Radar Online ^ | September 27, 2016 | Staff
The newly released poll reveals Hillary Clinton could lose the presidency.
Donald Trump is riding high after Monday night’s debate performance! A new UPI/CVoter’s state tracking poll released the day after the big event shows that Trump could amass enough votes to win the presidency.
According to UPI current numbers suggest that Trump would earn “292 votes and Clinton would get 246 with 270 needed to secure the oval office.”
But Trump’s lead still remains narrow. “If the battleground states are not counted, the race would be tied 191-191,” UPI reported.
Florida is one of the key swing states that could shift the election in Clinton’s favor. The state holds 29 electoral votes. If Clinton won those, she could win the election 275-263.
Clinton’s biggest leads against Trump are currently in the District of Columbia and Hawaii, while Trump’s largest leads are in Utah and Wyoming.
This poll was conducted from September 12-September 25, so the effects from last night’s fiery presidential debate have yet to be seen.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Post Debate Poll: Clinton Won on Performance, Trump Won Votes
People's Pundit Daily ^ | September 27, 2016 | Staff
A Post Debate Poll conducted after the presidential showdown at Hofstra University finds Hillary Clinton put on the best performance, but Donald Trump won votes. While voters 47% to 44% think that Mrs. Clinton “won the first presidential debate,” Mr. Trump won over undecided voters who changed their mind by nearly a 3 to 1 margin.
Nine percent (9%) were undecided on the question of who won the debate.
Among those who were undecided (5%) before the debate, 31% changed their mind and now say they’ll support the New York businessman. By comparison, only 11% of previously undecided voters said they will now vote for the former secretary of state.
The results were noteworthy, considering more voters than not thought Mrs. Clinton gave a better debate performance. Authenticity, honesty and trustworthiness played and will continue to play a big role in voters’ preferences ahead of November.
“Voters are looking for Donald Trump to basically give them permission to vote for him, fair or not,” says PPD’s senior analyst Richard Baris. “If he improves in the next two debates, which he did during the primary, things could get really ugly really fast for Hillary Clinton.”
Regarding the debate, which most mainstream pundits gave to Mrs. Clinton, most voters expected her to be polished on stage. But they were watching to see if Mr. Trump could pass the presidential bar.
“He was restrained, He came off much more natural,” said Shaun Ellis, an independent voter from Hopington, New Hampshire. “Hillary looked weak on the economy,” adding he decided “we need new blood.”
Of course, not everyone agreed he met that bar. The good news for Mr. Trump and his supporters: the vast majority of those who don’t think he met that threshold are Democratic partisans.
A Post Debate Poll conducted after the presidential showdown at Hofstra University finds Hillary Clinton put on the best performance, but Donald Trump won votes. While voters 47% to 44% think that Mrs. Clinton “won the first presidential debate,” Mr. Trump won over undecided voters who changed their mind by nearly a 3 to 1 margin.
Nine percent (9%) were undecided on the question of who won the debate.
Among those who were undecided (5%) before the debate, 31% changed their mind and now say they’ll support the New York businessman. By comparison, only 11% of previously undecided voters said they will now vote for the former secretary of state.
The results were noteworthy, considering more voters than not thought Mrs. Clinton gave a better debate performance. Authenticity, honesty and trustworthiness played and will continue to play a big role in voters’ preferences ahead of November.
“Voters are looking for Donald Trump to basically give them permission to vote for him, fair or not,” says PPD’s senior analyst Richard Baris. “If he improves in the next two debates, which he did during the primary, things could get really ugly really fast for Hillary Clinton.”
Regarding the debate, which most mainstream pundits gave to Mrs. Clinton, most voters expected her to be polished on stage. But they were watching to see if Mr. Trump could pass the presidential bar.
“He was restrained, He came off much more natural,” said Shaun Ellis, an independent voter from Hopington, New Hampshire. “Hillary looked weak on the economy,” adding he decided “we need new blood.”
Of course, not everyone agreed he met that bar. The good news for Mr. Trump and his supporters: the vast majority of those who don’t think he met that threshold are Democratic partisans.
(Excerpt) Read more at peoplespunditdaily.com ...
I hope Trump pays nothing in taxes.
9/26/16 | AzJoe
I hope Trump pays little or nothing in taxes. In fact, I wish the federal government would take less from him than they already do.
The money Trump save on taxes he then uses to create businesses that employ 10s of thousands of workers. These workers all pay federal taxes and will continue to pay taxes far, far,...FAR in excess of any money the federal government would have confiscated from Trump.
Trump may or may not pay taxes, but he most certainly creates significant tax revenues.
What would be smart is for the federal government to invest in Trump, allow him to keep more of what he earns & create even more jobs....instead of spending millions on studying cow flatulence, resettling terrorists into the United States, sending money to Islamic regimes and dictatorships and providing sex change operations for federal prisoners.
9/26/16 | AzJoe
I hope Trump pays little or nothing in taxes. In fact, I wish the federal government would take less from him than they already do.
The money Trump save on taxes he then uses to create businesses that employ 10s of thousands of workers. These workers all pay federal taxes and will continue to pay taxes far, far,...FAR in excess of any money the federal government would have confiscated from Trump.
Trump may or may not pay taxes, but he most certainly creates significant tax revenues.
What would be smart is for the federal government to invest in Trump, allow him to keep more of what he earns & create even more jobs....instead of spending millions on studying cow flatulence, resettling terrorists into the United States, sending money to Islamic regimes and dictatorships and providing sex change operations for federal prisoners.
SECRET REPORT: TERRORISTS RUNNING WILD WITHIN U.S. BORDERS
Frontpage Mag ^ | September 28, 2016 | Matthew Vadum
Leaked document reveals the staggering breadth of domestic terrorist activity -- and the administration's cover-up!
The Obama administration has been concealing the staggering breadth of terrorist activity in the United States – quantified as close to 8,000 terrorist encounters in a recent year -- a leaked government report suggests.
There are disturbing parallels between the Obama administration’s ongoing cover-up of the true extent of terrorist operations in the U.S. and its election season cover-up four years ago of the real causes of the Benghazi, Libya terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012.
Remember that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly lied four years ago, saying the Benghazi attack was carried out by an angry mob of Muslims that had been inflamed by an obscure anti-Islam video on YouTube. It has since been established that Clinton advised her daughter Chelsea by email on the very night of the assault that cost four American lives that Muslim terrorists from an al-Qaeda-like group were the actual perpetrators.
The Obama administration participated in the ruse because Election Day 2012 was only weeks away at the time and the White House didn’t want information getting out that countered the official narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run and that Obama’s policies were decimating the nation’s terrorist enemies.
The lie got Obama past the finish line in 2012, so it’s not hard to conclude that he is following the same playbook right now to make it seem like the homeland is safe and secure on his watch. If the public knew that terrorists were running wild all across the fruited plain it might be difficult for Obama to carry Clinton, his preferred would-be successor and a fellow radical left-wing Alinskyite, into the winner’s circle this Nov. 8.
This is because word of fresh Obama administration misconduct or incompetence imperiling national security and putting innocent Americans at risk could hurt Clinton, a former member of his cabinet and therefore the candidate of the status quo, at the polls.
The government report itself is chilling.
“Known or Suspected Terrorist (KST) Encounters,” a Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) document obtained by Brandon Darby, editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas, states that there were an astounding 7,712 encounters between terrorists and law enforcement officials from July 20, 2015 through July 20, 2016. The report is labeled, “UNCLASSIFIED/LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE.”
The TSC maintains the U.S. government’s consolidated Terrorist Watchlist, which is a single database of identifying information about, in the words of the Justice Department, those “known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity.” The multi-agency organization is administered by the FBI and provides operational support for federal, state, local, and foreign governments.
The report breaks down encounters by category but only for the state of Arizona. The sixth page of the TSC report contains a pie chart showing that the majority of encounters in Arizona were with known or suspected Islamic terrorists, both Sunni and Shi’a. There were 89 encounters with Sunni Muslims and 56 with Shi’a Muslims. Seventy were categorized as “Other International Terrorist Groups or Affiliates,” and 52 as “Domestic Terrorism.”
Many of those terrorist encounters took place near the nation’s southern border. Others happened at ports-of-entry, or in-between, suggesting that suspected terrorists used stealth to enter U.S. territory. The most affected states were the border states of California, Michigan, New York, and Texas, along with Florida, Illinois, and the District of Columbia.
The news comes as communities in Minnesota, New York, and Washington State are reeling from recent Islamic terrorist attacks.
There have been 92 Muslim terrorist plots in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001. The overwhelming majority of those plots took place during Barack Obama’s presidency.
Here is where the figure of 92 comes from: the Heritage Foundation hasn’t updated its list of all the post-9/11 Muslim terrorist plots in the U.S. since a July 2 terrorist event, but as of that date the figure was 89. Of those 89, only 27 took place during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Number 90 since Sept. 11, 2001 would be the Sept. 17 bombing in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood allegedly carried out by Ahmad Khan Rahami. Number 91 took place the same day at Crossroads Mall, in St. Cloud, Minnesota when Dahir Adan stabbed nine people. Number 92 was the Sept. 23 Cascade Mall shooting spree in Burlington, Washington allegedly carried out by Arcan Cetin.
News of the TSC report also came as FBI Director James Comey testified the U.S. will become a victim of its own counter-terrorism success in coming years as Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL, Daesh) loses control of its territory in Syria and Iraq. He told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday that the anticipated exodus of fighters will be larger than that which flowed out of post-war Afghanistan in the 1980s.
"The so-called caliphate will be crushed. The challenge will be: through the fingers of that crush are going to come hundreds of very, very dangerous people," Comey said, repeating a similar warning he offered in July.
Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who is locked in a tough reelection battle with former Sen. Russ Feingold (D), took Comey’s testimony with a grain of salt.
He acknowledged that the territory held by Islamic State has shrunk, but said efforts against it have been so slow that the terrorist group that claims to be an Islamic caliphate is reconstituting elsewhere.
"We haven’t reduced their capability. The diaspora has already begun," Johnson said. "We're poking the hive. We've done some damage to it but the killer bees are leaving the hive. They’re setting up new hives."
Comey said Islamic State fighters “will not all die on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq. There will be a terrorist diaspora sometime in the next two to five years like we've never seen before."
"We must prepare ourselves and our allies particularly in western Europe to confront that threat because when ISIL is reduced to an insurgency and those killers flow out they will try to come to western Europe and try to come here to kill innocent people," he said.
Of course Comey is assuming America’s war against Islamic terrorism – as modest as it may be – will continue in coming years.
That is not a reasonable assumption.
Leaked document reveals the staggering breadth of domestic terrorist activity -- and the administration's cover-up!
The Obama administration has been concealing the staggering breadth of terrorist activity in the United States – quantified as close to 8,000 terrorist encounters in a recent year -- a leaked government report suggests.
There are disturbing parallels between the Obama administration’s ongoing cover-up of the true extent of terrorist operations in the U.S. and its election season cover-up four years ago of the real causes of the Benghazi, Libya terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012.
Remember that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly lied four years ago, saying the Benghazi attack was carried out by an angry mob of Muslims that had been inflamed by an obscure anti-Islam video on YouTube. It has since been established that Clinton advised her daughter Chelsea by email on the very night of the assault that cost four American lives that Muslim terrorists from an al-Qaeda-like group were the actual perpetrators.
The Obama administration participated in the ruse because Election Day 2012 was only weeks away at the time and the White House didn’t want information getting out that countered the official narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run and that Obama’s policies were decimating the nation’s terrorist enemies.
The lie got Obama past the finish line in 2012, so it’s not hard to conclude that he is following the same playbook right now to make it seem like the homeland is safe and secure on his watch. If the public knew that terrorists were running wild all across the fruited plain it might be difficult for Obama to carry Clinton, his preferred would-be successor and a fellow radical left-wing Alinskyite, into the winner’s circle this Nov. 8.
This is because word of fresh Obama administration misconduct or incompetence imperiling national security and putting innocent Americans at risk could hurt Clinton, a former member of his cabinet and therefore the candidate of the status quo, at the polls.
The government report itself is chilling.
“Known or Suspected Terrorist (KST) Encounters,” a Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) document obtained by Brandon Darby, editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas, states that there were an astounding 7,712 encounters between terrorists and law enforcement officials from July 20, 2015 through July 20, 2016. The report is labeled, “UNCLASSIFIED/LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE.”
The TSC maintains the U.S. government’s consolidated Terrorist Watchlist, which is a single database of identifying information about, in the words of the Justice Department, those “known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity.” The multi-agency organization is administered by the FBI and provides operational support for federal, state, local, and foreign governments.
The report breaks down encounters by category but only for the state of Arizona. The sixth page of the TSC report contains a pie chart showing that the majority of encounters in Arizona were with known or suspected Islamic terrorists, both Sunni and Shi’a. There were 89 encounters with Sunni Muslims and 56 with Shi’a Muslims. Seventy were categorized as “Other International Terrorist Groups or Affiliates,” and 52 as “Domestic Terrorism.”
Many of those terrorist encounters took place near the nation’s southern border. Others happened at ports-of-entry, or in-between, suggesting that suspected terrorists used stealth to enter U.S. territory. The most affected states were the border states of California, Michigan, New York, and Texas, along with Florida, Illinois, and the District of Columbia.
The news comes as communities in Minnesota, New York, and Washington State are reeling from recent Islamic terrorist attacks.
There have been 92 Muslim terrorist plots in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001. The overwhelming majority of those plots took place during Barack Obama’s presidency.
Here is where the figure of 92 comes from: the Heritage Foundation hasn’t updated its list of all the post-9/11 Muslim terrorist plots in the U.S. since a July 2 terrorist event, but as of that date the figure was 89. Of those 89, only 27 took place during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Number 90 since Sept. 11, 2001 would be the Sept. 17 bombing in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood allegedly carried out by Ahmad Khan Rahami. Number 91 took place the same day at Crossroads Mall, in St. Cloud, Minnesota when Dahir Adan stabbed nine people. Number 92 was the Sept. 23 Cascade Mall shooting spree in Burlington, Washington allegedly carried out by Arcan Cetin.
News of the TSC report also came as FBI Director James Comey testified the U.S. will become a victim of its own counter-terrorism success in coming years as Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL, Daesh) loses control of its territory in Syria and Iraq. He told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday that the anticipated exodus of fighters will be larger than that which flowed out of post-war Afghanistan in the 1980s.
"The so-called caliphate will be crushed. The challenge will be: through the fingers of that crush are going to come hundreds of very, very dangerous people," Comey said, repeating a similar warning he offered in July.
Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who is locked in a tough reelection battle with former Sen. Russ Feingold (D), took Comey’s testimony with a grain of salt.
He acknowledged that the territory held by Islamic State has shrunk, but said efforts against it have been so slow that the terrorist group that claims to be an Islamic caliphate is reconstituting elsewhere.
"We haven’t reduced their capability. The diaspora has already begun," Johnson said. "We're poking the hive. We've done some damage to it but the killer bees are leaving the hive. They’re setting up new hives."
Comey said Islamic State fighters “will not all die on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq. There will be a terrorist diaspora sometime in the next two to five years like we've never seen before."
"We must prepare ourselves and our allies particularly in western Europe to confront that threat because when ISIL is reduced to an insurgency and those killers flow out they will try to come to western Europe and try to come here to kill innocent people," he said.
Of course Comey is assuming America’s war against Islamic terrorism – as modest as it may be – will continue in coming years.
That is not a reasonable assumption.
ANALYSIS: @HillaryClinton’s #AliciaMachado Definitely Had Anchor Baby With Mexican Drug Kingpin
GotNews ^ | 9/27/16 | Charles Johnson
GotNews has already exposed Hillary Clinton’s Alicia Machado as a lying attempted murderess and porn star with a Mexican drug kingpin’s anchor baby.
The Mexican Attorney General and GotNews’ unnamed federal law enforcement source both agree that Machado’s baby daddy is locked-up drug trafficker Gerardo Alvarez-Velazquez.
Alicia Machado herself has variously claimed it’s her “best friend” Rafael Hernandez Linares and that “she’s kept quite about his identity because he isn’t involved in the entertainment world and she’d like to respect his privacy.”
Does Alicia Machado’s daughter Dinorah look like she could be the drug kingpin’s kid? Yep.
GotNews has already exposed Hillary Clinton’s Alicia Machado as a lying attempted murderess and porn star with a Mexican drug kingpin’s anchor baby.
The Mexican Attorney General and GotNews’ unnamed federal law enforcement source both agree that Machado’s baby daddy is locked-up drug trafficker Gerardo Alvarez-Velazquez.
Alicia Machado herself has variously claimed it’s her “best friend” Rafael Hernandez Linares and that “she’s kept quite about his identity because he isn’t involved in the entertainment world and she’d like to respect his privacy.”
Does Alicia Machado’s daughter Dinorah look like she could be the drug kingpin’s kid? Yep.
(Excerpt) Read more at gotnews.com ...
Post Debate Surge:Florida Rally, Thousands Turned Away
Breitbart ^ | 9-27-2016 | Jen Lawrence & Justin Stockman
In his first public appearance after the Presidential debate at Hofstra University on Monday, Donald Trump was welcomed by tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters to a Florida airplane hanger.
Trump’s supporters waited in long lines in the rain and lightning for hours to cheer on Trump. Even after the hanger had filled up, it took more than six minutes to video the whole line.
In his first public appearance after the Presidential debate at Hofstra University on Monday, Donald Trump was welcomed by tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters to a Florida airplane hanger.
Trump’s supporters waited in long lines in the rain and lightning for hours to cheer on Trump. Even after the hanger had filled up, it took more than six minutes to video the whole line.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Undecided Voters Seemed To Like Trump's Debate Pitch
Frontpagemag.com ^ | September 28, 2016 | Daniel Greenfield
The media hated Trump's pitch. But then it was going to hate anything he said. Among undecideds, particularly those who just watched it unprompted, it seemed to resonate.
Letosky entered the evening undecided in a town that is heavily Democratic in registration. Her sister and father are on opposite sides of the political aisle. Donald “Trump had the upper hand this evening,” she said, citing his command of the back-and-forth between him and Hillary Clinton.
Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman. “By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community,” he said, sitting at the same bar that has boasted local icons as regulars, such as the late Fred Rogers, and Arnold Palmer, who had his own stash of PM Whiskey hidden behind newer bottles of whiskey for his regular visits.
“Have to say Trump had the edge this evening, he came out swinging but also talked about specifics on jobs and the economy,” Reed said.
Reed said Clinton came across as either smug or as though she was reading her résumé, adding there was nothing on her résumé that touched on his life. “I am a small businessman, a farmer, come from a long line of farmers and coal miners. The policies she talked about tonight ultimately either hurt me or ignore me,” he said.
“I’ve been a Democrat all of my life, but when Clinton mentions her husband and the jobs he brought to the country in the ’90s, it’s not a fair assessment. She is no moderate Democrat the way he was, her policies would not bring back jobs,” said Nathan Nemick.
It burns Nemick when Clinton references her husband, like she did in the debate on trade and jobs. “She is nothing like him,” he said of the Democrat he admired in his youth.
The McClatchy lineup isn't too favorable to Trump, but it's Hillary who loses big.
Kae Roberts and Jay Eardly were leaning toward Hillary Clinton before Monday night’s debate.
By the end, they had both pulled away.
John Kokos and Hank Federal were undecided going in, potential Clinton backers.
By the end, they’d ruled her out.
Indeed, while polls found that Clinton had won the first general-election debate with Donald Trump on Monday, she may not have won actual votes. And she may even have lost some, at least in the battleground state of North Carolina.
In a focus group of 21 voters from around Charlotte conducted by McClatchy and The Charlotte Observer, four who had been up for grabs before the debate had moved away from her by the end.
The media is calling it a win, but as usual with Hillary, it's not a win if you don't appeal to anyone.
The media hated Trump's pitch. But then it was going to hate anything he said. Among undecideds, particularly those who just watched it unprompted, it seemed to resonate.
Letosky entered the evening undecided in a town that is heavily Democratic in registration. Her sister and father are on opposite sides of the political aisle. Donald “Trump had the upper hand this evening,” she said, citing his command of the back-and-forth between him and Hillary Clinton.
Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman. “By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community,” he said, sitting at the same bar that has boasted local icons as regulars, such as the late Fred Rogers, and Arnold Palmer, who had his own stash of PM Whiskey hidden behind newer bottles of whiskey for his regular visits.
“Have to say Trump had the edge this evening, he came out swinging but also talked about specifics on jobs and the economy,” Reed said.
Reed said Clinton came across as either smug or as though she was reading her résumé, adding there was nothing on her résumé that touched on his life. “I am a small businessman, a farmer, come from a long line of farmers and coal miners. The policies she talked about tonight ultimately either hurt me or ignore me,” he said.
“I’ve been a Democrat all of my life, but when Clinton mentions her husband and the jobs he brought to the country in the ’90s, it’s not a fair assessment. She is no moderate Democrat the way he was, her policies would not bring back jobs,” said Nathan Nemick.
It burns Nemick when Clinton references her husband, like she did in the debate on trade and jobs. “She is nothing like him,” he said of the Democrat he admired in his youth.
The McClatchy lineup isn't too favorable to Trump, but it's Hillary who loses big.
Kae Roberts and Jay Eardly were leaning toward Hillary Clinton before Monday night’s debate.
By the end, they had both pulled away.
John Kokos and Hank Federal were undecided going in, potential Clinton backers.
By the end, they’d ruled her out.
Indeed, while polls found that Clinton had won the first general-election debate with Donald Trump on Monday, she may not have won actual votes. And she may even have lost some, at least in the battleground state of North Carolina.
In a focus group of 21 voters from around Charlotte conducted by McClatchy and The Charlotte Observer, four who had been up for grabs before the debate had moved away from her by the end.
The media is calling it a win, but as usual with Hillary, it's not a win if you don't appeal to anyone.
Attack, Don't Defend,Should Be Debate Strategy
Frontpagemag.com ^ | September 28, 2016 | Daniel Greenfield
The first debate was a disgrace. NBC's moderator, Lester Holt, hurled attack after attack at Trump. Not only was the entire debate defined by a left-wing perspective, but Holt repeatedly threw character attacks at Trump and none at Hillary. Trump performed best when he turned those attacks around, whether on emails or on Libya. That should be the strategy for future debates.
Trump would be well advised not to waste time defending himself from attacks about his past. The only thing this accomplishes is to give the scandal airtime while making him appear defensive.
Since the moderators are likely to follow Holt's lead and refuse to discuss any of Hillary's many issues, the only way to incorporate them into the debate is to bring them up. Any attacks on Trump should be immediately redirected to questions about Hillary. This will make them an issue. Focusing on them will leave a biased moderator working to help Hillary with only two options. Either he can escalate the confrontation with Trump or pivot to actually discussing the issue out of the conviction that Hillary will do better in a discussion of more serious topics.
What the moderators cannot be allowed to do is conduct another one-sided inquisition as Lester Holt did last night.
Mainstream media moderators should never have been allowed to helm the debates. But presumably that is not about to change for this series of debates. (Though it could and ought to.) But moderators should be forced to choose between discussing Hillary's scandals and discussing issues. What they cannot be allowed to do is to repeat Holt's performance of allowing Hillary to discuss issues and Trump's scandals... and then insisting on limiting Trump to discussions of his scandals.
Romney made the mistake of trying to play the game. And he lost. Trump should not make the same mistake.
The first debate was a disgrace. NBC's moderator, Lester Holt, hurled attack after attack at Trump. Not only was the entire debate defined by a left-wing perspective, but Holt repeatedly threw character attacks at Trump and none at Hillary. Trump performed best when he turned those attacks around, whether on emails or on Libya. That should be the strategy for future debates.
Trump would be well advised not to waste time defending himself from attacks about his past. The only thing this accomplishes is to give the scandal airtime while making him appear defensive.
Since the moderators are likely to follow Holt's lead and refuse to discuss any of Hillary's many issues, the only way to incorporate them into the debate is to bring them up. Any attacks on Trump should be immediately redirected to questions about Hillary. This will make them an issue. Focusing on them will leave a biased moderator working to help Hillary with only two options. Either he can escalate the confrontation with Trump or pivot to actually discussing the issue out of the conviction that Hillary will do better in a discussion of more serious topics.
What the moderators cannot be allowed to do is conduct another one-sided inquisition as Lester Holt did last night.
Mainstream media moderators should never have been allowed to helm the debates. But presumably that is not about to change for this series of debates. (Though it could and ought to.) But moderators should be forced to choose between discussing Hillary's scandals and discussing issues. What they cannot be allowed to do is to repeat Holt's performance of allowing Hillary to discuss issues and Trump's scandals... and then insisting on limiting Trump to discussions of his scandals.
Romney made the mistake of trying to play the game. And he lost. Trump should not make the same mistake.
Why Yellen may quit if Trump wins
Market Watch | Sept 27, 2016 12:33 p.m. ET | Steve Goldstein
Even with two years remaining in her term, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen may quit if Donald Trump is elected president, an economist argued on Tuesday.
Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics, said in a note to clients that Trump doubled down on criticism of the Fed during his debate with Hillary Clinton.
Trump said the U.S. economy is in a “big, fat, ugly bubble” and specifically called out Yellen.
“And we have a Fed that’s doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed,” he said. “The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you’re going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job...
...he would continue with his public criticisms of the Fed in the run-up to that meeting, arguing that a rate hike would be a political attempt to damage the economy ahead of his presidency. The main reason for believing that Yellen would resign almost immediately is that falling on her sword would take some of the political heat off the rest of the FOMC...
...Trump would in turn be more likely to nominate someone who would bow to political pressure — and leave interest rates lower for even longer than the Yellen-led Fed would have done.
Even with two years remaining in her term, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen may quit if Donald Trump is elected president, an economist argued on Tuesday.
Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics, said in a note to clients that Trump doubled down on criticism of the Fed during his debate with Hillary Clinton.
Trump said the U.S. economy is in a “big, fat, ugly bubble” and specifically called out Yellen.
“And we have a Fed that’s doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed,” he said. “The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you’re going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job...
...he would continue with his public criticisms of the Fed in the run-up to that meeting, arguing that a rate hike would be a political attempt to damage the economy ahead of his presidency. The main reason for believing that Yellen would resign almost immediately is that falling on her sword would take some of the political heat off the rest of the FOMC...
...Trump would in turn be more likely to nominate someone who would bow to political pressure — and leave interest rates lower for even longer than the Yellen-led Fed would have done.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Majority Of Snap Polls Show Trump Won Debate By A Landslide
dailymail.co.uk ^ | 27 Sep 2016
Trump and Clinton tangled over the economy, her use of a private mail server and his unwillingness to release his income tax returns on Monday night.
They engaged in a vigorous back-and-forth on the debate stage at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, as polls showed them locked in a tight race.
However, after the debate's end, polls conducted by a number of media websites showed their readers felt the real estate mogul came out on top.
Trump acknowledged the result, tweeting: 'Wow, did great in the debate polls (except for @CNN - which I don't watch). Thank you!'
Trump and Clinton tangled over the economy, her use of a private mail server and his unwillingness to release his income tax returns on Monday night.
They engaged in a vigorous back-and-forth on the debate stage at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, as polls showed them locked in a tight race.
However, after the debate's end, polls conducted by a number of media websites showed their readers felt the real estate mogul came out on top.
Trump acknowledged the result, tweeting: 'Wow, did great in the debate polls (except for @CNN - which I don't watch). Thank you!'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Obama's Legacy of Demagoguery and Divisiveness
Frontpagemagazine ^ | September 27, 2016 | Ari Lieberman
The “Ferguson effect” takes its toll on the African-American community while race relations are at a nadir.
Instead of offering hope, Obama gave us demagoguery. Instead of fostering unity he stoked and encouraged divisiveness. Instead of providing concrete solutions, he issued speeches laced with empty rhetoric and platitudes. Instead of calming the nation in times of crisis, he engaged in race baiting.
The first test of Obama’s seriousness in addressing race relations came just six months after being sworn in. Police officers in Cambridge Massachusetts received a call of a possible burglary in progress and responded. When arriving at the scene, they found Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. trying to force his way into his house through a malfunctioning door. The police were unfamiliar with his identity and asked for identification to establish residency. Gates instantly became irate, indignant and uncooperative. It went downhill from there. Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, though the charges were later dropped.
An event that was essentially a misunderstanding and a local matter was suddenly thrust into the spotlight and propelled to the national stage. You see, Gates, an African American, cried racism. He also happened to be pals with Obama. Obama could have told Gates to work things out with the police or file a complaint with the Civilian Complaint Review Board if he felt slighted. Instead, Obama stoked the flames of hate by publicly siding with Gates, claiming the police “acted stupidly.”
Before ascertaining the facts, Obama rushed to judgment and immediately condemned those entrusted with safeguarding our security. His asinine response would set the administration’s tone for the next seven years. Obama later backtracked on his rush to judgment and offered the arresting police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, a beer but the damage had already been done. The only thing that the African American community took away from the encounter was that the police acted “stupidly,” thus reinforcing preexisting negative perceptions so prevalent within that community.
There is no doubt that some level of tension exists between various police departments and members of the African American community but the president has a responsibility to calm frayed nerves and foster understanding and outreach. Instead, Obama has done the opposite. Race-baiting, tax cheats and serial liars like Al Sharpton are frequent guests of the White House. According to official records, Sharpton visited the White House on more than 100 occasions and that number excludes official administration visits to him.
Obama’s association with the so-called Black Lives Matter movement is also a source of concern. The White House has played host to leaders of this nefarious movement on a number of occasions. Even more disturbing is the fact that Obama has referred to BLM-inspired demonstrations as “a good thing.”
The George Soros-funded BLM movement was propelled to the national scene after the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri and the death of Eric Garner in Staten Island New York. Police officers, accused of wrongfully killing the two suspects, were cleared of all wrong-doing after thorough and independent judicial and legal reviews.
Other police officers involved in confrontations in which black suspects died were similarly exonerated. Notably, in the case of Freddie Gray, an African American judge acquitted three police officers in connection with the suspect’s death which ultimately led to the dropping of charges against the remaining three officers charged with wrong-doing.
That did not stop thugs, encouraged by BLM, from taking to the streets and causing mayhem in the form of looting, beatings, destruction of public and private property, obstructing traffic and violently confronting law enforcement. Other high-profile, police-involved confrontations with African American suspects resulted in similar violent demonstrations, with BLM at its epicenter.
Of the nine high-profile confrontations with African-American suspects in recent years, four suspects were armed with functioning handguns. One was armed with an imitation airsoft pistol that had its orange marker – signifying that he gun wasn’t real – removed. All nine suspects either resisted arrest or engaged in felony evasion or other form on non-compliance. Some of the police officers were themselves African American or otherwise non-white placing a wrench in the theory that the killings were motivated by racism.
Keith Lamont Scott, whose killing sparked violent protests in Charlotte, was armed with a handgun when shot. Video footage shows that he was shot after repeated warnings to drop the gun he was holding. The weapon found at the scene was bio-metrically linked to him. His shooter was an African American police officer.
This of course, did not stop Hillary Clinton from pandering and condemning the police before all the facts were fleshed out. Like Obama, Clinton rushed to judgment because of pre-disposed prejudices and cheap electioneering.
The sad irony is that the BLM movement, which cares nothing of the scourge of black-on-black violence and gives it scant mention, has hurt rather than helped the very community it purports to represent. Cities that have witnessed spasms of anti-police violence in response to isolated incidents involving police shootings, have witnessed dramatic spikes in violent crimes, including homicides.
Significant spikes in murder rates were recorded in St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee and Cleveland. Baltimore, the city that witnessed several days of violent race riots following the Freddie Gray incident, experienced the most significant increase, up an alarming 20 percent from the previous year. Last week’s multiple shooting in Baltimore, in which 8 people, including a 3-year old girl, were wounded serves to highlight the surging crime problem.
The violence that we are witnessing in these and other inner city areas can be directly attributed to the so-called “Ferguson effect.” Police are avoiding high-crime, inner city areas for fear of adversarial confrontation with hostile elements. Pro-active, anti-narcotics operations that had been so effective in keeping crime rates down have been all but suspended.
Police officers are tasked with making split-second decisions and their lives depend on making the right decisions. If they react too slowly, they risk death. If they react too quickly, they risk termination of employment, lengthy court proceedings and possibly prison.
During Obama’s tenure, there have been at least 10 major race riots and a staggering 60 percent of Americans believe that race relations have worsened. By meeting with race-baiters and issuing inflammatory comments that bear no relation to reality, Obama has lent legitimacy to those who seek to divide America. His legacy will be stained with demagoguery and divisiveness.
Bernie Clinton
Townhall.com ^ | September 27, 2016 | Stephen Moore
Someone might want to inform Hillary Clinton that greed and envy are two of the seven deadly sins.
Her new revised tax plan would raise the estate tax to as high as 65 percent -- up from 40 percent, where it is today. She would also apply this hated death tax to as many as twice as many estates.
It's one of her dumbest ideas yet -- and that is saying a lot. It won't raise any revenue to speak of. It's a bow-tied gift to estate-tax lawyers and accountants. Many studies have found that the cost to the economy of taxing a lifetime of savings more than outweighs any benefits. It actually could end up costing the Treasury money by reducing investment in family businesses, which are a major engine of growth for our economy.
But Clinton wants to take us back to the 1970s. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, the plan would impose a 50 percent rate to estates over $10 million a person, a 55 percent rate to estates over $50 million a person, and the top rate of 65 percent to estates exceeding $500 million in assets for a single person or $1 billion for a married couple.
What Clinton doesn't get is this: Anyone who's smart enough to make half a billion dollars is smart enough to find a way to dodge this confiscatory tax. That's the whole history of the death tax: The very rich never pay it.
So why this act of desperation from Clinton? The answer is fairly obvious. She's sinking in the polls. She's terrified of losing the Bernie Sanders voters by not being tough enough on the superrich. So she's adopted the Sanders tax policy. Sanders has said there's nothing wrong with taking more and more money from people in the top 0.3 percent of incomes.
Clinton: Is a 70 or 80 percent income tax next? This might win over even more Sanders supporters.
I'm not going to explain again the economic argument against the death tax. I'm going to make an ethical and moral argument. Who in her right mind thinks that it's appropriate in America for the government to take two-thirds of someone's lifetime earnings? A billionaire has already paid millions and millions of dollars in taxes over the course of his life. Why is the government the rightful owner of one's legacy -- the sweat and equity and 60-hour workweeks spent building a business -- and not that person's family members?
The origins of the death tax come from the Communist Manifesto. This tax was touted by Karl Marx as one of the strategies to secure government ownership of assets. Think about it: With a 50 percent death tax, over time the government will own 50 percent of the nation's assets. With a 100 percent estate tax -- and Clinton's proposal isn't far from that -- the government eventually owns... everything.
This is a big issue, because over the next 25 years or so, tens of trillions of dollars in assets will be transferred from aging baby boomers to their kids and grandkids. The left wants to get its greedy hands on that treasure chest of money. Every American should resist this power grab by the avaricious political class. They are the real robber barons, worshiping money above all else.
If Clinton were to win and adopt this death-tax policy, the small-business model in America would largely disappear. Why build a legacy if you cannot pass it on? Donald Trump should insist that it is your right as an American to leave your worldly possessions to your children.
Trump would eliminate the death tax. He understands that the proper role of government is to facilitate wealth creation, not to destroy it.
Clinton's campaign justified this new confiscation tax by saying that only a few hundred people every year would pay it. That misses the point. An unjust law is unjust whether it applies to 200 people or 2 million people. Americans understand this principal of basic fairness better than the Yale-educated Clinton does. They don't buy into the politics of greed and envy. That's why two-thirds of voters favor eliminating the tax, not doubling down on it.
Someone might want to inform Hillary Clinton that greed and envy are two of the seven deadly sins.
Her new revised tax plan would raise the estate tax to as high as 65 percent -- up from 40 percent, where it is today. She would also apply this hated death tax to as many as twice as many estates.
It's one of her dumbest ideas yet -- and that is saying a lot. It won't raise any revenue to speak of. It's a bow-tied gift to estate-tax lawyers and accountants. Many studies have found that the cost to the economy of taxing a lifetime of savings more than outweighs any benefits. It actually could end up costing the Treasury money by reducing investment in family businesses, which are a major engine of growth for our economy.
But Clinton wants to take us back to the 1970s. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, the plan would impose a 50 percent rate to estates over $10 million a person, a 55 percent rate to estates over $50 million a person, and the top rate of 65 percent to estates exceeding $500 million in assets for a single person or $1 billion for a married couple.
What Clinton doesn't get is this: Anyone who's smart enough to make half a billion dollars is smart enough to find a way to dodge this confiscatory tax. That's the whole history of the death tax: The very rich never pay it.
So why this act of desperation from Clinton? The answer is fairly obvious. She's sinking in the polls. She's terrified of losing the Bernie Sanders voters by not being tough enough on the superrich. So she's adopted the Sanders tax policy. Sanders has said there's nothing wrong with taking more and more money from people in the top 0.3 percent of incomes.
Clinton: Is a 70 or 80 percent income tax next? This might win over even more Sanders supporters.
I'm not going to explain again the economic argument against the death tax. I'm going to make an ethical and moral argument. Who in her right mind thinks that it's appropriate in America for the government to take two-thirds of someone's lifetime earnings? A billionaire has already paid millions and millions of dollars in taxes over the course of his life. Why is the government the rightful owner of one's legacy -- the sweat and equity and 60-hour workweeks spent building a business -- and not that person's family members?
The origins of the death tax come from the Communist Manifesto. This tax was touted by Karl Marx as one of the strategies to secure government ownership of assets. Think about it: With a 50 percent death tax, over time the government will own 50 percent of the nation's assets. With a 100 percent estate tax -- and Clinton's proposal isn't far from that -- the government eventually owns... everything.
This is a big issue, because over the next 25 years or so, tens of trillions of dollars in assets will be transferred from aging baby boomers to their kids and grandkids. The left wants to get its greedy hands on that treasure chest of money. Every American should resist this power grab by the avaricious political class. They are the real robber barons, worshiping money above all else.
If Clinton were to win and adopt this death-tax policy, the small-business model in America would largely disappear. Why build a legacy if you cannot pass it on? Donald Trump should insist that it is your right as an American to leave your worldly possessions to your children.
Trump would eliminate the death tax. He understands that the proper role of government is to facilitate wealth creation, not to destroy it.
Clinton's campaign justified this new confiscation tax by saying that only a few hundred people every year would pay it. That misses the point. An unjust law is unjust whether it applies to 200 people or 2 million people. Americans understand this principal of basic fairness better than the Yale-educated Clinton does. They don't buy into the politics of greed and envy. That's why two-thirds of voters favor eliminating the tax, not doubling down on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Today Dispatch ^ Oops! Apparently, the state of Rhode Island had 150,000 people incorrectly placed on their voter rolls and nobody not...
-
Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, sol...
