is what Plutarch wrote about this ostracism of Aristeides, son of Lysimachos:

      … while the votes were being written down, an illiterate and uncouth rustic handed his piece of earthenware to Aristeides and asked him to write the name Aristeides on it. The latter was astonished and asked the man what harm Aristeides had ever done him. “None whatever,” was the reply, “I do not even know the fellow, but I am sick of hearing him called ‘The just’ everywhere! When he heard this, Aristeides said nothing, but wrote his name on the ostrakon and handed it back.

      (Aristeides 7, translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert)

      The People’s Republic of Boulder is full of Progressive urbanites with internet access. Having decades of experience with their half-literate and uncouth ways, I have little doubt what many of them would inscribe on their direct voting online ballots should “this simple principle of democracy” be fully in place.

      There is a reason why our Founders established a constitutional republic with strict limits on the government’s, i.e. the people’s powers rather than a pure democracy. If “We the People” are unable to “keep it” it is preposterous to think we can “fix it”.

      • gator69 says:

        It still amazes me that some people still do not understand that a pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Until we perfect humanity, there is no utopian system.

        • True, but just because perfecting humanity hasn’t worked too well thus far doesn’t mean the Progressives will stop trying. If at first you don’t succeed …

          1917-1987: Unsuccessful and Tragic Attempt to Create a “New Man”

          Seventy years ago communists easily (and, as it turned out, for a long time) seized power in Russia. Without hesitation they undertook to build a new society, hitherto unprecedented in the history of mankind, and announced the construction of Communism throughout the whole world to be their final goal.

          In this society there was to be no private property, it was to be a-religious: denying God, denying the existence of the immortal soul and recognizing only the material aspect of life as real. The society was to be free of ethnic affiliations, and communists were to have unlimited power over that society.

          Igor Shafarevieh proved that such societies had existed before. One cannot, however, completely agree with his conclusions: not one of the societies which he considered was atheistic; their creators recognized the power of God over themselves and were guided by religious worldviews.

          Unprecedented methods were used to build this unprecedented society. It was decided to create a new man. This man was to be free from ethnic affiliations, see no sense in private property, be always ready to sacrifice himself for the benefit of society, have no doubts that he originated from an ape or something like it (certainly from a beast) and that nothing will remain of him after his death. In other words, he was to be a one-hundred percent materialist and atheist and must know that the meaning of life is in the person’s usefulness to society and the supreme goal is in a better, wealthy and happy life of future generations. Recognizing this, he would necessarily be happy.

          It was obvious to initiators of the new society and creators of the new man that several existing classes of people would delay the implementation of this task. So, it was decided to destroy millions of these people “as a class ,” i.e., to kill them. To “destroy as a class” is not just a reckless cynical phrase; in fact, it is a guide to practical action. This was done in Russia, and in this way began construction of the new society in every country as soon as the communists seized power.

          The Biological State: Nazi Racial Hygiene, 1933-1939

          Nazism was “applied biology,” stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess. During the Third Reich, a politically extreme, antisemitic variation of eugenics determined the course of state policy. Hitler’s regime touted the “Nordic race” as its eugenic ideal and attempted to mold Germany into a cohesive national community that excluded anyone deemed hereditarily “less valuable” or “racially foreign.” Public health measures to control reproduction and marriage aimed at strengthening the “national body” by eliminating biologically threatening genes from the population. Many German physicians and scientists who had supported racial hygiene ideas before 1933 embraced the new regime’s emphasis on biology and heredity, the new career opportunities, and the additional funding for research.

          Hitler’s dictatorship, backed by sweeping police powers, silenced critics of Nazi eugenics and supporters of individual rights. After all educational and cultural institutions and the media came under Nazi control, racial eugenics permeated German society and institutions. Jews, considered “alien,” were purged from universities, scientific research institutes, hospitals, and public health care. Persons in high positions who were viewed as politically “unreliable” met a similar fate.

          Nazi racial hygiene culminated in the near-annihilation of European Jewry. The “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” began as special squads of SS and police followed German forces into the Soviet Union and killed more than one million Jews in open-air shootings. But the psychological stress of shooting men, women, and children face-to-face led SS chief Heinrich Himmler to seek a “cleaner” and “more efficient” method of killing. He turned to the example of the euthanasia murder program, and gassing was introduced, but on a vastly larger scale.

        • RAH says:

          If humanity were perfect there would be no need for politicians and have less need for administrators. It is quite correct that a pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. A little classical education learning from the Greeks might be in order for those that believe a pure democracy is a good thing. That is why the founders of those nation, many very well educated in history and governments from the past, did not choose to institute a democracy but instead established a Republic based on democratic principles.

          They did not even establish a popular vote for the selection of the POTUS! Why? Well there were several reasons but the most important one which still applies today is they understood that if the POTUS was elected by a simple majority the states in the most populous regions would always determine who was elected. Back then that would have meant the three states of NY, PA, and VA alone could have carried the popular vote. But even today fully 1/2 of the population of the US resides in only nine states.

          And while you ponder that you might like to ask yourself why the upper chamber of the Congress consists of 2 Senators from each state instead of the number of senators from each state being determined by population as is the case for Representatives.

      • Henry P says:

        perhaps you should read again the comment that I wrote,
        especially the end
        and ask me some questions
        to get a prophetic end time prediction?

        • Henry, I don’t know why you wanted me to read again what you wrote but out of courtesy I did anyway. I am not any wiser.

          I may not be willing or able to do whatever it is you want from me but can you tell me what it is? I have never been good at this Delphic stuff.

  23. songhees says:

    I would like to tell you of my latest book and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
    My website is
    Thank you.

  24. Henry P says:

    Colorado W says
    I have never been good at this Delphic stuff.

    Henry says
    You are in the right direction on the oracle stuff.
    However, a good scientist does not need to be a big prophet about what is going to happen when there is going to be a major shortage of food due to the natural climate change coming to earth, especially with the world population at 7 billion and counting.

    Just count 86-87 years back to where we are now…

    Something similar to the Dust Bowl drought is coming up soon?

    That is when we had hyper inflation in Germany due to food shortages and it was the time when Hitler came to power.

    • Ted says:

      Hyperinflation in Germany had nothing to do with food shortages, and it ended a decade before the dust bowl hit. Weimar hyperinflation was, as it always is, a result of irrational monetary policy. That said, I agree with you on the trouble coming. The entire world is currently trying to prop itself up with those same irrational policies.

      As to your voting idea, I completely agree, with a single caveat. Certain things need to be beyond the bounds of normal voting, whether by politicians or anyone else. In the united States, our constitution was supposed to establish those boundaries. A simple democracy lacking such limits, or where those limits are ignored, is what Colorado and Gator so correctly condemn.

      • “Certain things need to be beyond the bounds of normal voting”

        And they are, as you noted. I don’t think anything Henry or I said is in conflict with that. I also noted how the limits of power are routinely ignored in Florida when I referenced the legislature using “de facto” power to overturn a ballot measure. You know, the real plus side of issue voting is that sometimes, it is the legislature crossing the line and the people choose to push back with a ballot issue. But if the legislature unconstitutionally subverts or ignores the people’s public act when it goes against them, that’s not the fault of direct democracy. Actually, you could argue that, in the grand ledger of things, it counts against indirect democracy. (I assume we want to be fair, here.)

        But we’re all on the same side regarding the dangers of direct democracy. I simply think that to be fair, we need to acknowledge that mob rule can happen in any system, and does in fact happen in every system.

        The American Revolution was about the existence of mob rule by an unelected minority that was very oppressive. What was Jefferson’s prescription for this? Why, nothing less than some people’s favorite monster: direct democracy. Something about the consent of the governed, etc. …. ?

        It’s pretty clear that by “the consent of the governed” he meant the expressed will of an absolute majority of the voting population.

        Now obviously, if you’re talking about modern-day Iraq or Russia (or Boulder), it’s not going to go too well. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the people already have the power, according to Jefferson. Democracy is not something that you or I get to grant or withhold to the people, as we like. They already have the power, whether we like it or not. And if we don’t like it, we can either “jump in a lake”, or we can participate to the best of our ability, hoping to change those minds that desperately need changing.

        These issues are not as cut and dried as some would like to make them out. And I believe Henry understands that, which is why I was impressed with his comment.

        — RT

  25. Henry P says:

    I just remembered from the pictures shown in school of the man with a wheelbarrow full of money trying to buy a bread. It should not be too difficult to understand that food inflation will become real when there is no food….For example, there is a shortage of potatoes here and I saw the price jump by 100% in just a few months. This is what I meant.
    If there is going to be major droughts in the world due to climate change it might cost you a ton of gold to buy a ton of wheat…..
    And I am only talking about 5 years away now.

    Here you can see a simple study of rainfall of a city in South Africa
    which I am sure you can repeat for places in the States, if you have good rainfall records.

    As you can see from the first graph, rainfall is down lately [which is why undertook the study], but if you look at it long term, namely ca. 90 years, the slope is zero, meaning: no change.

    In the second graph I grabbed all the yearly data and threw it in the cycle bin (two consecutive Schwabe cycles = 1 Hale Nicholson cycle)

    You can see that there is a pattern like the pendulum of a clock. The highest point (2014) corresponds with the point where the polar solar magnetic field strengths are the lowest. I also suspect that at the highest point there simply is a lull in “weather” , before the pendulum comes again, so to speak. hence the rather drought like conditions that we have here. (In South Africa)

    If we take the dust bowl drought period as 1935 on average then, 1935 + 87 = 2022
    (4 x Hale Nicholson cycle = 1 Gleissberg cycle)
    Drought conditions could of course start earlier.

    • Ted says:

      I completely agree. Nothing destroys a country more effectively than famine. War, disease, earthquakes… They can all be overcome. But when a people can’t feed themselves, it’s game over.

      Here in the US right now, inflation is mostly confined to a few sectors of the market. College tuition and health care are the biggest, but government shenanigans are greatly distorting both of those. The two that are really hitting most of us are food and housing. Those two combine for about 50% of the average American’s budget, and they’re both currently going up about 20% a year. But the government doesn’t see them as important. Big screen TVs are coming down, so they claim there’s no inflation at all. Somehow, that doesn’t help me much when I see that the price of eggs has doubled in the last year.

      The moral of this story:
      Eat more big screen TVs.

  26. Henry P says:

    Anyway, I watched your primaries- so what do you think about the Super Tuesday results?
    Ted must offer Rubio to become his running mate???
    I think that would them a fair chance against Trump.

    • Ted Cruz, I think, would welcome that at this point, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s already made overtures. However, it’s pretty clear from Rubio’s current rhetoric that Rubio is still against it. Perhaps he wants more than just that offered to him. Or perhaps he really still believes he can win Florida on the 15th, which seems impossible at this point for him … and even if he did, there still seems to be no reasonable path for him to get nominated.

      From Lindsey Graham’s comment today, it seems that there is a divide forming within Rubio’s inner circle of advisors about whether Rubio should suspend.

      What was really interesting to me today was that for the first time that I’m aware of, Trump is pleading with us anti-Trump people to unite with him, saying that if we do, he will win. That suggests that he himself has recognized that his own prospects of getting to 50% are not great unless one of the other two drops out soon. And that recognition would be a function of yesterday’s results, which were much worse for Trump than the public polls had suggested they would be.

      • Henry P says:

        Thx for offering your opinion.
        I am just curious, what happens to the delegates allocated to a candidate when he decides to drop out? Can he allocate them to the candidate that he prefers most?

        • They’re required to vote for their pledged candidate on the first ballot. After that, they’re free to vote however they want on subsequent ballots. It doesn’t even have to be someone who has been officially running, nor do they have to have gotten a single vote in the primaries. But due to a new rule that originates with the Ron Paul revolt of 2012, the delegates are very limited in terms of who can get placed on the convention ballot. Effectively, the Establishment of the party holds a veto over who can be placed on that ballot. (That’s called “being placed in nomination”). And the delegates can’t vote for someone who isn’t on it, or if they do their vote is not counted.

        • True in most state party organizations but not in Colorado after the latest “reform”.

          The elected delegates are free agents from the beginning. That’s why nobody’s counting Colorado Republican caucus voting towards specific candidates.

        • Ted says:


          If you like your ballot, you can keep your ballot.
          It’s not like anyone else will ever look at it.

  27. omanuel says:

    Ted Cruz may yet defeat Trump in the republican primary

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *