Sunday, June 12, 2016

Clinton may defeat herself

The Hill's Congress Blog ^ | June 10, 2016 | Robert Davis 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, presumptive Democratic nominee, theoretically should have little difficulty defeating Donald Trump. He smashed the old political paradigm, casting aside political niceties and engaging in the politics of fear and smear. Trump arguably is both a bully and duplicitous, hardly a role model. He has historically high unfavorable poll ratings with women, Hispanics and other minorities. His attacks on the Hispanic federal judge overseeing a civil suit against Trump University likely will send his negatives even higher. Trump faces daunting demographic obstacles and an Electoral College stacked against him. However, Clinton may be Democrats’ Achilles heel. She is an opposition researcher’s dream.
As a Republican TV ad states, Clinton embodies all that many Americans, Republicans and Sanders’ supporters alike, view as being wrong with politics. Early 20th century pundit HL Mencken wrote of the stereotypical political hack: “There is in him … no shadow of principle or honor. It is moral by his code to get into office by false pretenses. … It is moral to change convictions overnight. Anything is moral … to keep [his] place at the trough. … Power is the commodity he has for sale.” This summarizes negative perceptions of Clinton. She arguably is a denizen of a decadent establishment, having no core principles other than her sense of political entitlement and belief she is above the rules.
Trump aims to make Clinton politically toxic and drive up her unfavorable poll ratings. He doubtless wants to make her so politically radioactive that many Sanders’ supporters will sit out the election rather than support her. Trump knows he cannot win over millennials and young women, but likely hopes they will be so disillusioned with Clinton that many will not vote. He will aggressively seek further inroads among blue collar workers at Clinton’s expense.
Trump used the National Enquirer to smear Sen. Ted Cruz’s reputation, accusing Cruz’s father of complicity in the JFK assassination. Trump already is using the Enquirer to attack Clinton. He will use every means, fair and foul, to send her negative poll ratings into the stratosphere. Clinton has provided him ample ammunition.
Trump is already exploiting the 26 May State Department Inspector General’s (IG) report on Clinton’s private server and email. The report stated Clinton did not seek approval for her server and would not have received it if she had. It said she violated the Federal Records Act, as well as Freedom of Information Act rules. The IG added that her use of a private server placed classified information at risk.
There allegedly were some 2100 classified emails, including 22 containing Top Secret Special Access Program data. Clinton reportedly sent 104 classified emails. Former CIA Directors Gates, Hayden, and Morrell opined that Clinton jeopardized national security. Trump will accuse Clinton of placing herself, once again, above the law.
Trump will repeat Sanders’ allegations that Clinton is beholden to Wall Street. Hillary and former President Bill Clinton
reportedly earned over $150 million in speaker fees after he left the White House. All of the Clinton campaigns have had corporate backing. Trump is accusing Clinton of selling herself to the highest bidder.
The Clinton Foundation has received some $2 billion in donations. Expect Trump to accuse Clinton of betraying the public trust. The money, in the speaker fees and Foundation scandals, came from Wall Street, corporations and foreign donors. Bill Clinton and the Foundation reputedly received $100 million from Persian Gulf countries. Trump undoubtedly will charge that corporate and foreign money influenced Clinton’s decisions at the State Department.
Trump is accusing Bill Clinton of raping Juanita Broderick in the late 1970s. The Enquirer, whose owner is Trump’s friend, named 36 women whom it alleges were subjects of Bill Clinton’s sexual misbehavior. Trump is lambasting Clinton as her husband’s “enabler,” who orchestrated defamatory attacks on these women.
Expect Trump to re-litigate all of the Clinton scandals, including the cattle futures scandal, Troopergate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Filegate, and Monica Lewinsky. Dredging up 1990s scandals may have little influence on older Americans’ votes. However, this is new terrain for millennials.
Clinton is the perfect foil for Trump. She remains the favorite to win the White House, barring a criminal referral or indictment regarding her private server or the Clinton Foundation and alleged influence peddling. However, Trump is evidently hoping the maladroit Clinton campaign will self-destruct faced with relentless attacks. Engaging in gutter politics, Trump hopes to destroy Clinton, knowing he cannot merely defeat her politically. Of course, he may self-destruct himself before he can implement this strategy.

Trump Challenges Hillary: Stop Your Support for Refugee Program, Give the Money to Inner City Kids!

Breitbart ^ | June 10, 2016 | Julia Hahn 

Donald Trump is calling on Hillary Clinton “to replace her support for increased refugee admissions… with a new job program for our inner cities.” Clinton “wants a 500% increase in Syrian refugees to come into our country,” Trump said at Friday’s Faith and Freedom Summit.
Clinton’s plan to resettle 65,000 Syrian migrants would cost U.S. taxpayers over $42 billion over the course of the migrants’ lifetimes, based on projections from Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector.
Trump said that rather than using taxpayer funds to import foreign migrants from terror-prone regions, Clinton should instead use the funds to help struggling Americans who are living in our inner cities.
“We have to take care of the people who are here,” Trump explained. “We have to temporarily stop this whole thing with what’s going on with refugees, where we don’t know where they come from… We have to take a rest. We have to take a time out. We have to use the money to take care of our poorest Americans and work with them, so they can come out of this horrible situation that they’re in.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Breaking: Hillary Clinton Sent Information Marked Classified!

The Observer/Fox News ^ | 06/11/16 10:15a | By Austin Bay 

Fox News proves that emails marked 'Confidential' were among those stored and forwarded by former Secretary of State.

Once again Hillary’s been caught lying about her criminal mishandling of classified national security information. Recall that Ms. Clinton swears none of the emails which passed through her off-the-record email server system was ever marked classified.
Fox News gets the credit. In an exclusive report published June 11, Fox News revealed that one of Ms. Clinton’s emails had a “portion marking” that identified the specific information contained in the “portion” as being classified. That means the information was sensitive and was legally protected.
The information had the lowest level of classification, Confidential. It discussed a phone call with the president of Malawi, Joyce Banda. Fox News included an information-rich screen shot of the email.
Let’s take a quick trip through the email. The original email with the classified information marking was sent on April 8, 2012, when Clinton was still the Secretary of State.
The original email has an uncomfortable typo, given Benghazi, where people died then Hillary lied. The sender, Monica Hanley, clearly meant time “windows” but, well, here’s the typo. Should the 7:30 AM time window not work for Clinton “we will find other widows that work for you tomorrow.”
Hanley cc’d Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s chief accomplices.
Follow the trail of evidence: Clinton appears right there in the email thread, responding on April 8, 2012 at 10:37 pm. “7:30 works for me,” Clinton writes, confirming she has an available time “widow” for a phone call whose purpose is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Should Men Always Pay for Dates?

Acculturated ^ | June 10, 2016 

I’ve recently had occasion to think about dating and its attendant rituals for a piece in this magazine, and so my eye was caught, the other week, by an article in the New York Post that suggested that one of the institution’s foremost traditions might be undergoing some change.

“Cheap Bros Have Found a New Way to Get Out of Paying for Dates,” the headline read. In the fashion of a modern-day fable, the piece quotes three young women who had gone out with three young men. Each guy paid for his date’s dinner or drinks, as guys who go out with women are generally expected to do. Each then used Venmo, the peer-to-peer payment app, to request that his date reimburse her share after the fact.

The women were outraged and contemptuous. “I do not have time for scrubs,” one said, speaking for all. They had expected to be treated, not treated as debtors.

I know, I know: a trend piece does not a trend make. The quirks of a few often get mistaken for the habits of many. Recall one of the genre’s preëminent cautionary tales, the 2014 Times piece that announced the return of the monocleas a men’s fashion item but failed to find more than one dude who would actually cop to wearing one, which is still one more monocle-wearing dude than I’ve ever seen. So the Post’s Venmo exposé may be just another report about a thing that isn’t a thing. But should it be one?

I confess that my sympathies are split here. On the one hand, voluntarily paying for your date’s three-dollar drink, as one of the men in question did, only to demand reimbursement the next day is an act of pure pettiness. The Post fails to mention which emojis were used to call in that particular debt, but let’s assume we’re looking at the tequila-sunrise glass paired with the smiley face with a dollar bill for eyes and tongue, the better to add insult to injury.

On the other hand, requesting repayment through Venmo underscores the absurdity of the consensus that, when it comes to the transaction known as the heterosexual date, men must bear the full financial burden, and thus wield full purchasing power. You might argue that, because women tend to spend more on personal preparation, it’s only fair that men should bear the cost of the event itself. Really, though, that’s looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope. If it’s taken for granted that the costs of the date are to be assumed by only one person, that person may feel himself entitled to whatever he considers to be a good return on his investment. A guy who seeks recourse through Venmo the morning after is a guy who doesn’t think he got his money’s worth the night before.