The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist

After ‘deplorables’ comment, Trump claims Clinton laughed at U.S. workers

By Dana Milbank Opinion writer September 12 at 7:41 PM
BALTIMORE — Hillary Clinton may have been unwise to say half of Donald Trump’s supporters are racists and other “deplorables.” But she wasn’t wrong.

If anything, when it comes to Trump’s racist support, she might have low-balled the number.

Trump, speaking to the National Guard Association of the United States’ annual conference here Monday afternoon, proclaimed himself “deeply shocked and alarmed” about Clinton putting half of his supporters in the “basket of deplorables”— as if anybody, especially Trump, could be shocked by anything this late in the campaign. How dare she, Trump said, “attack, slander, smear, demean these wonderful, amazing people.”

But this isn’t a matter of gratuitous name-calling. This election has proved that there is much more racism in America than many believed. It came out of hiding in opposition to the first African American president, and it has been welcomed into the open by Trump.

The American National Election Studies, the long-running, extensive poll of American voters, asked voters in 2012 a basic test of prejudice: to rank black and white people on a scale from hardworking to lazy and from intelligent to unintelligent. The researchers found that 62 percent of white people gave black people a lower score in at least one of the attributes. This was a jump in prejudicial attitudes from 2008, when 45 percent of white people expressed negative stereotypes.

Clinton: Half of Trump supporters fit in 'what I call the basket of deplorables'

"To just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables,'" Hillary Clinton said at a New York fundraiser on Sept. 9. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up."

This question is a good indicator of how one votes: Republican Mitt Romney won 61 percent of those who expressed negative stereotypes. And, when the question was asked during the 2008 primaries, those with negative racial stereotypes consistently favored Republican candidates — any of them — over any Democratic candidate in hypothetical matchups.

“There is plenty of overt white prejudice,” observes Simon Jackman, who directed the ANES until earlier this year and now runs the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. “Whites who reported prejudicial beliefs about blacks skewed heavily Republican in 2008 and 2012 — and they will in 2016.”

Clinton’s infelicitous “basket of deplorables” phrase, with echoes of Victor Hugo and Indian castes, takes its place alongside Romney’s “binders full of women” in the awkward pantheon and could only have been devised by a woman who previously gave the world “ladders of opportunity.” But for the large number of racists drawn to Trump, the shoe fits.

In June, the Pew Research Center found that 79 percent of Clinton voters believe the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities is an important issue, while only 42 percent of Trump supporters feel that way. As I wrote previously, earlier Pew research found that Trump supporters were significantly less likely than other Americans (and supporters of other Republican presidential candidates) to think that racial and ethnic diversity improves the United States.

Research by Washington Post pollsters and by University of California at Irvine political scientist Michael Tesler, among others, have found that Trump does best among Americans who express racial animus. Evidence indicates fear that white people are losing ground was the single greatest predictor of support for Trump — more, even, than economic anxiety.

Few people embrace the “racist” label, so let’s help them. If you are “very enthusiastic” about a candidate who has based his campaign on scapegoating immigrants, Latinos and African Americans, talked of banning Muslims from the country, hesitated to disown the Ku Klux Klan and employed anti-Semitic imagery — well, you might be a racist. But if you are holding your nose and supporting Trump only because you think him better than Clinton, that doesn’t put you in the basket.

The new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the two groups roughly equal: Forty-six percent of Trump supporters say they are “very enthusiastic” about his candidacy. The rest were “somewhat” or not terribly enthusiastic.

The GOP presidential nominee is out on the trail ahead of the general election in November.
There were mostly the latter at the National Guard gathering in Baltimore. Donny Crandell, a pastor from Nevada who serves as a National Guard chaplain, figured the audience was 70-30 for Trump, but with few of the “deplorables.” Said Crandell: “I don’t think you’ll find a lot of military types who are core Trump fans. They just like him better than her.” That includes Crandell, who backed Ted Cruz and would prefer Marco Rubio to Trump, whose “meanness” offends Crandell. “But he’s the choice we have,” the chaplain told me.

Trump, on stage, rejected any notion of racism, saying people who want secure borders “are not racists,” people who warn of “radical Islamic terrorism are not Islamophobes” and people who support police “are not prejudiced.” But moments later, he repeated the campaign slogan he borrowed from an anti-Semitic organization that opposed involvement in World War II.

“America First – remember that,” he said. “America First.”

That’s deplorable.
 
cybrguy,

grokit

well-worn member
Killary's best asset?

Obama at 58% Spells Doom for Republicans

Last month during the alarming images of rising water levels in the streets of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, due to a surprising and historic flooding, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his running mate Mike Pence raced to Baton Rouge in order to promote an eager media narrative that he was more concerned about the citizens of Baton Rouge than President Barack Obama who, Republicans would have you believe, was neglectful of the people of Baton Rouge by remaining on his vacation as flood waters damaged homes.

What Republicans and their allies in the media failed to specifically disclose, however, was that the President had asked Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards for an appropriate time for a presidential visit and it was requested by the governor that he waited:

EDWARDS: But I’ve been talk (ph) — the White House asked me — in fact, the president and Valerie Jarrett asked me when would be a good time for a visit. I asked them to let us get out of the response mode where we were still conducting searches of houses, and we were still making rescues. I didn’t want to divert these police officers, sheriff’s deputies and state troopers and other essential resources and assets to providing security for the president while they were needed in this region to undergo those — or to undertake those response activities. And I asked that if he could wait until the response was over and we got into the recovery phase, which I predicted we would do over the weekend and certainly next week would be a better time for us to visit.

This was an inconvenient fact for the media, which employed a nifty device for criticizing the President known as “OPTICS”. The fact that the President was diligent in his efforts to provide federal assistance, and swift in his deployment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which has received praise by Louisiana officials, was of little importance. Here, the liberty to criticize based on the tactic of “OPTICS” took precedence over the assessment of effective crisis management.

This criticism of the President was of tremendous value to Republicans, who have always been in search of that elusive catastrophe known as the "Obama Katrina".

The President’s approval rating has been polling above 50 percent for some time now and Republicans have been eager to bring down his popularity with the public. They have been trying desperately through their trumpeting of the “Obama paying Iran money for hostages” canard, which induced Republican political analyst Mark Halperin to declare:

The significance of this for the presidential race is Republicans have to get President Obama’s approval ratings down. They have to. And this is one of the things they’re going to talk about to try to bring that about.

Well, despite manufactured controversies and blatantly mendacious declarations from Republicans such as RNC chair Reince Priebus, who has repeatedly said:

We're paying the price for Obama's failed, liberal policies.

The Republican propaganda machine is failing and they are in deep trouble. I would have been more than delighted to see the President’s approval rating holding steady at 50 percent in current polls, but the latest Washington Post poll hints at greater possibilities:

[T]he Post-ABC poll finds 58 percent of Americans overall approve of President Obama’s job performance, the highest since July 2009 and continuing the positive movement since December when he stood at 45 percent.

Judging by some of their respondents’ over the top analysis of his time in office, it should be noted that individuals who register disfavor with the President are among the most extreme subset of anti-Obama voters, which also bodes well for the President and November:

Underscoring the passionate negative views that voters have of the candidate they oppose this year, nearly 8 in 10 Americans who disapprove of Obama say he has done real damage to the country.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted Sept. 5-8 among a random national sample of 1,002 adults reached by cellular and landline phones.

Emphasis on respondents’ idiotic statement by diarist.

There is also this from CNN:

In a reflection of rising optimism, 53% of Americans say economic conditions in the US are good, up from the 45% who felt that way in June. It's the highest number since September 2007, before the 2008 economic collapse.The poll also showed that President Barack Obama continues to have majority approval ratings, at 51%. His approval rating has been at or above 50% since February, the longest stretch of his presidency since his first year in office.

Despite years of proclaiming Barack Obama a failure, the latest spate of opinion polls on the President’s popularity is proving that the lying narrative of the Republican Party is being soundly rejected by the nation. From all appearances thus far, they are facing dire prospects.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/11/1569132/-Obama-at-58-Spells-Doom-for-Republicans

:myday:
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I feel Hillary is doing horribly so far in this campaign. She is slowly frittering away her advantages like sand in an hourglass. I can feel her momentum slip while crazy Mr. Trump slowly inches his way up. Hillary must do well in the debates because she is losing momentum at a very critical time. Frankly, and I hate saying it, but I think Trump is going to defeat Hillary come November. Too bad it wasn't Bernie. Too bad the democrats simply accepted the DNC cheating that went on in the primary by Hillary surrogates. If there was no cheating by the DNC there is a very high likelihood Bernie would have won and would be beating Trump down with a good policy club for the American people.

But no, some way the Democrats ended up with the cheater.

There are some who will argue that there was no cheating by the DNC. It was just a heavily leaning powerful group of insiders who were for HRC that merely 'influenced' the primary.

There are also many who believe that the majority of Americans won't vote for Trump because they can clearly see what kind of person he is and that all HRC has to do is not shoot herself in the foot and she'll win.

I don't believe either of the two statements I just made and what I do believe is ..... Trump is gaining ground even when his mouth is wide open.

@grokit - You know what worries me about the article you just posted....If HRC is supposed to be carrying on for Obama ..... why isn't his approval rating benefiting her?
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Team Trump picks the wrong fight at the wrong time
09/13/16 02:54 PM
By Steve Benen

It seemed pretty obvious yesterday morning that the political world was prepared to focus almost exclusively on Hillary Clinton’s health – probably for quite a while. The Democratic presidential campaign had acknowledged the candidate’s bout with pneumonia; a spokesperson conceded the campaign hadn’t handled the issue well; and Donald Trump had spent months raising outlandish questions about Clinton’s well being.

The media’s interest was intense and there was little doubt that this story was going to dominate the political conversation for a while. And that’s when Team Trump decided to … change the subject.

On Friday, Clinton delivered a speech in which she condemned the Republican candidate for having lifted up “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, [and] Islamaphobic” Americans.

Trump and his aides were apparently so outraged, they launched a new television ad highlighting Clinton’s criticisms, followed by Trump complaining bitterly yesterday about the Democrat’s rhetoric and her reference to the “basket of deplorables” that makes up so much of Trump’s right-wing base.

The story quickly followed the exact trajectory one might expect: coverage focused on the fact that Trump really does rely on “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, [and] Islamaphobic” supporters; Trump has made many comments that have been far more offensive towards the American mainstream; and his desperate desire to exploit Clinton’s accurate assessment made it seem as if he were defending some of society’s most indefensible voices.

Making matters worse, Trump’s running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R), appeared on CNN yesterday, where he was asked about former KKK leader David Duke’s support for the Republican ticket. Wolf Blitzer asked if Duke would “fit into that category of deplorables.”

Pence said he doesn’t want Duke’s support, but the host pressed the specific detail:

When Blitzer pushed Pence on if he’d call Duke, who is running for the Senate in Louisiana, a “deplorable,” Pence answered, “No I’m not in the name calling business…”
It was an answer that delighted David Duke and frustrated Republican officials. Pence nevertheless refused to refer to the former KKK leader as “deplorable” again this morning, which led to another round of headlines.

Remember, this is the debate Team Trump chose – not questions about Clinton’s health, but rather, Clinton’s criticisms of Trump’s “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, [and] Islamaphobic” backers.

Indeed, eager to keep this discussion going, the Clinton campaign unveiled a new television ad on this very subject this morning.

The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent made the case this morning that the more the national media focuses on the racism pervading Trump’s campaign, the better it is for Team Clinton.

I completely agree. But let’s also not lose sight of the fact that this is the fight Trump himself wants to be waging right now – even if that means stepping on coverage of Clinton’s pneumonia.

If there’s tactical wisdom behind this strategy, it’s hiding well.
 

BD9

Well-Known Member
More threats of violence by republicans if HRC is elected. Kentucky Gov. tells crowd "Blood may need to be spilled!" I'm so fucking sick of this vitriolic rhetoric. If you live in Kentucky PLEASE call, or email, your governor and tell him this is unacceptable. I don't live in Kentucky, but I still sent him an email.

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin says bloodshed may be needed to protect conservatism

“America is worth fighting for ideologically. I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically. But that may, in fact, be the case,” he told the crowd.

Bevin suggested that if Democrat Hillary Clinton were elected president, she would set the nation on a dangerous course that might require bloodshed to correct. He told the audience that the “candle” of liberty might go out “on our watch.”

“Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren. I have nine children,” he said. “It breaks my heart to think that it might be their blood that is needed to redeem something, to reclaim something that we, through our apathy and our indifference, have given away. Don’t let it happen.”
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Checking Trump’s Projection
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 13, 2016 3:20 PM

When Hillary Clinton gave a speech on Trump’s affinity for the alt-right, the Republican nominee decided to respond by calling her a bigot. At the time, I noted that he was following in Karl Rove’s footsteps with the use of projection as a political strategy. It worked like a charm. Major media headlines reported it as a “he said/she said” trading of barbs.

Since then, Trump’s use of projection has reached amazing heights. For example, he:

* said that Clinton could shoot somebody and not be arrested,

* accused Clinton of running a “hate-filled” campaign, and

* said Clinton is running with “no policy, no solutions and no new ideas.”

We have fact-checkers to document the lies. Do we need to start a new “projection-check?” Here you go:

* No one but Trump is talking about shooting people and getting away with it.


* Documenting the real hate-filled campaign could fill an entire speech (as Clinton demonstrated). Here’s the summary version:


* A simple set of numbers demonstrates who is running a campaign devoid of policies.

Brian Stelter @brianstelter

Here's the stat I just shared on TV: Trump's site has 9,000 words of policy proposals. Clinton's site: 112,735 words http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37531-on-policy-it-s-no-contest-clinton-112-735-words-trump-9-000
10:20 AM - 4 Sep 2016

Frankly, I don’t know whether Trump does this kind of thing as a knee-jerk response to criticisms of him that hit the mark, or if he has actually spent time laying out a strategy to accuse Clinton of all the things for which he is guilty. Perhaps he is simply too lazy to come up with his own challenges to Clinton and so he merely parrots back the ones coming at him. In the end, it doesn’t really matter. The important thing is to be clear that he is simply throwing mud to deflect attention away from the fact that he is imminently unfit to be president.
 
Last edited:

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
When Blitzer pushed Pence on if he’d call Duke, who is running for the Senate in Louisiana, a “deplorable,” Pence answered, “No I’m not in the name calling business…”

But he is in the business of partnering with a name calling bigot.

Deplorable Mike Pence may not be a name caller but he most certainly is a hateful religious fanatic/bigot who harms people without remorse.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/mik...just-look-at-his-trail-of-victims-in-indiana/
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
If you want to talk emails, Nina Burleigh has the real story.

For 18 months, Republican strategists, political pundits, reporters and Americans who follow them have been pursuing Hillary Clinton’s personal email habits, and no evidence of a crime has been found. But now they at least have the skills and interest to focus on a much larger and deeper email conspiracy, one involving war, lies, a private server run by the Republican Party and contempt of Congress citations—all of it still unsolved and unpunished.

Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails…

Most troubling, researchers found a suspicious pattern in the White House email system blackouts, including periods when there were no emails available from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. “That the vice president’s office, widely characterized as the most powerful vice president in history, should have no archived emails in its accounts for scores of days—especially days when there was discussion of whether to invade Iraq—beggared the imagination,” says Thomas Blanton, director of the Washington-based National Security Archive.
 

grokit

well-worn member
Then there's the drumpf foundation, at least as bad as billary's and probably way worse. He actually used donated charity money to commission a 6' self-portrait, and buy an autographed sports jersey for $12k.

Not too many reporting on that one from what I can see :rolleyes:


But as far as the emails go, there's still smoke so there's still a fire. Here's the latest from a msm blue-state newspaper, calling attention to how all four of killary's subpoenaed it guys just took the 5th:

Witnesses refuse to testify in hearing on Clinton’s email

web1_4159300-e58cd8708df842818c1c39d95498724a-600x382.jpg

ASSOCIATED PRESS Witnesses, from left, Paul Combetta, Platte River Networks, Bill Thornton, Platte River Networks, and Justin Cooper were sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, today, prior to testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on ‘Examining Preservation of State Department Records.’

The name plate for witness Bryan Pagliano, former senior adviser, Information Resource Management, State Department, who did not appear, sat on the witness table on Capitol Hill in Washington, today, during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on ‘Examining Preservation of State Department Records.’


WASHINGTON » Three witnesses ordered to testify today before a House committee investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server asserted their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and did not appear or refused to answer questions.

Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department computer specialist tasked with setting up Clinton’s server, did not attend the Republican-led hearing. His attorneys said in a letter to the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee that Pagliano will continue to assert his constitutional right not to testify.

Pagliano spoke previously to the FBI under immunity, telling the bureau there were no successful security breaches of the server. But he said he was aware of many failed login attempts that he described as “brute force attacks.”

Pagliano also refused to answer questions last year before a House panel investigating the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

“He has never made any statement or taken any action that would constitute a waiver of his constitutional rights and there is no reason for anyone to believe he might suddenly depart from that position,” Pagliano’s lawyers wrote in the Sept. 13 letter to Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the Oversight committee chairman.

Chaffetz said there will be consequences for Pagliano’s refusal to appear and for “thumbing his nose at Congress.” He didn’t specify what the penalties would be.

The email issue has shadowed Clinton’s candidacy for president, and Republicans have been steadfast in focusing on her use of a private server for government business, with several high-profile hearings leading up to the election. Congressional Republicans have cast Clinton as reckless with U.S. national security by insisting on using private communications systems at potentially greater risk of being penetrated by Chinese and Russian hackers.

more:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/break...fuse-to-testify-in-hearing-on-clintons-email/

:myday:
 
Last edited:

gangababa

Well-Known Member
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) accused Republicans of misusing their power by repeatedly investigating Hillary Clinton for alleged misdeeds.


Cummings "said the Republicans had created a three-step playbook to damage Clinton through insinuation.

“Today is the third ’emergency’ hearing in four business days, third emergency hearing about Secretary Clinton’s e-mails in four business days,” Cummings said. “Third in four days, emergency. I believe this committee is abusing taxpayer dollars and authority of Congress in an astonishing onslaught of political attacks to damage Secretary Clinton’s campaign for president of the United States of America.”

“Step one: Publicly accuse the witnesses of criminal activity, no matter how ludicrous, then refer them to attorney’s office for investigation,” Cummings said.

“Step two: The next day invite the same witnesses to an emergency hearing on those criminal accusations and rush to issue a flurry of unilateral subpoenas demanding they testify,” he continued. “No debate, no vote.”

“Step three: Express false outrage when these witnesses — this is a playbook — express false outrage when these witnesses, who you just accused of criminal activity take advice from their counsel to assert their Fifth Amendment right to not testify,” Cummings added. “There you have it — presto, instant photo op,” he said."

He also said, “The most important fact for the day’s hearing is that the FBI already investigated these accusations and thoroughly debunked them. They interviewed witnesses, examined forensic evidence and concluded that these accusations have no merit. FBI Director (James) Comey stated, and I quote, ‘We found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them,’ end of quote. He went on to say, and I quote, ‘We did not find any evidence of evil intent, intent to obstruct justice.'”
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
CNN and MSNBC are wanting to see Trump's "audit letter". We don't even know Trump is being audited. I think there's a bombshell in the taxes. Follow the money....something criminal?

If he's not willing to show them, people can just start making stuff up.

I was glad to see Obama talking about how ridiculous Trump is today.

Newsweek promises Bombshell on Trump very soon - says Rachel Madow.
 
Last edited:

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails.

Serfs do not worry. There will be no investigation of any consequence because reich wingers are not interested in finding the truth about their own.
But rest assured, there will be numerous phony investigations of Hillary throughout her term(s).
 

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
CNN and MSNBC are wanting to see Trump's "audit letter". We don't even know Trump is being audited. I think there's a bombshell in the taxes. Follow the money....something criminal?

If he's not willing to show them, people can just start making stuff up.

I was glad to see Obama talking about how ridiculous Trump is today.

Newsweek promises Bombshell on Trump very soon - says Rachel Madow.

Yes it will be a financial information bombshell.
The real question is will the media stop the false equivalency nonsense and start going after the real criminals of the reich wing.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
NYT:
WASHINGTON — Gov. Mike Pence came to Capitol Hill on Tuesday on a mission to promote Republican unity, attacking Hillary Clinton for describing many supporters of the G.O.P. ticket as bigoted “deplorables” and urging Republicans to rally behind their nominee, Donald J. Trump.

But Mr. Pence struggled to press the attack: In separate news conferences, House and Senate Republican leaders declined to join Mr. Pence, the Indiana governor and vice-presidential nominee, in rebuking Mrs. Clinton over her remark.

Mr. Pence wound up raising the subject only when pressed by a reporter — and then gave a halting answer in which he would not call David Duke, a white supremacist and onetime Ku Klux Klan leader, “deplorable.” He insisted instead that Mrs. Clinton did not have “that bad man” in mind when she assailed Mr. Trump’s supporters.

It was a noticeable break in stride for the Trump campaign, which had zeroed in on Mrs. Clinton’s remark at a Manhattan fund-raiser Friday night — one for which she expressed regret the next day — running a new commercial and dispatching surrogates to attack her for what Mr. Trump has termed a “slander” of his “wonderful, amazing” followers.

Congressional Republicans were even blunter in private.

An otherwise friendly morning meeting with House Republicans turned awkward when Mr. Pence was pressed by Representative Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska about Mr. Trump’s difficulties with women, said two House Republicans who relayed the conversation. Mr. Fortenberry told Mr. Pence that his young daughter had come to him and said, “Daddy, Donald Trump hates women,” according to one of the lawmakers, who both insisted on anonymity to recount a private conversation.

“It’s just not true,” Mr. Pence shot back, arguing that Mr. Trump was improving with women, the two House Republicans said.

Mr. Pence faced resistance again when he met privately with Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas, neither of whom has endorsed Mr. Trump. Mr. Lee pressed the governor on his reluctance to denounce Mr. Duke and the so-called alt-right movement more explicitly, stressing “that Republicans must identify David Duke’s racism as deplorable,” according to Conn Carroll, a spokesman for Mr. Lee.

Mr. Pence was greeted warmly by Senate Republicans when he joined them for a lunch of Chick-fil-A sandwiches, but received a firm rebuke from John McCain of Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Calling Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, “a thug and a butcher,” Mr. McCain said Mr. Trump’s embrace of the autocratic ruler was unacceptable, according to a Republican official present who also insisted on anonymity.
Continue reading the main story

I still can't get past the fact that we don't know who holds Trump debt. What if he owes billions to Russian oligarchs? At the moment we have no way of knowing. If he won't divulge we should assume the worst: the Russians own Trump.
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Colin Powell sees Donald Trump as a 'national disgrace'
By Steve Benen
09/14/16 10:00AM

Colin Powell is still a Republican and a veteran of a Republican administration, but he's been quite candid when expressing concerns about what's become of his party. In 2013, for example, the former Secretary of State lamented the "dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party," featuring GOP voices who "look down on minorities."

To bolster his point, Powell added at the time, "The whole 'birther' movement -- why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the party?"

With this in mind, it hardly comes as a surprise that Powell condemned Donald Trump as a "national disgrace" and "international pariah" in a personal email exchange that was leaked online by hackers. NBC News reports:

Powell, a retired 4-star general and a Republican, confirmed the authenticity of the emails to NBC News. "The hackers have a lot more," he added.

The contents of the emails were first reported by Buzzfeed News. It said the messages had been obtained by the website DCLeaks.com which MSNBC reported is rumored to have ties to Russian intelligence services.​

The leaked materials offer an unvarnished look at Powell's perspective, including a 2015 message to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in which he described the Republicans' obsession with Benghazi as "a stupid witch hunt."

And while revelations like these are notable given Powell's public profile -- he generally remains a popular national figure -- I'm also curious about the motivations behind the leak.

Keep in mind, Powell’s emails are hardly the first leak of their kind; hackers have divulged thousands of once-private communications in recent months.

But in practically every instance, the leaks have been intended to damage Democrats and boost Donald Trump. Indeed, as noted above, Powell’s emails were published online by a website with reported “ties to Russian intelligence services.”

So here’s my question: there’s a lot we don’t know about the theft of Powell’s private messages, but if Russian hackers were behind this, why leak content that makes Trump, the biggest Vladimir Putin admirer in American politics, look bad?

Or put another way, if Russia is involved in breaking into Powell’s emails, does it suggest Russia is souring on Trump?
 
Last edited:
cybrguy,

gangababa

Well-Known Member
Several stories I might link recently about conservative or Republican or self-satisfied religionists or others doing deplorable things and ALSO being hypocrites*.
I will happily weigh the progressive deplorables against the regressive deplorables and we can decide whose utopia is least deplorable.

I present this state election story to point out (again) that the Presidential race is a decision about USA future and not a popularity contest. This is not dancing with the Stars. This is not your Mayoral candidate choice. This is a world altering decision. Or, deplorable thought, a world destroying decision.

Now to the story about someone running for a seat in the Minnesota house, another self-identified member of the Republican party, represented by the one who most appeals to the Republican-identified masses; and I suppose some of them are not racist or otherwise deplorable.

"The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that Nolan West, a Republican legislative aide who is now running for an open seat in the Minnesota state legislature, has apologized for posting several messages on Facebook that praised the Confederacy and trashed Abraham Lincoln."
...
"As a teenager on the eve of President Obama’s election in 2008, West posted, “IT’S LYNCHING TIME.” In later years, he posted derogatory comments about women and gays."

*The head spinning hypocrisy of Republican leaders and their mouthpieces is non-negatable.
This happened; "Moments after Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, sidestepped questions about the GOP nominee’s health in an interview, saying he has a “right to privacy,” she slammed Hillary Clinton for allowing secrecy about her health"
 

BD9

Well-Known Member
Of course there are no deplorable people supporting trump. They're all upstanding, reasonable citizens.

69-year-old woman punched in face by Trump supporter outside NC rally

"I said, 'You better learn to speak Russian,' and I said, 'The first two words are going to be ha ha.' He stopped in his tracks, and he turned around and just cold-cocked me," Teter said.

She was punched in the face.

After our interview, Teter called News 13. She wanted to add one more thing, a question.

She asks if people find a Trump supporter punching her in the face deplorable.
 

grokit

well-worn member
From the christian science monitor, a surprisingly neutral rag.
They make a good point here :2c:

For Hillary Clinton, stealth may be bigger problem than health
The Democratic presidential candidate repeatedly seems to reveal as little as possible to the public.
Is she too lawyerly for her own good?

1003013_1_0913-Campaign-2016-Clinton_standard.jpg


Hillary Clinton’s future may turn more on perceptions of stealth than on questions of health.

That’s a paraphrase of former President Obama adviser David Axelrod talking on Tuesday about Mrs. Clinton’s pneumonia diagnosis. His point was that the former secretary of State’s penchant for secrecy could be far more politically troublesome for her than health problems, despite the blaring coverage of the latter in the Drudge Report and other right-leaning media outlets.

Clinton’s physician told her she was ill on Friday, and advised rest. But Clinton wanted to power through her weekend schedule. News of her condition was closely held even among her aides.

Once again, she seemed to be hiding something, which plays into a much deeper concern for many voters than her health.

“It seems to be Clinton’s guiding impulse to reveal as little information as possible, disclose only those things that are absolutely necessary, and instinctively avoid transparency. Voters are likely to find that more problematic than whatever the health issue is itself,” says Matthew Wilson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

more:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...ton-stealth-may-be-bigger-problem-than-health

:myday:
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Is the Press So Privileged That They Don’t Care Who Wins the Presidency?
by John Stoehr
September 14, 2016 2:18 PM

TheNewYorkTimesnewsroom1942-e1473872193989.jpg


By now, it’s clear Hillary Clinton’s main opponent is not the Republican Party’s nominee. It’s the press corps following her campaign.

Under normal circumstances, a presidential candidate diagnosed with pneumonia would be commended for honoring the roughly three thousand victims and heroes of Sept. 11. She’d be seen as tough and admirable, as would anyone who put aside their health to commemorate America’s fallen.

Instead of covering her very public near collapse on Sunday with respect — or mere impartiality — the press reported that her poor health played into a “narrative.”

Why is this happening?

Why are the press, people who should know better, effectively undermining 2016’s lone viable candidate, given that Donald Trump, as a former deputy director of the CIA has attested, cannot credibly serve as president; given he has plagiarized nearly every policy speech he has delivered since July; given he appears to have used other people’s money (charitable donations to the Trump Foundation) to fund a smear campaign against a New York Attorney General, who is spearheading a lawsuit against Trump University?

No one knows. Perhaps no one can know.

Before I continue, I should say my argument is not about conspiracy or intent. A vast majority of media pros are going about their business in normal ways indifferent to ideology or partisanship. Journalists are self-interested, but otherwise my argument is not about bias or worldview. It’s about behaviors endemic to our media, and the reasons behind them.

Some say it’s ratings. Cable news is poised to profit from a close race; there is some social science to back that claim. Others say it’s laziness. Campaign journalists aren’t held to the same rigorous standards as other journalists.

Others, like The New Republic‘s Brian Beutler, argue that the media functions similarly to a lobbying firm. Issues outside the media’s zone of interest, such as mass deportations and voting rights, usually end up being secondary to issues such as transparency, access, and press freedom.

“News outlets are less alarmed by the idea that Trump might run the government to boost his company’s bottom line, or that he might shred other constitutional rights, because those concerns don’t place press freedoms squarely in crosshairs,” Beutler wrote Tuesday.

Others, like me, blame the norms of journalism.

The very concept of newsworthiness depends somewhat on what’s considered normal. What’s “normal” is often determined by social stigma. One such stigma is that women should not do a man’s job, like the presidency (As Trump said, Clinton doesn’t “look” the part). When she “confirms” that stigma — say, by getting sick — that’s newsworthy.

Others point to something else.

Yahoo Politics‘ Garance Franke-Ruta theorized on Twitter that most journalists probably believe Clinton will win the election. They believe this without understanding the double standard governing their coverage could elect Trump. Indeed, polls show the gap between the candidates has narrowed since August, after the AP’s damaging and discredited report about the “appearance of corruption” at the Clinton Foundation.

Trump has received his share of negative press. But that doesn’t mean coverage of the candidates has been equitable. We see many reports that should disqualify Trump, but the media will not focus on Trump’s disqualifying aspects.

As Franke-Ruta theorized, since reporters believe she will win, they feel free to hammer her on issues most important to them, issues, as Beutler suggested, that include transparency and trust.

All of the above are worthy attempts to answer the question: Why is this happening? But maybe there isn’t a reason. This is what I fear the most.

In a piece called “Inside the Mind of the Undecided Voter,” Rebecca Nelson interviewed for GQ an unnamed 42-year-old political journalist in Washington who is anguishing over who to vote for. But that’s not all.

He said something that’s only conceivable if you believe that politics is a game, and that the outcome of the game can’t harm you.

“The things I like about [Trump] are: I believe that sometimes you just have to blow shit up to build it again, and I think that a Trump presidency would do that. … I think I would just have to sort of give in to my chaos theory of Trump and just hope that he surrounds himself with the right people. … So for me, four years of Trump, selfishly, sounds a lot more enticing, just because it’s going to be a dumpster fire.

“Gun to my head, I would probably vote Trump because of my feelings about Hillary, and my—I just want to see what happens.”

All of the above attempts to answer the question of why the media is effectively undermining the only viable candidate have one thing in common: stakes. They assume the election’s outcome will matter.

But perhaps that’s the wrong way of looking it.

Perhaps coverage of politics is more of a game played by privileged people graduated from privileged universities who can rest assured that their privilege will insulate them from whatever happens in November.

To be sure, I could be wrong.

I hope I am.
 
Top Bottom